Ealah sexy

Father Leonard Kennedy, c.s.b., in a review of Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg's book "The Battle for Normality," writes: "...homosexual 'love' is not love but ego-satisfaction, and acting it out only deepens the void inside.  That is why 'the vast majority of active homosexuals are promiscuous, and much more so than promiscuous heterosexuals.'  The fairy tale faithful homosexual 'union' is a propaganda item, to win privileges from the law and acceptance within Christian churches." 


Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

At its website, St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry" has a photograph of the late Franciscan Father Mychal Judge and a quote from the priest who was a self-identified homosexual: "Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?" Fr. Mychal here assumes that all discrimination is "unjust."  While it is true that we must accept homosexual persons with "respect, compassion and sensitivity," we're also told in 2358 of the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered." And this paragraph does not say that homosexual persons must be accepted "without discrimination." Rather, it states clearly, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." What's the point I'm trying to make? Not all discrimination is unjust.  "Homosexual love" is not possible because it seeks to transform the love of friendship between two people of the same sex into conjugal love.  But conjugal love requires psychological and physical complementarity which can only exist between opposite sexes:

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.'" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 4).

So the answer to Fr. Judge's question is: yes.  Not all discrimination is unjust.  Reflect upon Pope Benedict XVI's teaching in No. 11 of Deus Caritas Est: "The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God's decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam finds the helper that he needed: 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' (Gen 2:23). Here one might detect hints of ideas that are also found, for example, in the myth mentioned by Plato, according to which man was originally spherical, because he was complete in himself and self-sufficient. But as a punishment for pride, he was split in two by Zeus, so that now he longs for his other half, striving with all his being to possess it and thus regain his integrity. While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become 'complete'. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: 'Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh' (Gen 2:24).


Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man's very nature; Adam is a seeker, who 'abandons his mother and father' in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become 'one flesh'. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature."

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  The "Rainbow Ministry" of St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, the "Gay Pride" parish, does not advance this teaching but instead a dissenting view.  Thus far, after weeks of ongoing controversy, Cardinal Sean O'Malley has not addressed the dissent of the "Rainbow Ministry."  It is not enough to simply articulate or re-affirm the teaching of the Church in a Blog post.  A Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ has a deeper responsibility than that.  See here.

In a previous post, I noted how Mr. John Kelly, chair of St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," refuses to consider the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and the homosexual inclination and is openly looking for a relationship with another man.  One would think that for these reasons alone Cardinal Sean O'Malley would ban this dissident and homosexual activist from any Catholic ministry within the Boston Archdiocese.

But it gets worse folks. Boy does it get worse.  In a Blog post entitled "Mychal Judge embraced his homosexuality as a gift of God" (Father Mychal Judge was a Franciscan priest and chaplain for the New York Fire Department who lost his life during the World Trade Center attack on 911), Mr. Kelly writes, "Some have asked, Why do we need to know that Fr. Mike was gay? First, because Mychal himself brought it up. He felt it important to share this aspect of himself, to put a human face and name upon the despised label of 'homosexual'. Recall how Christ, when asked, 'Who is my neighbor?,' tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, putting a human face on the Samaritans who were despised by the Jews. To truly understand Mychal Judge, to fully appreciate how God worked through him, we must recognize this truth about him. Mychal’s gayness was a major reason for his deep empathy with others, especially outcasts. He was holy in part because he was gay, not despite the fact.

Second, we should know that Fr. Mike was gay because Rome wants to purge many good, gifted gay seminarians. Mychal Judge and many like him would be barred from the priesthood under this regime. Christ had no problem with Mychal’s orientation, but Rome does.

Third, awareness of Fr. Mychal’s gay identity saves lives, and we are a pro-life Church. 1500 gay and lesbian teenagers commit suicide each year in the U.S., succumbing to intense rejection and internalized shame.

Mychal intervened in at least one family whose teenage son came out to his parents. That story had a happy ending, but thousands of gay kids are still rejected, abused, driven to suicide, and thrown out to the streets by their parents.

Public awareness of Mychal's gay identity continues to save lives by providing greater understanding, fulfilling Christ’s command to “go and do likewise” as the Good Samaritan.

Some have asked, Shouldn't sexual orientation be kept private?

Intimacy is a private matter. But identity and prejudice are public matters affecting the mental, social, physical, and spiritual health of millions of families and individuals.

Those who are embarrassed by this serious, mature discussion wrongly associate guilt and shame with homosexual orientation and relationships. They ought to examine where their visceral reactions really come from. They ought to question Rome’s faulty assumptions and, indeed, Rome’s own 'objective disorders' which more often resemble a severely dysfunctional family than the Body of Christ.

For centuries, Catholics were also taught to fear left-handed people as 'servants of the devil,' and the left-handed were burned at the stake along with faggots and heretics. (The word faggot, literally “burning bundle,” derives from these church burnings of gay men).

Now we know that homosexuality is no more 'disordered' or 'sinful' than left-handedness. Medical and scientific research strongly point to sexual orientation as determined at birth; that it’s nature over nurture for most people. Therefore, homosexual orientation, like left-handedness, is a Divinely created, normal variation within natural law. As such, gay people face the same moral challenges as everyone else.

The truly disordered homosexuals, psychiatrists say, are the ego-dystonic ones -- the self-loathing and dis-integrated, those who don't accept themselves. The most strident homophobes often have unresolved fears and wounds of their own which they project onto others. Christ warned of such projection: “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not the beam in your own eye?!”

Homophobic guilt, shame, and fear are pathological reactions; they are not of Christ. Christ spreads healing, not pathology -- holiness, not neurosis. Whatever is psychologically unhealthy can never be spiritually holy. (The very words “holy” and “holiness” derive from healthy, happy, and wholeness).


Mychal Judge rejected pathological shame, and embraced his homosexuality as God's will for him.

We are born with our basic sexual orientations. Homosexuality, like left-handedness or red hair, is Divinely created. It is a normal variation in nature, occurring among humans and other species around the world.....Transcending the pathological guilt and shame inflicted upon gay people by prejudice, he [Fr. Judge] embraced his gay quality as a naturally inborn, God-given gift. This also contributed to his recovery from alcoholism. From there, he received and shared grace in extremis..." (Full post here).

The Church's teaching is clear.  It represents the mind of Christ.  And this teaching insists that, "..homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved..." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 4).  This same clear document, after stressing that people with a deviant homosexual inclination should be treated with respect and compassion, cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that such an inclination is "objectively disordered" and that homosexual practices are among the sins "gravely contrary to chastity."

Mr. Kelly not only rejects this teaching entirely, but he insists that it is the Teaching Church which has relied upon "faulty assumptions" and which suffers from "objective disorders."
 
But hey, not to worry folks.  After all, Mr. Kelly works for Father John Unni.  And Fr. Unni has the "full confidence and support" of the Cardinal and the Boston Archdiocese.
 
Sleep well.

St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, which attempted to have a "Gay Pride" Mass last month, is now announcing in its bulletin: "Please join the entire Saint Cecilia Parish community for next Sunday's eleven o'clock liturgy where we will reaffirm that Saint Cecilia is a place of welcome for all, including the LGBT community.." (See here).

Now the USCCB has already issued guidelines which stress emphatically that persons with a homosexual inclination are to be treated with "dignity, respect and compassion" and made to feel welcome.  But these same guidelines also stress that, "The ministry of the Church to persons with a homosexual inclination must always have the overriding aim of fostering the greatest possible friendship with God, participation in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace.  Integral to friendship with God is holiness.  God is holy and all who would come near to God must likewise become holy." (p. 12).  We haven't seen this emphasis in St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry."  On the contrary, we've witnessed a departure from Church teaching.

This is all the more troubling as the USCCB's guidelines stress that, "All ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination must be guided by Church teaching on sexuality...'Departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral." (p. 13; see footnote 30).

Lastly, the USCCB's guidelines make clear that, "It can be helpful for persons who find themselves with homosexual attractions to gather together in mutual understanding and support. This can be particularly the case because persons with a homosexual inclination may feel 'different,' which can lead to isolation and alienation, which are risk factors for an unhealthy life, including unchaste behaviors. Support groups, noted for their adherence to Church teaching, for persons who experience same-sex attraction continue to be an important part of Church ministries and are to be encouraged. Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination, however, or to participate in 'gay subcultures,' which often tend to promote immoral lifestyles. Rather, they should be encouraged to form relationships with the wider community." (p. 22).

Note this last passage.  Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination.  Isn't that exactly what St. Cecilia's Parish is doing when it says that the parish is a place of welcome for the "LGBT community"?

Why is it that St. Cecilia's Parish continues to encourage persons with a homosexual inclination to define themselves as "gay," "lesbian," bi-sexual," or "transgendered"? If you doubt this, examine the image above from the parish website which includes a homosexual rainbow symbol encircling the cross. Why isn't the parish encouraging such persons to view themselves as children of God created in the Imago Dei (the image and likeness of God) who have a vocation to holiness of life rather than as "gay Christians" or members of an "LGBT community"?

What do you think?

Cardinal O'Malley, when will you do something about this?  And when will you insist that St. Cecilia's ministry to homosexual persons be guided by Church teaching?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (CCC, 2359).

Is John Kelly, Chair of Saint Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry" in the Boston Archdiocese, committed to this teaching?  At an internet profile page which may be found here, Mr. Kelly says: "I am a gay man looking for a sincere relationship...I am a gay retired man who is single and enjoying life.  I am active at my Church [and serve] as Boston chair of the Rainbow Ministry....My motto in life is 'Live and Let Live."

Live and let live? 

Pope John Paul II, in Christifideles Laici, No. 16, has this to say: "We come to a full sense of the dignity of the lay faithful if we consider the prime and fundamental vocation that the Father assigns to each of them in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit: the vocation to holiness, that is, the perfection of charity. Holiness is the greatest testimony of the dignity conferred on a disciple of Christ.


The Second Vatican Council has significantly spoken on the universal call to holiness. It is possible to say that this call to holiness is precisely the basic charge entrusted to all the sons and daughters of the Church by a Council which intended to bring a renewal of Christian life based on the gospel. This charge is not a simple moral exhortation, but an undeniable requirement arising from the mystery of the Church: she is the choice vine, whose branches live and grow with the same holy and life-giving energies that come from Christ; she is the Mystical Body, whose members share in the same life of holiness of the Head who is Christ; she is the Beloved Spouse of the Lord Jesus, who delivered himself up for her sanctification (cf. Eph 5:25 ff.). The Spirit that sanctified the human nature of Jesus in Mary's virginal womb (cf. Lk 1:35) is the same Spirit that is abiding and working in the Church to communicate to her the holiness of the Son of God made man.

It is ever more urgent that today all Christians take up again the way of gospel renewal, welcoming in a spirit of generosity the invitation expressed by the apostle Peter "to be holy in all conduct" (1 Pt 1:15). The 1985 Extraordinary Synod, twenty years after the Council, opportunely insisted on this urgency: "Since the Church in Christ is a mystery, she ought to be considered the sign and instrument of holiness... Men and women saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult circumstances in the Church's history. Today we have the greatest need of saints whom we must assiduously beg God to raise up".

Everyone in the Church, precisely because they are members, receive and thereby share in the common vocation to holiness. In the fullness of this title and on equal par with all other members of the Church, the lay faithful are called to holiness: "All the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity". "All of Christ's followers are invited and bound to pursue holiness and the perfect fulfillment of their own state of life".

The call to holiness is rooted in Baptism and proposed anew in the other Sacraments, principally in the Eucharist. Since Christians are reclothed in Christ Jesus and refreshed by his Spirit, they are "holy". They therefore have the ability to manifest this holiness and the responsibility to bear witness to it in all that they do. The apostle Paul never tires of admonishing all Christians to live "as is fitting among saints" (Eph 5:3).

Life according to the Spirit, whose fruit is holiness (cf. Rom 6:22;Gal 5:22), stirs up every baptized person and requires each to follow and imitate Jesus Christ, in embracing the Beatitudes, in listening and meditating on the Word of God, in conscious and active participation in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, in personal prayer, in family or in community, in the hunger and thirst for justice, in the practice of the commandment of love in all circumstances of life and service to the brethren, especially the least, the poor and the suffering."

All of Christ's followers are invited and bound to pursue holiness.  Cardinal O'Malley, does it seem as if Mr. Kelly is committed to chastity and holiness?  Or rather hedonism and relativism?  You know the answer Your Eminence.  And you know what you should now do.

I am praying for you.

Dr. Germain Grisez, in a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium held in Philadelphia, had this to say: "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church's contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."

Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium that, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."

Dr. Grisez then went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, home of the "Rainbow Ministry" which refuses to call people to holiness, has an article written by Kathy Coffey in its latest bulletin.  Ms. Coffey, who obviously suffers from the same legalism described by Dr. Grisez above, also views received Catholic teaching as "mere rules."  The article is entitled "No more time to waste: Challenges for the Church."  Ms. Coffey writes, "Where would I like to see the Catholic Church move next?  In a radical direction, meaning 'back to its roots'....Unfortunately, many now know Catholics only by what they oppose: same-sex marriage, women's ordination, abortion, etc.  In the future, let's be known by what we advocate.  Let's focus on the positive.." 

Ms. Coffey insists, "Given the challenges the human race will face in the next century, Christians can't waste time judging, carping, and condemning.  Let's get on with the task of being Christ to a hungry, hurting world." 

What Ms. Coffey fails to understand is that it is our duty as Catholics to remind others of Gospel truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. Often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so.  We will be accused of "judging" and "condemning." This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of "negativity," [or even as "threatening peace and order"], we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: "..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error. All talk about the superiority of 'yes' over 'no,' about the 'negativity' of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter." (The Cult of the 'Positive').


Indeed, as John Cardinal Newman said in his Grammar of Assent, "I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth." In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, says that, "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."

Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).

Simply put, Kathy Coffey is wrong.  She is not a Pope.  She is not a saint.  She may honestly believe that it is her God-given role to "correct" the wisdom of the Church and her saints.  But sane people will know better.

We all know that the "Gay Pride" Mass is back on at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, re-scheduled for July 10th thanks to the Boston Archdiocese and its distorted notion of evangelization.  Now we have Joe Sacerdo reporting that, "..we have the vice chairman of the parish council encouraging youth confused about their sexuality to “come out “as gay or lesbian. No mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent with God’s plan, no prayer advised, no spiritual counseling advised, no psychological or family counseling advised, no medical risks of unsafe sexual behavior to be concerned about. Just “come out” as gay or lesbian and you’ll get “new energy and life”! How is this leading people with same-sex attractions to a deeper relationship with Christ and a life of virtue and holiness?" (See here).


Now this is disturbing on every level.  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, denounced the moral subjectivism which many theologians were defending based on a misguided pastoral approach, one which the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's appears to have embraced. 

Persona Humana reminds Catholics that morals are not dependent upon human whims or changing cultures but rather on the natural law.  The document teaches clearly and concisely that every sexual act outside of marriage is sinful thereby condemning pre-marital sex, cohabitation, masturbation and homosexuality (Persona Humana, 7, 9).  The document condemns the flawed conclusion that a stable homosexual relationship may be analogous to marriage or justified:

"No pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people.  For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality." (Persona Humana, 8).  See full text of Persona Humana here.

Is this teaching accepted by St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry"?  If so, as J. Sacerdo notes, why is it that there is "no mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent ith God's plan"? Could it be that those who run the Rainbow Ministry at St. Cecilia's parish, the same people who want to give us a "Gay Pride" Mass, could care less about what the Church teaches?

John Kelly, the chair of the "Rainbow Ministry," told one Boston Globe Magazine reporter back in 1998 that "His faith has nothing to do with what the Vatican says, but only with what he experiences every Sunday at the Jesuit Urban Center."  More than 30 years ago, Mr. Kelly "turned his back on his Church" according to the Globe article.  Why?  Because, during confession, he told his parish priest that is a homosexual and the priest responded, "May almighty God have mercy on your soul."  Kelly says that he walked out of the confessional feeling "defeated and abused."

You see, because this good and faithful priest was not accepting of the homosexual "lifestyle," because he believed - as the Church teaches - that no pastoral method can justify homosexual acts, and because he had the audacity to pray that God would have mercy on John Kelly's soul, Mr. Kelly stormed out, turning his back on the Church founded by the Lord Jesus. (Full Boston Globe Magazine article here).
Later he would tell the Boston Globe reporter that he felt "abused" by the faithful priest who had the gall to challenge his sin.  A Catholic priest who would have undersood these words from Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, given shortly before he was gunned down: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Indeed.  Which is why those of us Catholic bloggers who remain faithful to the Church's Magisterium and who oppose the false "gospel" of "Gay Pride" are accused of being "haters," and "bigots."  Meanwhile, it would appear that St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," and the Archdiocese of Boston in general, is content with leaving sinners entrenched in their sinful state.

The Boston Archdiocese has decided to allow a "Gay Pride" Mass at St. Cecilia's Parish in South Boston.  I learned of this just this morning from Michael Brown's Spirit Daily.  Michael had published a link to The Boston Globe article informing the public that the Mass will be held on July 10th.  And then I received a comment from a parishioner of St. Cecilia's which is very revealing.  The anonymous individual wrote, "It is happening in three weeks, on July 10 and there's nothing you can do about it. Yap, write letters, wring your hands, and spew forth your anti-Christian bile all you like, it's happening and the entire parish, as well as the Archdiocese, couldn't be more pleased. It will be prayerful, as are all liturgies at St Cecilia's, there will be good music, a packed church, and good preaching. Come by if you want to see a real community that gathers to worship God in action. Of course, you won't though. So, start writing to Rome, you have less than three weeks to keep showing the world how pathetic and uncharitable you all are."


It's easy to see that love is a strong suit in this person's brand of Catholicism.  Those of us who have the sheer unmitigated gall to accept the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" are deemed to be "pathetic and uncharitable" characters who are spewing "anti-Christian bile." We have been accused of "bigotry, hate and injustice" and of fostering an atmosphere of "prejudice."

It shouldn't surprise us that the Boston Archdiocese would allow a "Gay Pride" Mass.  For the Boston Archdiocese has succumbed to the leaven of infidelity.  Why a pride Mass?  Cornelius a Lapide, a brilliant Scripture scholar, has explained that, "First among the vices of Sodom is pride.  Then the satiety of bread, or rather of food, delicacies, banquets.  Third, the abundance of goods, of luxury and pleasure.  Fourth, idleness.  Fifth, lack of mercy...

Hear St. Jerome: 'Haughtiness, satiety of bread, the abundance of all things, idleness, pleasures, such were the sins of Sodom.  Because of these, they forgot God, since the continual presence of riches seemed perennial and thus there was no need of recourse to God to obtain them.'  Therefore, we first encounter pride in the sins of Sodom.  Then God chastises the proud, permitting them to fall into a great and ignominious lust, as can be deduced from Rom 1:27.." (Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Commentaria in Ezechielem Prophetam, Paris: Vives, 1880; Vol. 12, pp. 618-619).

Pride.  Vanity.  Saint Paul so vividly describes this process of degradation in the first chapter of the book of Romans.  He explains how pride leads to idolatry and how God abandons such people to their own passions:

"Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.  While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.  Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies." (Romans 1: 21-24).

And what does this mutual degradation consist of?  St. Paul (or more accurately the Holy Spirit through St. Paul) explains that this mutual degradation is the practice of homosexuality: "Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.  Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1: 26-27).

St. Paul notes the unfortunate consequences which result from this process of degradation: "They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite.  They are gossips and scandal-mongers and they hate God.  They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.  They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (Romans 1: 25, 28-31).

Haughty and boastful.  Qualities which jump out of the anonymous comment left at this Blog.  By allowing a "Gay Pride" Mass, the Archdiocese of Boston has given the green light to celebrate the first sin of Sodom.  The darkness continues to spread.

When I read the following words from the anonymous commenter, I had to do a double-take: "There will be good music, a packed Church, and good preaching...Come by if you want to see a real community that gathers to worship God in action."   I say this because I remember years ago a Christian woman saying the very same thing about her church, the People's Temple. 

I'm not suggesting that the people of St. Cecilia's Parish are going to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.  But it would certainly seem to be the case that a Catholic parish is embracing something even worse than a Jim Jones.  Pastor Jones led his congregation to a physical death in French Guyana.  But the "Gospel of Sodom," the "Gay Pride Gospel," will lead souls to final impenitence and an eternity in Hell, all under the guise of advancing something "Christian."  It was Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing against the Greco-Roman pagan world and its vices, who said: "That Jupiter of theirs is not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders...now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion." (Letters 1:8).

Pray for the people of St. Cecilia's, that they will come to understand that while it is noble and Christian to affirm people, there is nothing noble or Christian in affirming others in their sins or their dissent from Church teaching.
 
Photo above is of a "Gay Pride 2011" demonstrator.

Suggested reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1867, which lists the "sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance."

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).

Jesus gave us this new Law of Love.  He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).  And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.

Those Catholics within the Boston Archdiocese who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom."  For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex.  And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."

In a comment left at Bryan Hehir Exposed, a Catholic lay woman from St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston (the same parish which has promoted same-sex "marriage" and which had planned a "Gay Pride" Mass until it was cancelled by the Boston Archdiocese), wrote: "Joe Sacerdo, stop hiding behind a pseudonym and speak out at service, in front of all your fellow parishioners if this issue makes you so uncomfortable. It is evident from your posts, that you attend mass on Sundays…so go for it...Promoting bigotry, hate and injustice has NO place in the Catholic Church or anywhere, for that matter, especially not in our beautifully diverse St. Cecilia Parish. If you have such a problem with the parish, leave–It’s pretty simple. Our parish is meant to be welcoming not discriminating. I hope that God will help guide you to realize that your bigoted agenda stems from your own prejudices....Sincerely, Anne B."

If moral opposition to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" is evidence of "bigotry, hate and injustice" in the mind of Anne B, what is this but further confirmation that Father Unni has not been faithful in presenting the Church's teaching relative to these subjects?  After all, in its 2003 document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated clearly that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law...Under no circumstances can they be approved." (No. 4).

Does Anne B believe the CDF to be promoting "bigotry, hate and injustice"?  If so, was this belief instilled by Father Unni?  Was this the purpose of the "rainbow ministry" at Saint Cecilia's Parish?  Is this why Blog posts from the "rainbow ministry" were recently deleted?  I cannot help but think of Father Emile "Mike" Boutin deleting posts from his "Men in Black" Blog which were critical of Cardinal Bertone and the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality and celibacy.

What is most ironic in Anne B's accusation is that it really applies to those who refuse to accept Jesus' Commandments while insisting on the "right" to engage in homosexual acts or to marry a member of the same-sex.  Pope John Paul II explains in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor that, "Human freedom and God's law are not in opposition; on the contrary, they appeal one to the other.  The follower of Christ knows that his vocation is to freedom.  'You were called to freedom, brethren' (Gal. 5:13), proclaims the Apostle Paul with joy and pride.  But he immediately adds: 'only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.'' (No. 17).  John Paul goes on to explain in No. 18 of the same encyclical that, "Those who live 'by the flesh' experience God's law as a burden, and indeed as a denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom.  On the other hand, those who are impelled by love and 'walk by the Spirit' (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others, find in God's Law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practice love as something freely chosen and freely lived out.  Indeed, they feel an interior urge - a genuine 'necessity' and no longer a form of coercion - not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their 'fullness.'"

Because Joe Sacerdo has chosen to follow the Lord Jesus' Law of Love, because he would like to see his fellow Catholics at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston embrace this Law of Love, he is accused of being a "hater."

Our strange time.  The photo above shows a "Gay Pride 2011" demonstrator.  What do you think: Does this person walk by the Spirit or the flesh?