Ealah sexy

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, notes that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5).  The same document insists that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any 'material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided.  "In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection." (No. 5).

Sodomite priest and homosexual activist Bernard Lynch rejects this teaching openly.  Speaking at a Protest the Pope rally late last year, Fr. Lynch said:

Dear Holy Father,


Welcome to the United Kingdom. I am one of your fellow priests who have served in the Catholic Church for the past thirty nine years. I welcome you as an openly gay Roman Catholic priest.

I became openly gay after you, as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986 issued the document ‘On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People.’ At that time, I was overwhelmed by the pastoral care of my gay brothers in New York City as they faced death from HIV and AIDS. As a member of the Mayor of New York’s Task Force on AIDS – (The Honorable Edward Koch) — I founded an AIDS Ministry in the city in 1981 to care for the sick and dying. Six hundred of the men who got sick and died were young and fellow Catholics. I was their priest. In 1992 I came to this country to continue the same work through CARA and London Light House with an Anglican priest the late Father David Randall.

At the height of the Plague years your Holiness’s ‘Pastoral Care’ document told us as LGBT people that we are ‘disordered in our nature’ and ‘evil in our love’ and the typical violence committed against us as ‘understandable if not acceptable.’ I was shocked and scandalised. I did not understand then and now how such teachings are consonant with the unconditional love of God given to us in Jesus Christ.

Many of the people in my care died in despair as a direct result of this document written by you. Its effect not only reverberated around the Catholic world but far beyond. Your teachings I know were and are used — both within the Catholic Church and outside of it — as a baton to attack every human and civil right sought after by LGBT people. (One of the most painful consequences for me as priest was that many of my fellow priests dying of HIV/AIDS, on hearing the teaching lost all faith in a loving God. This happened after a life time of devoted and dedicated service to our Church.) Surely we who are LGBT people deserve better. It is a sad irony that as Catholic Christians we depend on the secular authorities of the State to mirror God’s justice for us. The Church authorities under your leadership stymie every attempt made by us as LGBT people to claim under the law our most basic human dignity.

This cannot be right. The Gospel message we share with people of good will is that all people are created equal: Women and men; Black and White; Gay and Straight; Believer and non Believer alike. If an all loving God exists – and I believe He /She does – then I think it is us believers who may be most shocked that those secular non believing humanists, who spared no price and counted no cost in the pursuit of justice for all, will be the ones first in His Love. I pray that your visit to the United Kingdom will enable and empower you to make the co-equality of people the litmus test of your own faith.

Justice demands that I speak out. ‘Silence equals death’ as my friend and fellow activist Larry Kramer said at the height of the AIDS pandemic. I speak not only for the living but most especially for those thousands of gay men who died in despair as a direct result of your Holiness’s words. This gross injustice towards my gay brothers dying of HIV/AIDS must not be forgotten. Those of us spared death at the height of the pandemic have the memory of our dying brothers indelibly marked on every bone in the soul of our bodies. We cannot forget. We shall never forget. We cannot be silent. The devastation is and will always be in us. We shall never heal from all that we have come through. We have in fact become what we are – and we are here today — to help keep the fallen alive.

As my Pope, I welcome you. I welcome you with hope that you ask forgiveness of those whom your words drove to despair. Most importantly I ask — I beg you in fact — to change immediately this totally dehumanising teaching. Thank you."

Now the document from the CDF which Fr. Lynch refers to does not suggest that violence against homosexual persons is "understandable if not acceptable."  This is typical adolescent homosexual agitprop.  And it is unworthy of a priest.  The Letter clearly differentiates between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." (No. 3).  And then the Letter condemns crimes committed against homosexuals but adds that these crimes cannot serve as a pretext to justify homosexuality, let alone efforts to create or favor legislation which protects homosexual behavior:

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.


But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase." (No. 10).

Fr. Lynch, radical homosexual activist that he is, blinded by sin, slanders the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, by asserting that she teaches that violence committed against homosexual persons is "understandable if not acceptable."  This is the same priest who described the Catholic Church as "the most homosocial and homophobic institution in the world."  The same priest who was befriended by Father Mychal Judge in the mind 1980s.  When Cardinal O'Connor expelled Dignity, the dissident Catholic-in-name only organization from St. Francis Xavier Parish, Fr. Mychal Judge - so heavily promoted by the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's Back Bay, provided a home for the dissident group's AIDS ministry which was led by Fr. Lynch.  See here.

A web of dissent and homosexual agitprop.

Even within the Catholic Church, charismatic individuals can inspire a cult-following. Religious communities (and a parish is a religious community) can fall victim to the cult phenomenon. In his book "Cults, Sects, and the New Age," Father James LeBar, who has served as a Consultant on Cults for the Archdiocese of New York, notes, "...to be sure,..cultic behavior is possible at any time in any place. It has also been demonstrated that some legitimate actions of Catholic Church groups can be carried to excess, so that the cult label is applied....Church leaders must be vigilant to make sure that cultic practices do not creep into otherwise legitimate groups." (p. 99).

So the Catholic Church is not necessarily immune from cults.  Fr. LeBar stresses this truth in his book writing, "Are there 'Catholic' cults?  Are there practices in the Catholic Church that can be compared to the cults?  Are there groups operating with church approval that use the same techniques, the same methods of operation that may confuse people?  Unfortunately, each of the above questions can be answered affirmatively, with the possible exception of the first.  In the strictest sense, there are no Catholic cults, because of our system of accountability and responsibility.  Should a person or group go astray, the competent authority, be it local (the pastor), regional (the bishop), or international (the Vatican, or the Holy Father himself), after due investigation, corrects them, or excludes them from the Church."

That there are groups which occasionally spring up within the Catholic Church and which operate using the same techniques that cults employ is a given.  Some recent examples are The Fatima Crusaders (also known as the Tridentine Latin Rite Church - TLRC)  which denied the legitimacy of the last four popes; the Bayside Movement, also known as "Our Lady of the Roses," which was founded by Veronica Leuken; the Apostolic Formation Center which was the brainchild of L. Roy Legere; and the Integrated Humanities Program which was conceived by three Catholic professors at the University of Kansas.

One of the chief characteristics of a group which engages in cultic behavior is that it does not tell the truth about itself.  As Rev. Wm. Kent Burtner explains in his "Outline for a Talk on Cults, Thought Reform and Mind Abuse":

"Most people want us to believe the best about their group.  They are also willing to tell the truth about their: ideology, the meaning of becoming a member, what the goal of the group is, what is expected of new members.  But cult groups are NOT willing to do so.  Cult leaders know that if they do, people might not join, or might leave..."

Bearing this in mind, let's read what Father John Unni of St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's Back Bay had to say about his parish and the "Rainbow Ministry" which plays such an important role there:

"The Cardinal’s been supportive, he’s been very clear what the Church teaches and what it doesn’t, and he knows I have no other agenda there. That’s not going to please everybody, but that’s the Gospel….My thing is, nobody gets excluded from the door, and nobody gets excluded from the table, and then from there, I’m just assuming we’re all trying to do the best that we can do."


But here we immediately encounter a serious problem.  Joe Sacerdo explains:

"Yes, we know the Cardinal’s been supportive. That’s a big part of the problem. He has been only somewhat clear on what the Church teaches and doesn’t teach by the mixed messages coming out from him and his spokesman. If Fr. Unni has 'no other agenda there,' then why has he sponsored speakers who have worked in favor of gay marriage talking in favor of gay marriage, in direct opposition to what the Catholic Church teaches? Fr. Unni, Cardinal O’Malley, and Terry Donilon, can we get an answer to that question? And 'nobody gets excluded from the table'? Does that mean that regardless of the level of mortal sin anyone might have committed, and an absence of repentance for that sin, they should still receive the Eucharist?  

To which I would add, if Father Unni has no other agenda, why does his "Rainbow Ministry" Blog link to 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), in which the author 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."

Again, one of the chief characteristics of a group which engages in cultic behavior is that it does not tell the truth about itself.  Father John Unni has not told the truth about his agenda.  Nor have other members of the "Rainbow Ministry." 

The competent local authority needs to investigate St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry." 

We read here that: "Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, has noted that, "sects are marked by dissent from the Church’s teachings, promoting heresy and even schism."  Now John Kelly, Chair of the "Rainbow Ministry," has said that he doesn't look to the Vatican for guidance or teaching.  His group has promoted same-sex "marriage," and links to a Blog which describes the homosexual orientation as a "Divinely created, normal variation within natural law" while accusing Rome of "faulty assumptions" and "objective disorders."

It doesn't take a theologian to discern that something is radically wrong with the "Rainbow Ministry."  Only someone whose eyes are open.

In a statement issued yesterday by the Catholic Action League, we read:

"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for allowing the so-called 'welcoming Mass' for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered persons to go forward at Saint Cecilia's Church in Boston's Back Bay. The mass had been originally scheduled to celebrate Gay Pride month in Boston. Following protests by faithful Catholics, the event was rescheduled and re-themed.


The Catholic Action League called the decision to allow the mass 'a cowardly betrayal of trust resulting in the spiritual abandonment of Saint Cecilia's Parish to moral error and mortal sin.'

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: 'The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Everyone is welcome, and everyone deserves to hear the full truth of the Church's teachings. Sadly, that was not the case at this morning's liturgy at Saint Cecilia's.

Today's liturgy was a scandal and a surrender, where the homosexual identity was affirmed, and where Catholic moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior were ignored. Those prohibitions are explicit, longstanding, and severe. Instead of calling his congregation to repentance, interior conversion, and the personal pursuit of holiness, the homilist, Father John Unni, attempted to anesthetize the consciences of his listeners by urging them to shed the burden of shame.

The salvation of souls demands that Catholic priests and prelates demonstrate the courage to tell homosexuals that their participation in the sin of impurity against nature deprives them of sanctifying grace and imperils their immortal souls. At Saint Cecilia's, however, today's message was the spiritual equivalent of 'Don't worry, be happy.' The Archdiocese of Boston has, once again, failed to protect the moral and spiritual welfare of its members.'"

Should a Catholic priest be urging others to "shed the burden of shame"?  In his book entitled, "True to Our Feelings," Robert Solomon writes, "Aristotle calls shame [in his Nicomachean Ethics] a 'quasi-virtue' because to act wrongly and not be ashamed is much worse than to act wrongly and be ashamed because one has done wrong." (p. 96). 

Thomas Aquinas follows Aristotle in viewing shame as a "quasi-virtue" and asserts, in his Summa Theologica, that shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue.  He says that shame is a recoiling from that which is dishonorable and disgraceful, and since lack of moderation is the most dishonorable and disgraceful thing there is, shame contributes more to moderation than to any other virtue.  He says that shame is not so much an essential component of moderation as it is a preparation for it, laying its foundation by instilling in persons the horror of that which brings dishonor and disgrace.

Which is why Father Unni's exhortation to "shed the burden of shame" is so very troubling.  One who is shameless fears neither God nor man.  For such a person, that which is shameful becomes something to boast in.  But we already have St. Paul's warning: "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ.  Their end is destruction.  Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their 'shame.'  Their minds are occupied with earthly things." (Philippians 3: 18, 19).

Is this really what Father Unni wants for his people?  For them to glory in their shame?  To fear neither God nor man? 

Will this teaching lead others to embrace holiness of life or will it encourage them to embrace self-will while rejecting the salutary fear of God*?


*  "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to decline from the ruin of death." (Proverbs 14: 27).

*  "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1).

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.

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), explains that, "The hierarchy should promote the apostolate of the laity, provide it with spiritual principles and support, direct the conduct of this apostolate to the common good of the Church, and attend to the preservation of doctrine and order.

Indeed, the lay apostolate admits of different types of relationships with the hierarchy in accordance with the various forms and objects of this apostolate. For in the Church there are many apostolic undertakings which are established by the free choice of the laity and regulated by their prudent judgment. The mission of the Church can be better accomplished in certain circumstances by undertakings of this kind, and therefore they are frequently praised or recommended by the hierarchy. No project, however, may claim the name 'Catholic' unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority.

Certain forms of the apostolate of the laity are given explicit recognition by the hierarchy, though in various ways.

Because of the demands of the common good of the Church, moreover, ecclesiastical authority can select and promote in a particular way some of the apostolic associations and projects which have an immediately spiritual purpose, thereby assuming in them a special responsibility. Thus, making various dispositions of the apostolate according to circumstances, the hierarchy joins some particular form of it more closely with its own apostolic function. Yet the proper nature and distinctiveness of each apostolate must be preserved, and the laity must not be deprived of the possibility of acting on their own accord. In various Church documents this procedure of the hierarchy is called a mandate.

Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine, certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls. By virtue of this mission, the laity are fully subject to higher ecclesiastical control in the performance of this work.

As regards works and institutions in the temporal order, the role of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is to teach and authentically interpret the moral principles to be followed in temporal affairs. Furthermore, they have the right to judge, after careful consideration of all related matters and consultation with experts, whether or not such works and institutions conform to moral principles and the right to decide what is required for the protection and promotion of values of the supernatural order." (No. 24).

And in No. 25, this same document says that, "Special care should be taken to select priests who are capable of promoting particular forms of the apostolate of the laity and are properly trained. Those who are engaged in this ministry represent the hierarchy in their pastoral activity by virtue of the mission they receive from the hierarchy. Always adhering faithfully to the spirit and teaching of the Church, they should promote proper relations between laity and hierarchy."

Always adhering faithfully to the spirit and teaching of the Church, they should promote proper relations between laity and hierarchy.  Is St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry"  faithful to this charge?  The Blog for this apostolate links directly to another Blog which states that people, "..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."

This is not the teaching of the Church.  This is not the mind of Christ.  Furthermore, such an attitude is highly disrespectful of the Church's hierarchy.  This is most unfortunate.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law, says that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (CCC, 907).

An apostolate which promotes homosexuality as a "Divinely created" normal variant of human sexuality is not demonstrating "due regard to the integrity of faith and morals."  An apostolate which promotes a website which refers to the Church's teaching as being imbued with "faulty assumptions" and which accuses the Teaching Church of "objective disorders" is not faithful to Catholic teaching and is not promoting proper relations between laity and hierarchy.

The "rainbow ministry" apostolate at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston should be shut down immediately.

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.

Three days after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry, Archbishop Timothy Dolan reaffirmed the Catholic Church's position on marriage.  Speaking to reporters following a Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral, His Excellency said that, "We as Catholics would oppose any attempt by anybody to redefine marriage...We just don't believe that marriage can be changed and radically altered to accommodate a particular lifestyle." See here.  Archbishop Dolan has said that same-sex "marriage" is "detrimental to the common good" and a "violation of natural law."

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 refuted the notion that legalizing homosexual unions would not harm the common good:

"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure.  This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-ranging and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good.  Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or ill.  They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.'  Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.  Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage."

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

Now Cardinal Sean O'Malley has reaffirmed this teaching of the Church at his Blog.  What is not understandable, however, is his toleration of a homosexual "rainbow ministry" at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's Back Bay which has distorted Catholic teaching on homosexuality while promoting same-sex "marriage."

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority*, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops.  His Excellency noted that:

"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?  In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?


One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.


Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)."

It is time for Boston's Cardinal to exercise his pastoral authority.  If he does not, the Father of Lies will be emboldened and will continue to sow dissension and discord as minds become steeped in darkness.


*  Full Address here.

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, Pope John Paul II spoke of the silent apostasy which is gradually infecting the world.  He wrote, "Whole countries and nations where religion and the Christian life were formerly flourishing and capable of fostering a viable and working community of faith, are now put to a hard test, and in some cases, are even undergoing a radical transformation, as a result of a constant spreading of an indifference to religion, of secularism and atheism. This particularly concerns countries and nations of the so-called First World, in which economic well-being and consumerism, even if coexistent with a tragic situation of poverty and misery, inspires and sustains a life lived 'as if God did not exist'. This indifference to religion and the practice of religion devoid of true meaning in the face of life's very serious problems, are not less worrying and upsetting when compared with declared atheism. Sometimes the Christian faith as well, while maintaining some of the externals of its tradition and rituals, tends to be separated from those moments of human existence which have the most significance, such as, birth, suffering and death. In such cases, the questions and formidable enigmas posed by these situations, if remaining without responses, expose contemporary people to an inconsolable delusion or to the temptation of eliminating the truly humanizing dimension of life implicit in these problems.


On the other hand, in other regions or nations many vital traditions of piety and popular forms of Christian religion are still conserved; but today this moral and spiritual patrimony runs the risk of being dispersed under the impact of a multiplicity of processes, including secularization and the spread of sects. Only a re-evangelization can assure the growth of a clear and deep faith, and serve to make these traditions a force for authentic freedom.

Without doubt a mending of the Christian fabric of society is urgently needed in all parts of the world. But for this to come about what is needed is to first remake the Christian fabric of the ecclesial community itself present in these countries and nations.

At this moment the lay faithful, in virtue of their participation in the prophetic mission of Christ, are fully part of this work of the Church. Their responsibility, in particular, is to testify how the Christian faith constitutes the only fully valid response-consciously perceived and stated by all in varying degrees-to the problems and hopes that life poses to every person and society. This will be possible if the lay faithful will know how to overcome in themselves the separation of the Gospel from life, to again take up in their daily activities in family, work and society, an integrated approach to life that is fully brought about by the inspiration and strength of the Gospel.

To all people of today I once again repeat the impassioned cry with which I began my pastoral ministry: 'Do not be afraid! Open, in deed, open wide the doors to Christ!

Open to his saving power the confines of states, and systems political and economic, as well as the vast fields of culture, civilization, and development. Do not be afraid! Christ knows 'what is inside a person'. Only he knows! Today too often people do not know what they carry inside, in the deepest recesses of their soul, in their heart. Too often people are uncertain about a sense of life on earth. Invaded by doubts they are led into despair. Therefore-with humility and trust I beg and implore you-allow Christ to speak to the person in you. Only he has the words of life, yes, eternal life.'

Opening wide the doors to Christ, accepting him into humanity itself poses absolutely no threat to persons, indeed it is the only road to take to arrive at the total truth and the exalted value of the human individual.


This vital synthesis will be achieved when the lay faithful know how to put the gospel and their daily duties of life into a most shining and convincing testimony, where, not fear but the loving pursuit of Christ and adherence to him will be the factors determining how a person is to live and grow, and these will lead to new ways of living more in conformity with human dignity.

Humanity is loved by God! This very simple yet profound proclamation is owed to humanity by the Church. Each Christian's words and life must make this proclamation resound: God loves you, Christ came for you, Christ is for you 'the Way, the Truth and the Life!' (Jn 14:6).

This re-evangelization is directed not only to individual persons but also to entire portions of populations in the variety of their situations, surroundings and cultures. Its purpose is the formation of mature ecclesial communities, in which the faith might radiate and fulfill the basic meaning of adherence to the person of Christ and his Gospel, of an encounter and sacramental communion with him, and of an existence lived in charity and in service.

The lay faithful have their part to fulfill in the formation of these ecclesial communities, not only through an active and responsible participation in the life of the community, in other words, through a testimony that only they can give, but also through a missionary zeal and activity towards the many people who still do not believe and who no longer live the faith received at Baptism.

In the case of coming generations, the lay faithful must offer the very valuable contribution, more necessary than ever, of a systematic work in catechesis. The Synod Fathers have gratefully taken note of the work of catechists, acknowledging that they 'have a task that carries great importance in animating ecclesial communities'. It goes without saying that Christian parents are the primary and irreplaceable catechists of their children, a task for which they are given the grace by the Sacrament of Matrimony. At the same time, however, we all ought to be aware of the 'rights' that each baptized person has to being instructed, educated and supported in the faith and the Christian life."

There are those who oppose this call for a re-evangelization.  For such people, moral norms constitute "mere rules" which others may find offensive.  Therefore, Catholics should avoid preaching on these norms because such preaching amounts to "judging, carping, and condemning."  But the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which these confused souls obviously do not spend much time with, teaches clearly that there are explicit kinds of human acts, specified by the object of moral choice, that are always morally wrong because the willingness to choose an object of this kind is evidence of a disordered will (for example moral evil, CCC, 1755).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," that they are "contrary to the natural law," and "under no circumstances can they be approved (2357). It also teaches that the homosexual inclination "is objectively disordered." and that those who suffer from this disordered inclination are called to "fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (2358). Nowhere in the Catechism are homosexual persons encouraged to take pride in their disordered inclination or in gravely sinful homosexual acts by proclaiming "God made me this way."

If we are to re-evangelize a sin-sick and hurting world, we must speak Gospel truths.  Some of these truths will be difficult for others to accept.  But we must remain faithful to received teaching, to Revelation.  We must remember that when others condemn us of "judging, carping and condemning" for simply stating and defending the Church's authentic teaching (especially in the area of sexual morality), this is nothing more than a cheap semantic weapon designed to silence and intimidate us.  From the Catholic standpoint (which is the rational standpoint), compassion is false when it does not aim at the real good of one's neighbor.  And what could be more good than his eternal salvation?

We need a solid and authentic re-evangelization.  A cotton-candy Catholicism and a sacharrin spirituality will not produce saints.  It will not restore our society to sanity and sanctity (actually the two are the same, for sanctity is sanity).  It will only lead us further into an ever-increasing darkness.

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.

In an essay on the meaning of evangelization, Father Vincent Miceli, S.J. wrote, "Being the work of God and man in cooperation, it must ever be a thrilling and awesome adventure.  We can say, however, that this sanctifying activity proclaims Christ to those who do not know Him, preaches the Gospel to them through catechesis and missionary sermons, confers Baptism and other sacraments and tirelessly exhorts converts to scale the heights of sanctity.  Jesus Christ, Himself, the Good News of God, was the very first and greatest evangelizer.  He proclaimed an absolute Kingdom of God, making everything else relative.  He proclaimed salvation, namely liberation from sin, Satan, death, a liberation that bestowed upon sinners returned to God grace, resurrection in immortality and glorification in the triune God.  He proclaimed the price man must pay for his salvation, namely that men must gain Heaven by violence, i.e., through a life of penance, toil, and suffering accepted in the spirit of the Suffering Servant of God.  And above all He proclaimed that man must undergo that interior renewal which the Gospel calls metanoia, that is the radical change of heart and mind which destroys 'the old man of sin' and creates 'the new man of grace.'"

Fr. Miceli then explains that there are obstacles to evangelization.  He writes, "St Thomas Aquinas teaches that three things are necessary for a soul to find, follow and embrace Christ.  First, a person must know what he ought to believe.  Second, he must know what he ought to desire.  Third, he must know what he ought to do.  Now ignorance is the first great obstacle to evangelization.  Catholics, therefore, should grow in a profound knowledge of their Faith through a constant reading and reflection on the Gospels and a faithful following of the teachings of the Magisterium.  Only thus will they come to appreciate the Catholic Faith as a gift of God that is true, good and beautiful.  They then will be moved by the Holy Spirit to bring non-Catholics to share this gift from God with them..."

Finally, surveying the Catholic Church in the United States, Fr. Miceli writes, "Unfortunately, the fact is that the Church in the United States, instead of being the crusading, courageous, evangelizing society Christ founded it to be, has become a cream-puff chaplaincy to the converted - and because of this attitude is failing to hold on even to these...How are we to stir up again the spirit of evangelization?  Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi gives us our marching orders:

'On us particularly, the pastors of the Church, rests the responsibility for reshaping with boldness and wisdom, but in complete fidelity to the content of evangelization, the means that are most suitable and effective for communicating the Gospel message to the men and women of our times.'" (Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, citing Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi, No. 40).

Note this passage.  What does Pope Paul VI mean by "complete fidelity to the content of evangelization"?  The Holy Father means that pastors of the Church must offer the men and women of our times what Pope Benedict XVI has said is the entire plan of God.  That is to say, the full content of Catholic teaching - including, and especially, those hard truths which the world does not want to hear but which faithful Catholics must share with hurting souls who wander about without a shepherd.  This is what evangelization is all about!

But it would seem that the Archdiocese of Boston has something else in mind when it refers to evangelization. Joe Sacerdo writes:

"It’s pretty bad in Boston. The Archdiocese of Boston, where 'relativism' remains a household word, has flip-flopped yet again becoming the 'John Kerry' of firm decision-making by now firmly backing a Catholic Mass to celebrate Gay Pride.


First the Archdiocese was allowing Mass for the purpose of celebrating and commemorating Gay Pride at St. Cecilia’s in Boston. Then they said it had to be cancelled, but there would be a Mass in the future to welcome the community, but not specifically gays and lesbians. Now, the 'Mass marking gay pride is back on' with the full endorsement of the archdiocese. This hit the Monday morning news after Catholic bloggers including us revealed how for years St. Cecilia’s has been sponsoring speakers who support gay marriage, in direct opposition to Catholic teachings.

Here’s the statement issued by the archdiocese on June 19:

June 19, 2011 – Archdiocese of Boston statement regarding prayer service at St. Cecilia Parish Boston

'The Archdiocese of Boston is committed to evangelization and to being a welcoming Church for all of God’s people. St. Cecilia’s is a wonderful example of the exceptional parishes in the Archdiocese which seek to serve the Catholic faithful with grace, dignity, respect, compassion and love and being devoted to the Gospel and Christ’s saving ministry.

The reports that the Mass, originally scheduled for June 19th, was cancelled are not accurate. Rather the Mass was postponed. As indicated in the statement of the Archdiocese on June 10, a Mass welcoming the wider community of the faithful, including gays and lesbians, will be held. The Mass has been rescheduled to Sunday, July 10th at 11am.

We respect the desire of those individuals organizing and participating in the prayer service. We know that the postponement of the June 19th Mass has been disappointing to them. Our hope and prayer is that we can come together as one community of Catholics sharing in the Lord’s divine love for each of us.'

How can St. Cecilia’s be devoted to the Gospel and Christ’s saving ministry if they they’ve been promoting gay marriage for years?


Mass day in and day out is intended to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Why is any Mass being hijacked to celebrate Gay Pride at all, let alone any category of sinners–adulterers, those engaging in pre-marital sex, liars, etc.? Is the archdiocese that ill-informed about the purpose of Catholic Mass and Gay Pride that they still don’t understand this?" (Full post here).

Indeed.  To which I would add: How can the Archdiocese seriously suggest that it is "committed to evangelization" when it permits a Catholic parish under its authority to undermine Church teaching through a "rainbow ministry" and dissident speakers who have agitated for same-sex "marriage" and "Gay Pride"?  In what way is this "complete fidelity to the content of evangelization" and the "entire plan of God"?

What is going on at St. Cecilia's may be called evangelization.  But it is far from the authentic evangelization of the Church, an evangelizaton which exhorts people to reach for the heights of sanctity under the guidance of the teaching Magisterium.  Instead, it may be called an evangelization for Hell.  An education in the ways of pride and degradation.

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?