Boston Mayor Marty Walsh unhappy with Straight Parade

Update.

From The Washington Times:

"The city initially said no to the organizers of 'Straight Pride,' the "Super Happy Fun America.' But after SHFA members filed a discrimination complaint, Boston officials switched course.

There’s that whole First Amendment thing, dontcha know.

Mayor Marty Walsh didn’t seem happy about announcing the event, though, issuing this rather sheepish explanation on the heels of the city’s flip: “Permits to host a public event are granted based on operational feasibility, not based on values or endorsements of beliefs. The city of Boston cannot deny a permit based on an organization’s values,” he said in [on] CNN.*


Yes. Boston would surely have been sued if it denied the event. And what’s more, Boston surely would have lost.

Still, the left isn’t done with the fight.

The parade is being branded by critics as homophobic — which raises the rather strange question: How come it’s OK to support LGBTQ rights, but not heterosexual rights?"

*  This is the same Marty Walsh who said that Chik-fil-A would have to change its convictions if the corporation wanted to do business in Boston.  See here.

The intolerance of "tolerance," see here.

Marty Walsh won't be attending the Straight Parade as he does LGBTQ parades.  See here.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh et al: Hypocrites

Following the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, during which the US embassy in Tehran was stormed and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) severed diplomatic relations with and imposed sanctions on Iran. He also banned Iranians from entering the country.

Liberal hypocrites like Boston Mayor Marty Walsh conveniently ignore this fact as they attack Donald Trump for doing the same thing.

Walsh, who can hardly be accused of having a sound mind, asserted that President Donald Trump’s executive orders banning immigration from seven majority Muslims countries will “wreak havoc on urban economies and communities.”  he added, “I will do everything lawful within my power to protect our immigrant neighbors, documented or not. If necessary, I will use City Hall itself to shelter and protect them from persecution."

Persecution?

The first duty of government is to protect the citizenry.

Was Jimmy Carter persecuting Iranians?

U.S. Code:

What Pope Francis describes as the "conscience of humanity" is actually a sickness

Elizabeth Yore over at Pewsitter notes how Pope Francis referred to anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy leftist mayors as "the conscience of humanity" See here.

There is a famous hymn written by Martin Luther which begins, "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.." For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.

For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, becomes a mighty fortress which shuts the truth out. Have we built an interior castle, as did St. Teresa of Avila, which remains open to the demands of truth and the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or has our conscience become a mighty fortress built to prevent our encounter with truth?
Suggested reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos. 1783-1785.

Photo courtesy of Mass Resistance and showing Boston Mayor Marty Walsh celebrating homosexuality.  And Pope Francis says that he and other leftist mayors are OUR CONSCIENCE.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and his stormtroopers assist the homosexual movement to hijack the Saint Patrick's Day Parade

Mass Resistance reports:

"Up until now, Boston had been the only St. Patrick’s Day Parade in the country not to cave in to pressure and allow homosexual groups to march. In 1995, after a huge legal battle with the Massachusetts liberal political establishment, the Allied War Veterans Council, which runs the Boston annual parade, won a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision giving them the right to exclude homosexual-themed groups – or anyone – from their parade.

And they’d held their ground.  Last year, as MassResistance reported, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh put enormous pressure on the Council to relent on their own, but they refused to give in. As expected, the Mayor and his political allies boycotted the parade.

But the Mayor, a former union organizer, knows a thing or two about pressure tactics. This year the Mayor’s increased pressure on the Council leadership was successful. But even then, the Council Commander only had a minority of the members supporting this. As we reported, they had to use dishonest and deceitful tactics to exclude the majority of members when they voted to allow the homosexual group OutVets to march in December. And they used the same tacts again in January when the majority tried ro orchestrate a re-vote.

Thus, the Mayor has now announced that he would be marching in the parade, has invited his political allies to march, and has become a big supporter of the event."

I've said it before, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. It is also about control.  And once again, homosexual activists have gotten their way, hijacking a day meant to honor Saint Patrick and to celebrate community and fostering divisiveness.

Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted that the homosexual movement is not about civil rights but rather a moral revolution. He wrote, 'The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.' (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, http://indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell37.html).

In a previous post, I mentioned how Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."

For many years I have been warning [in articles and even at this Blog] that this country is heading for totalitarianism. See here and here for example. I have even compared the Democratic Party with the National Socialist Workers Party of 1930s Germany. Henry Lamb apparently agrees. Mr. Lamb, author of "The Rise of Global Governance," writes that, "As the modern-day freedom fighters begin to organize and strategize, the government chooses not to reform, but to entrench and expand its control over the people. The similarity is remarkable, between the rise of the Democratic Socialist Party now in control of Washington and the rise of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany in the 1930s. Read his full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Mayor Marty Walsh and his stormtroopers have used the force of power to impose their worldview on Catholics, destroying the purpose of the Saint Patrick's Day Parade for their own selfish ends, to promote a perverse agenda and to curry political favor with liberals who long ago jettisoned their Christian faith for an epicurean ideology.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley: Where is your clear and emphatic opposition to a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance?

As noted here, "Immaculate Heart of Mary School of Still River, MA has withdrawn its marching band and float of Saint Patrick from this year’s Saint Patrick’s Day Parade after learning that a small homosexual activist group will be allowed to march while publicly identifying its homosexuality.

The school is compelled by the teachings of the Catholic Church to pull out. According to the Principal, Brother Thomas Dalton, 'Catholics are forbidden to sponsor or even participate in an event which openly promotes unnatural and immoral behavior. The Church will never accept nor condone same sex marriage and the homosexual life style.'

For 25 years the school has participated in the parade dedicated to Saint Patrick and believes that to have a float with his representation leading a group openly promoting and proud of its homosexual identity would draw down the ire of this great patron of the Boston Archdiocese. 'Saint Patrick stands with Saint Paul in condemning the sin of sodomy,' stated Brother Dalton. 'The name of Saint Patrick should be dropped from the parade as he would have nothing to do with the likes of it today.'

The director of the Band, Br. Peter Bracket stated, 'All the Band members and their parents—although greatly disappointed in not being able to march—are fully supportive of the School’s decision. We have to remain loyal to Church teachings which states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Saint John Paul II, that ‘homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity’ and ‘are intrinsically disordered…Under no circumstances can they be approved.’ (#2357)'

Brother Peter Bracket is right. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."


Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

The good folks at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River, Massachusetts understand this.  What a shame that Cardinal Sean O'Malley does not.

The Catholic community in and around Boston deserves an authentic shepherd who understands that opposition to all sin - AND ESPECIALLY SINS THAT CRY TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE-  is a duty of each and every Catholic.

The faithful deserve wheat.  And they suffer from a Cardinal who offers only chaff.

Cardinal O'Malley: Why do you tolerate a ministry within the Archdiocese of Boston which promotes homosexual sex?

Remember Saint Cecilia's Parish in Boston where homosexual activists, led by Father John Unni, wanted to celebrate a "Gay Pride Mass"?  See here.

The "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's Parish has created a Facebook page.  Among other items promoting the LGBT "lifestyle," is the following offering at their Facebook page promoting PFLAG.

PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and FFLAG (Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) advocate the homosexual lifestyle.  At its website, PFLAG states that "Since 2000, PFLAG has had an official policy statement on marriage equality that states its opposition to any attempts at either the federal or state level to introduce constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, rendering GLBT people second-class citizens." As for FFLAG, which is closely associated with PFLAG, their mission statement says that they are "working locally, nationally and in Europe on issues of equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people."

Why does Cardinal Sean O'Malley tolerate the "Rainbow Ministry" and their promotion of homosexual sex?

Let's all commend the courageous students at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River Massachusetts!

As reported here, students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River have taken a courageous stand to withdraw from the Saint Patrick's Day Parade in Boston this year because of its capitulation to the Culture of Sodomy.

It's not enough that parade organizers will allow homosexuals to march provided they don't carry signs or wear clothing agitating for the homosexual "lifestyle."  No, the sodomite community demands the right to march as sodomites.

Students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary School should be commended for their courageous stance against the Culture of Sodomy.


Too many Catholics today, poorly instructed in their faith, believe that all judging is wrong. These Catholics apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...
Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

It is obvious that the students at Immaculate Heart of Mary School possess the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude.

I only wish we could say the same about our Bishop.

Can an open lesbian honestly be expected to offer sound Catholic doctrine?

The falling away from the True Faith continues.  At yet another Catholic parish, the "gay" agenda meets with no real opposition.  See here. 

In its 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say:"..increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy." (Nos. 8, 9).

In No. 15 the CDF says, "We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.


We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them."

The CDF teaches us that "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral." A couple of years ago, Father John Unni of the Boston Archdiocese promoted an organization which is not concerned with the truth about homosexuality but which seeks instead to condone homosexual activity. His proposed "Gay Pride Mass," which had the initial go-ahead from the Archdiocese, would have presented yet another problem. For the CDF says in No. 17 of this same letter that, "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous."

Catholics deserve to receive the Church's teaching in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  Does anyone honestly believe that an open lesbian will be committed toward offering sound Catholic doctrine, especially in the area of sexual morality?

When is the Church in the United States going to stop lying to itself?

B Strong or B Holy?

"For the hope of the wicked is as dust, which is blown away with the wind, and as a thin froth which is dispersed by the storm: and a smoke that is scattered abroad by the wind: and as the remembrance of a guest of one day that passeth by." (Wisdom 5:15).


By now you've all seen the horrible images of the terrorist attack upon the Boston Marathon which took place on Patriot's Day.  Innocent people were injured and even killed.  But while there is universal agreement as to the heinous nature of this terrible crime, few have reflected on the fact that God, in His permitting will, often allows such events to take place for a greater good.  For some forty years we have been fashioning a chastisement with our own hands.  Our sin-sick nation has permitted innocent children to be murdered in the womb - and even as they are being born (so-called "partial-birth abortion").  Our president supports such killing, even as he speaks of the heinous crime which was committed in Boston.

Years ago, Father Albert J. Hebert, S.M., warned that because of abortion and homosexuality and "the many other sins that abound today, personal, familial, social and political, we can expect that there will be expanding natural disasters and new man-made ones. Such things as California fires and Florida freezes will increase. Hail, rain and river floods, tornados, typhoons, todal waves and the hurricane will continue increasingly to be God's cleansing tools. volcanos will spout red lava and hot ash, mud slides and avalanches will roar down mountain sides. Acid rain, chemical pollution explosions too will take their toll...

Depressions, financial collapses, hunger marches, strikes, panics and riots, all will come as also more Ethiopias of famine and deprivation. Satanic and occult cults, conspirators and secret society members will grow more active. Walls of prisons and jails will bulge even more. False philosophies and isms of all kinds [such as Socialism, my note] will flourish....

But there is the good side also, which, of course, is mainly for repentant people and the suffering good. A message from the Guardian Angel and Protector of the United States of America to Sister M., Aug 22, 1981, gives consolation and encouragement: 'If the people of this land carry out faithfully the instructions and pleadings of the Lord Jesus and the Virgin Mother then they will be following me to the hour of peace. With this sword of the Divine white flame of Love and the lightning bolts of His Infinite Justice God will strike down His enemies and heal the repentant sinner. This nation and all who follow in the pursuit of peace will know the protection of God and the destruction of those, who fight and seek to destroy them through the evil powers of the infernal spirits of darkness and hate.'...

It is as simple as that!....This is a time for making great efforts that the Chastisement be mitigated. When the biggest catastrophes break it will be too late.  Violence is rooted in a rejection of the truth, a rejection of God's created order.  See here

.

Right now, many are exhorting us to "B Strong."  But what we need is to 'B Holy."  What's stopping us?

Sodomite Priest Father Bernard Lynch, Protest the Pope and St. Cecilia's Rainbow Ministry: A Web of Homosexual Agitprop

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, notes that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5).  The same document insists that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any 'material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided.  "In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection." (No. 5).

Sodomite priest and homosexual activist Bernard Lynch rejects this teaching openly.  Speaking at a Protest the Pope rally late last year, Fr. Lynch said:

Dear Holy Father,


Welcome to the United Kingdom. I am one of your fellow priests who have served in the Catholic Church for the past thirty nine years. I welcome you as an openly gay Roman Catholic priest.

I became openly gay after you, as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986 issued the document ‘On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People.’ At that time, I was overwhelmed by the pastoral care of my gay brothers in New York City as they faced death from HIV and AIDS. As a member of the Mayor of New York’s Task Force on AIDS – (The Honorable Edward Koch) — I founded an AIDS Ministry in the city in 1981 to care for the sick and dying. Six hundred of the men who got sick and died were young and fellow Catholics. I was their priest. In 1992 I came to this country to continue the same work through CARA and London Light House with an Anglican priest the late Father David Randall.

At the height of the Plague years your Holiness’s ‘Pastoral Care’ document told us as LGBT people that we are ‘disordered in our nature’ and ‘evil in our love’ and the typical violence committed against us as ‘understandable if not acceptable.’ I was shocked and scandalised. I did not understand then and now how such teachings are consonant with the unconditional love of God given to us in Jesus Christ.

Many of the people in my care died in despair as a direct result of this document written by you. Its effect not only reverberated around the Catholic world but far beyond. Your teachings I know were and are used — both within the Catholic Church and outside of it — as a baton to attack every human and civil right sought after by LGBT people. (One of the most painful consequences for me as priest was that many of my fellow priests dying of HIV/AIDS, on hearing the teaching lost all faith in a loving God. This happened after a life time of devoted and dedicated service to our Church.) Surely we who are LGBT people deserve better. It is a sad irony that as Catholic Christians we depend on the secular authorities of the State to mirror God’s justice for us. The Church authorities under your leadership stymie every attempt made by us as LGBT people to claim under the law our most basic human dignity.

This cannot be right. The Gospel message we share with people of good will is that all people are created equal: Women and men; Black and White; Gay and Straight; Believer and non Believer alike. If an all loving God exists – and I believe He /She does – then I think it is us believers who may be most shocked that those secular non believing humanists, who spared no price and counted no cost in the pursuit of justice for all, will be the ones first in His Love. I pray that your visit to the United Kingdom will enable and empower you to make the co-equality of people the litmus test of your own faith.

Justice demands that I speak out. ‘Silence equals death’ as my friend and fellow activist Larry Kramer said at the height of the AIDS pandemic. I speak not only for the living but most especially for those thousands of gay men who died in despair as a direct result of your Holiness’s words. This gross injustice towards my gay brothers dying of HIV/AIDS must not be forgotten. Those of us spared death at the height of the pandemic have the memory of our dying brothers indelibly marked on every bone in the soul of our bodies. We cannot forget. We shall never forget. We cannot be silent. The devastation is and will always be in us. We shall never heal from all that we have come through. We have in fact become what we are – and we are here today — to help keep the fallen alive.

As my Pope, I welcome you. I welcome you with hope that you ask forgiveness of those whom your words drove to despair. Most importantly I ask — I beg you in fact — to change immediately this totally dehumanising teaching. Thank you."

Now the document from the CDF which Fr. Lynch refers to does not suggest that violence against homosexual persons is "understandable if not acceptable."  This is typical adolescent homosexual agitprop.  And it is unworthy of a priest.  The Letter clearly differentiates 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." (No. 3).  And then the Letter condemns crimes committed against homosexuals but adds that these crimes cannot serve as a pretext to justify homosexuality, let alone efforts to create or favor legislation which protects homosexual behavior:

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.


But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase." (No. 10).

Fr. Lynch, radical homosexual activist that he is, blinded by sin, slanders the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, by asserting that she teaches that violence committed against homosexual persons is "understandable if not acceptable."  This is the same priest who described the Catholic Church as "the most homosocial and homophobic institution in the world."  The same priest who was befriended by Father Mychal Judge in the mind 1980s.  When Cardinal O'Connor expelled Dignity, the dissident Catholic-in-name only organization from St. Francis Xavier Parish, Fr. Mychal Judge - so heavily promoted by the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's Back Bay, provided a home for the dissident group's AIDS ministry which was led by Fr. Lynch.  See here.

A web of dissent and homosexual agitprop.

St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry" is advancing the lie of "homosexual love."

Father Leonard Kennedy, c.s.b., in a review of Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg's book "The Battle for Normality," writes: "...homosexual 'love' is not love but ego-satisfaction, and acting it out only deepens the void inside.  That is why 'the vast majority of active homosexuals are promiscuous, and much more so than promiscuous heterosexuals.'  The fairy tale faithful homosexual 'union' is a propaganda item, to win privileges from the law and acceptance within Christian churches." 


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).

At its website, St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry" has a photograph of the late Franciscan Father Mychal Judge and a quote from the priest who was a self-identified homosexual: "Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?" Fr. Mychal here assumes that all discrimination is "unjust."  While it is true that we must accept homosexual persons with "respect, compassion and sensitivity," we're also told in 2358 of the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered." And this paragraph does not say that homosexual persons must be accepted "without discrimination." Rather, it states clearly, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." What's the point I'm trying to make? Not all discrimination is unjust.  "Homosexual love" is not possible because it seeks to transform the love of friendship between two people of the same sex into conjugal love.  But conjugal love requires psychological and physical complementarity which can only exist between opposite sexes:

"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.'" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 4).

So the answer to Fr. Judge's question is: yes.  Not all discrimination is unjust.  Reflect upon Pope Benedict XVI's teaching in No. 11 of Deus Caritas Est: "The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God's decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam finds the helper that he needed: 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' (Gen 2:23). Here one might detect hints of ideas that are also found, for example, in the myth mentioned by Plato, according to which man was originally spherical, because he was complete in himself and self-sufficient. But as a punishment for pride, he was split in two by Zeus, so that now he longs for his other half, striving with all his being to possess it and thus regain his integrity. While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become 'complete'. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: 'Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh' (Gen 2:24).


Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man's very nature; Adam is a seeker, who 'abandons his mother and father' in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become 'one flesh'. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature."

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  The "Rainbow Ministry" of St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, the "Gay Pride" parish, does not advance this teaching but instead a dissenting view.  Thus far, after weeks of ongoing controversy, Cardinal Sean O'Malley has not addressed the dissent of the "Rainbow Ministry."  It is not enough to simply articulate or re-affirm the teaching of the Church in a Blog post.  A Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ has a deeper responsibility than that.  See here.

St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry" is not faithful to the spirit and teaching of the Church

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), explains that, "The hierarchy should promote the apostolate of the laity, provide it with spiritual principles and support, direct the conduct of this apostolate to the common good of the Church, and attend to the preservation of doctrine and order.

Indeed, the lay apostolate admits of different types of relationships with the hierarchy in accordance with the various forms and objects of this apostolate. For in the Church there are many apostolic undertakings which are established by the free choice of the laity and regulated by their prudent judgment. The mission of the Church can be better accomplished in certain circumstances by undertakings of this kind, and therefore they are frequently praised or recommended by the hierarchy. No project, however, may claim the name 'Catholic' unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority.

Certain forms of the apostolate of the laity are given explicit recognition by the hierarchy, though in various ways.

Because of the demands of the common good of the Church, moreover, ecclesiastical authority can select and promote in a particular way some of the apostolic associations and projects which have an immediately spiritual purpose, thereby assuming in them a special responsibility. Thus, making various dispositions of the apostolate according to circumstances, the hierarchy joins some particular form of it more closely with its own apostolic function. Yet the proper nature and distinctiveness of each apostolate must be preserved, and the laity must not be deprived of the possibility of acting on their own accord. In various Church documents this procedure of the hierarchy is called a mandate.

Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine, certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls. By virtue of this mission, the laity are fully subject to higher ecclesiastical control in the performance of this work.

As regards works and institutions in the temporal order, the role of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is to teach and authentically interpret the moral principles to be followed in temporal affairs. Furthermore, they have the right to judge, after careful consideration of all related matters and consultation with experts, whether or not such works and institutions conform to moral principles and the right to decide what is required for the protection and promotion of values of the supernatural order." (No. 24).

And in No. 25, this same document says that, "Special care should be taken to select priests who are capable of promoting particular forms of the apostolate of the laity and are properly trained. Those who are engaged in this ministry represent the hierarchy in their pastoral activity by virtue of the mission they receive from the hierarchy. Always adhering faithfully to the spirit and teaching of the Church, they should promote proper relations between laity and hierarchy."

Always adhering faithfully to the spirit and teaching of the Church, they should promote proper relations between laity and hierarchy.  Is St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry"  faithful to this charge?  The Blog for this apostolate links directly to another Blog which states that people, "..ought to question Rome’s faulty assumptions and, indeed, Rome’s own 'objective disorders' which more often resemble a severely dysfunctional family than the Body of Christ. For centuries, Catholics were also taught to fear left-handed people as 'servants of the devil,' and the left-handed were burned at the stake along with faggots and heretics. (The word faggot, literally “burning bundle,” derives from these church burnings of gay men).  Now we know that homosexuality is no more 'disordered' or 'sinful' than left-handedness. Medical and scientific research strongly point to sexual orientation as determined at birth; that it’s nature over nurture for most people. Therefore, homosexual orientation, like left-handedness, is a Divinely created, normal variation within natural law. As such, gay people face the same moral challenges as everyone else."

This is not the teaching of the Church.  This is not the mind of Christ.  Furthermore, such an attitude is highly disrespectful of the Church's hierarchy.  This is most unfortunate.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law, says that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (CCC, 907).

An apostolate which promotes homosexuality as a "Divinely created" normal variant of human sexuality is not demonstrating "due regard to the integrity of faith and morals."  An apostolate which promotes a website which refers to the Church's teaching as being imbued with "faulty assumptions" and which accuses the Teaching Church of "objective disorders" is not faithful to Catholic teaching and is not promoting proper relations between laity and hierarchy.

The "rainbow ministry" apostolate at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston should be shut down immediately.

John Kelly, Chair of St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," calls the homosexual inclination "Divinely created" while accusing Rome of "objective disorders."

In a previous post, I noted how Mr. John Kelly, chair of St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," refuses to consider the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and the homosexual inclination and is openly looking for a relationship with another man.  One would think that for these reasons alone Cardinal Sean O'Malley would ban this dissident and homosexual activist from any Catholic ministry within the Boston Archdiocese.

But it gets worse folks. Boy does it get worse.  In a Blog post entitled "Mychal Judge embraced his homosexuality as a gift of God" (Father Mychal Judge was a Franciscan priest and chaplain for the New York Fire Department who lost his life during the World Trade Center attack on 911), Mr. Kelly writes, "Some have asked, Why do we need to know that Fr. Mike was gay? First, because Mychal himself brought it up. He felt it important to share this aspect of himself, to put a human face and name upon the despised label of 'homosexual'. Recall how Christ, when asked, 'Who is my neighbor?,' tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, putting a human face on the Samaritans who were despised by the Jews. To truly understand Mychal Judge, to fully appreciate how God worked through him, we must recognize this truth about him. Mychal’s gayness was a major reason for his deep empathy with others, especially outcasts. He was holy in part because he was gay, not despite the fact.

Second, we should know that Fr. Mike was gay because Rome wants to purge many good, gifted gay seminarians. Mychal Judge and many like him would be barred from the priesthood under this regime. Christ had no problem with Mychal’s orientation, but Rome does.

Third, awareness of Fr. Mychal’s gay identity saves lives, and we are a pro-life Church. 1500 gay and lesbian teenagers commit suicide each year in the U.S., succumbing to intense rejection and internalized shame.

Mychal intervened in at least one family whose teenage son came out to his parents. That story had a happy ending, but thousands of gay kids are still rejected, abused, driven to suicide, and thrown out to the streets by their parents.

Public awareness of Mychal's gay identity continues to save lives by providing greater understanding, fulfilling Christ’s command to “go and do likewise” as the Good Samaritan.

Some have asked, Shouldn't sexual orientation be kept private?

Intimacy is a private matter. But identity and prejudice are public matters affecting the mental, social, physical, and spiritual health of millions of families and individuals.

Those who are embarrassed by this serious, mature discussion wrongly associate guilt and shame with homosexual orientation and relationships. They ought to examine where their visceral reactions really come from. They ought to question Rome’s faulty assumptions and, indeed, Rome’s own 'objective disorders' which more often resemble a severely dysfunctional family than the Body of Christ.

For centuries, Catholics were also taught to fear left-handed people as 'servants of the devil,' and the left-handed were burned at the stake along with faggots and heretics. (The word faggot, literally “burning bundle,” derives from these church burnings of gay men).

Now we know that homosexuality is no more 'disordered' or 'sinful' than left-handedness. Medical and scientific research strongly point to sexual orientation as determined at birth; that it’s nature over nurture for most people. Therefore, homosexual orientation, like left-handedness, is a Divinely created, normal variation within natural law. As such, gay people face the same moral challenges as everyone else.

The truly disordered homosexuals, psychiatrists say, are the ego-dystonic ones -- the self-loathing and dis-integrated, those who don't accept themselves. The most strident homophobes often have unresolved fears and wounds of their own which they project onto others. Christ warned of such projection: “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not the beam in your own eye?!”

Homophobic guilt, shame, and fear are pathological reactions; they are not of Christ. Christ spreads healing, not pathology -- holiness, not neurosis. Whatever is psychologically unhealthy can never be spiritually holy. (The very words “holy” and “holiness” derive from healthy, happy, and wholeness).


Mychal Judge rejected pathological shame, and embraced his homosexuality as God's will for him.

We are born with our basic sexual orientations. Homosexuality, like left-handedness or red hair, is Divinely created. It is a normal variation in nature, occurring among humans and other species around the world.....Transcending the pathological guilt and shame inflicted upon gay people by prejudice, he [Fr. Judge] embraced his gay quality as a naturally inborn, God-given gift. This also contributed to his recovery from alcoholism. From there, he received and shared grace in extremis..." (Full post here).

The Church's teaching is clear.  It represents the mind of Christ.  And this teaching insists that, "..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..." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 4).  This same clear document, after stressing that people with a deviant homosexual inclination should be treated with respect and compassion, cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that such an inclination is "objectively disordered" and that homosexual practices are among the sins "gravely contrary to chastity."

Mr. Kelly not only rejects this teaching entirely, but he insists that it is the Teaching Church which has relied upon "faulty assumptions" and which suffers from "objective disorders."
 
But hey, not to worry folks.  After all, Mr. Kelly works for Father John Unni.  And Fr. Unni has the "full confidence and support" of the Cardinal and the Boston Archdiocese.
 
Sleep well.

St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston: Ignoring USCCB Guidelines for Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, which attempted to have a "Gay Pride" Mass last month, is now announcing in its bulletin: "Please join the entire Saint Cecilia Parish community for next Sunday's eleven o'clock liturgy where we will reaffirm that Saint Cecilia is a place of welcome for all, including the LGBT community.." (See here).

Now the USCCB has already issued guidelines which stress emphatically that persons with a homosexual inclination are to be treated with "dignity, respect and compassion" and made to feel welcome.  But these same guidelines also stress that, "The ministry of the Church to persons with a homosexual inclination must always have the overriding aim of fostering the greatest possible friendship with God, participation in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace.  Integral to friendship with God is holiness.  God is holy and all who would come near to God must likewise become holy." (p. 12).  We haven't seen this emphasis in St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry."  On the contrary, we've witnessed a departure from Church teaching.

This is all the more troubling as the USCCB's guidelines stress that, "All ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination must be guided by Church teaching on sexuality...'Departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral." (p. 13; see footnote 30).

Lastly, the USCCB's guidelines make clear that, "It can be helpful for persons who find themselves with homosexual attractions to gather together in mutual understanding and support. This can be particularly the case because persons with a homosexual inclination may feel 'different,' which can lead to isolation and alienation, which are risk factors for an unhealthy life, including unchaste behaviors. Support groups, noted for their adherence to Church teaching, for persons who experience same-sex attraction continue to be an important part of Church ministries and are to be encouraged. Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination, however, or to participate in 'gay subcultures,' which often tend to promote immoral lifestyles. Rather, they should be encouraged to form relationships with the wider community." (p. 22).

Note this last passage.  Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination.  Isn't that exactly what St. Cecilia's Parish is doing when it says that the parish is a place of welcome for the "LGBT community"?

Why is it that St. Cecilia's Parish continues to encourage persons with a homosexual inclination to define themselves as "gay," "lesbian," bi-sexual," or "transgendered"? If you doubt this, examine the image above from the parish website which includes a homosexual rainbow symbol encircling the cross. Why isn't the parish encouraging such persons to view themselves as children of God created in the Imago Dei (the image and likeness of God) who have a vocation to holiness of life rather than as "gay Christians" or members of an "LGBT community"?

What do you think?

Cardinal O'Malley, when will you do something about this?  And when will you insist that St. Cecilia's ministry to homosexual persons be guided by Church teaching?

Chair of St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry" in Boston: committed to chastity?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (CCC, 2359).

Is John Kelly, Chair of Saint Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry" in the Boston Archdiocese, committed to this teaching?  At an internet profile page which may be found here, Mr. Kelly says: "I am a gay man looking for a sincere relationship...I am a gay retired man who is single and enjoying life.  I am active at my Church [and serve] as Boston chair of the Rainbow Ministry....My motto in life is 'Live and Let Live."

Live and let live? 

Pope John Paul II, in Christifideles Laici, No. 16, has this to say: "We come to a full sense of the dignity of the lay faithful if we consider the prime and fundamental vocation that the Father assigns to each of them in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit: the vocation to holiness, that is, the perfection of charity. Holiness is the greatest testimony of the dignity conferred on a disciple of Christ.


The Second Vatican Council has significantly spoken on the universal call to holiness. It is possible to say that this call to holiness is precisely the basic charge entrusted to all the sons and daughters of the Church by a Council which intended to bring a renewal of Christian life based on the gospel. This charge is not a simple moral exhortation, but an undeniable requirement arising from the mystery of the Church: she is the choice vine, whose branches live and grow with the same holy and life-giving energies that come from Christ; she is the Mystical Body, whose members share in the same life of holiness of the Head who is Christ; she is the Beloved Spouse of the Lord Jesus, who delivered himself up for her sanctification (cf. Eph 5:25 ff.). The Spirit that sanctified the human nature of Jesus in Mary's virginal womb (cf. Lk 1:35) is the same Spirit that is abiding and working in the Church to communicate to her the holiness of the Son of God made man.

It is ever more urgent that today all Christians take up again the way of gospel renewal, welcoming in a spirit of generosity the invitation expressed by the apostle Peter "to be holy in all conduct" (1 Pt 1:15). The 1985 Extraordinary Synod, twenty years after the Council, opportunely insisted on this urgency: "Since the Church in Christ is a mystery, she ought to be considered the sign and instrument of holiness... Men and women saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult circumstances in the Church's history. Today we have the greatest need of saints whom we must assiduously beg God to raise up".

Everyone in the Church, precisely because they are members, receive and thereby share in the common vocation to holiness. In the fullness of this title and on equal par with all other members of the Church, the lay faithful are called to holiness: "All the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity". "All of Christ's followers are invited and bound to pursue holiness and the perfect fulfillment of their own state of life".

The call to holiness is rooted in Baptism and proposed anew in the other Sacraments, principally in the Eucharist. Since Christians are reclothed in Christ Jesus and refreshed by his Spirit, they are "holy". They therefore have the ability to manifest this holiness and the responsibility to bear witness to it in all that they do. The apostle Paul never tires of admonishing all Christians to live "as is fitting among saints" (Eph 5:3).

Life according to the Spirit, whose fruit is holiness (cf. Rom 6:22;Gal 5:22), stirs up every baptized person and requires each to follow and imitate Jesus Christ, in embracing the Beatitudes, in listening and meditating on the Word of God, in conscious and active participation in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, in personal prayer, in family or in community, in the hunger and thirst for justice, in the practice of the commandment of love in all circumstances of life and service to the brethren, especially the least, the poor and the suffering."

All of Christ's followers are invited and bound to pursue holiness.  Cardinal O'Malley, does it seem as if Mr. Kelly is committed to chastity and holiness?  Or rather hedonism and relativism?  You know the answer Your Eminence.  And you know what you should now do.

I am praying for you.

Encouraging a silent apostasy in Boston

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, Pope John Paul II spoke of the silent apostasy which is gradually infecting the world.  He wrote, "Whole countries and nations where religion and the Christian life were formerly flourishing and capable of fostering a viable and working community of faith, are now put to a hard test, and in some cases, are even undergoing a radical transformation, as a result of a constant spreading of an indifference to religion, of secularism and atheism. This particularly concerns countries and nations of the so-called First World, in which economic well-being and consumerism, even if coexistent with a tragic situation of poverty and misery, inspires and sustains a life lived 'as if God did not exist'. This indifference to religion and the practice of religion devoid of true meaning in the face of life's very serious problems, are not less worrying and upsetting when compared with declared atheism. Sometimes the Christian faith as well, while maintaining some of the externals of its tradition and rituals, tends to be separated from those moments of human existence which have the most significance, such as, birth, suffering and death. In such cases, the questions and formidable enigmas posed by these situations, if remaining without responses, expose contemporary people to an inconsolable delusion or to the temptation of eliminating the truly humanizing dimension of life implicit in these problems.


On the other hand, in other regions or nations many vital traditions of piety and popular forms of Christian religion are still conserved; but today this moral and spiritual patrimony runs the risk of being dispersed under the impact of a multiplicity of processes, including secularization and the spread of sects. Only a re-evangelization can assure the growth of a clear and deep faith, and serve to make these traditions a force for authentic freedom.

Without doubt a mending of the Christian fabric of society is urgently needed in all parts of the world. But for this to come about what is needed is to first remake the Christian fabric of the ecclesial community itself present in these countries and nations.

At this moment the lay faithful, in virtue of their participation in the prophetic mission of Christ, are fully part of this work of the Church. Their responsibility, in particular, is to testify how the Christian faith constitutes the only fully valid response-consciously perceived and stated by all in varying degrees-to the problems and hopes that life poses to every person and society. This will be possible if the lay faithful will know how to overcome in themselves the separation of the Gospel from life, to again take up in their daily activities in family, work and society, an integrated approach to life that is fully brought about by the inspiration and strength of the Gospel.

To all people of today I once again repeat the impassioned cry with which I began my pastoral ministry: 'Do not be afraid! Open, in deed, open wide the doors to Christ!

Open to his saving power the confines of states, and systems political and economic, as well as the vast fields of culture, civilization, and development. Do not be afraid! Christ knows 'what is inside a person'. Only he knows! Today too often people do not know what they carry inside, in the deepest recesses of their soul, in their heart. Too often people are uncertain about a sense of life on earth. Invaded by doubts they are led into despair. Therefore-with humility and trust I beg and implore you-allow Christ to speak to the person in you. Only he has the words of life, yes, eternal life.'

Opening wide the doors to Christ, accepting him into humanity itself poses absolutely no threat to persons, indeed it is the only road to take to arrive at the total truth and the exalted value of the human individual.


This vital synthesis will be achieved when the lay faithful know how to put the gospel and their daily duties of life into a most shining and convincing testimony, where, not fear but the loving pursuit of Christ and adherence to him will be the factors determining how a person is to live and grow, and these will lead to new ways of living more in conformity with human dignity.

Humanity is loved by God! This very simple yet profound proclamation is owed to humanity by the Church. Each Christian's words and life must make this proclamation resound: God loves you, Christ came for you, Christ is for you 'the Way, the Truth and the Life!' (Jn 14:6).

This re-evangelization is directed not only to individual persons but also to entire portions of populations in the variety of their situations, surroundings and cultures. Its purpose is the formation of mature ecclesial communities, in which the faith might radiate and fulfill the basic meaning of adherence to the person of Christ and his Gospel, of an encounter and sacramental communion with him, and of an existence lived in charity and in service.

The lay faithful have their part to fulfill in the formation of these ecclesial communities, not only through an active and responsible participation in the life of the community, in other words, through a testimony that only they can give, but also through a missionary zeal and activity towards the many people who still do not believe and who no longer live the faith received at Baptism.

In the case of coming generations, the lay faithful must offer the very valuable contribution, more necessary than ever, of a systematic work in catechesis. The Synod Fathers have gratefully taken note of the work of catechists, acknowledging that they 'have a task that carries great importance in animating ecclesial communities'. It goes without saying that Christian parents are the primary and irreplaceable catechists of their children, a task for which they are given the grace by the Sacrament of Matrimony. At the same time, however, we all ought to be aware of the 'rights' that each baptized person has to being instructed, educated and supported in the faith and the Christian life."

There are those who oppose this call for a re-evangelization.  For such people, moral norms constitute "mere rules" which others may find offensive.  Therefore, Catholics should avoid preaching on these norms because such preaching amounts to "judging, carping, and condemning."  But the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which these confused souls obviously do not spend much time with, teaches clearly that there are explicit kinds of human acts, specified by the object of moral choice, that are always morally wrong because the willingness to choose an object of this kind is evidence of a disordered will (for example moral evil, CCC, 1755).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," that they are "contrary to the natural law," and "under no circumstances can they be approved (2357). It also teaches that the homosexual inclination "is objectively disordered." and that those who suffer from this disordered inclination are called to "fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (2358). Nowhere in the Catechism are homosexual persons encouraged to take pride in their disordered inclination or in gravely sinful homosexual acts by proclaiming "God made me this way."

If we are to re-evangelize a sin-sick and hurting world, we must speak Gospel truths.  Some of these truths will be difficult for others to accept.  But we must remain faithful to received teaching, to Revelation.  We must remember that when others condemn us of "judging, carping and condemning" for simply stating and defending the Church's authentic teaching (especially in the area of sexual morality), this is nothing more than a cheap semantic weapon designed to silence and intimidate us.  From the Catholic standpoint (which is the rational standpoint), compassion is false when it does not aim at the real good of one's neighbor.  And what could be more good than his eternal salvation?

We need a solid and authentic re-evangelization.  A cotton-candy Catholicism and a sacharrin spirituality will not produce saints.  It will not restore our society to sanity and sanctity (actually the two are the same, for sanctity is sanity).  It will only lead us further into an ever-increasing darkness.

St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston: Promoting legalism and false compassion

Dr. Germain Grisez, in a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium held in Philadelphia, had this to say: "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church's contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."

Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium that, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."

Dr. Grisez then went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, home of the "Rainbow Ministry" which refuses to call people to holiness, has an article written by Kathy Coffey in its latest bulletin.  Ms. Coffey, who obviously suffers from the same legalism described by Dr. Grisez above, also views received Catholic teaching as "mere rules."  The article is entitled "No more time to waste: Challenges for the Church."  Ms. Coffey writes, "Where would I like to see the Catholic Church move next?  In a radical direction, meaning 'back to its roots'....Unfortunately, many now know Catholics only by what they oppose: same-sex marriage, women's ordination, abortion, etc.  In the future, let's be known by what we advocate.  Let's focus on the positive.." 

Ms. Coffey insists, "Given the challenges the human race will face in the next century, Christians can't waste time judging, carping, and condemning.  Let's get on with the task of being Christ to a hungry, hurting world." 

What Ms. Coffey fails to understand is that it is our duty as Catholics to remind others of Gospel truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. Often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so.  We will be accused of "judging" and "condemning." This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of "negativity," [or even as "threatening peace and order"], we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: "..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error. All talk about the superiority of 'yes' over 'no,' about the 'negativity' of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter." (The Cult of the 'Positive').


Indeed, as John Cardinal Newman said in his Grammar of Assent, "I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth." In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, says that, "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."

Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).

Simply put, Kathy Coffey is wrong.  She is not a Pope.  She is not a saint.  She may honestly believe that it is her God-given role to "correct" the wisdom of the Church and her saints.  But sane people will know better.

St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry": Faithful to Church teaching or rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium?

We all know that the "Gay Pride" Mass is back on at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, re-scheduled for July 10th thanks to the Boston Archdiocese and its distorted notion of evangelization.  Now we have Joe Sacerdo reporting that, "..we have the vice chairman of the parish council encouraging youth confused about their sexuality to “come out “as gay or lesbian. No mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent with God’s plan, no prayer advised, no spiritual counseling advised, no psychological or family counseling advised, no medical risks of unsafe sexual behavior to be concerned about. Just “come out” as gay or lesbian and you’ll get “new energy and life”! How is this leading people with same-sex attractions to a deeper relationship with Christ and a life of virtue and holiness?" (See here).


Now this is disturbing on every level.  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, denounced the moral subjectivism which many theologians were defending based on a misguided pastoral approach, one which the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's appears to have embraced. 

Persona Humana reminds Catholics that morals are not dependent upon human whims or changing cultures but rather on the natural law.  The document teaches clearly and concisely that every sexual act outside of marriage is sinful thereby condemning pre-marital sex, cohabitation, masturbation and homosexuality (Persona Humana, 7, 9).  The document condemns the flawed conclusion that a stable homosexual relationship may be analogous to marriage or justified:

"No pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people.  For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality." (Persona Humana, 8).  See full text of Persona Humana here.

Is this teaching accepted by St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry"?  If so, as J. Sacerdo notes, why is it that there is "no mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent ith God's plan"? Could it be that those who run the Rainbow Ministry at St. Cecilia's parish, the same people who want to give us a "Gay Pride" Mass, could care less about what the Church teaches?

John Kelly, the chair of the "Rainbow Ministry," told one Boston Globe Magazine reporter back in 1998 that "His faith has nothing to do with what the Vatican says, but only with what he experiences every Sunday at the Jesuit Urban Center."  More than 30 years ago, Mr. Kelly "turned his back on his Church" according to the Globe article.  Why?  Because, during confession, he told his parish priest that is a homosexual and the priest responded, "May almighty God have mercy on your soul."  Kelly says that he walked out of the confessional feeling "defeated and abused."

You see, because this good and faithful priest was not accepting of the homosexual "lifestyle," because he believed - as the Church teaches - that no pastoral method can justify homosexual acts, and because he had the audacity to pray that God would have mercy on John Kelly's soul, Mr. Kelly stormed out, turning his back on the Church founded by the Lord Jesus. (Full Boston Globe Magazine article here).
Later he would tell the Boston Globe reporter that he felt "abused" by the faithful priest who had the gall to challenge his sin.  A Catholic priest who would have undersood these words from Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, given shortly before he was gunned down: "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."


Indeed.  Which is why those of us Catholic bloggers who remain faithful to the Church's Magisterium and who oppose the false "gospel" of "Gay Pride" are accused of being "haters," and "bigots."  Meanwhile, it would appear that St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," and the Archdiocese of Boston in general, is content with leaving sinners entrenched in their sinful state.

A parishioner from St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston provides us with further evidence that Fr. Unni has not been faithful in presenting the Church's teaching relative to homosexuality

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).

Jesus gave us this new Law of Love.  He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).  And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.

Those Catholics within the Boston Archdiocese who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom."  For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex.  And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."

In a comment left at Bryan Hehir Exposed, a Catholic lay woman from St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston (the same parish which has promoted same-sex "marriage" and which had planned a "Gay Pride" Mass until it was cancelled by the Boston Archdiocese), wrote: "Joe Sacerdo, stop hiding behind a pseudonym and speak out at service, in front of all your fellow parishioners if this issue makes you so uncomfortable. It is evident from your posts, that you attend mass on Sundays…so go for it...Promoting bigotry, hate and injustice has NO place in the Catholic Church or anywhere, for that matter, especially not in our beautifully diverse St. Cecilia Parish. If you have such a problem with the parish, leave–It’s pretty simple. Our parish is meant to be welcoming not discriminating. I hope that God will help guide you to realize that your bigoted agenda stems from your own prejudices....Sincerely, Anne B."

If moral opposition to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" is evidence of "bigotry, hate and injustice" in the mind of Anne B, what is this but further confirmation that Father Unni has not been faithful in presenting the Church's teaching relative to these subjects?  After all, in its 2003 document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated clearly 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...Under no circumstances can they be approved." (No. 4).

Does Anne B believe the CDF to be promoting "bigotry, hate and injustice"?  If so, was this belief instilled by Father Unni?  Was this the purpose of the "rainbow ministry" at Saint Cecilia's Parish?  Is this why Blog posts from the "rainbow ministry" were recently deleted?  I cannot help but think of Father Emile "Mike" Boutin deleting posts from his "Men in Black" Blog which were critical of Cardinal Bertone and the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality and celibacy.

What is most ironic in Anne B's accusation is that it really applies to those who refuse to accept Jesus' Commandments while insisting on the "right" to engage in homosexual acts or to marry a member of the same-sex.  Pope John Paul II explains in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor that, "Human freedom and God's law are not in opposition; on the contrary, they appeal one to the other.  The follower of Christ knows that his vocation is to freedom.  'You were called to freedom, brethren' (Gal. 5:13), proclaims the Apostle Paul with joy and pride.  But he immediately adds: 'only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.'' (No. 17).  John Paul goes on to explain in No. 18 of the same encyclical that, "Those who live 'by the flesh' experience God's law as a burden, and indeed as a denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom.  On the other hand, those who are impelled by love and 'walk by the Spirit' (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others, find in God's Law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practice love as something freely chosen and freely lived out.  Indeed, they feel an interior urge - a genuine 'necessity' and no longer a form of coercion - not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their 'fullness.'"

Because Joe Sacerdo has chosen to follow the Lord Jesus' Law of Love, because he would like to see his fellow Catholics at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston embrace this Law of Love, he is accused of being a "hater."

Our strange time.  The photo above shows a "Gay Pride 2011" demonstrator.  What do you think: Does this person walk by the Spirit or the flesh?