"RORATE" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Sunday, 29 June 2014

The Scandalising of Little Ones

Our Toronto blogging Barona, at Toronto Catholic Witness exposes a raw event in this City's history and has reminded us of a great tragedy that has been all but forgotten, the sodomy, rape and murder of a little boy of twelve years. A boy of an impoverished family from Azores helping to make ends meet in a new place; even this little boy was helping his family by shining shoes.

For the last ten days, culminating today, a world event is taking place in this City; I will not name its name. In my own neighbourhood, 12 kilometers from downtown, the poles are decorated with rainbows, some businesses (which will now be boycotted) are flying pennants and one youth centre has posted in its windows rainbow art made by children -- children no doubt around the age of the child pictured below. Today a parade will wind it's way past the place where the little Martyr of Yonge Street was murdered and nobody there will know, let alone care. 

In this same City of Toronto, a friend and prominent Catholic writer and media personality has written, this very day on his Facebook:

"Nobody believes the story of Sodom refers to consensual homosexuality any more and Jesus never mentions the subject. He does, however, repeatedly condemn judging others and - oh yes divorce. Quite a lot of both in Christian circles these days. (St) Paul's writing may well refer to the use of young boys by adult heterosexual men and not adult, gay partnerships. Thing is, we need to discuss all this and not just smugly point fingers."


My friend is wrong and he needs to be corrected. He has been upsetting a lot of  Catholics lately. He is creating scandal in public by its very definition and is distorting the truth and the Catechism. He has bought into and is promoting an agenda by suggesting that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.

This is a lie! 

The sin of Sodom was exactly what it was, the oral and anal rape of young men by older men. They were not "heterosexuals" because there was no word "homosexual" until 100 years ago from which to distinguish it. It was a grotesque evil, it was sinful and it was and remains an "abomination" that cries out to God for justice. Our Blessed Lord did not use the word "homosexual" because the word did not exist. He condemned sodomy because He condemned Sodom in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit when Sodom was destroyed by God. He condemned sodomy and what it entails when he condemned sin, many times. He commanded us not judge the person's soul which is His alone to do; he did not tell us to not call sin, sin or evil, evil and to say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar. Those who would believe such things have fallen for the Father of Lies who was a "murderer from the beginning."

Last night, some friends were over for dinner and they brought me a little book on Our Lady of Good Success. Given my other friend's national and international influence, this quote from our Blessed Mother to Sister Mariana in 1594 at Quito, Ecuador is most appropriate. Please note that Our Lady specifically told Sister Mariana that she was speaking of our time, not Sister's:


"Wealthy and powerful Catholics will stand by and witness the oppression of the Church, the persecution of virtue, and the triumph of evil without employing their resources to oppose evil and restore the Faith."

It is one thing for "wealthy and prominent Catholics" to stand by, but to engage in it -- the "persecution of virtue" and the acceptance of "evil"? Do we know need to include my friend with Justin Trudeau, Nancy Pelosi and the Kennedy clan amongst so many others?

Love of and respect for the individual human person are one thing friend but to support this "abomination" in God's eyes and what has become fascist tyranny is quite another. This distortion of Catholic truth must be corrected and on this day, when the "world" emboldened by its prince celebrates its "pride," the source of all sin, let us take a moment and remember this little boy.


Emanuel Jacques

18 comments:

Barona said...

Superb post! Our blessed Saviour did not need to bring up the subject and sinfulness of homosexual acts because he was addressing fellow Jews. The Jews - unlike the evil surrounding pagans - were well aware of the prohibitions against this particularly vile sin. The Jewish people did not need reminding that the act of "sodomy" was a sin that cried to heaven for vengeance. The Jews, unlike the pagans were well aware of the unnatural vice as intrinsically evil.

However, in the book of Romans - the hand picked Apostle to the Gentiles - saw the need to single out homosexual acts as gravely depraved and warranting damnation, unless repented of.

TH2 said...

A needed post, Vox. Thank you. But I think you are holding back on the degree of condemnation deserved by Coren. He has become - especially in recent months - a pest, and a menace to authentic Catholicism. That he is a neo-Catholic must be factored into the equation, i.e. liberalized Catholicism, coming off as "conservative" but really lax or vacillating on moral issues, like sodomy and related perversions.

In my opinion, we have in Coren yet another useful idiot for the homolobby.

Vox Cantoris said...

Yes TH2, you are correct. I have been holding back, for months now.

He has been a friend from the parish, I've been to his home for coffee, I've had him as a speaker an AGM of a charity of which I am President; we have shared multiple phone conversations. He is also a brother in my Knights of Columbus Council.

I resisted posting earlier because of this relationship in a false hope that this scandal would stop. He has cut off everyone from the parish that has had the temerity to question or challenge him.

I was wrong in holding back.

Cory said...

Do you know if his priest has spoken to him? He's literally encouraging people to continue in a sinful lifestyle. If he doesn't want to follow the catechism, then he should leave the church and join a liberal denomination. There are many around, and most are dying.

Aged parent said...

My very great and earnest thanks to you for publishing this post. It makes me very glad that I link to your site on my own blog. Do keep up your excellent work.

Aged Parent
eye-witness.blogspot

Jon Maschke said...

As someone who speaks with (I presume) some education on matters of faith, this is silly and juvenile, as well as vulgar.

I certainly hope you support slavery (as it is outlined in the bible) and punish the pork eaters with just as much fervor! Hopefully there will be more child murders you can tarnish the memory of that relate to those sins as well.

If you do not follow ALL of the laws of Leviticus, please do not preach only the ones that fit your narrow minded view. It only works on those who already agree with you, or the soft in the head.

Cory said...

John, I highly doubt you have "knowledge" of the subject. The levitical laws were for the Hebrew people alone; the NT makes plain which ones are still in effect. The law was not itself abrogated, but fulfilled in Jesus. Thus, we find rest from its demands in following Jesus, and, as such, we ascribe to His teachings on sexual morality. He affirmed the "original intent" of sexual expression; everything else falls under the broad category of sexual immorality" (Matthew 19: 4-12).

Instead of using ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should understand the position you're arguing against, over employing simplistic straw-men.

Jon Maschke said...

And yet, that quote was not used in the OP ... Only a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah (which, admittedly, took place 1 book before Leviticus, but firmly in the Old Testament still). And yet, I am being accused of using straw men arguments when I am at least talking about the same work, while you decide to pull out the non-Hebrew New Testament. Interesting debate tactics you employ there, but I am not sure I understand them in the least.

If the Old Testament is the document we are using to validate our opinions, how about we stick with that one?

Jon Maschke said...

Matthew 19 says much about divorce and eunuchs, and yet, where are the cries to remove divorce from our laws? I see no affirmation there other than the statement that Moses broke God's rules by allowing divorce ... which were for the Hebrews and I suppose not relevant? The rest is vague, but the intent is clear, this is about divorce.

And why is any of this relevant to Catholics or whatever creed, as it applies to people who are not of the same faith? Tend to you own soul?

Vox Cantoris said...

Jon,

I am a grievous sinner and as the psalmist wrote, "my sin is always before me." Mr. Coren is a practicing Catholic, he has written books on the Church and has made money from Catholics. His public profile and his commentary is the source of the problem.

Thank you for your comments.

mgl said...

John, you've thrown out a flurry of points, but it's not clear what your actual argument is.

As St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians makes clear, Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law, since it has been superseded by the New Covenant instituted by Christ and handed down through the Apostles. And in any case, Sodom was destroyed several centuries before Moses received the Law on Mt. Sinai. In other words, your reference to the Levitical laws on slavery and pork are both theologically and chronologically irrelevant.

But the supersession of the old Law doesn't mean that we can just discard the moral teachings of the OT. Murder, theft, sodomy, and adultery were wrong before the Mosaic Law came into effect, and remain so today.

Onto your 2nd comment: Coren's FB comment refers both to the OT (Sodom) and the New (St. Paul), and it is the latter that presents him with the most difficulties, since we are now dealing with the words of an Apostle. Paul strongly condemns homosexual acts in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. Coren weakly attempts to get around these clear teachings by conjecturing that they refer to pederasty rather than consenting same-sex acts, but this minority view is unsupported by Tradition, the Early Church Fathers, or the vast majority of biblical scholars over the past 1,950 years or so.

The pederasty argument seems extraordinarily lame, when you think about it. It seems we are to assume that St. Paul believes that M/F sex is permissible at any age, that M/M sex is permissible between two adults or between two youths, but that M/M sex between an adult and a youth is so (mysteriously!) bizarre and off-limits that he calls it out specifically on three occasions. The plain reading of his words seems far more likely: Paul condemns same-sex acts simpliciter, without any pettifogging distinctions about ages, or whether one party is nominally "heterosexual", or whatever.

Finally, Matthew 19:4-12, which (contrary to your claim) is about much more than mere divorce. In this passage, Jesus explicitly states that marriage is instituted by God as a relationship of complementarity: "male and female he created them," and "a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh". Same-sex relationships are non-complementary by nature, and thus cannot be called marriage.

Jon Maschke said...

Who is suggesting sex between an adult and a child as being reasonable? A child does not have the rights (or responsibilities) an adult has, and cannot consent by our laws, which very nicely fix this biblical prohibition.

The point is, he has said he regrets his previous stance, his views have evolved. He continues to be religious by his words, and that he has made money by sharing his opinion, which would include influence by his faith, is a reason to attack him?

1) If a Catholic gets married to someone of the same sex, I suppose they are not really into being Catholic. Coren never said he suddenly was all for EVERYTHING, only that his views had evolved and regretted some of his previous work that had been hurtful to his audience. Coren is not marrying a man as far as I know. He is not lying or being hypocritical, he is being open about his opinion, and you have every right to debate him, as his job allows for that. I STILL take issue with the vulgarity of using the murder of this child to make some sort of point. I also take issue with this insistence to making this debate about adults and children (though I can understand the Catholic Church's preoccupation with that particular crime, but it is not one that is relevant when it comes to 2 consenting adults having rights and freedoms other people enjoy).

If an atheist, or Lutheran, or agnostic, or Buddhist wishes to live a life that does not follow Catholic doctrine are they not free to do so? If they are, then perhaps it is hypocritical to avoid all the other words and historical connotations that are in the bible instead of applying them in a hamfisted and incongruous manner to a world of 2 thousand years later. But, if you wish to keep on this narrow aspect of spilling the seed and like issues, then where are the protests at the condom counters of drug stores and factories that make IUDs. Instead, there is a preoccupation with focusing on this one aspect, while ignoring all the satellite issues around it (1 man and 1 woman, yet we have single parents, divorce, etc etc ...). I know why its a popular issue, because it gets the fundamentalists and bigots riles up, where condom and divorce rage is a little hard to foster, as they don't involve sex that seems yucky.

You can try to attack my comments, but they were based on the OP's use of Old Testament events, a child's murder. Which seems to open the door for talk about the Old Testament and the cruelty of weaponizing the memory of a murdered child. If you do not agree, then perhaps you should disagree with the post as well, instead of supporting it and choosing me as the target.

I do not deny the right of the OP to post this, but because it is a public forum that invites comments, I feel within my rights to disagree and be shocked by it. We all have the right to be wrong.

Jon Maschke said...

By the way, I quite appreciate the dialogue. I am glad those responding to me, while being (potentially!) harsh, are at least including reasoned arguments (that I may not agree with the basis of ... but then again, maybe I do!), that sort of thing is rare.

mgl said...

Hello Jon,

The point is, he has said he regrets his previous stance, his views have evolved. He continues to be religious by his words, and that he has made money by sharing his opinion, which would include influence by his faith, is a reason to attack him?

There are so many entangled thoughts here that it's difficult to respond. Coren has every right to his opinions, and to derive an income by expressing them. He also has the right to evolve his opinions as he sees fit, including those on the morality of homosexual acts. He certainly has the right to be wrong, as he certainly is on this issue.

But here's the thing with Catholicism. As a wise man once said:

“You can have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of subjects but the fundamentals of Catholicism are just that and if you reject them you are not a Catholic in good standing.”
- M. Coren, November 2010

So yes, he's being hypocritical. Right now, Michael Coren is pretty openly rejecting a fundamental truth of the Catholic faith, which is to say the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts. If he does that, he is no longer a Catholic in good standing, and should stop promoting himself as a Catholic apologist and writer. If tomorrow he announces that he is returning to his Anglican ecclesial community, converting to Islam, whatever, that would resolve the issue as far as most Catholics are concerned. But as it is, he's causing scandal and confusion by attacking Church teaching (and ordinary Catholics) while posturing as being more-Catholic-than-thou.

It would take too long to respond to the many disjointed and incomplete thoughts in the rest of your comment, so I'll just close by saying that yes, if I had my way, homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and divorce (in all but the direst cases) would be illegal. So you need not worry about my consistency, or that I am bothered by yucky sex.

Vox Cantoris said...

Jon,

I appreciate your participation here and the debate is welcome.

The issue, as Freyr says above, is really "Michael Coren" for the very fact that he is distorting the truth and dissenting whilst saying his faith "informs" him and earns income on Catholics.

It is hypocrisy.

I encourage you to read this post:

http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2014/07/michael-coren-and-inconvenient.html

I also invite you to read The Sheepcat ...

http://thesheepfold.typepad.com/

Alan was an activist within the Gay community and has an inspiring story to tell.

God bless you.



mgl said...

Dear Catholic Answers,

I expect you're already aware of this, but Michael Coren, one of your occasional guests for the 'Church in the News' segments, seems rapidly to be moving to a public position on same-sex behaviour that is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Mr. Coren has been vocally "evolving" on this position for several months now, but things seem to be coming to a head with his latest column for the Toronto Sun.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/27/i-was-wrong

The column itself is too vague to be outright scandalous--apart from hinting that the orthodox Catholic understanding is angry, hateful, monomaniacal and obsessed!--but the accompanying conversation on Mr. Coren's Facebook page* is more problematic. Besides labelling several polite interlocutors as smug, "voices of fear and ignorance", and prejudiced, Coren also writes:

"Nobody believes the story of Sodom refers to consensual homosexuality any more and Jesus never even mentions the subject. He does, however, repeatedly condemn judging others and - oh yes - divorce. Quite a lot of both in Christian circles these days. Paul's writing may well refer to the use of young boys by adult, heterosexual men and not adult, gay partnerships."

Pardon me for saying so, but our enemies used to call this kind of reasoning "jesuitical". No, the Sodomites weren't planning on consensual rape of Lot's guests, but the "sin of Sodom" cries out to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867) notwithstanding the consensual character of the acts.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.

Brian said...

Hello Vox
A courageous and moving piece. We remember Emanuel Jacques, a victim of some ephebophile monsters. We shall never forget. Although disappointed by Coren's "evolving" stance on this issue I'm not surprised. He, on his Arena program, over the past year, has been dropping hints, like persistently, in his monologue, going out of his way, to mention the persecution of gays in places like Iran. What does surprise me is how shallow and shaky Coren's argument is, in defense, of his turn about. His scriptural revisionism is shocking. I thought he was actually smarter than this. He sounds, at least on this issue, like a bleeding heart liberal who belongs at the CBC or Toronto Star, or even at an "Idle No More" protest. Someone (or some people) has clearly "got" to him. His evolving stance on this of aspect of the doctrine of morals is probably underpinned by an understanding of the doctrine of faith, that is little more than quicksand. Expect more doctrinal shape shifting from this man's chameleon Catholicism. Will he still attend Catholic gatherings, as a guest speaker? Of course...let's paraphrase Descartes

Cogito me Catholicum esse. Ergo sum.

Yeah right...there are, sadly, lots, especially in Catholic education, just like Coren.

Vox, keep up the good fight.

Jon Maschke said...

"... got to him". Well then, on the issue of certain African and Middle Eastern countries and their civil rights abuses, maybe humanity and logic got to him. You sound VERY NEARLY supportive of the tactics and horrors regularly inflicted upon people not of a narrowly defined religious and moral stance by those countries, and I am not sure that is the side of THAT line Christ would have been on.