Oh give it a rest you clowns,
You say you're not "offended" that the clown El Presidente of Bolivia gave that wretched and blasphemous gift to the Pope? Well, I am offended.
You say that it is a about "dialogue?"
I say it is about murder and mayhem and the hatred of Christ.
You can't spin this and you can't try to make it seem like another form of a Roman crucifixion.
You also cannot know the intent of the Jesuitical artist (RIP) that allegedly made this piece of shite.
Get the hell out.
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” ― St. Antony the Great
Saturday 11 July 2015
Friday 10 July 2015
Pope's trip to South America is a disaster in the making
The Pope's trip to South America is a disaster a disaster in the making. If some of these instances were not so outright scandalous they might be considered as sick jokes. These instances reveal deep problems with this papacy and the people in the Vatican in general and specifically with the men that surround the Pope. Charitably, we must assume they are idiots, but they are most likely must more than that. Manipulative, evil, destructive, Christ-hating monsters. Freemasons, communists and homosexuals have have no faith and no fear of the Lord.
I will make three points.
The Pope's homily requesting the people of
Ecuador to "pray fervently for this intention, (the Synod) so that Christ
can take even what might seem to us impure, scandalous or threatening, and turn
it -- by making it part of his 'hour' -- into a miracle. Families today need
this miracle!"
A comment that Fr. Federico Lombardi said the
Bishop of Rome did not refer to anything specific.
Really Padre Lombardi?
Do you think we're stupid?
Lombardi assures us that the monstrosity will
not end up in a Church.
Want to bet?
This is another beach ball moment if I ever saw
one.
Yet, the worst of all?
The Most Blessed Sacrament distributed by
laymen from paper bags.
Well, at least the bags were white.
Paper bag ciboria here, plastic cups at WYD in
Brazil.
These people have no faith.
They are deceived or bloody evil.
Get right or get out!
UPDATE; The Lord's Day July 12.
Father Z is reporting that it seems that they were not actually "paper bags."
Whatever.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/07/bolivia-holy-communion-from-paper-bags-at-papal-mega-mass/
UPDATE; The Lord's Day July 12.
Father Z is reporting that it seems that they were not actually "paper bags."
Whatever.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/07/bolivia-holy-communion-from-paper-bags-at-papal-mega-mass/
Thursday 9 July 2015
Just who is this Bernd Hagenkord, S.J.?
Just what kind of priest is the Jesuit Bernd Hagenkord of Vatican Radio's German language?
From Gloria TV:
Father Bernd Hagenkord is the head of German Vatican Radio. On his Vatican Radio blog he allows vulgar postings against Catholics and agrees with them. Those who criticized an explicit picture of a lesbian kiss published by Vatican Radio and later deleted under pressure are called – quote - "a case for the psychiatrist". Hagenkord’s posters ask to bring critics of the sin of homosexuality to court and call them disgusting agitators or right-wing propagandists. Hagenkord himself writes in a posting that critics of the sin of Sodom are – quote – "just sick".
Let me get this straight, if you'll pardon the pun; St. Paul, St. Jude, Holy Moses and Our Lord Jesus Christ are "just sick?"
This from a Vatican official?
Father has a Twitter account which can be found at https://twitter.com/berndhagenkord
The Internet can be a grand place, it yields up this priceless quote of his from Rorate Caeli:
“Francis knows exactly how power is spelled,” says Bernd Hagenkord, a Jesuit who is in charge of German programming for Vatican Radio. “He’s a communicator in the league with Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. They say he’s being unclear, but we know exactly what he means.”
It turns out that this priest even attended
Cardinal Marx's little sodomite friendly soirée as reported by the Mr. Edward
Pentin. He was "one of the few Vatican officials to attend a secretive,
closed-door meeting at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May that tried to
steer the upcoming synod to recognize same-sex unions."
Canonist Dr. Edward Peters discusses
Hagenkord's treatment of the Pope's foot-washing scandal in 2013.
Just one more to add to the list. Just one more
traitor of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church and the lay
faithful at their mercy.
What these stupid men don't get though is that
we're not going to put up with them anymore.
Out these bastards.
Out all of them!
Wednesday 8 July 2015
Toronto Priest denies Holy Communion on the tongue and announces it publicly!
UPDATE, Sabbath Day, July 11:
As guessed through my cryptic hints, the parish, ironically, is St. Pius X on Bloor Street not very far from the Society of St. Pius X Mass Centre known as Church of the Transfiguration. In this day and age I find it incredulous that a priest would still attempt this. Is it any wonder that people seek refuge within the SSPX?
The Pastor is Father Brian Shea as hinted at. The matter has been reported to the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Toronto and there has been email communication. This writer has been assured that the matter will be dealt with. The writer has also been assured that the Pastor is going to be challenged on it should it happen again tonight and tomorrow.
Father's previous parish was St. Martin de Porres in Scarborough and prior to that, St. Timothy in Orangeville.
These actions violate Canonical Law, liturgical norms and the rights of the Lay faithful. Frankly, it is the height of clericalism for a priest to take it upon himself to become the Law and dictate the spiritual expression of the faithful under your care. It is the opposite of humility and certainly not in keeping with the example of Pope Francis. But then, who am I to judge?
Any parishioner wishing to update please write me at voxcantoris@rogers.com
The annual game of musical chairs in the Archdiocese of Toronto is being played out. I was always told that priests are to "make no changes for a year."
It seems to me that little fact only works for those who might have a tinge of tradition let alone orthodoxy, you know a little Gregorian chant or Latin in keeping with the Documents of Vatican II, or a cassock or heaven forbid, moving the Tabernacle to the centre!
News has reached me today, confirmed from two sources, that a new Pastor at a prominent Toronto parish named after a very holy Saint who was also a Pope has refused to provide people who wish to kneel, the Holy Eucharist. Not only that, but he refuses to provide Holy Communion on the tongue, admonishing at least one; and he has announced this publicly at the Mass!
The parish has (or at least had) a large banner of its Patron Saint on the front wall overlooking the street. It shows this holy Pope in a beautiful green Roman chasuble giving Holy Communion to two children kneeling and on the tongue!
How ironic!
I can tell you that both persons are known to me and they are both suffering a crisis of conscience!
All this in the first week Father is a the parish and publicly claims it to be a "health hazard."
Touché, ;), I say.
Many fine articles on the matter of reception of Holy Communion can be found at here.
Tuesday 7 July 2015
Vatican obsessed with kissing by sodomites and lesbians! Pope Francis, what the hell are you doing about it?
Gloria TV is reporting on the priest behind the Vatican's German Radio
Father Bernd Hagenkord is the head of German Vatican Radio. On his Vatican Radio blog he allows vulgar postings against Catholics and agrees with them. Those who criticized an explicit picture of a lesbian kiss published by Vatican Radio and later deleted under pressure are called – quote - "a case for the psychiatrist". Hagenkord’s posters ask to bring critics of the sin of homosexuality to court and call them disgusting agitators or right-wing propagandists. Hagenkord himself writes in a posting that critics of the sin of Sodom are – quote – "just sick". One poster, however, is allowed to call the problem at Vatican Radio by its name: "The biggest scandal are you Father Hagenkord."Are all of these priests actual sodomites themselves?
Michael Voris at Church Militant is reporting on an article on Vatican Radio that features a photo of two lesbians kissing. After the photo was Tweeted by Edward Pentin, it was removed but not before Michael Voris' staff got a full screen shot!
This is not the first time.
Nearly one year ago a German Bishop, Stephen Ackermann, made comments that were accompanied by a photo of two sodomites kissing in front of a rainbow flag. My article on that event can be found at this link; the Eponymous Flower has the original picture as it is shown below. After these perverts were caught, they later changed the picture to Ackermann in front of a crucifix.
Do they think we're stupid. We have the Internet, they cannot hide their filth anymore.
These pathetic bastards must be outed. Every. Single. Effeminate. Heretical. Deceitful, Evil one of them. These filthy liars and deceivers that work for Vatican Radio and other sodomites imbedded in the Church must be uprooted from the power base and rooted out of the Church so that they can do Her and the faithful no more harm.
They can seek mercy and forgiveness through repentance but they cannot earn their bread from Her.
This vile and disgusting practice under the nose of the Pope must be made known to him and he must act. If he fails to do act, then he condones it by his silence!
Holy Father, please explain the "scandal" you muse about creating
Pope Francis rides in "air-conditioned" comfort in fossil-fuel vehicle in Ecuador |
Exactly what does Pope Francis mean when he says this when at Los Samenes Park in Ecuador during his homily he asked the million or so gathered there to:
"to pray fervently for this intention, (the Synod) so that Christ can take even what might seem to us impure, scandalous or threatening, and turn it -- by making it part of his 'hour' -- into a miracle. Families today need this miracle!"
Poor Father Federico Lombardi was left again to spin the Pope's comment and he stated that the Pope was not referring to any specific proposals discussed in the anticipation of the Synod.
Well, let's see.
The two proposals from last year and that seem to be on the docket again are Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried and some kind of accommodation of sodomy and its perverse lifestyle.
Given that the Pope says that these things to pray that change are "to us impure, scandalous and threatening" what the hell else could he be referring to when he asked that Our Lord Jesus Christ can turn this around "into a miracle." How can yo ask Our Lord to intercede to commit impurity or scandal?
Even CNN sees that something has gone awry with the headline that "Pope...'hints' at Scandalous Changes for the Church."
The Pope himself is either engaging in some sick game with the faithful, has heterodox and possibly heretical views or is suffering from some form of dementia.
What other explanation can there be?
Labels:
Crisis in the Church,
Pope Francis
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.
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
Labels:
Homoheresy,
homosexualist lobby
Thursday 2 July 2015
Justice Thomas is called a "clown in blackface." What would that make the person who said it?
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.
Labels:
God save America,
homosexualist lobby
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)