Time to root out every single homosexual priest...

Another scandal involving homosexual clerics reported by Newsweek here.

Some years ago, Michael Brown over at Spirit Daily got it right when he wrote, "the crisis is homosexuality. In the United States there have been allegations of sexual misconduct against approximately one priest in fifty. Of the alleged victims of these assaults, about 10,000 were male, and about a thousand female.

In April 2002, Wilton Gregory, then bishop of Belleville and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted that 'there does exist within American seminaries a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexuals think twice' about entering the priesthood, adding that 'it is an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.'

It is a struggle that the Church must now decisively win.

This is not to judge those who are 'gay.' It is to judge the sin. Many are sensitive and talented people who like the rest of us have failings. Many of them yearn to be spiritual. They are skilled in many ways. They are anything but the picture of hardness and militancy we envision when we see radical 'gays' parading around Greenwich Village or San Francisco. Some of the most considerate, sensitive, and upstanding people are of this leaning -- good in other ways. We are to love them as we love anyone else. Nor can we judge them: how do we know how they got to where they are? And have we looked for the logs in our own eyes?

But we are also to hate the sin and acknowledge the truth and the truth is that those who are homosexual grapple with a disorder that requires deliverance. It is a spiritual issue. And while they struggle with that disorder they do not belong in a position of any spiritual authority.

It is better to suffer a severe priest shortage than to limp on with those who are too immersed in personal turmoil to tend to the flock -- and who in fact can pose (as has been startlingly seen) an actual danger.

Let's tell it like it is. The demonic is at work. How did the spirits invade? We note that much of the onset for this crisis was in the Sixties. During alleged messages at Akita, Japan (a partially Church-approved occurrence in which a statue wept), the Blessed Mother warned around that time that "the demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God."

Priests are exceptional men on the front line and prone to horrific temptation and assault. We must sympathize with that.

But those who are homosexual must be rooted out.."

________________
Actually, they should have never been ordained. Before entering into any state of life, a divine vocation is necessary. This because without such a vocation, it is difficult if not impossible to fulfil the obligations which pertain to that state and to obtain salvation. This is particularly true for the ministerial priesthood or any other ecclesiastical state. After all, it was Our Lord Who said: "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1).

Consequently, the man who takes holy orders without a call from God is convicted of theft in taking by force a dignity which God has not called him to and does not desire to bestow upon him. This is the teaching of Saint Paul:

"Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify Himself that He might be made a high priest; but he that said unto Him: Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee." (Hebrews 5:4,5).

It matters not then how learned or prudent or holy a man may be. No man may place himself into the holy sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced to the same by Almighty God. Jesus Our Lord was certainly the most learned and holy among all men, full of grace and truth (John 1:14), the Son of Man in Whom were (and are) hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). And yet, Jesus required a divine call to assume the dignity of the priesthood.

This is the teaching of the Council of Trent. That the Church regards the man who assumes the priesthood without a vocation not as a minister but as a robber:

"Decernit sancta Synodus eos qui ea (ministeria) propria temeritate sibi sumunt, omnes, non Ecclesiae ministros, sed fures et latrones per ostium non ingressos habendos esse" (Session 23, cap. 4).

Those who seize the priesthood without a vocation may labor and toil exhaustively. But their labors will profit them very little before God. In fact, the very works which would be considered of much merit when performed by others will deserve chastisement for such souls. Because such men are not in conformity with the divine will, not having a vocation to the state of life which they have usurped, the Lord Jesus will not accept their toils:

"I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand" (Malachi 1:10).

Not only will God refuse the gifts of their hand, He will punish the works of the minister who has entered the sanctuary without being called; without a vocation:

"What stranger soever cometh to it (the Tabernacle) shall be slain." (Numbers 1:51).

Bearing all of this in mind, please read the following which first appeared in The Wanderer and may be found at the Faithfulvoice.com website:

On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II.

In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered." (No. 3).

This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: "Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders." Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.

In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, "Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

Former Newsweek editor slams New York Times for creating its "own version of the scandal."

Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek's former religion editor, said that the New York Times has not been fair in its recent attempts to link the Pope with Church sex abuse cover up. See here. That's really putting it mildly. The New York Times is guilty of calumny. So too is Father James Scahill*. And it is time for Father Scahill to issue an apology to our Holy Father for this calumny and to the entire Church for his blasphemous assertion that the Catholic Church - the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus - is "insidiously evil."

Throughout all of this ugly hate campaign directed against Pope Benedict XVI, our Holy Father has been [ and this doesn't surprise me in the least] a shining example of humility and grace. It was the great Saint Francis de Sales who advised, "If you are falsely accused, excuse yourself meekly, denying your guilt, for so much you owe to truth and the edification of your neighbor. But if, after your true and honest excuse, your accusers persist, give yourself no further trouble, and do not persevere in your defense, for having paid tribute to truth, now pay tribute to humility."


* See here.

Related reading: Will VOTF, the anti-Catholic dissent group, apologize for its calumny?

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: A Straw in the Wind

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is angry at the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Holy Father continues to preach truth while confirming his brethren (Luke 22:32) and the Church founded by Jesus Christ does not feel free to change the law of God. Writing for Newsweek just prior to President Obama's meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, Ms. Townsend wrote:


"Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.

In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.

It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.

Even more intriguing is the pope's support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as "the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly." As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.

But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as "teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation." Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.) "

And so, because the Church founded by Christ to teach men and to bring them to salvation refuses to justify sinful contraception, homosexuality and lesbianism and will not ordain women - it cannot do so and remain faithful to Christ - Ms. Townsend would accuse Christ's Mystical Body of lacking "empathy."

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, No. 46, Pope John Paul II writes, "Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends."

Ms. Townsend cares little (if at all) for truth. And especially religious truth. This is tragic. For as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us authoritatively: "Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: 'It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons...are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth." (2467).

Ms. Townsend, filled with rage because Pope Paul VI upheld the Church's constant and clear teaching regarding contraception in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae and because the current Pontiff also refuses to abandon the law of God, has no sense of history. If she did, she would know that all of the Christian churches held contraception to be gravely sinful prior to the Church of England's Lambeth Conference of 1930.

The Catholic Church doesn't roll dice or draw straws to determine what she believes. The Holy Father is not a politician, even if his office requires great political skill. He doesn't wet his finger to see which way the wind is blowing. The only "wind" he heeds is the wind of the Holy Spirit Who brings truth.

The Church is not, and never will be, a democracy Ms. Townsend. But this shouldn't trouble you for too long. Like the relativistic culture in which you live and move and have your being, your convictions will no doubt change. Like a straw being blown about by the wind, you have no roots. Your morally bankrupt culture has no roots. Which is why it is dying.

Meditation: John 15: 1-10

Newsweek declares: "The End of Christian America"

"Christ describes frightening scenes. The last days preceding the second coming will be marked by a final trial which will shake the faith of many believers. Jesus asks: 'But when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith on earth?' (Lk 8: 28). This is a mysterious phrase but its immediate meaning cannot be eluded. Only a 'little flock' will persevere in the faith until the end, awaiting the Lord's coming. The greater part of mankind, including many believers, will have lost the faith. In another context Jesus adds to the eclipse of faith a cooling of charity. Indeed, it is not possible to lose one without losing the other. Thus he describes the 'trials' of the end times: 'Many false prophets will arise; they will deceive many, and with the increase of lawlessness, love in most men will grow cold; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved' (Mt 24: 11). Jesus situates the the end of the world in the context of great apostasy from the faith. The rejection of Christianity by many who had adhered to it will take place in a world where the Gospel of the Kingdom has been proclaimed to the ends of the earth (cf. Mt 24: 14). The coming of Christ as judge will take place in a context of betrayal. - Fr. Livio Fanzaga

"The Dragon is clearly Satan. Then comes the battle of Michael and his angels against the dragon, whereby the dragon is vanquished and falls. From the deep he (the dragon) calls up a terrible creature, the first apocalyptical beast...Here is the antithesis (of Christ): revelation of the Antichrist. He will be a man of stupendous talents and spiritual force, of great knowledge and might. He will also be filled with religious power. Indeed, he will even have a certain resemblance to Christ, for it will be said also of him that he is mortally wounded and yet alive, in other words, that he has sacrificed himself and vanquished, so that there will be something perversely redemptory about him that is directed against the living God and His Christ. This beast defies God, blaspheming against Him and His name. All men save those registered in the book of the Lamb submit to its power. Then a second beast arises, coming up out of the land. Outwardly, it resembles a Lamb, but it speaks like a dragon. It proclaims the Antichrist, erects his image, performs miracles, and persuades men to worship him. Perhaps we are meant to see in this beast the evil counterpart of him who proclaimed the Savior, the Precursor, John the Baptist. From all sides, from all races, this beast summons men, leading them to the Enemy of God." (Romano Guardini, The Lord, p. 510).

As a student of Catholic prophecy and as one who tries to read the signs of the times, I find it interesting to say the least that the new presidential limousine is referred to by the Secret Service as "the beast." Never before has the presidential limousine been referred to by this moniker. Why now?

Related reading here and here.

Could the president shut down the internet? WND article here.