When the archdiocese of San Francisco issued its list of clergy appointments for 2014, perhaps the most incomprehensible was that of two priests from the Kansas City province of the Missionaries of the Precious Blood as pastor and assistant pastor of San Francisco’s notorious Most Holy Redeemer parish.
Readers of CalCatholic may remember the Missionaries of the Precious Blood. On April 21, 2011, in the article “Divisive and exclusionary,” we reported on two priests from the order’s Kansas City province, Father Joe Nassal, C.pp.S., and Father David Matz, C.pp.S. (C.pp.S. is the acronym for Missionaries of the Precious Blood). At that time they served in the diocese of Oakland and the archdiocese of San Francisco, respectively. Both are homosexualist activist priests—among other things, Nassal presided at a November, 2011 DignitySF Mass, while Matz, in addition to celebrating Masses and leading an Advent Vespers Service at Most Holy Redeemer, came out in support of same-sex marriage at a Marin County event in 2008. He also served as the contact for the Missionaries of the Precious Blood extensive LGBT Ministry.
That ministry is now even more extensive. The current webpage of the Kansas City Province of the Missionaries of the Precious Blood has a link (one of only seven) to LGBT Ministry right on its banner. The LGBT Ministry page contains a downloadable Pastor’s Resources. An example of the contents is a caution against using the word family: “When making reference to spouses or families, use terms like ‘one’s beloved’ or ‘household’. This will make other people feel included and welcomed such as engaged couples, good friends, etc.”
The Missionaries’ Pastor’s Resources prints an out-and-out lie about the church’s teaching on sexuality, writing: “The Catholic Catechism’s definition of Chastity: #2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man [sic. woman] in his bodily and spiritual being.” End of given definition. But the actual definition given in Catechism #2337 is “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.”
Given that background it seemed incredible that two priests from the same province of the same order were appointed to Most Holy Redeemer. And the incredulity has proved to be justified. From the pastor’s message in the August 24 Most Holy Redeemer parish bulletin:
“Next Sunday our little brother, (name redacted) will make his First Holy Communion. In this wonderfully good moment for all of us, we gather around the table with (name redacted) and his Dads, Kevin and Brian, and his big brother (name redacted).… Father Matt.” That would be Father Matt Link C.pp.S., the assistant pastor at Most Holy Redeemer.
While the assertion by a Catholic priest that a little boy can have two dads would be blasphemous anywhere, in the archdiocese of San Francisco it is a direct shot at the local ordinary, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. Cordileone is the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. His oft-repeated point is that same-sex ‘marriage’ will harm children, by deliberately denying a child a father or a mother—precisely the situation of the little boy (and his older brother) raised by ‘two Dads.’ His Excellency has written:
“To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship. How can we do this to our children?”
It is worth noting that a number of publications have reported that the archbishop has charitably reached out to the parishioners at Most Holy Redeemer. But so did his predecessor, Archbishop George Niederauer. Archbishop Niederauer’s outreach resulted in his being ambushed by two members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in the communion line, and subsequent international embarrassment. Archbishop Cordileone’s outreach has earned him a slap in the face over his most important initiative, the defense of marriage, the family, and the rights of children.
The author of this article acts as if Abp. Cordileone is powerless as to who is appointed pastor in the parishes of his own archdiocese. (Compare Abp. Cordileone’s non-action with say, Bp. Barber in Oakland vis-a-vis Holy Spirit Parish. Pastors get out of line in Oakland? They’re gone–doesn’t matter whether they are order or diocesean priests.) How is this even remotely “a direct shot at the local ordinary” if the local ordinary is the one who appointed them in the first place and they serve at his pleasure? Why do people keep pretending that the Abp. doesn’t approve of what goes on in the schools or the parishes in his archdiocese? Other bishops have show that taking action, which may be a bit controversial is really not all that difficult. None of this is new at MHR; it’s all tacitly authorized by the hierarchy. Wake up people.
Dave,
Unfortunately for the Church, you make a lot of sense. Pray for our priests and especially those who wear the Mitre!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
All you who back the archbishop when he makes a pro-life statement 3,000 miles away in DC at the March for Life, pay attention to this incident! If he is true to his principles, discipline will be imposed upon these two exemplars of the Lavender Mafia, one of whom was so foolish as to put his perversion out for all to see on the internet in his reference to “two dads.”
Does anybody here actually believe that the archbishop will act?
The Arch is way over his head with the Lavender Mafia and dissenters of SF. I expect him to be run out of town as was (then) Bishop Vigneron from Oakland. And we mustn’t forget that (then) Oakland Bishop Cordileone was basically blockaded in the Fort Apache in the Bronx (i.e. the Oakland Cathedral) by the progressives, lay and clerical alike, before the cavalry came to his rescue and he was transferred across the bay. But we need to face facts: Archbishop Cordileone isn’t a street fighter and we conservatives are going to be bitterly disappointed if we keep thinking he’s going to fix Sodom on the Bay. Eventually some archbishop with backbone will be sent here. Or the Catholic Faith will cease to exist in the City: God will only allow Himself to be mocked for so long a time.
Father, this is a fine blog. I’m, I’m surprised. . . Powerful and very right.
And as was documented here at CalCatholic, then Bishop Cordileone was in Oakland trying to (not) figure out why Catholic Charities East Bay was covering its employees for contraceptives.
Every Bishop has the responsibility for everything “Catholic” within his own Diocese.
How many among us have sent this article to Abp Cordilione?
Come Holy Spirit Come, fill the hearts of Your faithful, enkindle in them the fire of Your love…….Archbishop Cordileone, the Lord is with you, remove these heretics.
I said two years ago when the AB was sent to SF he will do nothing as he did in Oakland. This man plays politics and is looking for a Red Hat that, I hope, will never be given to him. The Church has no leadership and this starts in Rome and goes all the way down to the local level. As far as I am concerned the last true leader of our Church was Pope Pius 12th. No wonder all the other religions are gaining members.
Fr. Michael,
Before the usual suspects visciously attack you. I want to say God Bless You for your courage.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
Sodomites + Muslims = Two Riders of the Pale Horse of the Apocalypse: Death and Hades (Rev. 6:7-8)
Kinda sad that you have to find fault with parents seeking first Communion for their child, and faulting also the priest who delights in the Sacrament.
YFC, as far as we know there is only one parent seeking First Holy Communion for the child. Where is the mother in all this?
I don’t know Father Michael. There are lots of things I don’t know about this family. But I surely don’t think they should be put under a public spotlight because they want to raise their child in the fullness of the Catholic faith. Chasing them out of the Church brings no one to Christ.
YFC, I am chasing nobody out. I just know that the pastor of the parish determines who may be baptized among small children based upon the faith of the parents. I don’t see “parents” here. I see a father and his male partner, who certainly does not take the place of the mother! If the mother of the child agrees with the baptism, I would be more apt to baptize the child than not, dependent on the circumstances of both households. But I certainly would not make a publicity campaign of the liturgy, to avoid the scandal of parishioners thinking that same-sex couples were in any way equivalent to married unions.
This is not a baptism. It is a first Communion.
In otherwords, you want the child to be ashamed of his parents.
There are no other words about it, Anonymous. You would have the Church legitimize same sex unions. That cannot happen even when those desiring this change stoop so low as to use children as weapons against the Church.
Thank you Fr. Michael for speaking up. These men do not want to raise this child in the fullness of the Faith, as he who calls himself YFC says. They just want to use the innocent child as a pawn in their evil scheme.
What a disgustingly cynical view. A child is about to receive first communion. Dignity not derision, Anne T., please.
How is it cynical, YFC, when the parents themselves are advertising their union, one that goes against Catholic moral teaching?
The outright contradiction for the poor child whose ‘parents’ are apparently pitting their day-to-day lifestyle lesson against while they assert that they want the ‘Catholic’ Faith for this boy is cruel in the long term. Or at the very least bipolar and diametrically opposed to reality.
‘
So openly mocking the teachings of the Church while at the same time asserting one’s fidelity to it is not dignified. That’s not Anne T’s doing.
“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.” – attributed to Dante
If this is true then one can’t even begin to fathom the suffering torments that await those who are attempting to destroy the Church from within. We know there will be a great battle because of Our Lady’s words, “IN THE END MY IMMACULATE HEART WILL TRIUMPH!
Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
“The defeat of Satan is the work of Christ. In this, Mary’s role as his singular cooperator, as the Woman, the New Eve, is contained, not diminished. As many saints and mystics have said, her role will be uniquely important preceding the Second Coming, as it was preceding the First. “
The organization “Dignity” in not approved by the Church, but the organization “Courage” is approved. So stop the nonsense you who call yourself YFC. You are fooling no one. This has nothing to do with “dignity” in the Christian sense of the word, but in “pride” as in “non serviam’.
Thank you Anne Malley for defending me. Your post was right. As Fr. Michael has said the scandal is that the occasion of the little boy’s First Communion was made to be all about the illicit relationship of the adult men. In other words the two men were, and probably still are, thumbing their noses at Church teaching and the priest or priests of Holy Redeemer allowed it and endorsed it. That is sacrilege, plain and simple.
Anytime Anne T. This ‘for the love of the children’ tactic of those who openly scandalize children while attempting to foist that which is repellent to God upon Holy Mother Church is truly disgusting. God bless you for being a strident voice against it!
Any Priest who supports the sodomy lifestyle (two Dads) is of Satan, not a man of God.
He commits the Mortal Sin of SCANDAL.
If He gives Holy Communion to the “two Dads” he is further committing SACRILEGE against the Body and Blood of our Lord.
YFC…you’re kidding of course. No authentic Catholic who truly believes in and follows our faith would ever utter such sewage without the filter of absolute sarcasm.
I’m not too sure of that. There are Catholics so ill-informed about their Faith that they really do believe that.
Then, Rodney, they cannot truly believe in and follow Church teaching as Joseph Vadis said, some through no fault of their own and some through their own fault. Nevertheless, I would not let most, at least the older ones, off so easy as common sense and some real thinking tells one that nature hates that kind of misuse of the body and that sodomy is unnatural. It is not just a matter of religion but a matter of the misuse of nature. St. Paul said that even pagans had the natural law written in their conscience, and that that conscience would either absolve or accuse them. Many who come on here pushing such things know deeply in their sub conscience that the body was not constructed for that purposes and that they are telling others to do some very dangerous things.
Check this out:
https://www.sfarchdiocese.org/home/media/press-releases-of-2014/2013/10/14/sample-press-release–statement-of-most-reverend-salvatore-cordileone-archbishop-of-san-francisco
think it is a mistake or a hack? I can’t make out the Latin.
Brilliant!
Everyone check out Anonymous’ link before it disappears and take a screen grab!
Clearly it is an unfinished press release…the “lorem ipsum” is not Latin but rather just stock text that appears in form templates…in this case a press release.
And before that it does have the gall to link “” Saint Francis” with “alienated” same sex attraction people.
This is sadly amateur hour, in the extreme.
I guess people just can’t put 2 and 2 together here. What’s going on is as plain as the nose on your face. Sigh….
Anonymous 6pm… You can’t make out the Latin because it is fake Latin. Filler text commonly used in mocking up and laying out print and digital pages. Obviously it was a test page of some kind that should have been removed, and I will speak to the Archdiocese about taking it down. As for the text about “Saint Francis” it is probably some web designer’s idea of a joke.
Cut ’em a break–they just redid their entire website. Looks good, actually, but this test page must have slipped through.
They seem to have taken it down.
That is not real Latin…I mean, it is, but it’s just Microsoft Word filler text in sample letters.
A completely nauseating picture, and, more importantly, a non-Catholic one, as well. What? Do you mean that Abp. Cordileone had no idea that these two “homosexualist activist priests” were appointed to MHR??? And, of course, the immediate blast of apostasy regarding the notice of the two dads — what did you expect Excellency? These people will not stop, will not rest, will not sleep (Dear Reader, who does this remind you of??) until all the world, include the Catholic Church stoops in obedience to their desires and welcomes their perversions. You cannot be so blind, Excellency, regarding the rank disobedience, and self-idolatry, of the Homofascists and their enablers. Please stand up to these truly wrong men, who worship evil and call it good. And, Excellency, why are these men even priests? Does no one care about the people that attend MHR and their immortal souls?
Unlike Ann Malley’s Anonymous priests, these two holy men are named and are committed to the public proclamation of the Gospel.
Shame on you YFC! What a cheap shot! Leave and start your own church! Because that is what you are an activist here for.
You want YOUR will to be done and not the Will of God!
For the record these evil men are not holy! Shows where you are twisted in your beliefs, you apparently do not know what being holy is. Its definitely not these men. To be holy, is to do the will of God…not the will of the devil!
Don’t blame, YFC, Abeca. He does not want to listen to the orthodoxy preached even by those priests in full communion with Rome. Instead, he chooses those who openly advocate for that which is an abomination before God and calls it love and holiness. But he has been taught as much. Much like many in the fold are taught by those similarly misled and malformed in what the Faith actually teaches.
But Ann the church, the CCC, The bible, the faith have taught the truth and so have many here to YFC, so he has no excuse. He can reason. I know that he is able to reason. What did St, Thomas Aquinas try to accomplish during his time? Even during those times of heresy, the truth was still there in Christ’s church, people have free will to reason, even in times of heresy. God’s graces are still available to souls wanting them. YFC is just immersed with other bad willed influences. The “gay” theologies preached within their member’s is something that only keeps enslaving them. But not all are trapped in that web of lies, but YFC seems to be an activist for that cause, more so then someone looking for conversion.
The church contains the truth and when people stray away from it’s truths, this is the confusion one gets. People are speaking the truth and YFC has the free will to seek them or reject them. Obedience is also a virtue and some struggle with it more than others.
Ann for the record you are right about this one too : “He does not want to listen to the orthodoxy preached even by those priests in full communion with Rome”
Yes the church is here to bring Christ’s salvation but many will reject it. As you can see, since the devil does not sleep, it looks like we can’t either. We need to live a life of prayer to combat this great evil.
I assure you that today, the Archbishop is just finding out about this situation. Many are calling his office as we speak…include me in that. The faithful does the will of God on the background and the rest is in God’s hands. What we don’t always see, our Lord knows. That is all that matters right. But we must never despair or lose hope. God bless you. = )
The trouble comes, Abeca, when those in seemingly full communion with Rome, those who go uncorrected, preach that which is against the Catholic Faith. Sadly, there are many.
So yes, we’re responsible for our actions, that is true. But when I say I cannot blame YFC, I say as much as if I were correcting someone else’s child. If their own parent endorses their evil, how can I with no authority over them expect to be heeded. I cannot.
That is why I cling to tradition, Abeca, and steer clear of as much ambiguity as possible. Duck and cover and cling to tradition until the storm abates. God bless.
Ann but you go by the regular comments that are often printed here. Get involved with many who are faithful in more positive venues. Try it. You might be surprised by what you see.
I cling to Tradition too, in our beautiful Catholic faith and we surround ourselves, even if small in some area’s, who are faithful to the Magisterium and there is nothing but true Catholic Christian charity.
Yes, I’ve learned the benefit of surrounding oneself with those faithful to the Magisterium – in person and in print. That is why I seek to do as much as often as possible. I am gladdened that you have learned the benefit of doing as much, too!
OK if you say so…I just don’t get why you come off as you don’t. You are a perfect judge Ann. So perfect, I don’t think I can ever be good enough to be amongst your friends. But I do thank you for your time and input. Pray for me, your prayers will be a blessing to me.
God bless you.
Abeca Chrsitan, it’s Ann Malley. She is her own Magisterium. Don’t let her fool you.
No one is judging anybody, Abeca, just looking at the fruits. And nobody, least of all me, is perfect. Far from it. That is why we need a consistent call to Orthodoxy even if it seems restrictive and medieval to some. And giving folks too much leeway in many ways is the wide road to losing one’s way all together. That’s all.
God bless you and, please, pray for me too.
Abeca, they are evil? Why?
I want to make sure that you noticed that the priests who said the Dignity Mass and who came out in support of same sex marriage were not these two priests. The article is a little confusing.
All the charge against one of them is calling the parents of the first communicant “two dads.”
Abeca, NO, SHAME ON YOU!!!. Your comments are always ‘my way or the hwy’ type. Somehow, try and understand others feelings. Maybe a prayer to St Jude will help. Try it… Also, that’s a vast date base you have for your comments.
What gospel, YFC? Pride? Something new to tickle the ears?
And thank you for calling http://www.audiosancto.com priests mine. What a compliment, albeit misdirected. Thank you for getting the word out about this wonderful audio apostolate of TLM priests in full union with Rome!
Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea of the Franciscan Friars of Our Lady of Good Success in Albany, WI also has sermons there on the four last things. Very edifying and worth you listening to, YFC. Father also offers silent Ignatian based retreats: https://stpiosfriary.com/
Bring it up again, YFC! You can even keep calling me dear if you do :)
Dear Ann Malley. They preach The Gospel. There is only one, the good news of the Christ who gives himself for us in word and sacrament. Your tone comes off as mockery of that Gospel. Perhaps that was not your intent, but no one would mistake your tone for someone who respects it, the faithful catholics who want their child to receive the graces of the Church, or his pastors who delight in the rich sacramental life of their new parish.
Children learn by example, YFC, and grace builds upon nature. It has nothing whatever to do with ‘tone’. That said, the rich sacraments of the Church, are not a magic pill that negates the individual’s requisite pursuit to live in union with Church teaching. That is also why Holy Mother Church doesn’t endorse or celebrate adulterous unions.
So while you may wish to celebrate those who put forth the Sacraments as some magic while negating the reality of having to amend one’s life, I’ll stick with the original Gospel. Because there is only one. Not the new and improved interpretation gospel of it’s-all-good and we can grow our numbers by pretending that sin is wholesome.
We are talking about the grace of a CHILD, Ann Malley. A CHILD. Leave your judgmental attitudes about the fathers aside for a moment and consider the soul of this CHILD. So you can push the CHILD away from the Church for things he has never done, or you can allow the Sacrament to work its effects – its magic as you call it.
Indeed, YFC, we are discussing a child. A very great gift and a big responsibility.
A child needs to have the example of the Faith set in the home, YFC. Enshrining that which is mortally sinful in the home (Same Sex Psuedo Marriage) and then taking the child to Church will only confuse the poor child. Much like the attempt to serve two masters, confuses the one attempting to serve them. The child will grow to love one and despise the other at some point.
So try leaving your sentimentalism aside and look to what is best for the CHILD. A true FATHER would put his sexual desires to the side and live singly for the LOVE of his child. He would sacrifice his fleshly needs – much like Christ sacrificed His very life for us.
So by all means, let’s speak of the child.
Once again, Dear Ann Malley, you go to “sentimentalism”. It is not I, AM, but you, who are emotional. I am looking to the faith of this Child who apparently desires a deepened relationship with the Risen Lord, present in the Eucharist. You pretend that he child will “love one and despise another”, as though you are able to insert yourself into his young innocent life, instead of offering him the grace of the Sacrament. I am, indeed looking to what is best for this child. Keeping him from the source and summit of our life in Christ is not what I would call “in his best interest”. I would call it the work of the devil.
Like it or not. In accordance with Church Teaching or not. These two men have adopted these kids and they are both the legal parent. It is permitted in CA. FrMichael’s suggestion and the accusation in the article is that it did not need to be in the bulletin at all or that the term “dads” should not have been used. That it leads to scandal and to misrepresenting the Church’s teaching. There is not a complaint about the child going to Church or receiving Holy Communion. Ann Malley’s idea to break up the family is brilliant, isn’t it? It would be best if these two men are chaste, forsaking all sin and all semblance of sin. I think she is assuming that one of the men is the biological father of the children and that is not true. Both men have adopted the children. And put in a lot of love, tears, laughter, time, sleeplessness in raising them. Ann Malley’s suggestion is nothing short of cruel.
Loving one and despising the other is no insertion of mine, but a paraphrase of scripture, YFC.
“…No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24
So yes, this young innocent life should be girded up by what is right and proper otherwise the young tree will grow crooked. That said, the source and summit of our lives, Jesus Christ, suffered most cruelly and died to atone for the sins of sodomy, not to see them enshrined in marriage and/or to take the place of the union of man and woman intended as the foundation of family. So saying, rearing an innocent in a household based on that which is against the natural law and that of the Church, the child, God’s gift, will be perverted in thought and loyalty.
Your ire is misdirected, Sir, again. Work of the devil is the word as the Devil loves nothing better than to ape God. Much like those who ape marriage.
Dear YFC,
You may also be edified by the following:
“…According to Saint Thomas, scandalous parents compel, in a certain manner, their children to lead a bad life. “They are not,” says Saint Bernard, “fathers, but murderers, they kill, not the bodies, but the souls of their children.” It is useless for parents to say: “My children have been born with bad dispositions.” This is not true, for, Seneca says, “You err, if you think that vices are born with us; they have been engrafted.” Vices are not born with your children, but have been communicated to them by the bad example of the parents. If you had given good example to your sons, they would not be so vicious as they are. So parents, frequent the Sacraments, learn from the sermons, recite the Rosary every day, abstain from all obscene language, from detraction, and from quarrels, and you will see that your children follow your example. It is particularly necessary to train children to virtue in their infancy, Bow down their neck from their childhood, for when they have grown up, and contracted bad habits, it will be very difficult for you to produce, by words, any amendment in their lives.”
Further reading can be had at:
https://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/advice.shtml
So again, let’s talk about the child himself. Not the peripheral, emotionally charged nonsense that is nothing more than a smokescreen being used to enshrine that which is evil.
Ann Malley’s so called suggestion is the proper course of action for adults who take their Catholic Faith seriously, Anonymous. They are the teachings of the Church. The laughter, tears, etc are just the emotional fodder that will work to create confusion in the child. But that is your ultimate goal, Anonymous. The persistent sowing of confusion with regard to what the Church has always taught and still…. despite the seeming silence of Her ministers and often their outright betrayal…. still teaches.
So don’t look to me, Anonymous, for your supposed charge of what is cruel. Look to what the Church has always taught for that is your ongoing issue. And why you insist on labeling Church teaching as cruelty.
That said, do you suppose the ‘love’ of adoptive parents and the commitment should be any less than a biologic parent? For shame, Anonymous. That is why I would say that a true Father would put aside his sexual inclinations if those manifested inclinations would scandalize the child’s Faith – and they do.
OK, Ann Malley. Let’s deal with your sins.
Every time you get caught saying something wrong, you go for the “creating confusion” and trying to make the person who caught you look like they are gay or something. You lie and twist what they said and you try to change what you said.
For all you know these men have put aside all their sexual inclinations.
Now according to you, these children 8 and 10 who have been raised since infancy by these two men are supposed to leave one and live with the other. Both of these men gave their time, their tears, their love and their exhaustion to raise these kids- one born addicted to crack, the other born addicted to meth-which are not easy babies to raise. Now you say that one of them has to remove himself from their lives so that the kids will obey the Church when they are adults. Why would they even want to?
I stand by the Church’s teaching that gay couples should not marry and should not adopt children. But they did it already. Now what?
Someday you will realize that there is a reality out there that all your fantasizing can’t change. And there is not confusion-there is only rebellion. I am not a rebel. You are. Why don’t you worry about bringing yourself into conformity with the Church, then you can see clearly to instruct others.
Anonymous writes, “…I stand by the Church’s teaching that gay couples should not marry and should not adopt children. But they did it already. Now what?”
You are a believing Catholic and ask one you supposedly believe to be outside the Church, “Now what?” Why STAND BY THE CHURCH’S TEACHINGS, Anonymous. The fact that you even ask that question is your problem as you say I should ‘conform’ to what the Church teaches while promoting yourself to be at a complete loss.
Not the best advertisement. Whether you’re afflicted with SSA or not is immaterial. And no, Anonymous, it isn’t me who says, “Now you say that one of them has to remove himself from their lives so that the kids will obey the Church when they are adults. Why would they even want to?”
It is Church teaching. The same could be said for a man perhaps lawfully married to another woman yet having raised meth babies (and yes, I know from family experience that that is an exceedingly tough job) with one who is not his wife. Should that irregular situation should be tolerated in so far as calling those raising the children man and wife or mom and dad in the context of the Church. No. Obviously no.
So while you may not be a rebel, you are most assuredly confused. Confused about what you actually BELIEVE in Faith. That is why you may be ‘in the Church’ as far as paper work goes, but the heart is up for grabs as human sentimentalism seems to be getting the better of you.
Ann Malley writes (in part quoting Anonymous) ““Now you say that one of them has to remove himself from their lives so that the kids will obey the Church when they are adults. Why would they even want to?” It is Church teaching.”
Where does the Church teach that a father who has raised his sons for years should abandon them? Where exactly is that teaching?
I am sorry to say this, Ann Malley, but your response is utter nonsense. Putting me down and questioning my faith does not in any way deal with the issue. When you approached a priest after not having gone to church for 3 decades with a request to baptize your seven children, how were you treated? Did you get yelled at for spiritually endangering your children or did they just concern themselves with welcoming you and instructing your family in the faith? Your situation while not common is not unheard of and the pastors know how to deal with it. There was a time when you would have had to do some major penance for committing those sins. And YOU would still be an outcast and looked down on even after having got your children baptized. Now people are glad for conversion and accepting..
There is no “Church teaching” on the issue of what to do in the situation above.. There may be next year. It is very new situation, well, maybe within the last decade and a half. When people follow the Church’s teaching, everything is fine and everyone knows what to do. When people do not follow the Church’s teaching, things get complicated. Some diocese require the vicar general to be informed and involved in situations like this. MHR’s solution is to be embracing, and accepting and inclusive. We see how many Catholics are not comfortable with that because of the risk of scandal and creating an appearance of nonchalance toward grave sin.
Actually, it was not accurate to say there is not Church teaching. The issues come when people do not obey Church teaching then want to be included in the life of the Church. There is not yet a consistent pastoral approach to the situations occurring with the cultural and civil law changes surrounding so called gay marriage and the raising of children in these unions.
Actually, Anonymous, the response I received in the Novus Ordo environment was rather business like, then absent of any spiritual meat, then dismissed as not that big of a deal – as in my marital situation and my children being unbaptized.
I was told via the grapevine – office coordinator relaying for Father – to go to confession to ‘feel better’ without having to worry about amending the situation. (Can’t promise to avoid the occasion of sin in the same bed.)
THAT is what sent me to Tradition, Anonymous. Not immediately, but after having to insist that my marriage be regularized quickly, and rejecting confession until I was able, in good conscience, to make a genuine act of contrition with a firm purpose of amendment, followed by a great many other things, I was led to where I am.
The seriousness of my situation was thoroughly addressed in a Traditional environment. Not addressed in horror, no, but addressed with due seriousness, absolutely. That said, after my husband’s baptism, there was a long time of penance. And it was not easy, but something we did because it underscored the seriousness of the offense. That period of time provided my family and ME with tremendous graces that I would absolutely not trade for an easier road, even though changes came hard. (It also showed my children who knew of the situation that we were taking the spiritual aspects of our relationship seriously. As in attempting to live according to God’s law.)
But good things are worth it, Anonymous. The Faith is worth it! The ‘it’s okay’ laid back approach had the exact opposite effect on my husband, too, who was of a mind, that if it is not that big of a deal, why worry about it at all. What he needed, sorry, was strength and firmness.
And, Anonymous, please stop treating Church teaching as if it is too difficult to do or too much of a sacrifice in ‘today’s world’. You undermine the efficacy of God’s grace when you do. And you negate the reality of rampant paganism and sexual license that was the ancient world. If we could get through the smarm that was then, we most assuredly CAN DO SO TODAY. But we need to be loving, yes, but FIRM. Works with kids, too.
Sleeping in a different room, Anonymous, is not abandonment. Please cut the drama.
So you rejected God’s mercy in favor of His justice.
OK but the point is-they didn’t sit and stare at you like you were the first person who ever did this, right? Lots of people commit this sin. I doubt very many go looking for rigor like you did.
You blow my mind. You were welcomed back into the Church, and the way they welcomed you wasn’t good enough so you left again.
But the point is-had someone been willing to accept God’s merciful embrace, it was there. And nobody had to call the vicar general to figure out if they should be merciful to you. Because this is not new. The Church figured out how it wanted to treat prodigals. The Church has figured out how it wants to deal with those who contract a civil marriage. But this situation of same sex civil marriage and adoption is still being worked out. I think that was my point. My mind is so blown by your post, I’m not sure.
I am sorry that the desire to make some sort of amends for wrongdoing, no matter how small in light of the Divine Good, is so mind blowing for you. Justice is not the absence of mercy and neither is mercy the negation of justice.
Do you complain when you receive a penance in the confessional? Do you want your children to grow up believing that they should make no recompense or feel no need for such after sinning or harming themselves or others? Good grief.
Sleeping in separate rooms to reinforce Catholic principles in the home when those in the home profess to want to be Catholics is no Herculean task, Anonymous. Much like asking one to repair the damage they have done as best as they can, if it is in their capacity to do so, is both merciful and just. Why? Because it exacts some repayment from the penitent and it also, very mercifully, teaches the penitent that it is entirely possible for them with the aid of God’s grace to rise above sinful inclinations.
So while I’m not going to get into it with you with regards to your erroneous assertions that ‘I have left the Church’, I’ll clue you into the reality that many young people are disgusted with the notion of being able to do anything with no repercussions whatsoever. Why? Because it is a lie and not reflective of Truth.
And FYI, we’re all prodigals. Because we’re all sinners.
Ann Malley, it didn’t blow my mind that you wanted to and sought to make amends for your sin (which Jesus did on the Cross and our attempts at self-denial could never do-but trying to show our remorse is pleasing to Jesus and you might get some time off of your purgatory if you do it in the spirit of penance with that intention). And it wasn’t the bedroom stuff either. It blew my mind that you found it emotionally or psychologically necessary to seek out a religious group to punish you. You needed something outside of yourself to validate your feelings of naughtiness. You say that you didn’t leave the Church so maybe you went to a valid group like FSSP. If you did, cool. If you didn’t and went to one like SSPX or independent-yikes. Hopefully, you did your confession in the Catholic Church.
Being a sinner does not make one a prodigal although we all can learn about God’s mercy from that parable when we sin (because there are a lot of people who are like the big brother) and I used the term wrongly because it means being lavish and the real issue with you was seeking re-entrance to the Kingdom. But again the point was-there comes a time when the Church has to figure out what it was going to do with public sinners. The first anti-pope was a bishop who did not want those who renounced the Church under fear of death to be re-admitted to the Church when they repented. A lot of people agreed with him. This article is concerned with how to treat people who sin by defying the Church in the matter of same-sex adoption. They probably will discuss this at the synod in October.
“It blew my mind that you found it emotionally or psychologically necessary to seek out a religious group to punish you. You needed something outside of yourself to validate your feelings of naughtiness.”
The penance of abstaining from that to which one does not have a legitimate right is hardly what you describe, Anonymous. (Be it SSPX or FSSP) It is merciful and just. It also draws down grace. And it’s not ‘naughtiness’, but sin, Anonymous. That is why it is not so unclear how to deal with the above scenario.
Either way, I’m glad you got back to the gist of the article. And since you openly declare that you are for upholding Church teachings, I hope you will join me in praying that those teachings will be upheld at the October Synod. And that those in irregular situations will continue to be encouraged to abstain from that to which they have no legitimate right. Same sex marriage or even the intimation of such a union being among them.
For inclusion in the Kingdom isn’t just about getting in the door, but about loving Our Lord and showing Him as much by clinging to grace to avoid that which is offensive to Him. Remember that those found at the wedding feast without the wedding garment (grace) will be cast out.
Also calling someone a prodigal isn’t so much an indication of their profligate spending, but rather their desire to leave the Father’s house and do as they will. So with regard to mortal sin, we are all prodigals.
God bless and thank you.
Ann Malley, you can’t do penance by abstaining from something that offends the Lord. If you were civilly married or living in sin, not having sex is not a penance. Penance is abstaining from something licit. Not having sex if one is not married is justice. You seem to think that I am criticizing you for doing penance or abstaining from sex-I’m not. I am saying that you did not have to leave the Church (or whatever you did) to do that. You knew right from wrong. God knew you knew right from wrong. Here is an example of the primacy of conscience. And you did the right thing by abstaining if you were not married. If you abstained after you were married in the Church, it would be a penance but since you are a woman only if you were submitting to your husband or if you and your husband agreed that it was the right thing to do.
Anonymous, there are other issues that can preclude the lawfulness of married folks having sex even when married in the Church. Sterilization is one of those things. Please, ask questions and ask them without the condescension before you attempt to further diagnose situations. You would save yourself and others a lot of scrambling about.
As to ‘leaving the Church’ with regard to my current attendance, you are not qualified to make that pronouncement despite your repeated assertions. Seeking proper and consistent Catholic disciplines/instruction is not a great mystery when one is attempting to return to the actual Faith and rear the heretofore unchurched. It’s rather logical. Which is why your seeming inability to grasp the value of separate bedrooms and no ‘two-Dads’ we’re married for the above scenario is rather odd.
You also write, “…You seem to think that I am criticizing you for doing penance or abstaining from sex-I’m not.” Perhaps you should read what you write, Anonymous, for how else is one to interpret your odd analysis of seeking an organization to punish.
As to the example of the primacy of conscience, you should understand that that is not an excuse to keep sinning, Anonymous, or to reject proper instruction with regard to the moral law. That is why I said that the ‘penance’ came in the aftermath of my husband’s baptism. And the no sex thing wasn’t sprung on him. He knew he would be held to a certain standard and opted for baptism anyway – God bless him!
So yes, when desiring to return to the Church, I did the right thing by God’s grace and not because of the liberal advice received by the local authority.
Ann Malley, you either are purposely distorting what I wrote or you really do not comprehend it. I assume there is not any point in continuing the discussion.
You kind of have your very own religion and you can’t really understand what I am trying to say to you.
And you are right, I hadn’t considered the possibility that one or both of you mutilated themselves to avoid having more kids. I hope you got that taken care of.
Yes, a new religion called the fullness of Catholic teaching. Your inability to comprehend that is telling.
God bless.
Also, Anonymous, the *ability* to do penance is MERCIFUL. My mind is blown that you consider yourself to be a Catholic in good standing and seem, at the same time, to not understand this basic principle.
The subject is the development of the Church’s discipline. I know you always keep going until it is all about YOU. Not going there.
Anonymous, there are many priests, most of the ones I know who are in good standing with the Church magisterium and are not SSPX who would have told Anne Malley the same thing. The first priest she went to seems to me pretty lax. The simple fact is that the two men in the illicit marriage according to Church teaching should not be living together in sin, and that is what it is if they call it a “marriage”. Sooner or later the child is going to figure out what is going on and that it clashes with Church teaching. Either the child will go down the wrong road or end up in seriously conflict with the two men who raised him. When Fr. Michael told the two lesbians that unadulterated Catholic teaching was taught in his school, I assume that is exactly what he meant — that there is no such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. By the way, that is NOT going to change as Pope Francis has specifically said that marriage is only between one man and one woman. That Holy Mother Church can NEVER change. It is not possible no matter what some dissident priests tell you. It sounds to me that flat out heresy is being taught at MHR.
“…The subject is the development of the Church’s discipline. I know you always keep going until it is all about YOU. Not going there.”
Then don’t distract by bringing up the SSPX, Anonymous. Stick to the subject at hand, your misunderstanding that somehow Church doctrine is ‘progressing’ toward changing the discipline on that which can never be acceptable. In this instance, same sex marriage. As if homosexual inclinations are something new and unprecedented of in the realm of human history. They’re not.
Thank you Anne T for relaying these basics to Anonymous. It is so very invigorating to have Catholic voices opt for Catholic teaching and not some new and improved heresy as if the Church were merely some human construct.
God bless!
Anne T. Agreed. God bless.
Anne T., I do not know whether Anne Malley was civilly married or living in sin. Either way they should abstain until married in the Church. She should not have gone to SSPX or independent chapels to hear what she wanted to hear. thank you for testifying that most Catholic priests do stand up for the Church’s moral law and Tradition.
Ann always twists things if someone disagrees with her. At least this time she did not accuse them of being gay, just not a Catholic in good standing. This is from someone who thinks the Catholic Church is an illusion and only she can discern what is really Catholic or not. Sheesh.
“She should not have gone to SSPX or independent chapels to hear what she wanted to hear.”
This is where you err, Anonymous, in assuming that folks are just seeking what they want to hear in seeking Tradition. Catholics have a right and need to hear what is correct. And the FSSP and diocesan Latin masses are not everywhere despite what you may believe…. or what you have been told.
So sheesh away if you’d like and continue to twist that which you seem incapable of understanding. That must be why you consider questioning a person’s good standing when they seemingly do not understand the actual Faith with an accusation of being gay or unfaithful. Perhaps you should ask your husband for direction and submit to whatever he tells you in this regard. Either way, be certain that what you are proclaiming is sound and logical or else you do not service to the Church.
Ann Malley, no I don’t understand your faith because I am Catholic.
There are Catholic Masses every where. If you refuse to join them, you are a schismatic.
Anonymous – or should I say Mr. Magisterium – it would seem you are the one with the proclamations. But have a care when attempting to play Pope. You may just find that you are not Catholic at all.
When he was appointed archbishop of San Francisco, I was confident that Cordeleone would clean up the filth and heresy. He hasn’t made any changes or improvements. It’s still business as usual. Most Holy Redeemer parish is still a hangout for perverts and heretics. What can be done about this mess? Could or would Pope Francis make changes? What is happening to our Church? God help us.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
This anonymous from August 25, 2014 at 10:14 pm, is one who is in dissent!
How could you make such a comment when someone of faith is showing true and noble concern.
Sarah I can’t answer for this Archbishop but I do know is that sin complicates matters and you know, since the beginning of time, even in its infant years as a young Christian church, the church has always had its politics, good priests were and continue to be persecuted. What you are seeing here, is not any different from the times of St,. Thomas Aqunus, St. Augustine, Council of Hippo, Trent etc.
Lets call the Archbishop’s office and demand answers. After that, lets continue to pray for our church. Lets support and combat this evil by supporting faithful organizations that help combat this evil by educating the public, by reading the CCC, to understand what the church really teaches, to encourage reading the Bible, to study up on the writing of the saints etc. All which will combat the great evils that are infiltrating the church.
This is a sure sign that the devil hates this church, that is why it is using those of bad will to try to destroy it and to try to deceive those of good will but fortunately, those of good will always find and connect themselves with the truth, the good fruits of the church. More and more good is here fighting the good fight….sweat and blood is shed to bring the truth to those who are open to it. Even if its not something we don’t see instantly. I think that not everyone is going to choose Jesus, so that is why we have these dissenters. Not everyone chooses heaven but instead they choose their own will. Which we know ultimately, will be their own destruction!
Don’t fret, keep your eye’s fixed on Jesus, while we can’t fix what we don’t have power over, lets remain faithful, prayerful and act on what is within our reach. The rest, well, we just have to remember the precious words of our Lord’s, His words and His promises. We must trust in His words, that will come according to His plan.
God bless you all.
Linda Maria read my comments please! Don’t cave in to the devil.
Linda Maria is not caving into the Devil! Good grief.
Ann how unfortunate that you don’t understand. Linda Maria when you said “The Catholic Church has truly abandoned Christ! ” that is a an ill assumption, the devil tricking the faithful. We the lay faithful are the Catholic Church. When she brought up V2, a tone of schism, is also not in works with the mission of the church. The church has had many times in its past, times of distress and the church still stands strong! Her words are not relying on the promises in which our Lord made to His flock. I do not judge her, I am trying to help her in charity but the devil will always add some moral relativism, assumptions away from God!
Just because Judas was a disciple that Christ chose, does not make His church all bad or going to hell. People have free will. We have always had traitors in the church, why do you think St. Thomas Aquinas had to defend the truth. Ann if you don’t get it, then pray about it! My heart is genuine for the Lord….
Abeca Christian, yes, the wording ” The Catholic Church has abandoned Christ.” would indicate that the writer does not really understand the Catholic Church or Jesus Christ. But there were times when I felt the same way and it was due to my ignorance and anxiety. I also feel that the devil took advantage of those characteristics and my judgmentalism to twist my head so badly that I thought I was one of the faithful remnant. The Lord showed me my sins and said “See- you can’t possibly be the faithful remnant.” He led me to understand that Satan exploits our desire to be pleasing to God by calling up our pride and showing us the faults of others and getting us to condemn them and then we realize that we just condemned ourselves because we used to do the same thing.
This anonymous from August 27, 2014 at 6:15 pm is adding much more to the confusion. Anonymous there are some homosexuals who post as anonymous and are trying to stir the pot. Since at this time I can not discern which anonymous poster you are nor do I care to interpret what you are saying but know this:
1. Read the CCC
2. Read the Holy scriptures, writings of the saints etc
3.Read an Introduction to the Devout life by St. Francis of Assisi.
Hopefully that should heal any spiritual warfare you may be experiencing, but before you do those 3…..go to confession, pray for a contrite heart. God bless.
Abeca, your continuing to misconstrue talk of Vatican II with schism shows that you have not investigated the issue in full. ‘Tone of schism’ is nothing more than a brick wall intended to forestall actual reading and critical analysis. Like it or not, there are issues with VII documents that need clarification. You may not like that, you may have been taught that criticism of VII is tantamount to schism, but it is not.
Read the links I sent you and listen to the audio sancto sermons of Fr. Wolfe. For whereas you are on board with believing that sin has always been with us and that there are always Judas’ lurking about, you seem unwilling to accept the reality that there were Judas’ about at the time of the council and that we are even still reaping much of the ill intent of their disbelieving hearts. And ‘leaving things open to interpretation’ does precisely that. Leaves things OPEN.
The fact that the Church is still here is testament to God’s promise and glory, but we must as faithful do what we can when we become aware of these issues. Not deny the source of problems. Our Lord expects us to use our intellects and will.
As to Linda Maria, there is MUCH to be learned from our elders. Goodness knows. Experience speaks volumes and of great wisdom, too. So yes, we should turn our eyes and hearts to Jesus and beg for his mercy. We NEED it.
Dear Ann Malley – actually reading and critical analysis of Vatican II is one thing. Making wild claims that Linda Maria makes is not that. Not that at all. She has made a complete denunciation of the Church head to toe. This is hardly in keeping with the faith or the Catechism, or any – pick them any – of the Councils of the Church. And it is decidedly anti-Bibilical, even in with regard to this week’s Gospel reading.
You’re mixing posts, YFC. I am not saying in any way that Linda Maria is acting in accord with any council. I’m observing that she is acting in the manner of a deeply faithful Catholic who is rightly scandalized by and lamenting the devastation that she sees all around. The devastation that IS all around. Devastation aided by an embracing of ambiguity and the redefinition of words. And all this when Our Lord is THE WORD. (That’s the one many want to redefine.)
That said, it would have been no wild claim to look at Our Lord dead on the Cross and to have lamented that, “They have killed Him!” Yes, we must have Faith, it is true. But the Church is the Bride of Christ. And while She will never be fully vanquished, She will indeed imitate Her Spouse who was betrayed most cruelly by those closest to Him. To deride a human being lamenting the crucifixion of the Beloved is absurd.
That is not part of this week’s Gospel, but it is reality, YFC. But while we’re at it, I am not of a mind to join the crowd of, ‘Let’s try to kill the Bride of Christ and see Our Lord work a miracle in preserving Her!’ For while Our Lord will preserve the Church, He will not take kindly to those unrepentant souls whose faithfulness is really a desire to test God and perhaps witness a wildly fascinating miracle.
Yes I agree. I am not gay. I am a reformed traditionalist. i was telling you my experiences that led me away from the lies.
No, hell awaits! Hell awaits!
Send this article to Archbishop Cordilione, along with:
CCC: ” 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,
tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They 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.
CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”
Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7.
” LETTER to the BISHOPS of the CATHOLIC CHURCH on the PASTORAL CARE of HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS ” – which includes:
” #15 ….. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.
A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. ”
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
– – – – – – – – – – –
In addition ALL Catholics should have their own copy of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” because one never knows when they are being mislead – purposely or accidentally.
PETE,
Sending Archbishop Cordileone those passages will not do any good, he knows those writings and at least for now at the peril of his own soul, he has chosen to ignore them. Pray for him! He is apparently more concerned about public satanic opinion than what is God’s Will!
If he finally takes meaningful action, I will be over joyed to retract my above comments.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
The Catholic Church has truly abandoned Christ! Our leaders are all so afraid! And since Vatican II, they have all decided to abide by Vatican II documents- thus, they relinquish roles of power and leadership! The lay people, they say, must decide things for themselves! And who was invited to Vatican II?? NOT the laymen– only the Church leaders, who also were guided and TOLD by the Vatican, what to do!! More than 200,000 priests and bishops resigned, after Vatican II, worldwide! Right then and there– the Mass collapsed– and the Church also truly collapsed! Since then, it has merely been sort of a “ghost” of a “Church!” And the Church we have today, since the close of the “un-Catholic” Council– is NOT “Catholic!” The Church leaders want us all to lead– but with WHAT?? The Canon Law of the Church, is all LEGALLY in the hands of the Pope and Church leaders– NOT the poor lay folk! Our Church leaders are all KILLING CHRIST’S CHURCH!! And there is vey little we can do about it– except PRAY!!
Wow Linda. What a rant.
Well, when there’s something worth ranting about, and the loss of Faith is one of those things, I’m with Linda Maria.
No you are with SSPX.
Which is far more Faithful than the MHR….
I’m with lamenting over the loss of Faith, Anonymous. If you have issues with the SSPX, you should perhaps seek council and get over your obsession. That said, you may want to learn a little about what the SSPX is actually on board with.
God bless you, Canisius!
The Popes have had issues with SSPX.
And some Popes have had trouble with actual Catholic teaching, Anonymous. So what’s your point?
Ann Malley, that is a lie. Please stop your attacks on the Catholic Faith.
different Anony with the same message of silence and blindness and business as usual.
Point is that without Peter, SSPX is essentially a schismatic organization, even if not declared officially so. The ministry of SSPX is illicit, illegal, and contrary to the discipline of the See.
Since you are keyed into the Discipline of the See, you may want to take heed that nobody has been declared in formal schism, Anonymous. Why? Because of adherence to the actual Faith. Protection of the Holy Ghost perhaps?
That is why you cannot credibly claim adherence to the See and then decry the gray area instituted by practice as really schismatic because then you are making judgments that are not yours to make. The same thing you accuse those you claim to be schismatic are doing.
That said, not being contrary to the Faith that has been passed down through the centuries is a logical safe place considering the ongoing crises. If you do not agree, that is your decision. And that will be yours to answer for at judgment, just like it will be for every man.
I am glad, however, that you have found your way. God bless.
Ann Malley, you are not SSPX. Nor do you understand the status of the SSPX. You have your own beliefs and traditions some of which are traditional Catholic, some of which are modernist and some of which are self-invented. Now, please just stop trolling.
God bless you and be well, different Anony. :)
different Anony you are funny. I don’t think I understood your comments? Well anyhoo there are many story tellers in our time today, they are the ones who are not always telling the truth. They tell a story they heard about, spread it and then gossip travels and its not always the whole truth. But the truth is that no matter what they want to share about V2, it is still Christ’s church, we are the church and its up to the faithful to take up their cross and walk with Christ. We have apostolic succession. Valid Apostolic succession. These modern day times are no different than the heresies the church had to face during St, Thomas Aquinas era nor any other time from other saints of the church facing dissent from dissenters.
So different Anony who ever you are….yes God bless you and be well, in case that is the case. I think that if you are truly a person who loves Rome, you would avoid causing confusion by going with the name different anony but I guess it doesn’t matter, or does it?
VII is no more Christ’s Church than Trent is the Church, Abeca. VII was a council that produced fruits, some not so good. Your particular faithfulness is not an adherence to VII or a fruit thereof, per se, but rather an adherence to the Faith itself. At least judging by your postings.
I would hope that in the time of the Arian heresy you wouldn’t have labeled those against it as mere story tellers or truth twisters. And there were many in the apostolic succession that ascribed to Arianism. That said, I’m not so sure what you mean by loving Rome. But if loving Rome equates to loving the actual Faith minus ambiguity and error, then by all means love Rome. But do not kid yourself that those graced with being the successors of the apostles are somehow prevented from grave sin and error. They are not. So whereas you advocate lovingly correcting priests when they are in error, taken to its logical extension, there are times when correcting or countering Bishops etc is necessary, too. That’s no fairy story. And since Bishops etc wrote the VII documents, there is no guarantee that those documents are impeccable either.
That is why clinging to the Faith as it has always been taught is so important in addition to being wise as a serpent yet innocent as a dove. If discernment weren’t necessary, then Our Lord wouldn’t have advised us to do as much with regards to fruits.
Since we are all the body of Christ and He is the Head…..we feel the loss and pain when our brothers and sisters go astray and become lost. We lament over the loss of faith and pray for the conversion of all sinners.
Sandra D,
May God continue to bless you. You are a compassionate truth teller. You’re intentions are to unite in truth. Thank you for your much needed posts.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH – Second Edition
CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
ARTICLE 2
OUR VOCATION TO BEATITUDE
I. THE BEATITUDES
1716 The Beatitudes are at the heart of Jesus’ preaching. They take up the promises made to the chosen people since Abraham. The Beatitudes fulfill the promises by ordering them no longer merely to the possession of a territory, but to the Kingdom of heaven:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven.
Linda Maria how wrong you are to voice such despair, Please fix your eye’s on Jesus. Don’t you trust in His words and His promises to us?
Linda Maria’s cry is nothing but the lamentation of the people. God bless her for voicing her grief. I would venture her belief in the promises of Christ are very strong as she advocates PRAYING which is, in truth, but a testament to the reality that Christ will preserve the Church.
Please try to be understanding of those who have lived through the war, that is witnessed first hand the demolition of what was. Those who haven’t lived through as much, even in an actual war zone, can often dismiss the shock, grief, disbelief etc as a lack of faith. But then their faith may not have been similarly tested. There but for the grace of God, go I!
Sorry, but Linda Maria’s comments are nothing but an attack on the Church herself. Much much more widespread and damaging than anything I have ever said on CCD. I take issue with one single solitary thread of Catholic moral teaching. Not it’s doctrine, nor its structure, nor its ecumenical councils, nor its hierarchy, nor its liturgy, nor its Creed. Yet She throws them and the entire Church out the window. #getreal
Linda Maria’s comments are more a cry of ‘Look what we have done,’ much as I would imagine the followers of Christ lamented in their hearts when they witnessed the scourging of Our Lord.
The Church is more than her present hierarchy. And Thank God! For the Mystical Body includes all that has come before as well. Those many would now like to condemn, if not outright, then most assuredly by the promotion of liberalized, modern psuedo-doctrine. And that is something to lament.
“Sorry, but Linda Maria’s comments are nothing but an attack on the Church herself. Much much more widespread and damaging than anything I have ever said on CCD.” = Hissing from the serpent
What a slithering, scaly and slippery attempt to stick in a crock of baloney. Not only are you NOT sorry, YOU’RE wicked agenda is an attack on Jesus Christ.
Thank you for showing everyone just how extremely threatened the lavender mafia dissenters ( from within) are at the very thought of Catholics actually “knowing” what the Church actually teaches. Eve may have have bought the lies that you are selling but you’ll never get any traction selling you’re poison here.
Catherine, such a hateful comment at 10:59 AM. Honestly, where do you think such nastiness fits into a Christian life? Linda repeatedly says things like the Church has abandoned Christ. That is pure apostasy. I guess you don’t like the messenger, but what I wrote about Linda is true. And you have the nerve to call me a devil, because you are obsessed with homosexuality, rather than deal with her utter abandonment of the Church.
Transparent as always, YFC. You have no clue what apostasy is.
My understanding leans on the understanding of Christ, His church, His promises and His holy word…..so in charity I want to help Linda Maria understand this. Unlike your point of view, which is not even close.
Then attempt to understand Linda Maria’s pov, Abeca. Learn more about VII instead of crying schism and blocking off any and all avenues of dialogue. Your research – listening to and reading the links I sent you – could be seen as the height of Christian charity as learning the objections of others would give you the means to defend VII without having to stonewall people or label others as schismatic.
So yes, lean on the understanding of Christ. Reach out to your neighbors using intellect and will.
Abeca,
Ann Malley did bring up a very truthful point about lamentations. I think it is charitable for you to have noble intentions of wanting to help Linda Maria’s understanding with encouraging words. Linda Maria’s profound expressions of grief tells us that she does understand. You essentially told her she was “wrong” for crying out. Abeca for example, was it wrong for these lamentation quotes that listed below to be spoken in Sacred Scripture? The eyes of these people in Sacred Scripture were fixed on Jesus. They were crying out to Jesus and this is why we have these lamentations to reflect on how God’s people suffer when darkness is enveloping their surroundings. I do not think that Linda Maria is “despairing.” Quite the contrary I think she is still very much caring about the souls of others as well as being aware of Jesus’s promises. I sincerely believe that even many of CCD’s articles are also another form of lamentation or crying out to inform Jesus’s lambs to be on guard. It will be important in the coming years for all of us to be even more supportive and encouraging of one another and yes, trust that with God “all things are possible.”
Psalms of lamentation
142:1. A psalm of David, when his son Absalom pursued him. [2 Kings 17.] Hear, O Lord, my prayer: give ear to my supplication in thy truth: hear me in thy justice.
142:2. And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight no man living shall be justified.
142:3. For the enemy hath persecuted my soul: he hath brought down my life to the earth. He hath made me to dwell in darkness as those that have been dead of old:
142:4 And my spirit is in anguish within me: my heart within me is troubled.
142:5. I remembered the days of old, I meditated on all thy works: I meditated upon the works of thy hands.
142:6. I stretched forth my hands to thee: my soul is as earth without water unto thee.
142:7. Hear me speedily, O Lord: my spirit hath fainted away. Turn not away thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.
If the end times are coming, let us not despair. Trust that the wicked will be punished. I’m for trusting God. This is definitely a true test of faith. These are trying times. People have turned away from God and continue. They let an evil spirit enter and they rebuked it away but when the people of faith long ago, rested, they were not alert, so what happened, the evil spirit returned and brought more evil spirits with it. From the beginning of the 1900’s, the people in the church thought that the Catholic church was it, they took for granted many things and what happened? They thought that people should know better…but more protestant sects came to be. more would find fault with the church….and now look it here, the problems of the secular are so big and monstrous that it entered the church and it looks like some are not prepared to deal with. AND do you blame them? We have the internet, the media as the evil force, the gay mafia, they have grown in power etc. The internet does so much more harm, even some humble priests, nuns, Archbishops are not prepared to deal with the issue. They distracted.
Since they crucified our Lord, do you think that they would not do what they did to our Lord to this Archbishop or others? That is why we need to pray for this Archbishop because he, like us, is human, and needs our Lord’s courage and whatever else he needs. Sometimes we ask our Lord, Lord SOS but the answer isn’t always what we are looking for.
“From a FISSURE the SMOKE OF SATAN has entered the temple of God.” – Pope Paul VI, 1972
“Suddenly so much filth. It was really almost like the crater of a VOLCANO, out of which suddenly a tremendous CLOUD OF FILTH came, darkening and soiling everything.” – Pope Benedict XVI, 2010
Smoke of Satan + Cloud of Filth = Sodomites
When I was young, there was absolutely NO QUESTION– as to what a person must do, to be considered a “good practicing Catholic, in good standing with the Church!” Even non-Catholics understood this! Also– everyone knew, what kind of a person, might be considered as basically a “good Christian!” It all was very honest and clear! A person needs a good work ethic, and a lot of maturity, as well as good religious training, and a good moral conscience– to be a good, practicing Catholic! One must understand clearly, what Christ taught, know that it is often hard– yet, possible for everyone to do– and have faith, and obey Him! He will help you! Life is often hard, regardless! And people just make things even harder– when they refuse to obey God, and commit sin! For those who disobey Christ, if they are not corrected properly– they are losing their souls, and the price of the loss of one’s soul– is horrible!
“Your Fellow Catholic” and “Anonymous”: No, these are not, and can never be without public confession and recantation, “holy men”. And, Yes, the “sky is falling,” although unlike Chicken Little, this time the threat is very real. These men — and, apparently, unfortunately, the Archbishop — are mocking Jesus. Remember what was said in scripture: “And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.//But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.” Luke 12:4-5. These men, and what they sell, is perversion. They may wear a collar, may be given permission to preach, and to act like priests, but they are moral vipers and bring only destruction. Make light of it, temporize it all you want, but be afraid of the one that can throw a sinner into hell (yes, it does exist). What was it that Paul advised, “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, . . . with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” Letter to the Philippians 2:12 (DRV) Good luck, but save the child, as no homosexual “couple” should ever, never adopt an innocent child; the concept is a complete and utter perversion.
I as many had high hopes for Archbishop Cordilione he has turned out to be another “fake” and terrified of the homosexual community and what would happen if he clammped down or closed Most Holy Redeemer. Yes he celebrated some TLM’s and appeared to be traditional but alas he has turned into pudding, where are all the men in the Church who have backbone???
Have you done your duty, rather than just complaining about the Archbishop?
What have you done to insure that the Archbishop is aware of this?
Have you sent him a copy of this article?
Are you certain he received it, or are there people in his Diocese Office who are hiding info from him?
Code of Canon Law under “Obligations and Rights of all the Christian Faithful” –
” 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals,
with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. “
Archbp Cordeleone visited Most Holy Redeemer and said the experience was “tenderizing.” He loved it. What does this say about the Archbishop?
Is it possible that those at MHR put on a ‘temporary’ show of holiness for the Abp? (The devil is deceitful; the father of lies.)
Have people been reporting abuses to the Abp as they happen?
His Excellency’s office received this posting….
Joe G first of all you are twisting his excellencies words and second of all….Archbishop Cordeleone needs our prayers and support. He has been made aware of this now and KNOW that He does care about what the Lord says about these sort of scandals. Don’t listen to the negative stuff you hear, just remain faithful and prayerful. His excellency is a humble soul, doing his best under the circumstances and the spiritual war that constantly keep on attacking him.
You people need to remain loyal instead of stirring up the pot. You don’t know what is happening behind closed doors so its best to pray. Remember that some people hate this Archbishop and try to slam him. Remember that the devil forces himself in often, sometimes much more faster than most humans can handle. This Archbishop is not superhuman, nor is he a magician to please every person here, who feels disappointed or not, because all it takes is a negative article for some to already want to hang him. You’ll have an article informing people how he stands up for marriage, next you have an article of problems and issues much bigger than he, occurring in his diocese and some here already want to hang him. The homosexuals want that, they want to discourage his excellency! Sometimes I believe that those of faith, as much as they have good intentions, sometimes work against the good cause just by their lack of a prayerful life but instead vent their insecurities too often on public media, causing much more harm to what the church wants to accomplish in its mission. Be patient, things don’t always go our way, especially not when we want them to.
Not sure you have really fathomed what’s happening in San Francisco. The Archbishop certainly does need our prayers but he’s really done nothing to earn our support. Don’t you recall when as Bishop of Oakland, the (now) Archbishop was actively funding contraception, and abortifacient drugs? https://cal-catholic.com/?p=626 ? What did he do to correct the situation? Nothing. No action was taken on this issue until Bp. Barber came along. Don’t you think that’s pretty appalling?
It doesn’t take superhuman ability to clean up things in the archdiocese; that’s just an incorrect assumption. Why are the problems “bigger than he is”? Look at what Bp. Barber has already done in Oakland to clean up the mess left behind by (now) Apb. Cordileone.
Loyalty to sin is no virtue. You’re asking people to simply turn a blind eye to what is obvious out of naive deference to a man, which why the Church is in the trouble it’s in now.
No Dave N I am not asking people to turn a blind eye nor am I asking them to support loyalty to sin. I am sorry that you thought that. No I am not conveying that. Read all of my comments and hopefully you can conclude better. It takes a lot to keep repeating things. But I appreciate your time to get clarity. You are a good soul and I appreciate your charity. = )
Would rather attend mass at Most Holy Redeemer with Frs. Link & McClure presiding than St. Mary Major Basilica and Cardinal Law.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Based upon their public statements and public actions – Frs. Link & McClure are in the state of Mortal Sin.
They do not care about the Mortal Sins of Scandal or Sacrilege.
They do not care about send the Souls of others to Hell for eternity; only the sexual here and now is important to them.
“PJT”: Let’s see, “I like Goering better than Hitler,” and “Joe Stalin was much better than that nasty Mao”. Does your comment make any sense? Satan wears many disguises, but he is still the Devil. You should seek out priests that follow Tradition, and attend their masses. Difficult to find in SF, but not impossible in the area. Get away from sin and those that embrace it and find it good and pleasing. You will see the difference shortly.
Does MHR have a chapter of “Courage” – or are they banned so the Anti-Scientific Turkey Baster Creationist coven at MHR can remain unchallenged – by Actual Catholicism?
SEE (from the CCD Events calendar):
San Francisco – Courage – Catholic Support Group
Aug 27 @ 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Support group for persons struggling with same-sex attraction, meets weekly on Thurs. evenings. Call Fr. Mark Taheny or Fr. Lawrence Goode at 650-322-2152 for more information.
You may also call Bay Area Hot Line – 650-450-2286. Your call is confidential.
A Vatican-approved apostolate.
That was my thought exactly Michael, that is a Church Ministry that is in much need!!!
BTW – Although the Church took a lot of flack long ago about siding with Aristotle over Galileo (who correctly observed the Earth is Not the Physical Center of the Solar System – but questionably stated it was the ‘Center’ of the Universe – although the meaning of ‘Center’ is open to debate in that regard)…
The Catholic Church maintains a strong systematic scientific inquiry in to the nature of things – as God’s Creation is Also known to us through His Science as well as His Gospel.
The pretense that a Child has Two Fathers (XY Male) is not just contrary to the Faith, it is also de-bunked by Science, which recognizes that All Procreation is Heterosexual and thus every child has a Mother (XX) and Father (XY), regardless of who engages in child raising functions.
To overcome the Denial of Access to Both Parents and Siblings via the ‘Turkey Baster Creationist’ scams is the main purpose of the Donor – Sibling Registry http://www.DonorSiblingRegistry.com
The public testimony of these ‘Children of Science’ clearly shows that they know better than to pretend they have two daddies / mommies – although some have been viciously abused by ‘partners’ who demand the Child not just Repeat the Lie, but believe it too.
McDermott STILL defends the purge against Galileo. Oh for pete’s sake!
Harpy Tales 2 U – Until they Bleat Again…. And Again…
Anonymous Homosex Trolls seeking to fan flame wars on this board are nothing new, and regardless of how slimy the lies they spread…
– Readers should avoid their ‘banana peel’ propaganda that seeks to help us slip and fall from both Catholic Reason and Faith, which are only incompatible in the Resident Harpy Propaganda Pogrom.
Remember – Don’t Feed the Trolls, it only makes them meaner.
Please Lord, when will it end?
JF asks: “When Will It End?
The answer, of course – On the Last Day.
…As Advertised. Ahem.
The baptism of a child into the Catholic faith is a cause for joy not “mindless babble” from a small group of ultra-conservative Catholics who seem to frequent this website. In case you have gotten the memo, the two men are successfully raising children who were placed for adoption by their mother & father. There has been no significant change in the nearly 40+% divorce rate over the past 10 years even among Catholics. These men should be praised not criticized for raising their children in a Christian environment! Scientific studies have proven this children raised by same-sex couples do as well as those raised by heterosexual couples.
I’m reminded of words from Archbishop Cordileone who after returning from his trip in support of NOM, responded to critics by “urging them to get to know people who disagree with them first before rushing to judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context.. I suggest the author of this article and those ultra-conservative Catholics who have made negative comments here do the same with MHR. You need to recognize that the majority of Catholics in the US now approve of same-sex marriage and that over 40% of Catholics approve of same-sex couples adopting. Those numbers will only grow larger over time.
JimS.
Our Lord never guaranteed that the majority of those who call themselves Catholic will ever see Heaven, only those who remain faithful to His Teachings will!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
There are no “ultra-conservative Catholics”. There are Catholics; and there are heretics. Those who defend sodomy are heretics who will languish in “eternal fire” (Jude 1:7).
JimS, in the Catholic Church, we do not “vote” on the moral fad of the day as some Protestant Churches do.
It does not matter what the “majority” think.
Our goal is to get to Heaven for eternity. Jesus, himself stated that those who get to Heaven will be few. Mt 7:13-14; and Lk 23-28.
Sodomy (homosexual acts) is a Mortal Sin.
Those who are unrepentant and die in the state of Mortal Sin shall spend their eternity in Hell.
This is not conservative, it is Catholic Church teaching for all Catholics.
Any Catholic who does not believe this is a heretic and schismatic (using Church definition – CCC # 2089).
That is not true Jim S.
Our Lord to Saint Gertrude:
“My delights are to be with the children of men. To satisfy My love I have instituted this Sacrament. I have obliged Myself to remain therein even to the end of the world, and I wish It to be frequently received. Should anyone deter a soul, not in the state of mortal sin, from Communion, he would impede the delight of My Heart. I have done My utmost to manifest the tenderness of My Heart in the Blessed Eucharist. When, impelled by the vehemence of My Love, I enter a soul by Communion, I fill it with graces, and all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, and all the souls in purgatory experience at the same moment some new effect of My bounty.”
Remember when sodomites just wanted to be left alone, and nothing more? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites just wanted to be allowed to serve in the military, and nothing more? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites just wanted to be able to serve openly in the military, and nothing more? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites said, “Just give us ‘civil unions’ for our filthy perverted lifestyle choice, we don’t want to get ‘married’”? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites said, “Just allow us to marry so we can have the same property rights as heterosexual married couples, we don’t want anything more”? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites said, “Just allow us to adopt boys, like heterosexual married couples do, we don’t want anything more”? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites said, “Just allow us into the Boys Scouts, like heterosexuals are allowed, we don’t want anything more”? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when our boys could play outside all day without fear of being kidnapped and raped by sodomites who, though only 2% of the population, make up 33% of all child sex abusers? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when sodomites said, “We are a loving and tolerant and open people, we will always respect others’ different views and never impose our filthy perverted lifestyle on others”? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Kitschy. Third time will be a charm . . .
Kitsch is low brow mass produced art…I used to indulge in collecting it in the ’70s. What has kitchiness got to do with this discussion? Or is it just habitual for those of SSA to redefine the English language?
Dear Dana, nice use of copying one dictionary definition of the word, ignoring the other definitions of the word, just so that you can slam other people. Nice.
You may want to scold peter, YFC, if your new venture is the slam police.
Thanks YFC!! I didn’t use a dictionary…I am an artist and taught art (with vocabulary tests). I didn’t mean to slam anyone, honest. I just take an interest in language and it’s many abuses …like impacting something, when impact was never a verb until people stopped having impacted teeth and began impacting one another, or when homophiles accuse Catholics of being homophobes which is entirely inaccurate since it has nothing to do with an obsessive fear of people of ssa . Oh, by the way…I didn’t know there were other explanations of kitsch, so I stand corrected. What does it mean now?
Really, Dana, you need to ask me what it means “now”? It has meant the same thing for the last 30 years. Look it up yourself. We know you looked it up, or at least knew what it means in common parlance, before you wrote your prior post. Don’t try to play Miss Innocent. It is not becoming.
Ah, Dana, the artist. That explains the spot on colorful metaphor. Please, keep them coming as life without art and the artists perspective is much like life without a sense of humor.
Give thanks to God you have both.
^ Saul
Thanks Ann! Laughter is a great antidote to anger, isn’t it? When I see a hippoponimous or giraffe I see what an amazing sense of humor our Great Creator has…and why so many of His chosen people are comedians. I love Tavia’s line in Fiddler on the Roof when he’d suffered yet another disaster…”I know we’re your chosen people but couldn’t you choose somebody else once in a while!?”
Or like St. Therese of Avila said, “If this is how you treat your friends, Lord, I understand why you have so few.”
God bless!
Some people just want to live in 1950.
Others in Sodom-by-the-Sea.
Yes we do prefer the 50’s when the Church was normal and flourishing with the TLM!!!!!!!
And the S.S.P.X. is still out of communion with Rome, what a world we live in!!
Being in union with eternal Rome is what matters much like being in union with the Faith as it has been passed down in truth, not how it is reinterpreted to the detriment of the faithful.
Janet a good start is the CCC and the Holy scriptures.
eternal Rome??????????
Remember what our great Holy Father Pope Benedict the XVI said, he would prefer a smaller Church with true believers as opposed to a big Church with no believers. Sadly, under this Papacy the later is what is prefered by the current Roman Pontiff.
Have Faith in the promise of the Holy Ghost, Janek, and the union that goes far beyond ‘preference’ and the current here and now.
God bless !
The current Holy Father Francis is popular now, and it is good that people are starting to go to Church, but is it for the right reasons? As Our Lord said, some seed would be sown on fallow ground and not take root, other seed would take root but the devil would pull it up, and the latter would be good seed that would not only take root but yield a harvest. Some people are brought into the Church on false premises too, as I think Ann Malley expressed, by dissident priests telling them that some of the teachings of the Church are going to change, when they cannot and will not.
…there are also those who have been encouraged to become priests under the auspices that marriage will soon be allowed. No doubt some are rather miffed that this is not the case and rightfully so if that encouraged them in their ‘vocation’. But once ordained, there we are.
Half truths and promises of what ‘could be’ surely causes a lot of problems in the long term.
Anne T,
Excellent post!
Taken from Rorate Caeli
Post-Christian and Secular: The Loss of Pudor
“Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not ashamed; they did not now how to blush.” Jeremiah 8:12
One of the most glorious parts of Vergil’s Aeneid really has nothing to do with Aeneas’ founding of Rome. Book IV of the Aeneid deals with the passion of Queen Dido of Carthage for the man-hero Aeneas and its tragic consequences. Dido has sworn a oath to her dead husband that she will never remarry, that she will always be true to the oath she made to her husband to be faithful and true to him even after his death. When she meets Aeneas, she is stirred with passion, and in a famous scene she swears to her sister Anna, she swears by the gods, that she will never set aside her pudor and embark on an affair with this man-god Aeneas. That word pudor: a Classical word that has come into the vocabulary of all the Romance languages. Those who know Spanish or Portuguese or Italian will recognize this word immediately. Its meaning lies deep in the understanding of the human psyche, and its English translation, which is inadequate, is a “sense of shame”. For the Classical author, to lose one’s pudor makes one less than human, more of an animal than a man or woman. This very word, “shame”, is something that is disappearing from our culture, our society. The post-modern man, who is a man who has shed or who is ignorant of Western history and culture, that of the Classical Greek and Roman and of its flowering and sacralization in Christianity, has lost his sense of shame.
This pudor, this sense of shame, is deeply biblical.
Well said, Catherine. Thank the Lord for classic literature! We have sold so much for the sake of white space and fast pacing.
I agree,Ann and Catherine..I love Rorate Caeli for its timelessness and focus on beauty, history and truth. Another good source is https://nobility.org
which helps fill in many gaps I have in understanding Church history.
Dana, the website you mention may not be trustworthy. The original TFP was condemned by the Brazilian bishops in 1985.
The American TFP is not condemned but it is bases on the writings of a man who was, I think, excommunicated. Some consider it a cult. There was a lot of information available a few years ago online about it, but they a lot of it has disappeared.
I am sure that you can find a better source of Catholic history. Here is a good one
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT
Thanks! Fortunately, I just use it for the historical resources, which seem pretty accurate, but I could see how it could be construed as a bit cultish. (for kings and queens, noblemen, etc.)
Anne T said: “They just want to use the innocent child as a pawn in their evil scheme.”
How SSAD (same sex attraction disorder) and How True (in so many ways) Anne’s observation; and how alarmingly disgusting that there are those ‘priests’ who would knowingly support such Evil.
Using an Innocent Child as a Hostage to the Gaystapo Pogrom of ‘Pander or Perish’ is an act despicable enough to be worthy of these type Anti-Catholic Hatemongers – whose attack on the Church is just part of the BAMN BAMN (Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary) agenda of the Twysted Systerhood and their homo-anal coprophile allies and assorted stooges for ‘the cause’ – of Destroying Said Church and the hated ‘hetero-patriarchy’ bogeyman they target.
There were Many ways this could have been handled better- ways that Both provided the Sacrament to the Child – and Upheld Catholic Teaching on the Intrinsic Evil these Gaystapo Propagandists are trying to shovel on the body of the Church – that the Truth be buried under the endless lies they heap upon each other.
BTW – Where Is the Child’s Mother? Every Child has both a Mother (XX) and Father (XY) – although others can step on as surrogates (say if one or more pre-deceased the child) – so long as they do not attempt use a Catholic Sacrament to Deny the Truth (Scientific & Theological) of All Procreation as inherently Heterosexual.
Weather stealing a Consecrated Host to use in a ‘black’ service (recently repeated) – or truing to subvert Sacraments to Degrade & Demean the Church and Faith itself –
– Those doing Evil are truly constantly at War against the Church, even if the ‘church of nice-mice’ types are too timid to name it as such, for fear of hurting the feelings of those trying to exterminate them.
Mr. McDermott once again strings together a bunch of words in order to create his own pseudo-reality that is essentially a lie. He has already lied to each and every one of you, repeatedly, by saying that the 2014 Dyke March was to start on the steps of Mission Dolores Basilica. I refuted him, and cited the website which proved that it was starting two blocks away at Dolores Park. He repeated the lie, then when I wouldn’t let him off the hook, he countered that I couldn’t read a map. Now he acknowledges that it didn’t start on the steps of the Basilica, but that that was his vantage point as it marched by on public streets. Lie upon lie upon lie.
Mr. McDermott is an attorney, or at least he went to law school. He knows full well that juries are instructed that if they find that a witness has lied about one aspect of their testimony, he can be assumed to have lied about other aspects of their testimony. The fact that McDermott perpetrated an intentional lie (for the purpose of insinuating that the Dykes had it in for the Church), he can be assumed to be lying about everything else he posts here. And this is just the latest example of his lying tactic. This child may be reading this blog, or may discover it at some point down the road. How HORRIBLE it is to plant the notion in his mind that he was a hostage, or victim of some neo-Nazi movement. How horrible, indeed.
Even if McDermott is promoting some good, it is not morally acceptable for him to use a means (lying) to get to that end. Any of you who sit idly by and allow him to lie, are sharing in his guilt.
Sorry, YFC, I do not read his posts. Stop feeding the trolls.
Thus far as much as I know and am aware Mr. MIchael McDermott is a gentleman and does not lie.
Dear Abeca Christian: Mr McDermott does most certainly lie. He told you, me, and the entire CCD community that the Dyke March was to begin on the steps of the Basilica of MIssion Dolores, when all the while I provided links to the website of the organizers stating that the march began at Dolores Park, 2 blocks away. Twice he rebuked my facts, then claimed I couldn’t read a map, then in a fourth post admitted that it was he who began his participation of the march on the steps of the Basilica. He perpetrated this lie so that you and others would believe that the purpose of the Dyke March was to stick it to the catholic church. He lied up and down on this website. On purpose. If you ignore it, Dear Abeca Christian, you participate in his lie.
YFC, you have yet to admit that homosexual acts are Mortal sins;
and that those who do not repent before death will spend their eternity in Hell.
If you are Catholic you will state this.
If you are a troll, you will not.
“…If you ignore it, Dear Abeca Christian, you participate in his lie,” is nothing more than YFC’s latest attempt at head-game manipulation. Nothing new.
Matt, lying, too is a serious matter and possibly a mortal sin, and all that you write applies to it too. Allowing lies to go unchallenged is also a serious matter and possibly a mortal sin. How about you ask Mr. McDermott his view on lying as a mortal sin? How about you speak out against his lies?
Where a dyke march started or did not start is not serious matter, YFC. Serious matter is required for a sin to be mortal.
By the definition in the Catechism, telling an untruth with the intent to deceive is indeed a serious matter, and makes its telling potentially a mortal sin. Please re-read what the catechism says about the issue. McDermott clearly intended to deceive. Had he simply been mistaken, he would have accepted the correction. Instead he first retold it, then claimed I couldn’t read a map, now goes around telling who knows what other stories. His intent is most clearly to deceive his readers into believeing that the Dykes march is somehow an anti-Church rally. Why else would he perpetrate this story, even when the facts are plainly available to everyone with internet access? He is trying to deceive all of us into believing that misandry is at the heart of everything around him. I mean, really, you all talk about ME playing the victim card? Lying about where a march starts to make men and the Church the victim – OMG this is the pure definition of making oneself the (false) victim. Get with the program. Stop the lies.
“By the definition in the Catechism, telling an untruth with the intent to deceive is indeed a serious matter, and makes its telling potentially a mortal sin.” Good gravy, YFC, it is a good thing you are not a catechist. You’d have kids scared to death over lying about a cookie – or even perhaps forgetting the circumstances under which the cookie had gone missing – all the while perpetually intimating that sodomy is not mortal sin.
Deluded victim card.
Dear Abeca and dear Ann M. Isn’t it sweet that someone always calls us dear? sigh.:) Though I still prefer dahling, ala Tallulah Bankhead (wow, they sure don’t give names like that these days) Or maybe sweetcheeks? I dunno…the jury’s out on that one. But getting back to the subject at hand, I think the whole point of this whole thread was someone ( Suspect A…not necessarily the priest, as most bulletins are put out by a secretary) made it point to deliberately point out that the baby ( exhibit 1) baptized had two ssa dads(1+1=0 ) in the Sunday bulletin. Apparently the ‘priests’ are homosexuals (talk about oxy-morons!) Soooo, basically we have a mean-spirited trouble maker (A) trying to cause dissension amongst the congregation ( Catholics, the usual sinners you see at most Masses, some repentent, some not aware of sin…the usual crew) and/or the diocese or just against God in particular. What conclusion can we draw? (okay, pardner…draw) Are the congregants upset? If not, why not? Some here have suggested notifying the Bishop (since not even flaming orgies and child abuse have initially gotten their attention until brought into courts of law, this might not be effective) Another solution might be having one of those flashmobs of traditional Catholics pop in some Sunday Mass at Most Holy Redeemer …now that might be really effective! Also, I wouldn’t hesitate to ask these priests how they can live with themselves. I’d be really curious, wouldn’t you? Perhaps they publicized the baptism to encourage other men of ssa (especially aging, nerdy-looking ones) that have adopted some lucky little child that when he or she is 15 they’ll be about 75 will want to have them baptized too.
Excellent observations, Dana. I like the flashbomb of Tradition for MHR. That said, you are spot on with the ‘usual suspects’. Much like the Anonymous poster who seems incapable of understanding that we are all called to live according to what the Faith actual teaches. As if homosexual inclinations were some new fangled phenomenon that the Church has never battled before. But this is what comes of taking actual history out of schools and replacing it with ‘social studies’.
Dear Dana – You are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, or contrary to the evidence. 1) You speculate that the “Dads” “are “SSA” whatever that means. 2) You speculate that the priests are homosexual, again, without evidence and in any case, irrelevant. 3) This is a first communion not a baptism. 4) There aren’t suspects, as there is no crime. 5) Staging a flash mob is an appropriate way to disagree with fellow Catholics during mass.
“SSA” Whatever that means, YFC? Really?
Can you imagine what those two horrible men tell that little boy in the confessional? They should not be giving advice to anyone. This is all so sick, sick. It is child abuse at its worst with no other decent family member to intervene.
One of the anonymous commentators made the point that this was a First Holy Communion, not a Baptism. My bad. But the scandal remains. How many parishes do you know make a habit of mentioning individual Baptisms and First Holy Communions in a priest’s column such as this? Maybe the parish lists the children who have received Communion in the bulletin. But mentioning the parents? Not done in my experience. So this priest went out of this way to ensure that both “dads” were mentioned.
OK FrMichael, so it is not in your experience, to have individual First Communicants announced in the parish bulletin. Does your lack of experience warrant the torrent of hostility rained down in this article and its comments??
I’m guessing this parish hasn’t had a first communion in a while. Or maybe it is the first First Communion for this new Pastoral Team. So what is wrong with them allowing the joy of this moment to leaven this community? Is your own personal experience the rule by which we should judge the pastoral actions of every parish in the Archdiocese?
You’re not even aware of how disrespectful you sound YFC. You never show the slightest empathy , respect or affection for anyone who represents true Church teaching …especially the priests who contribute here. That should really worry you. I’ve yet to hear you voice the least concern for our brothers and sisters suffering in Iraq but you swoon at the thought that a child will read a post on his baptism? Are you kidding? Do you ever reflect on what you’re actually promoting? I regret being too judgmental or critical or overly officious and opinionated. Aren’t you sorry sometimes for always being in complete disagreement with Church teachings and Her priests?
Dana, your post presupposes that I myself do not represent true Church teaching. I think I do. I look at the totality of Church teaching, including its teachings on chastity, on homosexuality, and on conscience, all taken together. I may be wrong, but at least I only look to implicate myself, not others. I think some others here pick and select in a way that implicates people other than themselves, and forget how the teachings implicate themselves.
YFC, your comments to Michael McDermott would indicate otherwise as you insist that mistaken information is somehow grave matter and possibly a mortal sin. All this while your conscience supposedly precludes the mortally sinful nature of sodomy. So yes, YFC, you are wrong. At the very least when you think yourself to be immune to implicating the supposed sins of others.
Well, for my part, I find that the more light of Jesus I let shine through me, the less shadow I cast on the world. Alas, my old nature wants to cast a long shadow and block the light. It should be easy! The ‘me’ that is in all of us always wants its own way and seeks the easiest way of taking charge…the weakest area of our nature is where pride takes root and grows. Such a great gift is confession and examination of conscience. One should try to do it at least once a day…using the ten commandments, and seeing where we are deluding ourselves or the areas where we repeated fail. What do you do with “Thou shat not commit adultery?” ,using the CCC as a good resource for explaing just whIch of our sins fall under which commandment…gossip, for example, would fall under “Thou shat not kill.” It’s actually a grave sin.
Announcing “two Dads” was unnecessary by these homosexual Priests, and is blatant, and violates Church teaching. It gives credence to the homosexual mantra that it is a normal lifestyle.
It gives Scandal, and possibly Sacrilege.
These Priests should be defrocked.
There is nothing in what these priests have done, including mentioning “two dads” that violates Church teaching. Just as there is a concept of creeping infallibilism, referring to the tendency to think that everything a Pope says he says infallibly, there is also a tendency to think the Church teaches in much more detail about things like this than it actually does. We can’t make up Church doctrine out of whole cloth simply because we don’t like something someone has done.
Also, I’m not sure why you state that these priests are homosexual priests. I haven’t seen that anywhere else, so perhaps you might want to check your facts.
FrMichael, as an adult child of parents who had a lot of mental and emotional issues, the one thing I am extremely grateful to them for is getting me baptized and confirmed and seeing that I received my first Communion. What would have happened to me if they had not? I shudder to think.
Anonymous we don’t even know if you are what you say you are? There are a lot of homosexual activist who come here pretending to be Catholic and they try to lie or try to prove a point against the church. I hope that the lay faithful can discern this. Do you know how many people where never baptized or confirmed all due to their parents either not conforming to church or not even are Catholic? Well when they became adults they chose for themselves. Why do you despair, don’t you think that our Lord would provide for His children?
Anonymous, did your parents publically promote or advocate Mortal Sin ?
If you think the Priests as well as the 2 Dads in this article are mentally ill, you may be right.
We do not correct immoral behavior by publically approving of it.
Don’t be ridiculous. None of the parties to this discussion are mentally ill. Why is this even a point of conversation?
The Catholic Church is against gay marriage and gay adoption, but it does not refuse baptism to the children of gay couples as long as it is assured that they will be raised in the faith. So, then, obviously, these children will be receiving their first communions and confirmation. It seems that is what the Church desires.
The Catholic Church is Not Against ‘Happy’ Marriages, nor the adoption of the needy by ‘Happy’ People, who often make better parents than SSAD ones.
However – the use of the Politics of Adversarial Terminology by the types of radical homosex harpies that flock to this board, intending to roost & dump their Hatred of the Church – should be avoided by the Faithful just as the Harpies themselves should be ignored as flapping distractions.
Surrendering Children to the Gaystapo Alliance of Homo-Anal Coprophiles & their Twysted Systers is Neither Good or Happy – and has put the Catholic Church out of the Public Adoption process wherever such evil reigns through ‘the law’ (like CA, Mass…) – because of a Refusal to Pander to such Intrinsic Evils.
Sponsorship for those who Want to become Full Members of the Catholic Faith is always available, one way or another – so long as it does not use Innocent Children to escort satan in to Sacred Places.
Sacraments can be abused (like stealing consecrated hosts for a ‘black’ ceremony) – but using them as masks for the infiltration of Objectively Disordered Behaviors of an Evil Nature, particularly using Children as the vehicle, is an Evil that can never be Gaily Happy, and should always be avoided for the Good of All – save the truly unhappy servants of the smoke.
FrMichael that is an astute observation. This is something more even than scandal, it is deliberately flauntimng of scandal and using church tools (bulletin, sanctuary) to do it. This is a serious. What will be done?
oh god a scandal squared!!! God forbid that an innocent child’s first communion should be a scandal squared, because as we all know, Christ himself reviled against scandals squared!!!
Anonymous, don’t get too worked up. The sequins may fall off of your shoes.
“The Church recognizes 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.”39 Consequently, the Church does not support so-called same-sex “marriages” or any semblance thereof, including civil unions that give the appearance of a marriage. Church ministers may not bless such unions or promote them in any way, directly or indirectly.
Similarly, the Church does not support the adoption of children by same-sex couples since homosexual unions are contrary to the divine plan.40
Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion.41 In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents.” USCCB Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care
Gay neighborhood, gay-friendly church. What’s so hard to understand about that?
If you expect a church in the Castro to be rabidly anti-gay, then you’re basically wishing the building to be converted to residential or commercial use with the facade intact, like most other urban churches in of its era.
If you think God exists to hate the same people you do, you’re creating a fictitious god in your own image.
Amen to that!
Being pro-sodomy is being anti-Catholic.
Maddie, let’s be quite clear here: Administering first communion to a child of same sex parents doesn’t make the priest, the Church, the parish, or even the parents pro-sodomy. What it makes them ALL is pro Jesus.
If being pro Jesus is, in your mind, anti-Catholic, so be it. We welcome you back to the fold whenever you are ready to rejoin.
Yes, YFC, let’s be clear here. You are welcoming folks to a fold with wolves for shepherds. That’s not pro-Jesus, that’s more I-dare-ya-Jesus. But that seems to be what Faith is in your mind.
Dear Ann Malley – Because you find it impossible to believe that gay people can be your fellow catholics with the best possible motivations and intentions, you want to punish this Child and make this story into something it is not. We should celebrate not denigrate.
Believing Catholics should not celebrate ‘two Dad’s’, YFC. It’s the believing part that’s at issue, YFC, which is why I do consider those who carry the cross of SSA as my fellow Catholics, just not those who proselytize sodomy. That’s just plain nonsense as you well know despite your advocacy here.
These poor innocent children have been used as pawns and reduced to being treated as chattel in an objectively disordered illusionary attempt to validate an abomination. Can’t even begin to imagine the terrible grave consequences of doing violence to a child’s innocence when sodomy is one of the sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
You are the punisher YFC. Are same sex couples going to inflict this truthful pain by telling their children, “Susie and Billy” We adopted you and your two dads are committing serious mortal sin but now we are going to send you both to Catechism classes that will properly instruct you that unless your two dads repent that we are both going to hell for what we have done and what we are still doing. How cruel to use children to play make believe house while distorting truth and harming innocence. These children are not living in a bubble. YFC is banking on all of those children hearing the same lies that homosexual activists tell one another. YFC’s wicked agenda IS the punisher of innocent children.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. – Douay-Rheims Bible
Mill Grist Stones On Sale – Millstones.com
Adwww.millstones.com/
(877) 983-3860
Historic Millstones For Sale Many Sizes Available!
What are sins that cry to heaven for vengeance and sins against the Holy Spirit?
Catholic Answers : “Most Catholics are familiar with the term mortal sin. Mortal sins deprive the soul of grace. They are serious transgressions of God’s law, done freely and deliberately with a clear understanding of what they are. Their result is to deny a soul entrance to heaven.
There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).
Sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.”
I guess. Can I made assumptions about your sex life and make sweeping judgements about it?
“Rabidly anti-gay”. Hahahaha. In the Old Testament, what were then called sodomites were either expelled or put to death. For hundreds of years they were imprisoned. Now they’re running the government, military and harassing and threatening Christians and you’re calling us rabid? It’s called orthodoxy, and what you’re following is the same voice that said to God, “I will not serve!” What I’ve learned from reading all the homosexual responses here is that it not so much about sex as selfishness, pride and arrogance and a complete hatred of God. If you truly loved God, you would tremble at your audacity. God help you.
“What I’ve learned from reading all the homosexual responses here is that it not so much about sex as selfishness, pride and arrogance and a complete hatred of God. If you truly loved God, you would tremble at your audacity. ”
Dana,
Thank you for your excellent response. You’ve certainly summed it up! It IS the age-old rebellion known as ….”I WILL NOT SERVE.”
Thank you Catherine! Hope you have a wonderful labor day weekend…and the same to everyone here. God bless you and keep you.
Same to you Dana! : )
Dear Dana – I wonder what government you think is run by gay people? And I never knew that there is a military leader who is gay….would that be the Joint Chief of Staff? And how exactly are they harassing and threatening Christians? Oh, you must mean the poor cake baker who was told that he must bake cakes for everyone or bake cakes for no one. Wow. That is surely harassment. Poor you.
YFC, homosexuals are not content to live and let live,
As evidenced by their sexually oriented parades, they are not content to keep their sexuality within their own homes.
I don’t care if adults choose to be homosexual in the privacy of their own homes but I do care if you try to flaunt and foist your immoral actions on the rest of society.
Far too many homosexuals expect all of us to accept their sinful lifestyles as normal and appropriate.
Further, if someone does not want your business because of your behavior, take your business to someone who supports your behavior.
Do not force others to support your actions.
Well, I think it’s sweet of you to keep calling me ‘dear Dana’ YFC . (As opposed to Dana dearest, which conjures up coat hangers, etc). It’s my birthday today… another dollar short and I keep shrinking but I live another day to drive you crazy, friend. ;0). Actually, as to the government, I was thinking of your friend the commander in chief, who isn’t afraid to impose his will over anything or anyone…I think it’s called bulldozerism as opposed to socialism, which involves things like committees and hierarchy , and he’s also ‘dozing his way through the military, Congress and even school systems with the subtlety of Al Capone and the finesse of a pack of ravening wolves all the while stroking his way to the 18th hole. Pretty impressive. All that work people did to protect marriage in their states mowed down with a single blow of one liberal judge with one agenda…I don’t even recognize this country anymore..
Happy Birthday Dana!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, dearest Dana. Got to try and be a little different. YFC is on a ‘dear’ kick to endear himself all the more to those who do not blink and wow at the catchy phraseology of … celebrate not denigrate. Gak.
Enjoy the rest of your day :)
Happy birthday, Dana.
Do we have a birthday girl?
Harmonicas sounding ………
Happy Birthday to you…Happy Birthday to you…Happy Birthday dear Dana, Happy Birthday tooooo youuuuu! And many more! What wonderful gifts God has given to you! Love your extremely bright and creative posts, love your common sense, love your feisty, spunky and spirited personality. And most of all love your defense of the Catholic faith! God Bless you Dana! : > )
Thank you all so much!!! It makes aging so much less painless. haha As you can tell by my most recent post, aging hasn’t sweetened my ‘indisposition’ but I live in hope. I would treat you all to some of our relentless rain if I could. Sorry about the drought out there. Hugs to all.
2 ‘Happy’ 4 Hollyweird?
Michael Voris puts a point on the radical homosex propaganda pogrom, at least as regards the heavy Censorship of the Reality ‘Behind the Candelabra’ of Homo-Anal Coprophile Behaviors.
https://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-08-28
As regards the Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Misandry of the Twysted Systerhood, which is focused more on Hatred of Men & Boys, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality (like the Annual Tax Subsidized SF Dyke March, kicking & screaming off from the corner of 18th & Dolores – including the Mission Dolores Steps) – Voris follows the path of others who correctly denounce the inherently harmful / pathological nature of ‘Sodomy’ …
Bit fails to put its adherents in Context as members of the “men’s auxiliary’ of SCUM – Icon Valerie Solanas’ “Society for Cutting Up Men” – which has also been specifically celebrated in Two Hollyweird movies – and used as the Theme in countless others.
I Shot Andy Warhol is hardly a Hollywood film. It’s a New York indie. It was produced in part by the BBC.
It’s a good film, too. Jared Harris and Lili Taylor are great in it. It’s not sympathetic to Valerie Solanas. It presents her realistically. She was an enigma. No one really knows the degree to which her work was satire, and she had issues with mental illness.
What’s the other film? I, A Man? That wouldn’t count, because it was one of Andy Warhol’s films.
Andy Warhol was a famous gay Catholic.
I find it interesting that you would say Valerie Solanas had mental illness than leave out Warhol.
Andy Warhol was an immoral Catholic heretic and schismatic.
I hope he had a chance to go to Confession to repent before his death.
Do you have some sort of insight into Andy Warhol’s private life? He kept it very private. Whether he ever had any personal relationships at all is a matter of pure speculation.
But there’s ample record of his practicing Catholicism. His funeral was even held at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
So what exactly was heretical or schismatic about him?
Warhole was treated for a sexually transmitted disease.
Warhole was an admitted homosexual, but publically said he was a virgin.
Apparently Warhol was a daily communicant.
I’ve been to the Warhol museum in Pittsburgh and alot of his art was very amusing… he was truly a really funny guy and devoted to his family. He should have stayed in Pittsburgh.
Wow. Haven’t seen this post in a while.
So what would Jesus do ? He didn’t condemn the adulterous woman, said let the one without sin cast the first stone. We have a young boy who would like to receive Jesus for the first time. Is being raised by two Dads worse than being raised by a mother who has a child out of wedlock. We are all sinners we all fall short ….but we are all God’s beloved, made in his image and likeness. Why don’t we spread kindness and compassion, expand our circle, reach out to those on the edges. These priests at MHR have done nothing wrong. It’s the most welcoming Catholic church I’ve ever been to. And everybody sings…imagine that…Catholics singing in church !! Glory be to the blood of Jesus, now and forever.
Trudy, JESUS always spoke of repentance and not continuing to sin .
And warned about Hell more than anyone else in the New Testament.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” – JESUS – Mk 9:42-49.
And Jesus continues to speak of Hell.
Adults who give bad examples to children will be held accountable.
Do you think these Priests taught the child that his 2 Dads are living in Mortal Sin and to pray for them ?
Trudy, I agree that the compassion Jesus showed to the accused woman was an exquisite example of God’s love and mercy! But what would be His reaction if she became a follower of His and yet continued in adultery? Would Peter have told her, “well, at least you’re coming to services and singing your heart out. I suppose we’ll just have to accept you as you are. Otherwise people will think we’re mean bad judgmental!” “The Christian faith has not been tried and found wanting. It has rather been found difficult and left untried.”
—Chesterton
Jesus asked Peter,”Who do you say I am?” You’d better find out just what that means if you intend to follow Him…He isn’t the warm and fuzzy hippy today’s happy clappy “catholic” with a lower case c think he is.
PS. I’ve never been to a Catholic Church where there wasn’t singing!
Trudy, the Lord Jesus also told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more lest something worse happen to you.” In other words, he was telling her that if she did not straighten up, he might not be there to bail her out the next time but just let her suffer the consequences of her sin.
Tempting the Lord by continuing to sin is a very dangerous game. One can end up with a very life threatening disease. One young homosexual man on the news was just accused of murder. They say he had AIDS and knowingly gave it to other young practicing homosexual men. Don’t tempt the Lord! You might live to regret it, or die an early death.
“Hugh” and “peter”: Your pro-homosexual innuendo and criticisms are poisonous. The points made in this blog are to remind you and all that the Catholic Church, not the wing-nut priests who say “follow your conscience,” respects and offers love to all, including homosexuals, but not ever, never, to the voluntary commission of homosexual sex, “sodomy” in the vernacular. Most Holy Redeemer should be especially devout and orthodox, given its proximity to the population which seems to idolize the morally intolerable sin of homosexual sex. Your supercilious views do not equate to morality; righteous indignation about the “unfairness” of this or that “outrage” against the expression of homosexual sex or love or whatever mean nothing when compared to holiness. Jesus never said that sin was inconsequential; His mercy always contained the direction to “sin no more.” Go ahead, do what you want, God gave you the right to live your life as you will. But your behavior is not just, not righteous, not acceptable to Him. What will be the penalty? One does not know, but many would urge caution. Christ said that he gave His life “for many” not for all. And, no one in the Bible spoke of the reality of Hell more than did Jesus. Just, please, move your rantings to somewhere other than the Catholic Church, where they are not wanted. Come back, though, to be saved.
Bigotry is poisonous.
Seriously, I am Catholic and don’t believe for a second that God cares the least bit about someone’s sexual orientation, nor would he create someone a certain way simply to curse and damn them, or walk some ridiculous path of denying the kind of human connection that is considered a basic human need for the majority of people.
This is all human influence. Centuries (or millennia) of a sexually puritanical (human) culture, selected reading (and translation) of canon text, the personal opinions and human prejudices of figures like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas that fall outside the range of what made them notable.
Sorry, but you don’t get to claim that your bigotry is authentically Catholic, or conflate God with regressive social ideals.
If the whole point of Catholicism was to sanctify puritanical ideas about sex and gender, you might be right, but you’re not.
Hugh, Why are you Catholic? Serious question.
What do you accept as authentic divine revelation?
“Hugh” and “YFC” (for the below comments): You are completely wrong, Hugh. The Catholic Church does care, and has always cared, about homosexual sexual expression. You are as wrong as can be that God does not care, but then, you are not likely to listen to anyone, as you are blinded by your homosexual sexual righteousness and passions. “YFC” this child does not have “two dads” at least according to the Church. Sure, there may now be a legal right to the perversion of homosexual adoption, but it is not moral and will never be moral. The Church should never list anyone but the biological father and mother, or the adoptive father, but only one. Here, if the boy lives with his biological father, then that is who must be listed if he is a single dad. He could be living in adultery with a woman that wants to be called “mom,” but this does not make her his legitimate Mother (even if the boy cares for her). You can make up what you want but it is homosexual fantasy; a sodomite’s pixie dust over a dung heap. Too bad you will not listen to what God’s Church says. But — hold on — the Synod is coming!! Perhaps the Pope will listen to one of his wing-nut “theologians” and grant some kind of Church blessing on your relationships. But, it does not matter; a good number of popes fail to listen to the Holy Ghost; not everything a pope does is correct, or need to be followed. Seek forgiveness and accept chastity, as the Church expects.
The trouble with divine revelation is that it’s imparted from God onto vastly lesser beings (us), then becomes inflected with all sorts of denigrating influences of our making: limited consciousness and contextual understanding, shifting meaning as languages evolve and die, ego, political motives, charlatans, etc.
The gospels have held up well (and make no mention of homosexuality, btw.) The Judaic biblical survived in the oral tradition for centuries. Many are of Mesopotamian and Hittite origin. There’s a lot of tribal law and culture in there that is more anthropology than divine in origin. And aside from being a mono-deity, the God of the Old Testament bears little resemblance to the one of the new. Same God, vastly different perception based on context.
And the Church went through a long era (millennia) where it was the prevailing political institution of human power, and operated in a kind of feedback loop, sometimes failing to distinguish between the egos of important figures and the targeted insight that made them important.
Weed through that, and you can still find the divine. But you’re way off if you can glimpse the creator of the whole universe, and think it all boils down to judging permutations in the sexual expression that elicits a viceral reaction. :)
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
Dei Verbum
7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.
But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).
Wow. Beautiful response there! Thank you!
Lots of Paul quotes. Paul is a good example. 90% of his writings might be what I’d consider divinely inspired, but not everything he committed to writing. There’s a lot of first person narrative in there, and random bits of his own opinions about sexual politics that serve no purpose whatsoever, but those are his most oft-quoted.
Paul, too, has a huge amount of political ambition, and elevated himself to “Apostle”, which is problematic.
Trudy, in order to receive Holy Communion one must know right from wrong, Mortal Sin from Venial Sin, etc., and learn about Sacrilege.
These two gay Priests did not need to publically state that the child had 2 Dads in order to congratulate the child. Did they?
These two Priests did not need to advertise two men (dads) living in Mortal Sin. Did they?
By their public action of mentioning the 2 Dads at all, these gay Priests are promoting mortal sin, and promoting relativism (where there is no right and wrong).
CCC: ” 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
– by protecting evil-doers.”
@YFC, 8/29 at 12:00 AM comment:
“Maddie, let’s be quite clear here: Administering first communion to a child of same sex parents doesn’t make the priest, the Church, the parish, or even the parents pro-sodomy. ”
Way to muddy the waters, YFC. I haven’t read anybody in these comments say that the child shouldn’t have received First Holy Communion. I haven’t even read anybody say that this shouldn’t have been publicized in the parish bulletin. What we are objecting to is the characterization of two men as the child’s “two dads.” The child wan’t conceived by “two dads,” he was conceived by a mother and father. Catholicism doesn’t recognize a family led by “two dads.” This situation is a perverse mockery of a real family.
Catholicism is pro-Jesus, sacramental, and anti-perversion.
The reality is that this child is being raised by two dads, and so it is appropriate to refer to them in the announcement. The Church would do well to be reality based, rather than pretend that things it doesn’t like don’t exist. Closing your eyes and pretending is not a good option for an organization that claims to minister to peoples real authentic lives. Imagination is no substitute for life.
On your other point, I appreciate that you are in favor of the Sacrament being administered in this case, and thank you for clarifying that. I think there are other posters, however, who clearly believe that the child should be punished by withholding the sacrament because of the life of his dads. If I’m wrong, I’ll correct myself, but I think you can pretty clearly see that there is a vicious and perverse strain of abusing a Sacrament as punishment against this kid’s parents that pervades this conversation.
No YFC, the reality is that the child appears to be raised by maybe his biological father, with the mother not being part of the picture, and his lover. Or perhaps the boy was adopted, in which case he has two men, very possibly unrelated (although perhaps one is an uncle) raising him. Quite frankly, we don’t know the situation, but we know enough to know that the boy doesn’t have genes stemming from both men, therefore they are not “2 dads.”
I think the only thing we can say factually that all sides can agree to is that the boy is being raised in a household led by two men.
And as for your assertion that “I think you can pretty clearly see that there is a vicious and perverse strain of abusing a Sacrament as punishment against this kid’s parents that pervades this conversation,” I skimmed through the 200+ comments and didn’t see a single one that advocated withholding First Communion from the child. It is the subsequent publicity of the perverse living arrangement the boy is being raised in and the priest’s bizarre nonchalant reference to the “two dads” that has drawn criticism here.
FrMichael, neither man is the biological father. They were infants who were born with drug addictions that these two men fostered and then adopted.
Fr. Michael, please keep one thing in mind when you make commentary like this. If these children had been adopted by a straight married couple, you would never not call them the parents or the mom and dad. You wouldn’t go to the genetic relationship in order to refer to them, and attempt to shame them in public by saying, ‘well since neither of these people are his biological parents and so you may not call them mom and dad.’ And you wouldn’t be using the opportunity of a first communion to go after them publicly for what you regard to be any moral failings of the parents, or the publicly criticize the pastoral activity of their priests. Putting these things in a blog – indeed speculating about and discussing the pastoral situation of any publicly identifiable individuals in a blog is, or ought to be utterly forbidden, so much so that that if I were your bishop, you would be hearing from me for ethics violations. Announcement referring to “two dads” isn’t making some profound moral or theological statement about the biology of the relationship, the validity of any license they have entered into, or anything of that sort. It is simply referring to the reality inside the home that the child is being raised in. Whatever concerns you may have about it does not belong in a public forum, and you owe these people an apology.
YFC, I don’t owe anybody an apology.
The Church does not recognize a family, with natural children and/or adopted, with “two dads.” As I said earlier, I think we can safely say that the child is being raised by two men in a household. It is not, however, a family.
Cut the shaming of so-called shaming, YFC. You owe Fr. an apology and everyone here on CCD considering what comes across in your postings, that is judging by the standards you wrote about above.
Face facts, duck. The reality in the home is not always something that needs to be put in print, say alcoholism, adultery, fetishism, thievery etc. Those who are are faithful and prudent would understand as much.
This is obviously a family, whether you approve of it or not. But I have grave questions about the pastoral qualifications of a priest who makes an example of people in public.
Many have grave questions about one who proclaims themselves a fellow Catholic who publicly promotes same sex unions.
“…there is a vicious and perverse strain of abusing a Sacrament as punishment against this kid’s parents that pervades this conversation.”
There is a viscous and pervasive abuse of common sense and charity when it comes to rearing children to have Faith. Because having two men act as DADS during a child’s formative years will form him away from that which the Church teaches, YFC, as the very nature of their arrangement goes against said Faith. That is the reality and that is precisely why folks with an agenda are attempting to use children as a means to force ‘change’ in what the Church teaches.
They are not his parents according to Church teaching, no matter what an evil civil laws claims, and no good Catholic has to obey an unjust and evil civil law. This new “family” law that has been put in in California by decadent legislators, turns the Commandment about honoring ones parents, a husband and wife, upside down, and I wonder just who is behind the Black Masses being performed in other states. Seems to me as if there is a connection.
Clarification: there seems to be a connection between those who encourage and practice the Black Masss and some in the LGBT Community.
NOT
One might be his actual biological father, but the other cannot be.
“…Closing your eyes and pretending is not a good option for an organization that claims to minister to peoples real authentic lives. Imagination is no substitute for life.”
Therein lies a very serious disconnect, YFC. The Bride of Christ is not just ‘an organization that claims to minister to people’s real authentic lives.’ The TRUTH is not a business charter statement that is proactively changed to meet market demand.
You state that ‘imagination is no substitute for life’. Well, man made fix its, are no substitute for the laws of God to which we will all be held accountable. That is why imagining that man is god is no substitute for God Himself. Not even close.
Fr. Michael, please go back and re-read the article to which we are supposed to be responding.
These 2 Priests clearly support sodomy – hence their “2 Dads” announcement in their publication.
The child has little to with my comments.
Ma’am:
I was referring my comment to YFC, who I quoted addressing you. I didn’t mean to criticize you, you’re in the right!
FrMichael, Father Karl and/or Father Perzich or any other priests that read this:
We know that MHR prides itself on being wecolming and inclusive. I am wondering how an orthodox parish would handle this. A parishioner is gay; he marries his long term partner who is not Catholic. They adopt a child. They want the child raised in the Faith. What would you do? How would you counsel them? Would you instruct them to divorce? Not live together?
What if this couple moved to your parish? They have been together over 20 years and they have fostered very sick children and adopted two who are now over 10.. Would you tell them to divorce? Would you tell them not to live together? Or would you just counsel them to remain chaste and not share a bedroom? How would you help the children come to know the teachings of the Church?
Counselling –
1) ALL homosexual acts are mortal sins.
2) Homosexual persons were never married in the eyes of God, and such a union is a mortal sin.
3) No Holy Communion when in the state of Mortal Sin. (Confession requires a firm purpose of amendment not to commit the mortal sin again to obtain forgiveness.)
4) No teaching children through statements or examples that any mortal sin is acceptable, and/or that it is possible for anyone to get to Heaven while in the state of unrepentant Mortal Sin.
5) No statements that any child has “2 Dads” or “2 Moms” from a homosexual household, or that one of the males is a Mom.
Lies are forbidden.
6) All Catholic parents are required to teach the Faith accurately and in entirety.
They must read the Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” to teach children in their custody.
These consenting adults have made a mess of their lives which can be corrected. Their mortal sins can be forgiven when they repent and promise not to commit the sins again.
They have a HUGE obligation to insure that any child in their custody is not a screwed up mess due to their sins. They must teach the child not to tolerate mortal sin, and against relativism.
CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”
“Counseling”, as you call it, doesn’t belong in a public forum. It belongs in a private forum such as a confessional.
Teaching a child (by statement or example) that the homosexual lifestyle is OK, is a mortal sin in itself.
Adultery, Fornication, and Homosexual Acts (including sodomy marriage) are all Mortal Sins.
” but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” – JESUS Mt 18:6.
.
For the Priests in this article to announce “2 Dads” as if it were appropriate or acceptable behavior – is a mortal sin that teaches others – causing SCANDAL, confusion, and relativism.
Some kids have no parents – they’ve been abandoned.
Some kids have one parent – often Mom who has been abandoned by Dad to raise their child all alone.
Some kids have a parent (birth, step, adoptive, etc.) or two, or even more, especially after a divorce and remarriage.
As long as the child is being loved, protected, and brought up to love God and be a good citizen, why all the fuss?
Because setting an example of Mortal Sin – in this case (sodomy) is a bad example for children.
It is similar to a prostitute mother bringing home her johns when the children are present.
No it’s not like that at all Sandra. These kids are not being shown a witness that sex is nothing more than a financial transaction. These Dads are probably being shown a very good witness that love means taking care of one another, that it means making sacrifices for one another, and it means putting other before self. These kids have a much better life than they had with their biological parents or in a series of foster homes, so when you want to split up this family, give that a thought.
YFC, I guess you don’t attend MHR. I thought that you did.
These kids probably are learning a lot of good things. They are being raised Catholic.
Nobody knows what really goes on in any family but I hope it is a home of peace and love and concern for the other. One of the parents is a policeman so there is some risk there but I think that his rank is high enough that he isn’t in daily danger on the streets. They probably do have a better life than with the biological mother and these men saved them from a life of being bounced from foster home to foster home. Assuming that the best is being raised by their own loving caring biological parents in a safe and stable home it seems as if the best was never going to be available to these two children. Was this the best arrangement available to them? I guess Child Protective Services thought it was. Will they grow up with all the questions that adoptive kids have about their origins? Probably.
Will they look at other kids and see situations they envy? Maybe. There are no perfect people. There are no perfect families. It as a grief that these children were born addicted to lethal drugs. Are the mom’s alive? Don’t know. This couple lost some foster kids that they loved when the biological mother who was a schizophrenic drug addict wanted them back and the social worker thought they would be better off with their mother. It did not work out with the mother and they ended up back in foster care, but not with these men. How are their lives going? I don’t know. The question is why does the Church oppose such a generous couple adopting children?
The Church teaches that children are meant to be raised in a family with a mother and father. When natural circumstances such as a death deprive a child of their natural parent, it is a tragedy that cannot be entirely overcome by the most heroic efforts of the surviving parent. To intentionally deprive a child of one parent of each gender is wrong. “Arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of [presenting a witness of sexual difference] and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.”
Stop the lie, “Your Fellow Catholic,” there is only one dad, not two. Your insistence on giving indirect confirmation of the most perverse of relationships is beyond offensive, and it is highly un-Catholic. As Christ said in today’s readings (using DR here, for accuracy), “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” (Matt. 16:23). You, and your Homofascist allies, always try to take general language, like, “Jesus loves us all,” and “we were created this way by a loving God, so we must be good to do what is natural to us,” that kind of thing. Yet, you are no different than Peter, influenced by Satan, imagine, the “Rock” of the Church shouted down by Christ. Yet few take you and your vile pack on. Not two dads, “YFC,” not two dads. Not now, not ever. No one can even argue with you and your kind, as you try to twist the debate — two loving “dads” just trying to get their “child” to his first communion, what is wrong with that — leaving out that this relationship is Hell-bound, leaving the child to deal with being raised by sodomites that care only about fulfilling their own lust, and not trying to do the right thing, the moral thing, the upright thing.
YFC, homosexual civil marriage is sodomy marriage.
It is a Mortal Sin.
There is no love when one wants to send himself and his partner to Hell for eternity.
There is no love when one wants to teach children by example that homosexual acts are good.
CCC: ” 1766 To love is to will the good of another.
All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. Only the good can be loved.
Passions are evil if love is evil
and good if it is good. ”
If you love someone, you will give up your evil passions (acts), for the salvation of those persons as well as yourself.
Love is not selfish.
Love is giving up your own will, for God’s will.
All Kids have Two Parents – Because All Procreation is Heterosexual
That some of them are deceased, or missing, or have deliberately abandoned their Children (like those men who use ‘Deadbeat Dad Factories ‘ / sperm banks to Legally Escape Responsibilities – Child Support, Prison…) with or without the Legal consequences that apply Only to Fathers who engage in Heterosexual Intercourse with the Mother…
– But it is a Falsehood to Deny the Scientific Fact that All Children have a Mother (XX) and a Father (XY) because everyone does.
Some Kids have different individuals (not their Biological Parents) who provide care for them – to varying degrees, and with varying agendas. Caring for Orphans and the Abandoned is a Good Thing – unless corrupted by perverse agendas (like the Gaystapo) that can do even more harm than good.
As for being Loved, Protected & Good Citizens…
– ‘We’ Must Defer to the definition of these things provided us by the Larry Brinkin Racist Pederast Toddler Rape-Porn Posse, as an Icon like Larry and his followers (Like Senator Mark “Kiddie Porn King” Leno… and the Demicrat Legislature) Set the Example of ‘tolerance’ for the rest to follow…
Or Else – a visit from the 900 Lb Mozilla Gaystapo Gorilla will help them to teach said tolerance.
BTW – Larry is due for Release from Prison Soon, perhaps he can be booked to give a lecture at MHR or Santa Clara or LMU… on homosex ‘parenting’ skills as relates top ‘caring’ for Toddler Boys –
– With tips on ‘Responsible Fatherhood’… Or at least Racist Toddler Rape as a tool for tolerance training of the young.
SEE
San Francisco’s Gay Icon Larry Brinkin Guilty of Felony Child Porn Possession
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn
San Francisco’s Gay Icon Larry Brinkin Guilty of Felony Child Porn Possession
Larry Brinkin, convicted of felony child pornography possession on Jan. 21, had served on the San Francisco Human Rights Commission for 22 years.
WARNING: Some of the language in this story is graphic and disturbing.
@ For the priests:
It is difficult to project what a conversation between a SS couple and priest would be like in such a case. SS couples are a broad spectrum when it comes to knowledge of the Catholic Faith. I would first have to ascertain if the couple knew the doctrines regarding SSA and the requirements for infant baptism and conduct a basic catechesis in the areas where they lack knowledge. Depending on how that went, I could agree to a baptism or not. Either way, I wouldn’t make a sacrament a dissenting show such as this priest at MHR has done.
In fact, I have never been asked to baptize a child from such a household. I have, however, refused entry for a child raised by a lesbian couple to a parochial school in which I was the pastor. When I reemphasized that it was a Catholic school where Catholic doctrine would be taught unadulterated, and that the two women would be allowed to participate in school events but not while making a public show as a “couple,” they decided to go elsewhere.
FrMichael, thank you very much for your answer.
I appreciate the difficulty that lay people who live on their own terms and then want inclusion in the Church cause for priests. Praying for you and for all priests.
I assume these two men should not be receiving Holy Communion. Even if chaste in their relationship, they are civilly married and since Catholics are not allowed to obtain a civil marriage without incurring grave sin, it would seem that a legal divorce would be necessary for them to receive Communion. I don’t see any way to restore these children to a home with a mother and father without causing severe psychological and emotional trauma. Breaking up the two men and the two kids would also do that and may set up the same emotional issues that men like Dr. Nicolosi say cause some people to seek same-sex partners. It would be a difficult discussion for you to have with these men, but like you say, their formation may not be complete and they may have not incurred guilt. I think this is the reason for so many complaints about MHR.
Sorry, the above post was meant for FrMichael not from him.
All literate Catholics in the USA know that the Church teaches homosexual acts are Mortal Sins.
Homosexual marriage is sodomy marriage.
Teaching children that homosexual acts are ok by example could send that child to Hell for eternity.
What is most important ? Now or eternity?
Same sex marriage is not marriage at all.
A Rational Analysis summed up in 7 points, and well written too:
SEE
7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage
by Ryan T. Anderson 8/27/14
Is opposition to same-sex marriage at all like opposition to interracial marriage?
One refrain in debates over marriage policy is that laws defining marriage as the union of male and female are today’s equivalent of bans on interracial marriage. Some further argue that protecting the freedom to act publicly on the basis of a religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman is like legally enforcing race-based segregation.
This leads some people to think that the government is right to fine a New York family farm $13,000 for declining to host a lesbian wedding in their barn.
These claims are wrong on several counts, as I explain in my Backgrounder: “Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race.”
https://dailysignal.com/2014/08/27/7-reasons-current-marriage-debate-nothing-like-debate-interracial-marriage/