Cardinal Joseph Tobin: Disingenuous

Cardinal Joseph Tobin, in a feeble attempt to justify his decision to welcome an "LGBTQ" pilgrimage to the Newark Cathedral, has said, “I don’t presume that every person who identifies him or herself as LGBTQ is sexually active...If they’re attempting to live a chaste life, then they certainly need the support of the believing community, a chance to pray, and to know that they’re welcomed within the body of Christ.”

The Cardinal is being disingenuous. Nothing new for him.  See here.

The Roman Catholic apostolate Courage, which assists those with a homosexual inclination to live authentically Catholic lives, embracing chastity, explains why it will not use the terms "gay" and "lesbian":

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

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

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

The Cardinal isn't being honest is he?

Courage continues:

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

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

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

Pray for Cardinal Tobin to repent of his intellectual dishonesty.

A question for Pope Francis....

The Roman Catholic apostolate Courage, which assists those with a homosexual inclination to live authentically Catholic lives, embracing chastity, explains why it will not use the terms "gay" and "lesbian":

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



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


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


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


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


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


See here: http://couragerc.net/FAQs.html

Courage refuses to use the words "gay" and "lesbian."  Why then does Pope Francis use the word "gay"?

The Diocese of Worcester's Commission for Women invites Peggy Patenaude to "Gather Us In"

Peggy Patenaude, a radical feminist who often conducts retreats at the La Salette Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts, will be a guest speaker at this year's "Gather Us In" Conference sponsored by the Diocese of Worcester's "Commission for Women," itself a dissenting organization.

Ms. Patenaude, in her newsletter, has said that: "In January, I had the privilege of facilitating my first retreat for five gay couples. It turned out to be an affirming experience for all. I was very moved by the warmth, goodness, depth and genuineness of these ten women. The fact that they were so receptive and appreciative confirmed for me the need for such programs in a world that is not always kind to minorities.

It was gratifying to see how much the participants enjoyed and benefited from the weekend. "The retreat exceeded my expectations. It gave us the opportunity to take time out to focus on us and our relationship which means so much to us," commented one woman. Another added, "The retreat was very helpful. It helped my partner and me to communicate better." The gratitude of all ten women for the supportive and respectful atmosphere was obvious. As one retreatant said, "We are just people in love…like any other couple." I am humbled and grateful for the opportunity to have assisted them in keeping their love alive. See here.


Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, writes:

"The term neurotic describes such relationships [same-sex] well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness of in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

"Van den Aardweg says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. And he denies that homesexuality is caused by the genes, or the structure of the brain; the evidence shows that it is acquired. Nor is it a necessary result of effeminacy; it is the child's "self-perception as masculine or feminine" that makes the difference. It is caused by pressure to develop an opposite-sex role. Often mothers do not view or treat their sons as "real men," and fathers do not view or treat their daughters as "real girls." (From the Catholic Insight book review of "The Battle for Normality."

Pope Benedict XVI reminded us that:


"The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God's decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam finds the helper that he needed: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). Here one might detect hints of ideas that are also found, for example, in the myth mentioned by Plato, according to which man was originally spherical, because he was complete in himself and self-sufficient. But as a punishment for pride, he was split in two by Zeus, so that now he longs for his other half, striving with all his being to possess it and thus regain his integrity. While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man's very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature." Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, No. 11).

How much longer will Bishop Robert J. McManus tolerate (and even approve of) dissident speakers who spread their poison to confuse the faithful? 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Lesbian demands that her children's Catholic school remove Catechism quote on homosexuality

Ann Michelle Tesluk, a lesbian whose children attend a Catholic school, is demanding that the school, which is located in Peterborough, Ontario, remove a Catechism quote from a pamphlet because it refers to the homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered."  See here.

I wrote a series of posts after the Archdiocese of Boston announced a new policy which says that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  I reminded His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley that, in its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

And I added, "But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that 'family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man' in which 'the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered.' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals 'would actually mean doing violence to these children,' and that their situation of dependence would place them 'in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.' (No. 7).

And then I wrote:  "Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.

Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here for example.

In one post from January of 2011, I addressed Cardinal O'Malley writing, "Our Lord Jesus spoke in the sixth chapter of Matthew, verse 24: 'No one can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.' Now, mammon can represent either money or any other created thing which stands in the way of a total commitment to the Lord Jesus....My question: By allowing children of homosexual households into Catholic schools, are you not thereby inviting violence and disorder? After all, how can these children be expected to serve two masters? Will they not come to hate the one and love the other? Will they not be devoted to one while despising the other? Either these children will come to fully embrace Catholic teaching and thereby be set in opposition to their parents illicit sexual behavior, or [and this is the far more likely scenario given that children tend to love their parents or guardians], they will come to despise the Church while condoning intrinsically disordered behavior which have they grown accustom to being exposed to."

No man can serve two masters.  He will hate the one and love the other.  He will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  Violence and disorder have been introduced into those Catholic schools and school districts which believe they can partner with homosexual parents.  Just as I warned.

But then, my patron Saint - for whom I was named - said it best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit some 2,000 years ago: "Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers.  For what partnership do rightousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness.  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15).

God's Holy Word assures us that rightousness cannot partner with lawlessness.  And homosexual parents who are not committed toward living chaste lives or who reject the teaching of the Lord Jesus through His Church are not committed to righteousness but rather lawlessness.

Abbie Goldberg: Objective scientist or homosexual propagandist?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Abbie Goldberg: scientist or propagandist?

Is the Archdiocese of Boston ignoring Church teaching?

That's the question Joe Sacerdo is asking here. It is utterly amazing how many who pride themselves on being "Vatican II Catholics" simply ignore those passages of the Conciliar documents which they find "irrelevant." In its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that "family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man" in which "the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children," and that their situation of dependence would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." (No. 7).

Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.


Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here.

Antoniano.

Related reading: Antoniano and Christian education of youth.

President Obama declares June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month"

In his Farewell Address, which was given on September 19, 1796, George Washington said that, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 32, Pope John Paul II explains that, "Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 32).

The new humanitarian religion of Antichrist will embrace homosexuality even as it seeks to eradicate Christianity. Indeed, this celebration of perversity is a sign that the Antichrist is near. Pope Saint Pius X, in his 1903 encyclical, E Supremi, "On the Restoration of All Things in Christ," had this to say, "When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess 2: 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such a way that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has despised God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He seats himself in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (2 Thess 2:4).

Who is Martha Coakley?

Courtesy of Mass Resistance:

"How horrible is Martha Coakley? Besides the hideous list of Coakley's positions and actions that we already published, we just dug up the keynote speech that Coakley -- as Massachusetts Attorney General -- gave at the fundraising dinner for the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association on May 11, 2007.

Coakley discussed her unwavering support for homosexual and transgender "rights" and her readiness to fight any challenges to the "legality" of same-sex "marriage".

(This despite the fact that the legislature STILL has not changed the statutes to enable same-sex couples to "marry", as instructed by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2003! See the homosexual lobby's pending bill here. What "law" is Attorney General Coakley upholding?)

Make no mistake about this: If you believe in traditional values, Martha Coakley really despises you.*

Here are some quotes from her speech:

On fighting challenges to same-sex "marriage":

". . . We also know that if the proposed [anti-gay marriage] amendment goes on the ballot, Massachusetts will spend the next year and a half besieged by anti-gay activists and will be the recipient of zealous rhetoric and invective from across the country. If that battle is necessary, you have my support."

On using the controversial Matthew Shepherd murder to push hate crime legislation and homosexual programs in the schools:

"Nine years after Matthew Shepard was left to die on a fence post in Wyoming, members of the GLBT community still remain at risk for discrimination in schools, employment and in places of public accommodation, as well as being targets of violent hate crimes.

"We cannot allow hate to occupy any legal space in Massachusetts. We cannot legislate hate away, but we can hold those accountable who act upon it and that's why it is important to develop and implement effective civil rights programs in our schools."

This is Martha Coakley's vision for America that she would bring to Washington, D.C.

Read the entire 2007 speech HERE."

* As does the Obama administration. See here.

Related reading on the Homosexual Hate Movement here.