Francis: Homosexual Civil Unions can be acceptable

Lifesite News reports:


"A U.S. archbishop says Pope Francis told a group of American bishops in Rome that civil unions for homosexual couples that give them access to public benefits are 'acceptable,' as long as it’s clear such arrangements can never be considered marriage.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco told LifeSiteNews that during their January 27 ad limina visit, the pope said, in the words of the archbishop, that 'civil unions between two people of the same sex can never be marriage.  As long as this is respected, civil unions that give access to government benefits can be acceptable.'

However, to regard homosexual civil unions as acceptable contradicts Catholic teaching, notably reaffirmed in the 1986, 1992 and 2003 documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and approved by Pope Saint John Paul II."

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.

Francis poses with group that promotes homosexual fornication and same-sex "marriage"

Gloria TV reports:

"After the Ash Wednesday General Audience, Pope Francis posed with the homosexual English LGBT+Catholics Westminster.

The groups’ leader, Martin Pendergast, called the meeting 'one more evidence' that Francis is pro-gay, IndCatholicNews.com (March 11) writes.

Westminster Cardinal Vincent Nichols is close to “LGBT+ Catholics Westminster” although they promote homosexual fornication, gay pseudo-marriage and gay marches.

The Catechism states that homosexual acts are of 'grave depravity' and 'intrinsically disordered'.

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated:

"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

The CDF has also taught clearly 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 msinterpreted...Special attention should be given 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." (Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons).

Dan Schutte event moved off Church property...

Church Militant reports:

A homosexual hymn-writer was scheduled to perform at a Catholic parish, but the event has been moved off church grounds after pushback.

Church Militant reported Wednesday that Dan Schutte, an ex-Jesuit and homosexual, was scheduled to perform April 28 at Our Lady of Visitation parish in Kansas City, Missouri. A number of locals wrote to the diocese expressing concern, and Catholics responded strongly to the news report of Schutte's appearance on diocesan property.

Now sources are confirming that the venue is being moved off parish property to a new location.

Many of Schutte's songs have been published in the Gather book and other popular 'contemporary' hymnals. Perhaps the best known of his songs is 'Here I Am, Lord,' which some have described as a 'gay anthem.'

The 70-year-old composer is himself widely believed to be an active homosexual. According to a 2004 article by Dr. Brian J. Kopp, Schutte is 'a partnered gay man.'

Schutte and a man named Mike Gale were named as 'partners' in the obituary of Marie Schutte, Dan Schutte's mother. Further investigation revealed both men lived at the same address in San Francisco. Together, the pair formed the now-defunct group Pilgrim Music.

Schutte himself has not spoken publicly about his sexuality. According to a 2014 USA Today article, 'Schutte said he never publicly discusses his own personal life in relation to his music because he said it can affect how people experience the music itself.'

Earlier this week, a diocesan employee told Church Militant that he personally objected to the concert, noting that it is against Church law for a parish to charge admission for a performance inside a church. Accepting donations at the door is acceptable, but charging an admission fee violates a rule stipulated by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Vatican liturgical authority said in a 1987 declaration, 'Entrance to the church [for concerts] must be without payment and open to all.'

Decades ago, Schutte was a member of the St. Louis Jesuits, a group of men in priestly formation with the Society of Jesus back in the 1970s who penned folksy worship songs and played them during Mass. Some of the St. Louis Jesuits, including Schutte, would leave formation in the years that followed. Others would go on to enter the priesthood.

The St. Louis Jesuits — consisting of Bob Dufford, John Foley, Tim Manion, Roc O'Connor and Dan Schutte — were instrumental in bringing contemporary folksy pop music into Catholic liturgy. Their compositions, especially those of Schutte, have become commonplace at Novus Ordo parishes throughout the United States."

___________________________

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons which was published on July 31, 2003, explains that marriage "is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose" and that this truth is so evident that "no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman." (No. 2).

Considerations goes on to explain 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.' Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts 'as a serious depravity....This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries 'and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.'" (No. 4).

In No. 5, the document explains that, "..the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.." and that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." In fact, "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.

The CDF has also taught clearly 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 msinterpreted...Special attention should be given 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." (Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons).

Francis moves from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabitating homosexual persons...

Francis is indicating his support for homosexual civil unions.  As reported here, he has said that, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Lets call unions between the same sex ‘civil unions’.”

And so, Francis is "okay" with same-sex civil unions.

But, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated:

"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

Where is the clear and emphatic opposition from Francis?  Not only is he not opposing this evil, but he appears to be recognizing same-sex civil unions in his comments.

Kim Davis: We must obey God rather than men

The New York Times reports: "Defying the Supreme Court and saying she was acting 'under God’s authority,' a county clerk in Kentucky denied marriage licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, less than a day after the court rejected her request for a delay.

A raucous scene unfolded shortly after 8 a.m. at the Rowan County Courthouse here as two same-sex couples walked into the county clerk’s office, followed by a throng of journalists and chanting protesters on both sides of the issue. One couple, David Ermold and David Moore, tried to engage the county clerk, Kim Davis, in a debate before the cameras, but as she had before, she turned them away, saying repeatedly that she would not issue licenses to any couples, gay or straight.

'Under whose authority?' Mr. Ermold asked.

'Under God’s authority,' Ms. Davis replied."

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, reminded us that, "The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation,  Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. ... In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law.' (Evangelium Vitae, No. 74).

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 (as well as all those who profess to be Christian) have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

I wonder if Pope Francis will raise his voice on this issue.  I won't be holding my breath.  But Kim Davis, standing with the truth of God's Holy Word, may be heard exclaiming as the Apostles did some 2,000 years ago when the will of mere mortal men came into opposition with the command of the Living God: “We must obey God rather than human beings!" (Acts 5:29).

What a shame that so few clerics appear to have such faith and courage.

From the Synod: Accept and value a tendency toward moral evil?

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

From the Synod:

“Relatio post disceptationem” of the General Rapporteur, Card. Péter Erdő, 13.10.2014

No. 50:

"Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"

The Synod is calling on Catholics to "accept and value" an orientation which is, according to Magisterial teaching based on Divine Revelation, "intrinsically disordered."

It is one thing to ask Catholics to accept and value the homosexual person.  It is quite another thing to ask that we accept and value that which is a tendency toward moral evil.

Pray for Rome.  Pray for the entire Church.  The Diabolical Disorientation spreads.

Cardinal O'Malley is apparently okay with souls being led to Hell

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," based out of Saint Cecilia's parish in Boston,  faithful to this charge?  The Blog for this apostolate has linked 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.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley knows about this dissident group and its homosexual agitprop.  But he does nothing.  Apparently His Eminence is "okay" with souls being led to Hell.

In two posts which may be found at the Facebook page for Saint Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," the organization's hostility toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church is on full display (apparently with the full blessing of Cardinal Sean O'Malley:

St. Cecilia's Rainbow Ministry shared a link.

September 3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jo-piazza/this-catholic-nun-spent-h_b_5752464.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

A Catholic Nun Spent Her Life Fighting for LGBT Rights, Even Against Vatican Wishes

www.huffingtonpost.com

This chapter profiles Sister Jeannine Gramick, who has dedicated her life to fighting for the rights of gays and lesbians in the Catholic Church despite repeated censures from the Vatican for her activities....

St. Cecilia's Rainbow Ministry

May 19

Join us at our continuing speaker series Wednesday May 28th and hear Father Matt Malone S.J. speak on "The Five Words that Changed Our Church: WHO AM I TO JUDGE?"

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.  Homosexual activists are not properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, which is "properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395; Canon 915, CIC).

James Cash Penney's legacy betrayed by corporate promoters of homosexuality who violate the Golden Rule

LifeSiteNews is reporting that J.C. Penney's is promoting sodomy.  See here.  The company is running Fathers Day ads featuring two "gay" dads.  James Cash Penney's legacy is under assault.  He most assuredly would not approve of his chain of department stores being used to advance the sodomite agenda.

J.C. Penney's father was a Baptist preacher and farmer who raised his family with strict discipline in the Christian faith.  Victor Parachin, writing for Mature Living magazine, notes how, "The influence of Penney's godly parents became evident with the growth of his business.  He described his chain as 'The Golden Rule Store,' based on the words of Jesus in Matthew 7: 12: 'Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.'  See here.

As Dr. Germain Grisez explains,  to apply the Golden Rule, benefits and harms must be considered.  He writes, "Since the point of applying the Golden Rule is to exclude partiality, no attempt should be made to apply it without first carefully considering the possible matters concerning which partiality could be at work.  These are different potential benefits and harms to the different persons involved.  Since one must be fair not only in what is intended and chosen but also in accepting whatever side effects are foreseen, all foreseen benefits and burdens of choosing and carrying out a possible action - or, alternatively, not choosing it, and perhaps choosing some alternative - should be considered.  It is necessary to ask:

Whom will this action benefit?  Whom will it harm?  If the act is not chosen, whom will that benefit and harm?  And, likewise, for any alternative

Considering each benefit and harm, what sort of good is at stake?  Is it a basic good of persons or an instrumental good?  How extensive and serious will each benefit and harm be?

Reflecting as a Christian, a person must bring fully into play any specifically Christian benefits and harms.  For instance, does doing or not doing an act, doing this or that, involve risk to someone's salvation?  Does it involve harming or enhancing apostolic witness?

To the extent that a point of view is determined by immorality, it is of no help in reaching moral truth to take that point of view, whether the person holding it is subjectively guilty or not.  Thus, in applying the Golden Rule, one should refuse to take into account the views of others [such as the homosexual movement, my note]insofar as these are morally unacceptable.  Of course, such a refusal may be considered unfair by those concerned.  For example, pederasts sometimes complain that a boy who refuses to accommodate them is unfair to them.  However, the boy's refusal need not be motivated by partiality, for it can be based on a prior moral consideration, the wrongness of sodomy, and an emotional detestation of it entirely in harmony with reason."

J.C. Penney's is betraying the legacy of its founder James Cash Penney, Jr by violating the Golden Rule which he cherished so dearly.  For, "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 fom a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.  Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts 'as a serious depravity'...This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries 'and is unanimously accepted by Catholic tradition.'" ( Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," No. 4).

What a shame that J.C. Penney's is not committed toward promoting the common good while honoring the Christian legacy of its own founder.  The corporation has decided instead to undermine the Golden Rule by assaulting others with immorality. 

A real tragedy.

 

Terence Weldon: Archbishop Vincent Nichols is wrong, let's damage the institution of marriage further

Terence Weldon, the same anti-Catholic radical homosexual activist who has suggested that Pope Benedict XVI has a homosexual inclination and who has blasphemously asserted that Our Lord Jesus may have been a homosexual, is now angry with Archbishop Vincent Nichols (his own Bishop).  Why?  It seems that Archbishop Nichols, while delivering a homily at Westminster Cathedral to celebrate marriage, warned of the damaging consequences which would result if homosexual unions were legally recognized and marriage essentially redefined in the United Kingdom.

But the Archbishop was merely emphasizing what the Church already teaches: that the legal recognition of homosexual unions would only weaken marriage and devalue it further.  In its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refuted the objection often raised by homosexual activists that laws allowing homosexual unions would not impose anything or harm the common good:

"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure.  This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good.  Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill.  They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.'  Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.  Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage."

Weldon, apologist for a sodomite "gospel" and same-sex "marriage," argues that, "The institution of marriage in the United Kingdom is already in a poor state...Is there any reason to believe that extending marriage will make the situation even worse?"  See here.

What a lovely philosophy.  Marriage is already going down the toilet in the UK so let's make matters worse.  While Weldon, blinded by his own homosexual agitprop to the point where he can no longer see, let alone understand, the truth of Catholic moral teaching, cannot appreciate the damaging consequences of same-sex "marriage," others have documented the damage wrought by legal recognition of these unholy unions.

The good people over at Mass Resistance explain that, "Anyone who thinks that same-sex 'marriage' is a benign eccentricity which won't affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts.  It's become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone...It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and 'marriage' as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise.  See here.

Archbishop Nichols is right about the damaging consequences which result from the legal recognition of these unholy unions.  Since he is being publically criticized for upholding Catholic teaching by an individual who claims to be Catholic and who has been deputed to serve as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at the infamous Soho Masses, His Excellency should take the appropriate action and remove Mr. Weldon from any official role within his diocese.

Terence Weldon is not in communion with the Church.  He should be denied Holy Communion in accord with Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

Is it the position of the El Paso Texas Diocese that Pope Pius X's Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are wrong in calling sodomy a sin that cries to God for vengeance?

Rev. Michael Rodriguez, pastor of Saint Juan Bautista Church in Central El Paso, has written a series of advertisements published in four parts by the El Paso Times.  These advertisements, entitled "The truth about homosexuality," denounce homosexuality and any encouragement of homosexuality.  Sounds like something any serious Catholic would fall behind right?  Unfortunately, the Diocese of El Paso insists that the advertisements do not represent the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and that, "These paid advertisements are the personal views and opinions of Father Michael Rodriguez."  Readers of this Blog will recall that the Bishop of El Paso, Armando Ochoa, referred to Catholic teaching regarding same-sex "marriage" as "mere opinion."

In his 1910 Catechism, Pope Saint Pius X tells us that sodomy ranks second in gravity to voluntary homicide among the sins that "cry out to God for vengeance."  According to this Catechism, crafted by one of the greatest Popes of the modern era - the Pope of the Eucharist, raised to the altars of the Church - "These sins are said to cry out to God because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so grave and manifest that it provokes God to punish with more severe chastisements."

But officials of the El Paso Diocese apparently believe that the Holy Spirit is wrong and that Pope Pius X's Catechism is mistaken.  If this is the case, then the diocese must also reject this authoritative teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II: "The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are 'sins that cry to heaven': the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.'" (CCC, 1867).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, insisted that:

"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians....The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it.  To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." (No. 10).  The CDF also emphasizes in this important document 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).

It would appear that the Diocese of El Paso needs to be investigated by Rome.

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

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



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


'Liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is it something else entirely?

What do you think?


Related reading here.

Bishop Armando Ochoa: Catholic teaching regarding same-sex "marriage" constitutes mere opinion

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.

Unless of course your Bishop Armando Ochoa.  Referring in a column to one of his priests who has been actively opposing the homosexual agenda by advancing and defending the Church's teaching, Bishop Ochoa asserted that the priest was merely promoting his "personal opinion."  In a recent editorial to the El Paso Times, Fr. Michael Rodriguez wrote:

Catholics must stand against all attempts to redefine marriage


By Michael Rodriguez, Guest Columnist
El Paso Times, Dec 26, 2010. Opinion section, page 9B

"Jesus Christ’s praise of John the Baptist is without parallel, 'among those born of women, no one is greater than he' (Luke 7:28). Thus, in John the Baptist, a 'voice crying out in the desert,' we’re given the greatest prophet.

Well, how did he meet his end?

Faithful to God’s law, John the Baptist rebuked Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, and told him he couldn’t take his brother’s wife as his own. As a result, Herod had John arrested, bound, imprisoned, and eventually beheaded (Matthew 14:3-12).

St. John the Baptist suffered martyrdom for crying out in defense of the institution of marriage!

Fifteen centuries later, in England, another saint and martyr, Sir Thomas More, was beheaded for witnessing to the truth about marriage.

Another political leader, this time King Henry VIII, sought to redefine marriage in order to suit his own particular agenda. The king wanted to obtain a 'legal divorce' from his wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boleyn.

Thomas More, lord chancellor of England at the time, and second in rank and power only to the king himself, courageously opposed Henry’s sin. This cost More his life.

St. Thomas More was beheaded on July 6, 1535. He shed his blood out of love and fidelity to Christ, the Catholic Church, and the sacrament of marriage.

Today, in the year of our Lord, 2010, in El Paso, Texas, a number of our City Council members appear to be morally blind, if not depraved. They seem intent on abusing their political power and undermining the institution of marriage, all in the pursuit of an agenda which could, at best, be described as misguided.

If in the future, a majority of City Council members are adamant in seeking government recognition of same-sex unions under the cloak of 'toleration, fairness, and equal rights,' then every single Catholic must reject these machinations which are tantamount to a blatant corruption of public morality.

Catholics can never permit a 'non-discrimination amendment to the city charter' which intends, or will allow, gravely sinful relationships to be equated with the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.

Rome has been very clear in mandating that all Catholics must oppose any and all government attempts to legalize same-sex unions.

The U.S. Catholic bishops, in their November 2009 pastoral letter on marriage, have written, “One of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture is the proposition that persons of the same sex can ‘marry.’

“This proposal attempts to redefine the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society.”

They teach further, “to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is itself a matter of justice.”

The Roman Catholic Church is categorically opposed to the legalization of same-sex unions, and with good reason.

This position has nothing to do with discrimination.

Discrimination is against persons; we Catholics are opposing sinful actions. It’s irresponsible and irrational to ignore the essential moral distinction between a person and his/her actions.

No one has a “civil right” to redefine the institution of marriage!

It’s an utter breakdown in basic logic to speak about “fairness and equality” without first settling the issue of right vs. wrong! The latter is the moral foundation of the former!

Dear Catholics, it’s in our blood to be voices crying out in the desert, witnessing to the truth with love!

St. John the Baptist, pray for us. St. Thomas More, pray for us."



Fr. Michael Rodriguez is the parish priest at San Juan Bautista Catholic Church.

Mere "personal opinion"?  God help Bishop Armando Ochoa!  For those of us who strive to be Catholic in more than just name, the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), and not the "pillar of opinion."  The Church's teaching comes from a more-than-human authority.  Vatican II, in Dei Verbum, No. 10, reminds us that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition, has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.."

Perhaps Bishop Ochoa should spend a little more time actually reading what Vatican II had to say?

Related reading: Homosexuality and false compassion.

Related reading: The Catholic Free Press [Diocese of Worcester, Mass] and homosexual agitprop

Assumption College Allies in Worcester: Promoting the Gospel of Sodomy

The dissident student group Allies at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts describes itself as an organization which "..is open to students, faculty, alumni and parents who wish to participate in a forum which explores and discusses issues related to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) issues. The group is composed of both GLBT and straight people who work to dismantle intolerance and oppression as called upon by The Catechism of the Catholic Church which extols Christians to 'accept (GLB people) with respect and sensitivity' affirms that “every sign of unjust discrimination in that regard should be avoided” (Catechism #2358). The group sponsors social events on-campus and with Consortium colleges, lectures by noted GLB speakers, community service projects and Diversity Awareness Week. It also provides needed support and affirmation to GLB students. Because it is open to all members of the campus community confidentiality is not assured, but members are never asked to identify their sexual orientation. 'Outing' is considered contrary to the spirit of the group."

Nowhere does the group cite the authoritative magisterial teaching (which is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and that the homosexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered."  This comes as no surprise.  For Allies isn't just working to fight "unjust discrimination" toward homosexual persons but to actively promote the homosexual lifestyle.  At the website for this dissent group, one may find a resource page which includes links to militant homosexual organizations such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the International Foundation for Gender Education and P-FLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).  See here.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force works to promote same-sex "marriage" and to classify moral opposition to homosexuality as a phobia and a hate crime.  The organization says here that Roman Catholic and other Christian leaders are attempting to "dehumanize LGBT people for political and financial gain."

Allies is engaging in nothing less than homosexual agitprop.  The question is: why is Bishop Robert J. McManus not doing anything about this?  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," recalls the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." (No. 3). And while condemning crimes and other hateful acts against homosexual persons, the Letter explains that these crimes cannot serve as a pretext to justify homosexuality.

And, in its document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," the CDF emphasizes that, "Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts 'as a serious depravity....This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries 'and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.'" (No. 4).

Why would Father J. Bryan Hehir choose to associate himself with such a leftist radical?

In a previous post I showed how Father J. Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese has associated himself with leftist radical Jim Wallis and his organization Sojourners (which has been financed by Nazi collaborator George Soros) and which promotes the New Age Globalist Earth Charter which seeks to replace the Ten Commandments and dismantle the Roman Catholic Church.

Jim Wallis, in his book entitled "The Great Awakening," expresses his support for homosexual unions and even spiritual "blessings" for such unions. He writes, "I support civil rights laws for same-sex couples. That, for me, is a justice issue. Many Christians, and I include myself, prefer the solution of ‘civil unions’ from the state, and even spiritual ‘blessings’ for gay couples (from congregations prepared to offer them), rather than altering the church’s sacrament of marriage as between a man and a woman, but those differences should not be fundamentally divisive. Gay marriage should not be the primary battleground in the fight for the health and stability of marriage and family in our society. In a pluralistic democracy, we should support civil and human rights for all our citizens, regardless of our different theological and biblical interpretations of the complicated and thorny issues surrounding homosexuality. New evidence and understanding around those issues could cause any of us to alter our views. But we should find common ground by supporting concrete practices and practical policies that strengthen families and nurture all our children.” (p. 229).

Needless to say, this attitude is not consistent with the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," explains that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (No. 4).

The "gay movement," as explained here, is not a "civil rights movement." But rather a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality. Interestingly, Jim Wallis advances that same corroding and ambiguous pluralism which Father Hehir advances.

For the last fifty to sixty years, forces within the Church have been working to dismantle the Mystical Body of Christ and to prepare the world for the emergence of the Man of Sin. It was Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich who said, "God himself had decreed this; and I was likewise told, if I remember rightly, that he [the Devil] will be unchained for a time fifty or sixty years before the year of Christ 2000....a certain number of demons are to be let loose much earlier than Lucifer, in order to tempt men, and to serve as instruments of the divine vengeance.."

It was the same mystic who said that, "The particle of the True Cross renders my sufferings sweet, the relic chases them away." (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. II, p. 561). Relics of the True Cross are most powerful against the demon and his activities:

"As the exorcism progressed, one could see that the benediction of the Blessed Sacrament pained the devil most acutely. That was always something unbearable for him. How he spat and vomited! He twisted and raved at the blessing with the relic of the Cross. Whenever the priest approached him with the Cross and the prescribed words, 'Look at the wood of the Cross! Begone ye powers of hell! The lion of the tribe of Juda shall conquer,' he acted terribly. 'Stop it, stop it, I cannot bear it, I cannot listen to it!' he seemed to say. And when the exorcist approached him with the relic of the Cross hidden under his cassock, Satan became a raving maniac. 'Begone, begone,' he howled, 'I cannot bear it. Oh, this is torture! It is unbearable.'" (See here).

Wherever the Devil is present, he cannot bear a relic of the True Cross. With this in mind, one cannot help but think of recent events which occurred in Boston.

Does Cardinal O'Malley condone such violence toward children?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, had this to say, "As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case." (No. 7).

But in the controversy which has erupted in the wake of Cardinal O'Malley's decision to help find a Catholic school for the ward of the lesbian parents who was initially denied admission on the basis of their illicit relationship, Cardinal O'Malley has not only advanced a false notion of compassion, but he has failed to address the violence which is done to children when they are placed in "an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." Why is this? Does Cardinal O'Malley condone this violence to children? If not, should he be finding a Catholic school for the ward of lesbian parents? Is this not tacit approval of an illicit relationship and the environment to which an innocent child is being exposed?

Is Cardinal O'Malley crippled by lukewarmness? Last year, when many faithful Catholics were scandalized over Senator Ted Kennedy's very public funeral liturgy, His Eminence responded by asserting that, "At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another." How true. But, as Father Bede Jarrett, O.P., has reminded us, "Not only may I sin by being angry when I should not, but I may sin by not being angry when I should be. If my reason tells me that it is right to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath; for, as the New Testament teaches, it is possible to 'be angry and sin not.' (Eph 4:26). Our Lord Himself, when need arose, roped together a bundle of cords and drove from the Temple those who trafficked in the House of Prayer, and down the front steps He flung the tables of the money-changers. Perhaps for most of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Think of all the evils that are in the world, that are known to all, admitted to exist by public press and on public platform. Would they have survived thus far, had folk all shown the indignant anger of Christ? Hypocrisy, cant, and the whole blatant injustice that stalks naked and unashamed in national life - may not our own weakness and silence have helped to render impotent all efforts to reduce these terrible things?" (Classic Catholic Meditations, p. 168, Sophia Institute Press).

Yes, zeal can sometimes lead to excess. But when James and John displayed an excess of zeal, asking our Lord to rain down destruction on those who wouldn't accept Him, He gave them evidence of his admiration for their zeal as he gave them the name Boanerges: Sons of Thunder. But, as Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer reminded us, we must "Fight against that weakness which makes you lazy and careless in your spiritual life. Remember that it might well be the beginning of lukewarmness...and, in the words of the Scripture*, God will vomit the lukewarm out of his mouth."

Lukewarmness in the Church has brought us nothing but disaster. Can we not see it? Yes, zeal must be tempered by the Cardinal Virtues of prudence and temperance. But God hates the lukewarm. It is a lukewarm Church which fails to deliver the Gospel with courage, with fortitude. The faithful are looking for shepherds, not for leaders who are crippled by lukewarmness and moral cowardice.


* Rev 3:16.

Culture of Sodomy: Seton Hall University to offer course on same-sex "marriage" by a homosexualist professor

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons which was published on July 31, 2003, explains that marriage "is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose" and that this truth is so evident that "no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman." (No. 2).

Considerations goes on to explain 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.' Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts 'as a serious depravity....This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries 'and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.'" (No. 4).

In No. 5, the document explains that, "..the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.." and that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." In fact, "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.

The CDF has also taught clearly 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 msinterpreted...Special attention should be given 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." (Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons).

If Seton Hall University insists upon promoting the culture of sodomy and engaging in homosexual agitprop, the Church should withdraw all support for the institution. Seton Hall University wasn't founded for the purpose of advancing the cause of militant sodomy. It was founded to direct the formation of human persons created in the image and likeness of God to their final, eternal goal, to the common good of the society in which they live and to that intellectual and spiritual maturity which is achieved by growing in Christ Jesus.

English Bishop claims that Catholic Church has no problem with homosexual civil unions

This of course is a lie. In 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-10, St. Paul warns, "Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god--do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved."

As followers of the Lord Jesus, we must always be alert because 'the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1). In order to withstand satanic attacks on the mind, one must become fortified by the Word of God, the Sacraments, and an active prayer life.

Any priest-exorcist will confirm that promiscuity (whether heterosexual or homosexual) can lead to possession. The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, teaches us that it is Satan who deceives human beings and leads them away from God: "But rather often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator." (No. 16).

The Bishop is both deceived and deceiving. Like so many others, he is sowing confusion. The Devil wants to confuse men and to get them to view homosexuality either as morally neutral or as a positive "good." The new humanitarian religion of Antichrist will embrace homosexuality. Vices must be turned into gods in preparation for the Man of Sin.

Crisis in Lisbon: Saying No to Sanity

Cardinal Jose Policarpo of Lisbon Portugal is being accused of a "pact of silence" with socialist prime minister Jose Socrates to advance same-sex "marriage" in that country. Even though The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," had this to say:

'The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.' (No. 8).

In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

As I have said before, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological. Sin must be justified so that a new religion can turn vices into gods.

What is this but a form of insanity? In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

The darkness spreads...

Mr. John Ansley, in the comments section of my previous post, has responded to a Catholic Blogger (and attorney) who wrote the following: "We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships." (See the comments section of this Blog post).

Mr. Ansley correctly noted that, "This sounds like nothing more than an attempt to justify same-sex 'marriage,' whether under this name or the euphemistically labelled 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' But the acceptance of any of these contentions will redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If this happens, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,' had this to say: 'The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.' (No. 8).

It would appear that Renee is dissenting from this authoritative teaching when she asserts, 'We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships.' How unfortunate."

Indeed. In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

As I explained here, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological: "Especially important is to avoid conversations with the demon... The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen..." - Father Merrin - The Exorcist.

Related reading: Perfect possession.

Something else to thank Holy Cross College for...

Today's Sunday Telegram (Worcester Telegram & Gazette) is running a story by Denise Lavoie on the retirement of Justice John Greaney (an SJC judge). This article is subtitled, "Holy Cross pointed Greaney to profession."

Lavoie writes, "Justice John Greaney didn't write the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark ruling making Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage, but five years later, a passage from his concurring opinion is sometimes used by gay couples in their wedding ceremonies. 'We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth,' Greaney wrote. 'Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend...full acceptance, tolerance and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.'"

Greaney, the son of an Irish immigrant, "said he knew he wanted to be a judge since his days at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, where his professors 'kept stressing that you have to do something with your life and contribute to society and the well-being of others.'"

And Justice Greaney believes that he has contributed to "the well-being of others"? To the common good? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, had this to say:

"The inevitable consequences of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to homosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8).

Yes indeed, Holy Cross is creating quite a name for itself. Just recently, this institution spent a week promoting homosexuality.

Recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his famous Encyclical "On Christian Marriage":

"First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen 1:27; 2:22f.; Mt 19:3ff.; Eph 5:23ff.); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1603-1605, explain marriage in the order of creation:

"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."

God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Pray for Justice Greaney and the College of the Holy Cross.