Terence Weldon: A pathological need to justify the sin of homosexuality

Terence Weldon, the angry homosexual activist who has blasphemed against Christ by suggesting that He had a homosexual relationship and who has accused Pope Benedict XVI of having a homosexual inclination, is at it again.  This time the sophomoric soul is advancing the strange idea that the early Church celebrated same sex relationships.  He writes, "In Jewish /Christian history, there are numerous examples of same – sex relationships: David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and the Beloved Disciple, Sergius and Bacchus, and many more. Some of these pairs are named in the liturgical rite of church blessing for same – sex unions described by John Boswell – and also named, in pairs, in the Eucharistic Prayer of the modern Catholic Mass.

The medieval church showed many examples of honouring close male relationships for their spiritual value, from Aelred of Rievaulx’s book, 'On Spiritual Friendship', to the love letters and poetry addressed by many bishops and abbots to their own beloveds.

In the Western Church, the practice of making 'sworn brothers' included liturgical rituals, celebrated in church with the Eucharist, and created legal ties of kinship between the families: an equivalent term for 'sworn brother' was 'wedded brother'. Same -sex weddings, in church, are hardly new, although the earlier meaning was not the same as current usage.

In 4th and 5th century Macedonia, and later in the Western church, there is archaeological and tombstone evidence of another way in which these relationships were honoured by the church: same – sex pairs buried in shared graves, just as many (opposite – sex) married couples were. A much later example of this is the well – known example of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who specifically asked to be buried alongside his beloved Aubrey St John (a request that does not appear to have caused any surprise to his community)." (See full post here).

Now the lie that Cardinal John Henry Newman was a homosexual who requested to be buried next to his "lover" is a popular myth propagated by radical homosexual activists.  Deacon Nick Donnelly has addressed this lie here.

As for the early Church, the Fathers (who are witnesses of Divine Tradition) condemned homosexuality in their writings.  For example, Saint Justin the Martyr (100 - 165 AD), in his First Apology, which was addressed to the Emperor Titus, explains the Christian mysteries and highlights the immorality of the Greeks and Romans.  He writes, "But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution.  And as the ancients are said to have reared herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or grazing horses, so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation.  And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm.  And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother.  And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy." (See here).
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (130 - 202 AD) reiterated the Church's condemnation of homosexuality: "In addition to this blasphemy against God Himself, he [the heretic Marcion] advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth - that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination were saved by the Lord." (Adversus haereses, Book I, Chap. 27, No. 3).  See here.

Athenagoras of Athens, a philosopher who convreted to Christianity in the second century, wrote his Plea for Christians to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius around 177 AD.  In this document, Athenagoras, while defending Christians from the false charge of immorality [issued by pagans who misinterpreted Catholic worship] shows that the pagans, steeped in immorality themselves, did not even refrain from sins against nature: "But though such is our character...the things said of us are an example of the proverb, 'The harlot reproves the chaste.'  For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure - who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God." (A Please For The Christians, Chap. 34).  See here.
Tertullian (160 - 225 AD), an apologist of the early Church, in his work entitled "On Modesty," highlights the attitude of the Church toward sins against nature such as homosexual acts: "But all the other frenzies of passions - impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes - beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities." (On Modesty, Chap. 4).  See here.
Saint Jerome (340 - 420 AD), is both a Father and a Doctor of the Church.  In his book Against Jovinianus, notes how a sodomite needs repentance and penance in order to be saved: "And Sodom and Gomorrah might have appeased it [God's wrath], had they been willing to repent, and through the aid of fasting gain for themselves tears of repentance." (Against Jovinianus, Book 2, no. 15).  See here

I could go on and on and on.  But I've made my point.  Terence Weldon's idea that the early Church was accepting of homosexuality and same-sex unions/relationships is a fantasy.  In his pathological desire to justify his sin and rationalize what is an abomination in the sight of the Lord - as well as His Church - Weldon will weave the most intricate stories.  Not just for himself.  But for all those who want to have their ears tickled.

And Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Terence Weldon's Bishop, does nothing. 

A web page at the website for the Archdiocese of Boston which is most revealing

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, says that, "Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person in its entirety, to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy. Either one is, in its own proper form, an actuation of the most profound truth of man, of his being created in the image of God.'"

The Archdiocese of Boston, at the vocation page of its website, recognizes the vocation to the priesthood, the vocation to religious life, and the vocation to marriage. Nothing about the single vocation.  See here.  This is most significant.  The implication is that single people do not have a vocation or a purpose; that we are unnecessary.

Father Pat Umberger has noted that, "Being single. For some of us it is the way we live our Vocation. For others it is a temporary state. For some it brings much joy. For others sadness and a feeling of incompleteness. Not all single folks are called to a Vocation of priesthood or consecrated life. Single people come in all age ranges, from the 20's through old age. Single people have needs and goals. We don't always fit into the society we live in. Sometimes there is a perception that we cannot be happy or fulfilled while we are single. We can buy into that perception. The Church can be quite helpful to us. Sometimes it can hinder us as well. It is true that much is said about married life, children, teenagers and other groups within the Church, but not much about single people. The Church can unconsciously discriminate against single people by sponsoring mostly "couples only" events, inviting "families" to bring up the gifts, or seeing singles as the pool from which to draw helpers to complete tasks nobody else wants to do."



Cardinal Sean O'Malley has given much lip service to inclusion.  Indeed he has decided that Catholic schools in his Archdiocese can partner with homosexual parents who refuse to live in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.  Apparently it's only Catholics faithful to the Magisterium and single people who aren't entirely welcome.

Catholic Free Press columnists and falsity...

Falsity is the heart of immorality.  And the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts has been crippled for years by the spirit of falsity.  In a previous post, I said that: "Any priest who convinces those entrusted to his care to rationalize sin is no lover of souls but is instead an enemy of souls. When a person is encouraged to rationalize what is known to be wicked in the sight of the Lord, that person opens a chasm between themselves and God which continues to grow wider and wider until they can no longer hear His call and discern the word of truth that He has spoken."


Recently, I received an anonymous comment accusing me [falsely] of "slandering" a couple of columnists who have been featured in The Catholic Free Press.  This because I exposed their errors.  I usually don't respond to anonymous comments [anyone who refuses to use their real name when making an accusation isn't really worth the time after all], but I do so here to once again highlight the spirit of dishonesty which has infected the Worcester Diocese like a cancer.  Calumny, as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church [something this confused soul should spend some time with],  consists of "remarks contrary to the truth" which results in harm to "the reputation of others" while giving "occasion for false judgments concerning them." (CCC, 2477).

Now the two columnists which I am supposed to have "slandered" are Father John Catoir and Stacy Trasancos.  The first, as noted here, is promoting what amounts to subjectivist conscience.  And, as Dr. Germain Grisez tells us: "The sin of deliberate nonassent is committed by those who rationalize their failure to assent as following their 'conscience,' using the word in a subjectivist sense.  Conscience truly so-called is formed by moral truth, which can be known with certitude by the help of the Church's teaching.  'Conscience' in a subjectivist sense refers to one's own opinions and preferences, treated as more authoritative than any practical truth or requirement originating beyond oneself.  But to treat one's own opinions and preferences as more authoritative than the Church's teaching is deliberate refusal to give that teaching the assent it deserves; and this refusal is only rationalized, not justified, by saying: 'My conscience tells me it is right for me to do X, so it is right for me, no matter what the Pope says!'"

In his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI teaches clearly that spouses, "are not free to do as they like in the service of transmitting life, on the supposition that it is lawful for them to decide independently of other considerations what is the right course to follow.  On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator."  What is this if not a complete rejection of subjectivist conscience?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, explains that, "..argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent.  This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement.  This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it.  Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty.  It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice.  A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good."

So much for Fr. Catoir, purveyor of a subjectivist conscience.  The second, Stacy Trasancos, I dealt with here.  I wrote, "In a Blog post on the subject of women's ordination, Mrs. Trasancos writes, "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood]. We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures. For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled. There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say." (See here).

I appealed to the CDF's document Inter Insigniores to refute Trasancos' falsehood [that the Church's doctrine was affected by cultural influences] as well as her assertion (via a quotation she cites) that there isn't any "hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed."  And then I cited Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No. 4: "..in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

When one sets oneself against a teaching of the Church which must be held definitively, one sets oneself against the teaching of the Church.  This truth is made clear in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law.  Archbishop J. Francis Stafford of Denver has said [correctly] that the issue of women's ordination has been explored exhaustively, and now "it is time to move on...The Church's teaching is definitive, and has been set forth infallibly by formal declaration. It will not and cannot change. Therefore, for those who see with the eyes of faith, the matter is resolved"

For Trasancos to suggest that the matter isn't necessarily resolved is dishonest. 

I'll say it again: falsity is the heart of immorality.