So called "same-sex marriage" and your duty as a Catholic

Don't give me that "who am I to judge" or that "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" line.

Read this; and if you are Catholic and hold a different position, well then; you're a mis-informed Catholic and need to change your position or get out of the Church.

It is really that simple.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS

TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION

TO UNIONS

BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS 

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

  

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE

AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)

  

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

  

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL

RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour 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 behaviour”.(14) 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 behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

  

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS

WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.

Titular Archbishop of Sila

Secretary

Justice Thomas is called a "clown in blackface." What would that make the person who said it?

I have no horse in the race in U.S. politics but I have long been impressed by Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas. In what I have read of him and hearing him speak in interviews and reading some excerpts of his decisions he has come across to this Canadian as a man of dignity, grace, courage and humility. He rose from child poverty and a racial segregation to rise to the position he has today. He is also a Roman Catholic.

On the other hand, I could never get Star Trek, notwithstanding the Canadian son who played the main character.

George Takei, a man who engages in sodomy with another man, was also on the series. The child of Japanese immigrants interred during World War II, called Justice Thomas a "clown in blackface."

I should think two things.

One, Mr. Takei is fascist and a racist.

The second is; I doubt he would like to be called one of these.

The treason of Canada's bishops in the debate on so-called, same-sex "marriage"

Recently, I wrote that the blame for the recent American SCOTUS decision changing the legal definition of marriage lay with the bishops and priests who for a half-century have failed to properly teach and admonish the faithful in the Truth of the Catholic faith, the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As an aside, and perhaps some of my many and loyal American readers can comment. It seems to me that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is the model of Catholic subsidiarity. It states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the Constitution is silent on the whole issue of marriage, how can the SCOTUS force a State to go along with its redefinition of marriage? Has this been interfered with before without States' objections leading to a de facto abrogation?

Getting back to the matter of bishops, my good friend ELA at ContraDiction has posted a column an article of July 8, 1996 by Joseph K. Woodword in Alberta Report, which ceased publication in 2003.

It is worth reading today to understand how our bishops in Canada failed us too. The red text is my commentary to update the article, the bolding is mine for emphasis.

Treason Of The Clerics

Subtitled: Gay Apostasy Subverts And Paralyzes The Canadian Catholic Church

By Joseph K. Woodard

w/ permission

Alberta Report, July 8, 1996 

One of the mysteries surrounding the speedy passage of Bill C-33, the "sexual orientation" clause to the Canada Human Rights Act, is the near-silence of the Canadian Catholic Church in the debate. The Vatican defines homosexual behaviour as an "objective moral disorder" and has opposed repeatedly the very idea of "gay rights." The Church's silence in 1996 was a marked change from 1994, when the robust opposition of Ontario bishops was instrumental in defeating the NDP provincial government's own homosexual rights bill. (The NDP stands for New Democratic Party a democratic socialist and labour party at the federal and provincial levels in Canada. It is radically pro-abortion and one cannot run nor be a member of one subscribes to an "anti-choice" position.) Now a possible and shocking explanation has surfaced. It is now known that the Canadian Catholic hierarchy made its own peace with the radical homosexual agenda in 1992, when in a settlement of sexual abuse claims made against Ontario monks, it recognised homosexual "spousal benefits."

Despite Justice Minister Allan Rock's assurances to the contrary, C-33 will soon result in the complete elimination of legal distinctions heterosexual marriages and homosexual liaisons. (Rock was then Minister of Justice in the government at the time under Prime Minister Jean Chretien; both Rock and Chretien were Roman Catholics. So-called, same-sex "marriage" was approved by the Parliament of Canada on July 20, 2005 put forward by the minority government under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, also a Roman Catholic.) And so the relative uninterest of the Canadian bishops in this crippling blow to the legitimacy of the traditional family has not gone unnoticed. Indeed, Bishop James Wingle of Yarmouth, a C-33 opponent, has condemned the "false impression" that his colleagues had actually supported the legislation. (The Diocese of Yarmouth no longer exists having been folded into the new Halifax Yarmouth Archdiocese. Wingle later became the Bishop of St. Catharines in Ontario and disappeared suspiciously and without explanation resigning in April 2010.)  

It is true that no Canadian bishop actually endorsed C-33. But of the more than 50 Anglophone bishops, only a handful stood firmly against the bill. And when representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)--the church bureaucracy, appeared before the House Justice Committee on May 2, they effectively sabotaged what little opposition Canada's prelates had mustered.

When C-33 was announced, Vancouver Archbishop Adam Exner issued a statement demanding the law continue to protect "the conscience rights of Canadians morally opposed to homosexual behaviour," and "allow employers to make non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fide occupational qualification." Yet on May 2, when homosexual MP Svend Robinson questioned CCCB general-secretary Doug Crosby about that statement, the priest could only stammer an incoherent denial of Bishop Exner's position. (Bishop Douglas Crosby is now the Bishop of the Diocese of Hamilton, in Ontario. Next year, he will become the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops). The CCCB delegation also repudiated the Vatican's 1992 statement on homosexuality.  

"It was pathetic," objects Sylvia MacEachern, of Ottawa's traditionalist St. Brigid's Association. (named after the sad state of the parish and the Oratorian Affair made known in the book The Last Roman Catholic by the late James Demers. I had the honour as a parishioner there of suffering along with them) "Here was Canada's most infamous gay MP, the only one quoting the Church's teaching, and when he asked the representatives of the Canadian Church whether they agreed with it, they were tongue-tied." In her response to Mr. Robinson, Father Crosby's colleague, Jennifer Leddy, could only beg him, as a "serious advocate for human rights," to "give us a chance to participate constructively," since "we want to participate."

Apologists for the Canadian Catholic hierarchy say the speed with which C-33 was rammed through Parliament made any strong resistance impossible. (This is true, it was rammed through. Canadians could barely organise against it and had no say as we were bombarded by the dictatorship of a minority parliament dancing to an evil agenda and we're too damn polite!) But the capitulation of the Catholic bureaucracy to the gay rights agenda was in April, when New Brunswick Senator Noel Kinsella introduced his "sexual orientation" Bill S-2. The CCCB was offered the opportunity to make a submission against it to the Senate but declined.

Furthermore, the Liberal government has been promising to bring in such legislation since 1993, and renewed its promise last winter. Yet the national church office did nothing.

National bishops' conferences are a modern innovation. In 1964, when episcopal collegiality was discussed at the Second Vatican Council, the venerable Cardinal Oddi quipped that he could find only one biblical citation for the notion, the time during Christ's passion when "they all fled." By 1985, Vatican theology watchdog Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was warning of the "burdensome bureaucratic structures" of the national offices. They have "no theological basis" and "do not belong to the structure of the church," he insisted. Each bishop has complete authority in his diocese and is subject only to the pope. But the national conferences, however, allow the majority of the bishops to hide in anonymity.

The CCCB's General Secretariat employs just under 100 people in a half-dozen commissions, with a budget of roughly $4.5 million. Its functionaries deal directly with their opposite numbers in the local dioceses, and thus they control information flow in the Canadian Church. The secretariat is under the nominal governance of an executive committee--this year led by Kingston Archbishop Francis Spence. But the election of full-time directors falls to its periodic "plenary sessions," dependent on the "guidance" of the existing directors.

"Individual bishops have great difficulty in freeing themselves from the national conference," says MonsignorVincent Foy, a Toronto canon lawyer. "They're afraid their authority can be undercut at any moment. It's a great burden on the Church. But the Holy See is now preparing a document on the problem." (On June 7, 2014 a Solemn Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 was offered in the presence of Cardinal Collins to celebrate the 75th anniversary of ordination of Msgr. Vincent Foy. He turns 100 on August 14, 2015.)

While lack of accountability is the "iron rule" of bureaucracy, the CCCB's "gay-friendliness" is the result of personalities.  In the 1980s, Father Doug Crosby, (now the Bishop of Hamilton and Pastor there when the whole "Oratorian Affair" occurred and from where the main antagonists came)  who was appointed CCCB general-secretary, was pastor of Ottawa's St. Joseph's Church. This parish was jocularly referred to "St. Joe's by the Whirlpool," because of the party tub in its rectory. St. Joseph's became home to the Ottawa chapter of Dignity, the homosexual fifth column within the Catholic Church. Special pews were reserved for Dignity members at the church's noon masses. (To this day, St. Joseph's in Ottawa under the OMI priests is still a parish of liturgical, ministerial and catechetical dissent. 

Gay or gay-sympathetic priests tend to form a solid, cohesive block within the church, observes Michael McCarthy, a retired priest from the diocese of Saskatoon. "They have such an enormous potential to create embarrassment with their dirty little secrets, the bishops won't stand up to them."

While the number of homosexuals in the Canadian Catholic priesthood is unknown, it is known they have a particular interest in seminaries, where new priests are formed. On the eve of Pope John Paul II's visit to Canada in 1984, Emmett Cardinal Carter, then-archbishop of Toronto, ordered a clean-up of his St. Augustine's Seminary. "Students in the residence could hear other seminarians padding up and down the halls at night, and everybody knew what was going on," says one Toronto-area priest, who wishes to remain anonymous. The obvious theological dissidents were fired, but the previous graduates were already worming their way through the Canadian hierarchy. (The Dean of Studies at the time was notorious. and known by all to be gay. The Rector at the time, Father Brian Clough whose first Mass I attended as a boy around 1968 as my parents were friends of his and its a darn good thing I didn't end up in Seminary at the worst possible time; was fired by Carter for a leaked paper encouraging "tolerance for the heterosexual seminarians." It is documented in the book, The Desolate City by Anne Roche Muggeridge but being pre-Internet days, that document has never been able to surface. Father Clough went on to become the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto.)

An investigation into St. Augustine's found no evidence of homosexual behaviour. That investigation, however, was led by the then-bishop of London, Ont., Marcel Gervais. Bishop Gervais subsequent career has revealed him to be one of Canada's foremost gay-friendly clerics. He has since become Archbishop of Ottawa, sometime president of the CCCB, grand chancellor of Ottawa's dissident St. Peter's Seminary, (this may be an error in the author's original piece. St. Peter's Seminary in in London, Ontario, Ottawa no longer has one though there is a school of philosophy and theology at St. Paul's University within the once Catholic University of Ottawa on whose campus St. Joseph's parish sits. As for the dissidence of St. Peter's Seminary in London, I know four fine priests that came from there and that is all I will say about that!) and the ultimate superior--and protector--of its heterodox sexual ethicist, Fr. Andre Guindon. (whose work was condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then Cardinal Ratzinger!) 

A just-published book, Who's in the Seminary, suggests that Canadian seminaries are still hothouses of homosexuality. St. Paul University professor Martin Rovers sent out 455 questionnaires to students at Canada's three major seminaries (St. Augustine's, London's St. Peter's, and Edmonton's St. Joseph's). Fully 25% of the 203 respondents claimed they were either gay, bisexual or unsure of their orientation. As with most self-reported surveys, the accuracy of Prof. Rovers data is open to question, yet it is certain that homosexual representation in Canadian seminaries is many times higher than the now-accepted figure of 1.5% to 3% for the population at large.

"The Catholic Church had a major problem with the retention of priests through the 1970s," says Pennsylvania State University sociologist Philip Jenkins, author of the major new study, Pedophiles and Priests. "So they let in a lot of guys they ought not to have." Many thousands of priests had left the North American churches after the tumultuous changes ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. Desperate for new vocations, seminaries relaxed intellectual and moral standards. According to Prof. Jenkins, many homosexuals have been ordained since then, resulting in "the gay movement becoming solidly entrenched in the Canadian hierarchy." He cautions, however, not to confuse the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia. "If you look dispassionately at the figures, priestly pedophiles run maybe two per thousand, about the same as the rest of the population," says Prof. Jenkins, an Episcopalian.

The perception of a pedophilia crisis was created both by a hostile media and by the division between conservative and liberal Catholics, says Prof. Jenkins. The former blamed homosexuality, and the latter, celibacy. "In fact, the figures indicate that there is no Catholic pedophilia problem, so it's not caused by celibacy." Most of the recent school and choir scandals have not been pedophilia, with prepubescent victims. Rather, they've involved 14-or 15-year-old boys--which is classic homosexuality. That problem, Prof. Jenkins repeats, arose from poor recruiting and later, subversive networking among gay priests. (This is what most of us have been saying all along. Homosexual men came into the priesthood and raped post-pubescent boys. They used the priesthood as their cover.)

Ironically, it is the worst homosexual scandal in Canadian history that has cemented the power of gay network within the Church. The Christian Brothers, a lay Catholic order, was for decades under contract to the government of Ontario to run reform schools at Alfred, near Ottawa, and Uxbridge, near Toronto. These schools may have seen some 500 to 1000 cases of physical and sexual abuse, from the 1960s through the early 1980s. When this abuse became public in 1990, a victim's group, Helpline, hired Toronto lawyer Roger Tucker to pursue their claims. Mr. Tucker approached long-time liberal-Catholic functionary Doug Roche, to mediate. Mr. Roche, a powerful Church fixer for three decades, was the founding editor of the Western Catholic Reporter, and a former MP and Canadian disarmament ambassador. He was then also Mr. Tucker's father-in-law. His mediation proved agreeable to the Ottawa Christian Brothers and the Toronto and Ottawa archdioceses. (The Toronto Christian Brothers have refused to endorse Mr. Tucker's efforts. They are pursuing a separate compensation arrangement with abuse survivors).

By 1992, Mr. Roche had completed an agreement whereby validated abuse claimants would receive some $20,000 each and keep silent about their abusers' identities. Yet by 1996, says negotiator Mike Watters, the claimants had received an average of only $12,000 each, Mr. Tucker had pocketed $750,000, and more than $10 million had been spent in administrative costs. Mr. Roche's fee remained secret. Even more interesting, Mr. Roche or one of his colleagues slipped a curious little clause into the agreement, one that was not noticed until years later.

"If you want to know why the bishops didn't fight Bill C-33 and argue the case against gay marriages, check out the reform school agreement," says journalist Michael Harris, author of Unholy Orders, an account of the Mount Cashel Orphanage scandal. The agreement with the Christian Brothers' victims provides for dental, medical, educational, and counselling benefits to victims, their family members, and those "in a close personal relationship that others recognize is of primary importance in both persons' lives." This, claims Mr. Harris, constitutes the Canadian Catholic Church's recognition of gay spousal benefits.

It is unclear whether (then) Ottawa's Bishop Gervais or Toronto's Bishop Ambrozic knew about the "personal relationship" clause in 1994, when both vocally opposed the Ontario gay rights bill. But by 1996, "I think the bishops knew it was there, and Svend [Robinson] knew it was there," suggests Mr. Harris. Bishop Gervais remained silent during the C-33 debate, and Bishop Ambrozic, normally the "pit bull" of the conservative Canadian bishops, merely distributed a summary of the lacklustre CCCB statement.

For whatever reason, dissident former priest and theologian Gregory Baum (Baum was interviewed by Father Thomas J. Rosica of Salt + Light Television, the transcript of that fascinating interview includes, "You remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, you love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist.") is glad the Canadian bishops ducked Bill C-33. "I don't think the Church has any business saying this is okay or this isn't okay." he says. "This was not a church wedding the government was debating, but a human right." 

While Canada's Catholic heretics are pleased with the C-33 resolution, the orthodox are appalled. "The Catholic Church isn't a foreign institution," says Toronto lawyer David Brown, (then) vice-president of the Catholic Civil Rights League. "Canada is founded upon a vision of the human being, grounded in religion. And if the country loses that vision, it risks self-destruction."

The Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ was spilt for all, even for those who mock him in derision

Today on July 1 in Canada we celebrate "Canada Day" or until Pierre Elliot Trudeau wiped away our cultural history, Dominion Day. We are still, the Dominion of Canada and our motto is from the 72nd Psalm, Ad mare usque ad mari-- "And he shall have dominion from sea unto sea." My readers in the United States will soon celebrate Independence Day. May it be a peaceful day, in spite of the threats from Islamo-fascists and yet, given the scandalous and destructive decision of the SCOTUS, it may not be peaceful. In ancient Israel the Lord often withdrew His protecting hand. Can either of our countries founded on the bedrock of Christianity, ours in Canada Catholic, at least initially, claim His protection now? We sanction sodomite "marriage" we kill our infants in the wombs of their mothers and we expect His help?

Liturgically speaking, in the Ordinary Form it is rather ordinary, as Wednesday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time. However, there is a Votive Mass of the Precious Blood in the Third Roman Missal which could be easily said today. Perhaps it should be, in reparation for what will come at the end of this post.

In the traditional calendar, today is the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which in the new was combined on Corpus Christi. If you look at your new rite Missal it will say Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ where as in the traditional it is simply the "Body of Christ" -- Corpus Christi. It was added to the calendar in 1849 by Pope Pius IX and was observed in Spain since the 16th century having been brought to Rome by St. Gaspar del Bufalo. Corpus Christi is from the 13th century and the whole Proper of the Mass and its sequence and the Office were assembled from scripture and composed by St.Thomas Aquinas. He gave us the texts of the hymns Pange Lingua, gives us the Tamtum ergo, Sacris solemniis gives us the beautiful compositions of Panis Angelicus, Verbum supernum prodiens is from where we sing O Salutaris Hostia and of course, Adore te Devote. 

One of the seven deadly sins is pride from which all others flow. We know what it is used to celebrate. A few days ago, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in a city named after the great Apostle to the Gentiles, 2,000,000 people gathered in the streets. A man who had gone through the mutilation of a surgery and chemical cocktail to appear as a woman was displayed on a float "crucified" in a mockery of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is not all. In other parades, Our Blessed Lord was also blasphemened in manners which I cannot write, nor can I post the pictures. You may find these links:

http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/30/gay-pride-crucifixion-photos/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-blasphemous-gay-pride-parade-brazil-seeks-to-ban-christophobia

http://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoreno/this-transgender-actress-sparked-a-huge-uproar-after-dressin#.ntKO39WkQ

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2015/06/1640156-crucifixion-at-the-gay-parade-causes-controversy-with-religious.shtml

http://shoebat.com/2015/06/29/two-million-homosexuals-flood-the-streets-to-express-their-hatred-against-god-they-then-take-a-transgender-man-dress-him-up-as-jesus-christ-whip-him-until-he-bleeds-and-then-crucify-him/

On this day in Dominion Day in Canada and on Independence Day in the United States, before our BBQ's, let us gather in our gardens and parks and together say these:

PRAYERS OF REPARATION FOR BLASPHEMY

May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most mysterious and unutterable Name of God be always praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in heaven on earth and under the earth, by all the creatures of God, and by the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar. 

Imprimatur - T. J. Toolen, Archbishop of Mobile-Birm.

Praise to the Holy Name of Jesus 

The Holy Name of our Saviour is taken in vain so often. When we hear someone use the Name above all names as a common swear word, we can cross ourselves and reverence the precious Name being defamed. Another commendable practice involves the devout, fervent recitation of the following prayer:

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

O Sacred Heart of Jesus, animated with a desire to repair the outrages unceasingly offered to Thee, we prostrate before Thy throne of mercy, and in the name of all mankind, pledge our love and fidelity to Thee.

The more Thy mysteries are blasphemed, the more firmly we shall believe them, O Sacred Heart of Jesus!

The more impiety endeavors to extinguish our hope of immortality, the more we shall trust in Thy Heart, sole Hope of mankind!

The more hearts resist Thy Divine attractions, the more we shall love Thee, O infinitely amiable Heart of Jesus!

The more unbelief attacks Thy Divinity, the more humbly and profoundly we shall adore It, O Divine Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy holy laws are transgressed and ignored, the more we shall delight to observe them, O most holy Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Sacraments are despised and abandoned, the more frequently we shall receive them with love and reverence, O most generous Heart of Jesus!

The more the imitation of Thy virtues is neglected and forgotten, the more we shall endeavor to practice them, O Heart, model of every virtue!

The more the devil labors to destroy souls, the more we shall be inflamed with desire to save them, O Heart of Jesus, zealous Lover of souls!

The more sin and impurity destroy the image of God in man, the more we shall try by purity of life to be a living temple of the Holy Spirit, O Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Holy Church is despised, the more we shall endeavor to be her faithful children, O Sweet Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Vicar on earth is persecuted, the more will we honor him as the infallible head of Thy Holy Church, show our fidelity and pray for him, O kingly Heart of Jesus!

O Sacred Heart, through Thy powerful grace, may we become Thy apostles in the midst of a corrupted world, and be Thy crown in the kingdom of Heaven. Amen. 2

Nihil Obstat - John J. Clifford, S.J. Censor Liborum

Imprimatur - + Samuel A. Stritch, December 17, 1943 Archbishop of Chicago.

Life imitates art? The fantasy has become the reality!

Gird your loins my brothers and sisters.

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Fantasy is becoming reality where "one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."

And yet, there is only one Reality.

And His name is Jesus Christ.

 

Questioning Same-Sex "Marriage?" - Blame the leaders of the Catholic Church!

For my non-Catholic readers you may find that title surprising, for some of my Catholic readers you may find it scandalous. However I suspect most of you will know exactly what it means.

As you know by now, the Supreme Court of the United States of America in a 5-4 vote decided that two men or two women have the constitutional right to enter into a legal marriage. What a lie. What utter poppycock. 

As for the comments by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' President, you're a little late. You did this. You and your colleagues and your predecessors. You are a scandal to the faithful. You are a disgrace to the Martyrs.

Marriage is between one man and one woman, period. You can call this legal definition whatever you want  but marriage, it is not. 

In Canada, we have had it forced upon us for a decade now. I recall the years before the debate with the news articles about why such an abomination was necessary. We were presented with stories about how a co-habitating couple who were together for many years found themselves cut out of medical decisions or funeral arrangements for one or the other by cruel and vindictive families of the ill or deceased. We heard about how their health benefits were not available to the other (corporations quickly changed that lest they be accused of discrimination). Houses and bank accounts were frozen and the poor survivor was left homeless or penniless after death. And then of course, it was all about his and his towels, kitchen appliances and how much they love one another. These arguments never seemed to be part of the debate in America which seemed to centre specifically around "equality." While that was the eventual argument here under the minority rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it was not how Canadians were softened up. 

The truth is, it was never about marriage. One did not need "marriage" to affect inheritance, property financial security or visits in a hospital, decisions by others as to treatment or funeral arrangements. Canada, after all, is a nation with laws and legal precedence and civil courts and legislation. No "gay" couple needed marriage to give them legal protection. They needed a Last Will and Testament, a Power of Attorney for Personal Care, a Power of Attorney Over Personal Finances, an "On Title" to a property, "Joint Tenantship" to a lease. You see, legal protections were already there for any two persons to make any kind of legal relationship that they desired. If I were not married, I could give my brother or my best friend legal decisions or my medical care or finances should I become incompetent. 

All western and probably most other nations have these kinds of legal instruments. No, it was never about marriage and it was never about love. It is about destroying the fundamental foundation of a civil and rightly-ordered society, the nuclear family. It has been a battle going on for half a century or more now that began with contraception, then no-fault divorce, abortion and the decriminalisation and legalisation of sodomy, what our Criminal Code of Canada called, "buggery."

The most intense study ever done on the population of homosexuals reveals that no more than about 2% of people are self-described, homosexuals. So, how does 2% of the population manage this? They wield this power because enough others are afraid to be called "bigots" and while they may not identify as "homosexual" they have had an experience with sodomy and are "bi-sexual" and some are blackmailed. It has happened because most people watch pornography and are chronic masturbators and their minds and reason have been poisoned by their own sexual perversions. They fear being called a hypocrite and they do not want to be judged for their own escapades with pornography, masturbation and massage parlours and prostitutes so they turn from the truth and allow license for everyone. 

All of us have sinned and have and continue to fall short of the glory of God.

It was then and is about a fundamental hatred of the One Supreme God, the sacrificial offering of His Son and the intense hatred for His Church and by Church I mean, the Catholic Church as most protestants have long since apostatised from the Truth in the matter of marriage in addition to doctrine.

And it is the Catholic Church itself that has caused it all. Or perhaps I should say, it is the leadership of the Catholic Church, not the Church as the Mystical Body, but the leaders who have caused this abomination to happen to our nations. This lie has been given to us by Catholics. 

In the decision yesterday in America, it was two Catholic Justices, Kennedy and Sotomayor, an Irishman and a Hispanic woman, both baptised and raised Catholic who did this. In fact, if only one of them was not blind to the Truth the vote would have been 5-4 in the other direction. 

In Ireland, the bishops of that once Catholic land presided over the disaster of a referendum favouring this abomination of same-sex "marriage" looking at best as deer in headlights. 

In Canada, we never had the chance to vote for it. It was forced upon us out of the blue by a Catholic Prime Minister who was a failure as a leader by the name of Paul Martin. There was no election mandate. The roots of it were already in place thanks to four other Catholic Prime Ministers, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Joseph Clark and Pierre Elliot Trudeau. These men, contributed each to the weakening of the Parliamentary system and the constitutional framework unknown before in this country that gave us judicial activism. Martin wanted to act before the Supreme Court forced it. We the people had little choice but as Canadians, we just went along to get along.

You see then?

It was Catholics in Canada and the United States imbued with false understanding of the One, True, Faith and blinded by secularism, liberalism and dictatorship of relativism hat gave us this situation. It happened because bishops failed to teach the faith properly for the last have century or more. It happened because the destruction of the liturgy lead to weak Catholics. It drove people from Mass and the Sacraments and the priests failed to preach the Truth. 

Last October, we saw the filth and lies of these same bishops put forward in a Synod of the Church that would literally anoint sodomy for the "gifts" it can bring to the Church. All under the eyes of Pope Francis himself.

The consciences of these parliamentarians, congressmen, senators, prime ministers, presidents, and supreme court judges; Catholics many of them, were ill-formed and darkened by a corrupted Church that has betrayed Our Lord Jesus Christ because the Church has been infiltrated by sodomites and Marxists who hate Her and wish to bring about Her destruction because the Catholic Church is the only thing that stands in their way of total world domination. 

The push for this abomination began in Holland and Belgium and Canada soon followed. Yet the United States is the most culturally hegemonic nation in the world. The disaster of this decision will have profound affects on other nations that have not yet gone down this road.

The truth is that persons who are "homosexuals" have much wrong with them. Aside from the "sin which cries out to heaven" they die younger and will continue to do so - "marriage" will not change reality. They die from hideous diseases and younger than the rest of the population. Suicide rates, violence between "lovers" depression, drug-abuse, alcoholism, self-mutilation. All of these are higher by significant percentages compared to the general population. It is not alleged discrimination that causes these conditions, it is their physical behaviour and the untreated spiritual and psychological conditions that lead to the physical manifestations. 

Anal cancer (with caution, you can google the pictures and see what sodomy can cause) is 50% higher than the normal. Parasites such as amoebiasis due to oral-fecal contact and giardiasis, gonorrhea and anal warts (condyloma acuminata) abound in the population. Anorectal sepsis, Epstein-Barr Syndrome, Burkitt's Lymphoma, Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Karposi's Sarcoma, Hepatitis, AIDS, Prostrate Cancer, colitis, enterities, proctitus, proctocolitus and diseases of the mouth which would cause horror to view. 

All this, because the leaders of the Holy Catholic Church have and continue to fail to teach the truth with clarity and charity that homosexual relations are not only sinful and against the Laws of God and nature but they are deadly. 

All men and women are children of God made in His Divine image and are called to something greater. This includes homosexuals and lesbians.

They are loved by the Triune God and the Father call them through the Holy Spirit to come to the Son, Our LORD Jesus Christ for salvation.

God does not will that they die in their sin and are lost in Hell. He wants them, as He wants all of us in heaven for eternity with Him.

If the Church does not proclaim the Truth with clarity, no Year of Mercy is going to save them.

God help us.

I will not submit to sodomy as anything other than the filth and evil that it is and it is straight out of Hell

This was on a friend's Facebook entry. While it has been a decade in Canada and has only just come to the United State of America.

I reprint it here:

I DECLARE, PROFESS, PROCLAIM, AND STATE WITHOUT AMBIGUITY OR COMPROMISE that Same-Sex (so called) Marriage is an UNNATURAL, MORTAL and GRIEVOUS SIN that cries to heaven for vengeance and is reprobate, as are all acts of SODOMY!

NO HUMAN AUTHORITY, no matter how legitimate or honorable, whether, monarch, republic, democracy, or totalitarian dictatorship as the right to make lawful that which is unlawful by nature and by nature's GOD. It does not matter how many people agree (even if it were the whole world) to legitimize anything against the law of GOD especially 

ABORTION, SODOMY, and EUTHANASIA it still remains illegitimate and NO ROMAN CATHOLIC can in anyway, condone, legitimate, accept, support or agree with an unjust law that is opposed to the Law of GOD.

Silence in the face of evil is cooperation with evil. It is the duty and the obligation of all Roman Catholics to vociferously OPPOSE any law that is opposed to the Law of GOD. To do or say nothing when these unjust laws are enacted is to silently approve them even if you do not.

I therefore PROCLAIM for all to see, read, and hear I believe that Sodomite 'marriage' is an evil that cannot be tolerated. I oppose it with every fiber of my being as I oppose the murder of Abortion and the murder/suicide of Euthanasia. I will proclaim this and oppose these evils to my death. If I am persecuted because of it so be it. NEVERTHELESS, let it be known that I will never go quietly into the night, I will not be arrested without a fight, I will not loose my freedom without a fight to the death.

LET BE KNOWN I AM A CRISTERO AND I WILL ACT AS SUCH IF ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO TAKE AWAY MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. SO HELP ME GOD!

VIVA CRISTO REY! 

VIVA LA VIRGIN DE GUADALUPE!

BREAKING REPORT—June 26: A Day That Will Live in Infamy

The Catholic justices that did this, Sotomayor and Kennedy, have, unless they repent, condemned themselves to Hell.

The Labourious Instrument from Hell

The Instrumentum Laboris 2015 is upon us. For whatever my opinion is worth, I cannot assess it any better than these. Rorate Caeli has done excellent analysis and translation as has One Peter Five. Suffice to say, Kasper's deceitful offerings have made it in. The Catholic Church is being betrayed by those who are there to govern and sanctify the faithful.

Yet, Mundabor has captured it in his most unique way with a spot-on reference to St. John the Baptist. Indeed he is right. These men in Rome know more than St. John the Baptist whose Birth Feast was just celebrated. Let me give you a little bit of what he writes:

Where was St John’s compassion? Did he know anything about inclusiveness? Had he ever heard of mercy? Why did not prepare a path for Heros and Herodias? Why this cruel exclusion? How could St John ask Herodias and Herod Antipas to… just split? Destroy a new family? Destroy a new reality? With a child in it?

How brilliant and yet, how bloody obvious on Mundabor's part. 

St. John the Baptist's actions against Herod, Herodias and Salome would be condemned today by these men. How can they, in all good conscience, put forward the paragraphs that lay within this document and actually think that they are serving Our Lord Jesus Christ? Reading their intentions is tantamount to calling St. John the Baptist a fool and a liar.

It seems to me that it is quite simple. These men in the Vatican have lost the faith, if they ever had it. They certainly do not believe in supernatural faith and they do not believe in Hell. Well, they surely will when they get there and that is where they will go if they continue down this road to betray Our Lord, His Church and faithful, should they not repent. 

Yes. These theologians, priests, bishops and cardinals will go to Hell. If they do not believe it exists, they will. Ponder that for a moment. If they do not repent, they will go to Hell.

These are evil men with evil intentions. They will attempt to change doctrine through stealth. They have told us so already.

Your job and mine is to call them out without ceasing. We must challenge the satanic verses within this Instrumentum Laboris that would undermine doctrine, morality  and the Holy Eucharist. We must stand firm against any change in the wording or approach on the matter of sodomy and those suffering from same-sex attraction as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

The battle is called, the gauntlet has been thrown down; and to think, it is the Pope himself, possibly naive, possibly suffering from dementia and surrounded by evil, filthy and deceitful men that has given us this spiritual distress and scandal against the faith. These cannot be the actions of the Holy Spirit, it is simply not possible. 

It must be one of naivety or dementia because if it is not, then there is only one other explanation and that is simply too horrible to even contemplate.

 

Vatican hypocrisy or a state of denial to the obvious?

We have heard recently from Pope Francis himself about air conditioning, weapons manufacturers and the military strategy in World War II. We can determine that air conditioning is bad, weapons manufacturers are hypocrites if they call themselves Christians and World War II strategy was wrong and bombing methods then are being grossly confused with modern technological advances in military precision.

At some point, one must ask if Pope Francis is beginning to suffer from dementia. I don't mean this in a derogatory way but in the actual medical understanding. 

Presenting beach balls to the Blessed Mother on the Altar of God? The rambling and incoherence of some of his talks, particularly last Sunday in Turin is evident that something may be wrong. When we consider the range of insults that have come forth from his mouth over the last two and one-half years, what is the typical Catholic person who is desirous to be charitable left to think? 

My never married godmother and "Old maid" Auntie who died at 104 year-old was also a "Rosary counter" (that's a bad thing? we used to call these "spiritual bouquets"). Or perhaps we can consider being called a "Formenter of coprophagia" (had to look that one up - yes it is what it is and he said it and probably from where we get the word, crap, A "Functionary" might actually be a good thing depending on the circumstances and then we have the "self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian" which is my utmost favourite because I think he was talking directly to me. 

Well, who am I too judge, eh?

On more than one occasion here, here and here; I raised the question of the ownership by the Catholic Church in Germany of a publisher that regularly published pornography and erotica. For a decade, Catholics in Germany raised this matter with their bishops and were ignored. We have yet to here conclusively if the Church has divested of its ownership in Weltbild and what it did with the profits earned from filth, evil and sin. We have yet to hear what public penance has been done to make amends to God for this betrayal.

Where is the comment from the Pope or a senior German Cardinal about this scandal?

Is the plastic bubble that the Pope rides in air conditioned? Is the Domus Santa Marta or the chapel where he offers daily Mass? Does the jet that will bring him to around the world fly on water and expel steam? Has the Swiss Guard given up its collection of weapons?

How many are aware that Carrier, that's right, the air-conditioning global corporation that makes profit and employs over 40,000 people who can feed their families, has provided two innovative water-cooled chillers each with 580 kilowatts of capacity to cool and regulate the humidity of the Sistine Chapel?

Carrier is owned by United Technologies which also manufactures Sikorsky Helicopters, Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines and UTC Aerospace Systems all with military, defense and weapons components.

This is nothing less than complete and utter hypocrisy.

It is either that, or the Pope himself is suffering from dementia and he has been surrounded with the most vile and despicable cardinals and monsignore since the renaissance who are taking advantage of his condition.

It is to leave one with nothing except this: 

The Record of John

On this blessed Feast/Solemnity of St. John the Baptist enjoy this most magnificent verse anthem by Orlando Gibbons and as shameless self-promotion, for a small choir you might pick up a few of these.

 

Does he or doesn't he?

GloriaTV is reporting that:

"Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, the Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, spoke in an interview with the Brazilian magazine Veja about a deep reform that is going on at the moment in the Church. Quote: “We Catholics lived for centuries with the idea that we need to convert people in order to bring them closer. But we cannot act as if we were the owners of the morals." 

According to Cardinal João Braz de Aviz there are – quote - “two ways to read the Gospel, one of purely doctrinal or rational form.” The other is to see the message of Jesus in the words of the Gospel. This he calls floridly “the message of love and acceptance of Jesus.” He accuses the – quote – “traditionalists of the Church” to see the Gospel in a – quote – “restrictive and purely doctrinal way.” 

Cardinal João Braz de Aviz does not say nice things about Benedict XVI who tragically named him to his post. Quote: “As for Benedict XVI, the last time I asked to speak to him, the meeting was scheduled for four months later. He is extremely shy, and this shyness caused a very large communication difficulty.” But now, Braz de Aviz is happy to have easier access to the Pope: “I see the Pope Francis at least every two weeks."

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:19 

"And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15

I have a question.

What man of 68 has hair this black?

Well? 

Isn't Jesus Christ the "Ultimate Truth?"

From the just can't make this stuff up file:

I thought that the ultimate Truth was and is Jesus Christ?

O LORD, spare us. Spare your people O LORD from these men; these Modernists.

Truly, we are being scourged. 

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/06/23/cardinal_tauran_catholic-buddhist_seeks_to_grasp_truth/1153439

Vatican Radio) The President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, said on Wednesday he sees Buddhist-Catholic dialogue as “a part of our ongoing quest to grasp the mystery of our lives and the ultimate Truth.”