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.

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. 

Terence Weldon has lost his faith in Christ, His Church and her doctrines

Terence Weldon wants to introduce us to James Nickoloff, a confused and lost soul whom he refers to as a "gay Catholic theologian."  Weldon writes, "Dr James B Nickoloff is an openly gay, Catholic theologian, who unlike many others to whom that description applies, is working in an eminently respectable corner of the Catholic academy. He is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, and also an adjunct professor at the Jesuit University of Santa Clara, California, where he held a Bannan Fellowship for 2008-2009. In June 2009, he delivered a lecture on his research at Santa Clara University for the academic year, 'Intrinsically Disordered”: Gay People and the Holiness of the Church.'


In his introduction to the lecture, he writes about himself: 'In the interest of full disclosure, let me make it clear that I write as a professional Catholic systematic theologian who is also a self-affirming gay man and legally married in Massachusetts.'

With such a clear, honest self-description, it is not surprising that he has come under attack from orthotoxic Catholic fundamentalists. For example, the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society posted an outraged reaction to his participation in a Rainbow Alliance Week forum, at which he is alleged to have spread 'confusion' and undermined Church teaching, displaying as evidence [a] flyer he distributed at the meeting. Yet every item on the flyer is taken from completely orthodox Catholic documents: from the Vatican, from the USCCB, or from diocesan offices. Now, how can one be said to be 'undermining' Church teaching by disseminating it?" (See here).

What Mr. Weldon won't tell you, being the ardent propagandist that he is, is that James Nickoloff is not interested in "full disclosure" when it comes to his background.  We learn here that: "Prof. James Nickoloff, of the Religious Studies department, is a former Jesuit priest who told a student group in November that he was personally engaged in homosexuality and 'married' in the state of Massachusetts to another man. He implied the sanction of the Catholic Church as he also identified himself as a professor of religious studies at a Catholic college. This act undermines the efforts of the Church to counsel and serve those with homosexual inclinations and to help them find happiness and fulfillment in Christ through chastity or in a lifestyle not destructive to both their bodies and souls."

When communicating with others, we all have certain responsibilities.  For example, we all have a responsibility to submit ourselves to truth when communicating.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, “As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God.  Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed.  Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good.  But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth.  Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth.  The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.”

Terence Weldon is not interested in genuine community.  If he were, he would be honest in his communications.  He is not interested in submitting himself to the demands of truth.  Weldon is a manipulator who trusts in himself alone.  But Cardinal Newman, prophet of our times, warns us not to follow ourselves in matters of faith and morals, but Christ and His Church. He writes, “Be our mind as heavenly as it may be, most loving, most holy, most zealous, most energetic, most peaceful, yet if we look off from Him [Christ and His Church] for a moment, and look towards ourselves, at once those excellent tempers fall into some extreme or mistake. Charity becomes over-easiness; holiness is tainted with pride; zeal degenerates into fierceness; activity eats up the spirit of prayer; hope is heightened into presumption. We cannot guide ourselves. God’s revealed word is our sovereign rule of conduct; and, therefore among other reasons, is faith so principal a grace, for it is the directing power which receives the commands of Christ, and applies them to the heart.”


Terence Weldon is a modernist. He has lost his faith in Christ, His Church and her doctrines, even if he cannot steel himself to admit this.  And because he has lost his faith, he is anxious to rob others of theirs.  Misery loves company. Pray for him.

Terence Weldon: False prophet pointing the way to animalism and barbarism...

Dr. Antonio Pardo has explained that in animals, "..the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

This scientific fact upsets radical homosexual activists who believe that homosexual behavior is observable in animals and that since homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature it must also be in accordance with human nature since man is also animal. This is their reasoning.

Radical homosexual activist and dissenter Terence Weldon, who serves as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist as well as a member of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council, is one such individual.  At his website "Queering the Church," this angry dissident Catholic has referred to me as "deranged" for defending the Church's teaching that the homosexual inclination is "intrinsically disordered."

But there is another reason Weldon's premise fails.  And it is this: The strong desire animals, including the human animal, feel for sex gratification is nature's means of alluring them to breed. To seek the satisfaction while at the same time defrauding nature is what is meant by perversion. Other animals, having no free will and guided only by instinct, cannot abuse their faculties and there are no unnatural vices found among them. Man alone is able to act unnaturally, but is bound not to do so by the natural moral law.

Terence Weldon would reduce man to the purely animal, denying his free will while abolishing the natural moral law.  In their wonderful book entitled "Our Moral Life in Christ: A Basic Course on Moral Theology," Aurelio Fernandez and James Socias explain that, "Every man is a moral being, capable of doing good and evil, of being just or unjust, honorable or dishonorable.  Moral good and evil cannot be attributed to the animals, only physical good and evil.  Thus, for example, an animal is either healthy or sick, or an animal may be able to skillfully accomplish its proper end which is instinctively ingrained in its genes.  A horse is said to be good or bad in a horse race; a dog can have a better or worse nose for hunting; but neither the horse nor the dog can sin or practice virtue, nor can they be just or unjust.  In no way are they morally responsible...

Man, on the other hand, is morally responsible for his actions.  He acts with thought and deliberation.  The reason is that he alone has knowledge and a will.  Intelligence gives meaning to things and free will allows for the fulfillment or omission of actions the intellect has determined to be good or bad.

The human person, therefore, can lead an exemplary existence, striving for sanctity, or committing the most evil actions.  This reality is often evident, and was noted by Aristotle:

'For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.  Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony.  But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.' (Aristotle, Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 2).

With these two options, the good that perfects and the evil that degrades, human existence is lived out.  Morality is the science that teaches man how to choose good and avoid evil and offers him the means, so that, besides living with the dignity proper to him, he may accomplish his end, eternal salvation." (Our Moral Life in Christ, pp. 51-52).

This is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. 'God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.'" (CCC, 1730).

And again: "The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes.  There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just.  The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to the slavery of sin." (CCC, 1733).

But for Mr. Weldon, false prophet pointing the way to animalism and barbarism, God and His Commandments must be banished from society in preparation for the emerging satanic society which is based on defeatist ideology.  In his book Trousered Apes, professor Duncan Williams explains that, "The whole modern cult of violence and animalism is in essence an admission of defeat.  Since we cannot be men to any idealistic extent, let us lapse into barbaric animalism but, still clinging to vestiges of a past which we hate but cannot escape, let us clothe our defeat in high-sounding terms: 'Alienation,' 'cult of unpleasure,' 'realism,' and similar jargon.  Yet all this fashionable phraseology cannot conceal the fact that the Emperor has no clothes.."

Saint Bernardine of Siena explained just how animalistic homosexual acts are.  He said, "No sin in the world grips the soul as the accursed sodomy; this sin has always been detested by all those who live according to God...Deviant passion is close to madness; this vice disturbs the intellect, destroys elevation and generosity of soul, brings the mind down from great thoughts to the lowliest, makes the person slothful, irascible, obstinate and obdurate, servile and soft and incapable of anything; furthermore, agitated by an insatiable craving for pleasure, the person follows not reason but frenzy...They become blind and, when their thoughts should soar to high and great things, they are broken down and reduced to vile and useless and putrid things, which could never make them happy...Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others.  He who lived with this vice of sodomy suffers more than another, for this is the greatest sin." (Sermon XXXIX in Prediche volgari, pp. 896-897, 915).

This is the sound doctrine men need to hear.  Instead, Archbishop Vincent Nichols continues to tolerate Terence Weldon's dissent from the Church's teaching and his promotion of an animalistic ideology which is rooted in defeatism and the demonic.

Blog comment: "...you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."

In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Because I oppose that preaching which leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death, I am once again receiving death threats.  Recently I wrote about the fact that Archbishop Vincent Nichols is continuing to tolerate a radical homosexual activist while demonstrating a blatant disregard for the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  See here.  This resulted in death threats and a comment from an individual calling himself Matt Westwood which, he said, is "a warning that you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."

I will not be deterred.  My patron Saint, St. Paul, exhorts us: "...to stir into flame the gift of God  that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God." (2 Timothy 1: 6-8).

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that, the Church, in its twofold ministry toward its own members and toward those outside her pale, shares in Jesus’ threefold office of Priest, Prophet and King, that is, it participates in Jesus’ ministry to sanctify, to teach and to govern. While bishops, priests and deacons exercise, within the Church, the ministries of sanctifying, teaching and governing through the power and authority bestowed upon them at their sacramental ordination, all Catholic lay men and women also share in this threefold ministry of Christ. Catholic lay men and women, by their baptismal and confirmational character, are empowered, in Christ through the Holy Spirit, to be priests, prophets and kings and so come to share in the Church’s ministry of sanctification, teaching and governing. Lumen Gentium tells us that, in collaboration with their bishops and clergy, "the faithful who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ, are placed in the People of God, and in their own way share the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world." (No. 31).


The homosexual movement has become totalitarian.  It seeks to impose its agenda with brute force of necessary.  I have been warning of this for years.  Only recently Dr. Jeff Mirus warned that, "No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism." (See here).

Archbishop Vincent Nichols continues to tolerate dissent from Terence Weldon

Terence Weldon, the radical homosexual activist who authors the "Queering the Church" Blog and who serves as an Extraordinary Minister at the infamous Soho Masses in England - the same disturbed individual who has blasphemously suggested that Our Lord Jesus had a homosexual inclination - is once again challenging the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the homosexual inclination.  He writes, "In the CDF Hallowe’en Letter [here he is sarcastically and irreverently refering to the October 1, 1986 document entitled "Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], possibly the most offensive and damaging element was the labelling of the homosexual orientation as 'intrinsically disordered' – but just what does 'disordered' in fact mean? Science has shown from mental health and from animal biology that it [the homosexual inclination] is entirely natural, and not in any scientific sense disordered." (See here).

Actually science has shown exactly the opposite.  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Mr. Weldon who has no expertise in this area), 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).

In an interview with ZENIT, which may be found here, Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, says that the CMA has found in its research that, "..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...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."

And what of Mr. Weldon's ridiculous claim that science has shown "from animal biology" that the homosexual inclination is not "in any scientific sense disordered"?  It is significant that Mr. Weldon doesn't produce any research to back his asinine claim.  This because there is none.  Quite the reverse is true.  In fact, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains that: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals...For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex.  Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such.  Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual.  Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality.  All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." (Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos medicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89).

Mr. Weldon betrays his ignorance with the "if animals do it then it must be natural" argument.  Animals frequently engage in other forms of behavior such as parental killing of offspring or intra-species devouring.  Shall we then say that such behaviors would be "normal" and "healthy"?

But enough of Terence Weldon.  I'm frankly far more concerned about his Bishop - Archbishop Vincent Nichols.  The Archbishop doesn't seem concerned at all about the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  He seems oblivious to the scandal of the Soho Masses and the actions of Terence Weldon.  See here.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, we need Shepherds not Keystone Cops who fall asleep while on duty

Writing from the UK, my good friend Deacon Nick Donnelly of Protect the Pope reports that:

Archbishop Nichols has re-affirmed the Archdiocese of Westminster’s provision of pastoral care to homosexuals through the so called Soho Masses, while at the same time announcing that he is undertaking a review of the current provision to ensure these Masses are not occasions for opposition to the Church’s teaching on sexuality: ‘At the present time consideration is being given to the circumstances in which these Masses are celebrated to ensure that their purpose is respected and that they are not occasions for confusion or opposition concerning the positive teaching of the Church on the meaning of human sexuality or the moral imperatives that flow from that teaching, which we uphold and towards which we all strive.' (See full article here).

Deacon Nick comments: "This is good news from Archbishop Nichols,and signifies an important shift in his position on the Soho Masses. Before the Holy Father’s visit the archbishop expressed, in intemperate language, that those Catholics concerned about public dissent at the Soho Masses should ‘hold their tongues.’ Now 18 months later Archbishop Nichols has admitted the concern that the Soho Masses could be occasions for confusion and opposition to the Church’s teaching, and needs investigating. This is exactly the claim made by Daphne McLeod and Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice....Protect the Pope recommends that the archbishop includes in his review an examination of the website Queering the Church, run by a member of the organising council Terence Weldon."

So Archbishop Nichols is going to conduct a "review" to ensure that the infamous Soho Masses "are not occasions for confusion or opposition" to the Church's moral teaching regarding homosexuality?  Why is it that I have an image of The Keystone Cops playing in my head?  Your Excellency, Terence Weldon, who serves as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at these Masses, has been engaging in public dissent from the Church's teaching in this area for years.

In his latest post at "Queering the Church," Mr. Weldon writes that, "One part of conventional Catholic teaching on homosexual persons, is that our orientation is the cross that we must take up, and deal with. I disagree – orientation in itself is a gift from God, not an ordeal to survive. The cross that we carry, as I wrote in a Lenten post last year, is the disordered teaching of the Church, the persecution that it brings in discrimination bullying, gay -bashing and hate-crime murders – and the internalized homophobia that drives a disproportionate number of us to suicide, or to less extreme pathological behaviour, in addictions or in the closet....CDF documents claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that homosexuality/homosexual acts lead us away from God. That is certainly not my experience, which shows the exact reverse." (See here).

What do you think Your Excellency?  Does this passage indicate that Terence Weldon is striving to conform to Church teaching or that he is openly dissenting from the same?

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: Respect for the Holy Eucharist and Church Teaching?

The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, in its document entitled Immensae Caritatis: On Facilitating Reception Of Communion In Certain Circumstances, provided for the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist under rather strict guidelines and said that "The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting." (No. 6).

Apparently Archbishop Vincent Nichols could care less about this teaching.  For one of his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is Mr. Terence Weldon, a radical homosexual activist and propagandist who has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus and who routinely dissents from the Church's teaching on homosexuality while holding the Bishops of the Church up to ridicule.  As I noted in my last post, Mr. Weldon's hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).

An individual who has such disdain for the Lord Jesus, His Church, and the Bishops who serve in His name and with His authority cannot honestly be said to possess those "good qualities of Christian life, faith and morals" which the Church demands in its Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Additionally, Archbishop Nichols continues to tolerate the scandal of the so-called "Soho Masses," a bizarre experiment in liturgical terrorism where Christ is mocked in the Eucharist and Church teaching is relegated to the waste bin.  So much for the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (1395). 

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:


"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?

One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.

Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)." (Full Address here).

Is Archbishop Nichols being a good and caring shepherd of souls?  Or are his actions [and lack of] merely ensuring that the Father of Lies [John 8: 44] will take hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful who have been entrusted to his care?

As I ponder this, I cannot help but think of the words which came forth from St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of many bishops."  Strong words from a great saint who was known for his pacific spirit and outstanding charity.

Dear Lord, mercy.

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.

Calling all Catholics: Let's offer prayers of reparation for Terence Weldon's blasphemy against Christ at "Queering the Church"

In a previous post I examined Terence Weldon's blasphemy against the Lord Jesus at his website "Queering the Church."  Specifically, Mr. Weldon was asserting that Jesus may have been a homosexual.  See here.  In another Blog post, an individual purporting to be a Catholic priest joined Mr. Weldon in his blasphemy.  Mr. Weldon proudly proclaims, while referring to his blog, "Here be Demons."



As New Advent Encyclopedia explains: "Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.


1.It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".

2.It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".

3.It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".

Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.

The malice of blasphemy

Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning and last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II.13.1). De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible--an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity..."
It is clear that in his zeal to justify the homosexual lifestyle and inclination, Mr. Weldon will stop at nothing.  Including blaspheming against the Lord Jesus.  And so I call upon all Catholics who read this Blog post to offer prayers of reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  Let us begin with this prayer:


"O Jesus, my Savior and Redeemer, Son of the living God, behold, we kneel before Thee and offer Thee our reparation; we would make amends for all the blasphemies uttered against Thy holy name, for all the injuries done to Thee in the Blessed Sacrament, for all the irreverence shown toward Thine immaculate Virgin Mother, for all the calumnies and slanders spoken against Thy spouse, the holy Catholic and Roman Church. O Jesus, who has said: "If you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you," we pray and beseech Thee for all our brethren who are in danger of sin; shield them from every temptation to fall away from the true faith; save those who are even now standing on the brink of the abyss; to all of them give light and knowledge of the truth, courage and strength for the conflict with evil, perseverance in faith and active charity! For this do we pray, most merciful Jesus, in Thy name, unto God the Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Ghost world without end. Amen."

And let us pray for Mr. Weldon.  For he is in dire need of our prayer.  His hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).


Once again I urge the Church to address Mr. Terence Weldon's blasphemy and his hateful attacks against the teaching authority of the Church.

Terence Weldon's "Queering the Church" Website Continues to Blaspheme Against Christ

At his latest Blog post, radical homosexual activist and propagandist Terence Weldon insists that he is not guilty of blasphemy.  An individual purporting to be a Catholic priest and calling himself smply "FrJohnQ," left a comment at this post defending Mr. Weldon while criticizing me.  He writes:

"What's really telling to me about the attack on Terence as a 'blasphemer' is the definition of blasphemy that Paul Anthony Melanson uses: 'It consists in uttering against God...words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name' (Catholic Catechism). Melanson assumes that by speculating that Jesus might have had a same-sex inclination Terence is being hateful, reproachful, and disrespectful toward God. My question is: Why? Why is it hateful to suggest that Jesus might have been what we now term "gay"? Why is it disrespectful? It's only so if you believe that being gay is a bad thing. Terence clearly does not, and neither do I, and neither, frankly, does God.

In my own prayer life I have a sense of a Jesus who was not gay, but perhaps this is simply a failure of my own imagination. Jesus was, as Terence points out, fully human; this means that he was (and is) a sexual being and that he loved, though selflessly. To make Jesus sexless is to deny his humanity. In any case, if someone labels me as gay--which I am--I do not take this as a gesture of disrespect, hatred, or reproach. I take it as an accurate estimation and as a compliment.

Why would God be offended by being associated with gay people? He socialized during his time on earth with others seen by many as outcast and inferior--prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. Would he not now sit down for a fabulous banquet with the gays? Why not? God loves us."

Now, I never said that Jesus would not associate with persons who suffer from a homosexual inclination.  So "Father John Q" is being dishonest here.  But it is blasphemous to suggest that Jesus may have been a homosexual.  One would think that a Catholic priest (if this individual is indeed a Catholic priest) would understand that.

Let's let Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., explain: "Our Lord Jesus Christ is both God and man.  The union of his human nature and his divine nature is effected in the Person of the Word, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  Because of the Hypostatic Union, Christ's human nature is said to be substantially holy.  The reason for this is that the Word of God, who is uncreated holiness itself, imparts a special holiness to his own created human nature.  Since the relationship between Jesus' human nature and the Word of God is in the substantial order by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, then it is legitimate to say that his humanity is endowed with substantial sanctity or holiness.  For, it is impossible to have a more intimate union between a creature and God than the Hypostatic Union in Jesus Christ.  A suggestion of Jesus' substantial holiness is given in Luke 1:35, 'And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.'..

In addition to the special 'grace of union,' as the above is called, Christ's soul is also holy by reason of the fullness of sanctifying grace with which it is endowed.  By 'sanctifying grace' here is meant the created habitual grace that inheres in the soul of the justified.  Jesus possesses the fullness of that grace.  Thus Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical letter on the Mystical Body in 1943: 'In Him (Christ) dwells the Holy Spirit with such a fullness of grace that greater cannot be conceived.'  Basing their opinion on the Gospel of St. John, all theologians ascribe sanctifying grace in its fullness to the human soul of Christ: 'And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...full of grace and truth....And of his fullness we have all received, grace for grace' (John 1: 14, 16).  In Acts 10: 38 we read that 'God annointed him with the Holy Spirit'; in St. Luke we find that Jesus was 'filled with the Holy Spirit' (4: 1); he also quoted Isaiah and said, 'The spirit of the Lord has been given to me, for he has annointed me.' (4: 18).

St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, q. 7, art. I), bases the sanctification of Jesus' humanity through sanctifying grace on three facts: 1) on the Hypostatic Union which demands the fullness of grace in Christ's soul according to the principle, 'The nearer an effect is to its cause, the more it partakes of its influence';  2) on the nobility of Christ's soul which enjoys the immediate  vision of God;  3)  on the relationship of Christ to all men since he is the Head and source of their grace." (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Volume II, pp. 260-261).

The Council of Constantinople II condemned those who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia who asserted that Christ "was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh" and declared such people anathema (excommunicated).  To suggest that Jesus may have had a homosexual inclination is blasphemy because Jesus is perfect in both His natures - divine and human, He is the Head and source of all grace.  The Magisterium of the Church teaches authoritatively that, "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." (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, No. 3).

Deacon Nick Donnelly has noted in one of his Blog posts over at Protect the Pope that Mr. Weldon is an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist.  Now an individual purporting to be a Catholic priest is standing with him in blaspheming against the Lord Jesus.

The Bishops need to address this most serious matter immediately.

Terence Weldon: Homosexual activist

Terence Weldon, a homosexual activist who authors the "queering the church" Blog, writes, "The Gospel of John is of particular interest to queer people of faith for its repeated references to the “beloved disciple”, or to “the disciple that Jesus loved”. These references make clear that whoever he was, this disciple had a relationship with Jesus of particular intimacy. There’s the well-known scene from the Last Supper where he rests his head on Jesus’ breast (or lap), and at the crucifixion, he is the only man standing among the women at the foot of the cross. He is the one to whom Christ entrusts the care of his mother – rather as a surviving spouse in marriage would assume some responsibility for the care of a mother-in-law. The existence of this special relationship provides much of the argument for the proposition that Jesus’ sexual orientation may have been what we call “gay”.  See here.

Like most homosexual activists who seek to justify the sinfulness of homosexuality and even to "baptize" the disordered lifestyle, Mr. Weldon has a perverse tendency to twist facts and to engage in outright falsehood.  He refers to the "disciple whom he loved" (John 13:23) in a blasphemous attempt to convince others that Our Lord Jesus had a homosexual orientation.  What Mr. Weldon does not mention, being the ardent propagandist that he is, is that the Greek word agapan used in this passage implies the idea of disinterested, pure and dispassionate love.  In other words, the love mentioned here has absolutely nothing to do with a homosexual relationship.

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) Pope Benedict XVI explains that: "of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John's Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love.
(Deus Caritas Est, No. 3).

Agape, as our Holy Father explains, refers to a "love grounded in and shaped by faith" as opposed to eros, a term which indicates "worldly" love which is possessive or covetous. (Deus Caritas Est, No. 7).

Terence Weldon has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus.  Blasphemy, as Father John Hardon, S.J., explains, "..is every form of speaking against God in a scornful or abusive way.  Blasphemy need not be expressed in speech.  It can be purely internal in thought or desire.  And it can become externally manifest in actions that are blasphemous twice over: once because of the internal contempt for God which inspires the action, and once again because the blasphemer goes so far as to profess his opposition to God so that others are scandalized by the blasphemy." (Pocket Catholic Catechism, pp. 237-238).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that: "Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.


Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin." (2148).

Blasphemy is in itself a grave sin.  In other words, a mortal sin.  And if unconfessed, a mortal sin will lead a soul to Hell.

Mr. Weldon has sunk to a new low in his desire to propagandize for the "queer gospel."  Pray for him.  That he repents and returns to the Lord Jesus and the Church He founded - the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

Related reading: Deacon Nick Donnelly on Terence Weldon.