Abbey-Roads2

The Church IS inclusive.

The Cardinal’s interview in Quebec answered the question of whether or not the Catholic Church accepts people who are homosexual, or same-sex attracted.  The Cardinal said:

“The Church accepts people as they are,” he said.  “Jesus says the church is like a net, it pulls in everybody, everybody belongs to the church, there are sinners, there are saints, there are people with wrong ideas. But the Church continues to proclaim what Jesus taught.”

“There is no room in the Church for the acceptance of aberrational ideas,” he said. “There is room in the church to accept, to understand and to love people whoever they may be.  Not to tell them that what they are advocating is right, not to justify it.  That is quite different. That is totally, totally different.” - Source

“The Church will never justify homosexual conduct.”

What many so-called “faithful” dissenters lobby for is a blanket approval of homosexual behavior, as well as same-sex marriage… and let’s be honest - openly gay and women priests.  (At least that seems to be the agenda of the gay-Catholics lurking in the “underground” of Minneapolis.)

“There are some people that say the church is intolerant - no! We accept people but we cannot be unfaithful to Christ. We will not accept gay marriage.  The church has explained this over, and over and over again and she will have to continue to explain it.”

Addressing people with same sex attraction he said, “these are good people and our way of treating them is very important. The respect we show them and even the understanding of their personal situations. But just because someone is in a personal situation does not mean we can change our teaching to accommodate the person.”

However, he added, “This is something we have to teach in the most effective way possible, with clarity yes, with fidelity yes, with sensitivity.  “We present the beauty of human sexuality,” he said, “we explain God’s plan. We try to understand people who have the same sex attraction we try to help them; try not to speak platitudes to them but tell them what God’s plan is and how they are to face their life.” - Source

That said…

A local columnist for the Star-Tribune, a secular newspaper, wrote a great analysis of one parish’s “faithful dissenters” and their repeated condemnation of our Archbishop Nienstedt, whom they say is on a campaign  “of homophobic hatred…” and,  “dehumanizing spiritual violence directed at GLBT persons and their families.”   Yet these people insist they are not hateful towards the Church, rather they are simply hurt, frustrated, because of feeling alienated and rejected.  As the newspaper columnist, Katherine Kersten put it,

“Clearly, there is hatred here. But it is not coming from the Catholic Church. Rather, it’s a tool of those who are trying to compel the church to conform to their personal demands with caricatures and public mockery.

Opponents charge that the church does not welcome gays. They point to the fact that the archdiocese won’t sponsor a gay pride prayer service as evidence.

But the truth is different: The church welcomes everyone. Far from rejecting gays as sinners, Christianity teaches that all human beings are sinners. In fact, it maintains, it is precisely because we are sinners that we need the Christian message.”  - Source

“Mocking and sneering men.”

Sadly, many of these very same people (gay activists) mock and belittle those gay people who have come out of a life of error to return to the truth in reconciliation with the Catholic church.  They consistently attack those who have renounced homosexuality for the sake of the kingdom of God.  They attempt to shame them for accepting the teaching of the Gospel, electing to live chaste and celibate lives in fidelity to Christ.  As Kersten concluded in her post;

The controversy at St. Joan of Arc is part of a larger picture. When the gay rights movement emerged several decades ago, its leaders asked only for tolerance — a live-and-let-live attitude on the part of the larger society. Today, the movement increasingly demands both approval of and conformity to its creed. More and more, it labels all dissent — even that based on religious conviction — as “hateful.” 

Secular institutions have largely acquiesced. The church alone perseveres in the conviction that human sexuality has a larger purpose. That is why it is now a central battlefront in this crusade. - Source 

Such protests and accelerating demands made by gay activists seems to me analogous with the episode in the Book of Genesis involving the men of Sodom; protesting and making their demands heard outside of Lot’s house. [Genesis 19:4-11]  

Links:

http://ww3.startribune.com/kerstenblog/

Stella Borealis
 

Share This

And the Militia of Mary Immaculate.

I dreamed of St. Maximilian this morning shortly before I was fully awake.  The images played out in the dream recalled how, as a seminarian studying in Rome, the saint witnessed numerous anti-Catholic groups protesting outside of the Vatican, hurling insults against the Pope and blasphemies against Our Lord.  The sight moved Kolbe to found the Militia of Mary Immaculate, and the insignia the Militia adopted was the Miraculous Medal of the Immaculate Conception.  Providentially, the Militia was founded on 16 October 1917, just 3 days following the final apparition and the great miracle at Fatima.

St. Maximilian added to the prayer Our Lady instructed to be placed on the Miraculous Medal, and it goes like this:

“O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee, and for those who do not have recourse to thee, especially the enemies of the Church and those recommended to you.  Amen” - Source

“Thou alone, Mary, hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world.”  

When I was in grade school, I was enrolled in the Militia and became a knight of the Immaculata.  Kolbe impressed me because of his great purity and devotion to the Immaculate Conception.  Later as a novice in the monastery, to help me discern if I should remain with the Trappists or move on, the Novice Master made the unusual decision to send me to stay a few weeks with the Conventual Franciscans who operated the Marytown in the U.S. - at that time it was located in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  I also spent a summer there working before entering the monastery.  At any rate, this is my connection to that particular apostolate.

It seems to me in this country the enemies of the Church are perhaps more virulent than in Kolbe’s day, witness the so-called gay pride parades and celebrations, as well as dissident prayer services, which take place on or near Catholic properties; in my town,  across the country, in Rome, and even in Jerusalem.  The Pope and the bishops are represented as hate-filled criminals for affirming Catholic teaching regarding faith and morals, especially as it concerns the sin of homosexual behavior.  Now, even more than ever, we need to have recourse to the Immaculata; “Thou alone, Mary, hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world.”

A comment on “gay pride”.(Taken from PP X’s encyclical against Modernism.)

Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within.  Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy. - Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

[Of course the Holy Father was addressing the Modernist heresy in this encyclical, though I found much of what he said could just as well be addressed to those who promote the errors of the homosexual lifestyle.]

Links:

Homosexual intolerance of the Vatican

Share This

Gay stuff is in the news.

On most Catholic daily-news sites, nearly every day there is a new report regarding some aspect of the ongoing conflict homosexuals wage in their efforts to undermine the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  So when I write about this stuff, first of all, it is nothing new for me.  Secondly, it isn’t as if I’m making things, or initiating controversy - the stuff is out there - the assault by gay activists is out there and I comment on it.  I counter with authentic Catholic teaching.  Why?  I explained myself nearly 2 years ago when I cited the following from Pope Benedict XVI:

“In his most powerful statements to date on issues involving sexual morality, Pope Benedict XVI said homosexuals end up destroying themselves so the Church has a duty to speak out on moral issues that affect the very spiritual and physical lives of man.

 In seeking to emancipate himself from his body (from the ‘biological sphere’), [man] ends up by destroying himself,” the pope told cardinals, archbishops, bishops and members of the Roman Curia last week in a traditional meeting overlooked by most of the world’s press. “Against those who say that ‘the Church should not involve herself in these matters,’ we can only respond: does man not concern us too? The church and believers must raise their voices to defend man, the creature who, in the inseparable unity of body and spirit, is the image of God.” - World Net Daily

The Holy Father said, “the Church and believers must raise their voices…”  Contrary to one man’s opinion, I am not interpreting what the Holy Father or the Magisterium declares - but I do repeat the teaching in my posts.  I do so for several reasons, one purpose amongst these is in support for people such as Mark, a commenter on the post I wrote in response to the Holy Father’s quote above.  This is what Mark had to say in 2006:

Share This

Who may receive? 

On June 23 the Holy Father stated that only the pure of heart (those free from mortal sin) could receive Communion.  The Holy Father made the statement a day after the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Burlusconi asked a bishop in Sardinia as to when the Church would change the rules to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacrament.  The bishop jokingly responded that it would take a higher power than he (the bishop)  to change the rules.

The Holy Father’s statement was contained in a message to the Quebec Eucharistic Congress and did not mention the Prime Minister nor the issue of divorce.  The following is that section of the Holy Father’s message:

“We have to do everything that is in our power to receive (communion) with a pure heart, searching without end, through the sacrament of forgiveness, the purity that sin has stained,” Pope Benedict said in his message.

“On the other hand, those who cannot take communion because of their situation will find, nevertheless, in the desire to participate in the Eucharist, strength and effect of salvation.” - Source

“Catholic teaching says that Catholics cannot ignore Jesus’ teaching that the faithful may not divorce and remarry. The Church teaches that for the good of their souls, believers should not present themselves for Communion, when they have departed from the teachings of Jesus.” - CNA

[Now I’m just wondering out loud here, mind you I have no authority to speak for the Church, but would this apply to every teaching of the Church regarding faith and morals?  Such as the teaching on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and so on?]

Link:

Who can receive Communion.

Share This

INDIFFERENTISM 

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. 

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

The few exerpts noted above are errors, taken from Blessed Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors.  Would you have known that these are considered errors?  The Syllabus ends with this:

Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. - Pius IX

Photo credit:  Vincenzo

Share This

Baptism and eternal salvation. 

When I was little, probably in first grade, I was so impressed by the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation, that I used to carry a jar of water with me whenever my family went for a drive.  I knew that any baptized Catholic could baptize a person in danger of death if a priest was not available.  I found an old briefcase to carry the jar of water in, and I included a prayerbook with prayers for the dying as well.  I carried it everywhere, just in case we came across an accident or someone in danger of death.  Yes, I was roundly mocked.

As a small child, I had a vivid imagination concerning hell, limbo, purgatory, and eternal salvation.  I knew my parents were living outside the state of grace - primarily because my mom was a divorced remarried Catholic, neither parent ever attended church, and my mother sometimes told me she wasn’t in the state of grace.  Thus I prayed constantly for them - so great was my fear of eternal damnation - I hated the thought of anyone going to hell.  Of course the concept of hell frightened me, but what scared me much more, was the idea that hell was eternal - so I prayed ardently that no one would have to go there.  (In the end my parents died ‘happy deaths’.)

I mention all of this as background for my outrage at the fact some ministers of the Catholic Church have not taken this doctrine as seriously as it should have been taken.  The revelation that the feminist, gender-neutral formula of baptism is not only illicit, but also invalid, is rather distressing to anyone who takes their faith seriously.  I’ve posted about this before, it isn’t an issue of language or politics, it is an issue dealing with eternal salvation.  Something feminist Gnostics obviously do not take seriously.

Will diocesean officials begin to do something about it?

Pewsitter News  has a piece on how the Brisbane Archdiocese is now having to deal with the issue.  At one church hundreds of baptisms before 2004 were performed using the illicit/invalid formula.  However, the chancellor for the Archdiocese is claiming that such  baptisms are only illicit and not invalid.  Obviously he must be misinformed or making it up, because the original  Vatican announcement clearly stated  that all such baptisms were not only illicit, but invalid, and those baptised using the Gnostic formula would have to be re-baptized.

Does anyone else see this as a big deal?  Does anyone else think this is bigger than the sexual abuse scandal?  Isn’t the Catholic Church supposed to be about the salvation of souls?  Yet the Brisbane Archdiocesan chancellor, Fr. Jim Spence gave reporters this assuring news:

It doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means it’s illicit, he said.

“It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, it means that it shouldn’t have happened.

“I guess (those affected) would have all sorts of reactions. I would hope that anybody whos troubled by it would get in touch.'’

Baptism, the first of seven sacraments in the church, is the rite of initiation into the church and is usually administered shortly after birth.

Fr Spence said the illicit baptisms did not invalidate subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage. - Couriermail.com.au 

BS!  Sounds like a cover to me.  I’d go ahead and have the baptism done over.  And yes - an illicit/invalid baptism does indeed invalidate subsequent sacraments.  Now, can’t you see how this could affect a soul’s eternal salvation?

Share This

From the Desert Fathers…

Against false charity:  

“Theodore of Pherme said, “If a friend of yours is tempted by lust, give him a helping hand if you can, and pull him back from the danger.  But if he falls into heresy, and persists in spite of your efforts, go away quickly, cut off his friendship.  For if you stay with him, you may be dragged into hell with him.”

Righteous anger:

A brother asked Poeman, ‘What is the meaning of the text, “whoever is angry with his brother without cause” (Matthew 5:22)?’  Abba Poeman answered, ‘If you are angry with your brother for any kind of trouble that he gives you, that is anger without a cause, and it is better to pluck out your right eye and cast it from you.  But if anyone wants to separate you from God, then you must be angry with him.’

Share This

Voluptuousness

Voluptuousness was once a discreet term for auto-eroticism, currently referred to as “self-cultivation” - if you watch Oprah, or self-pleasuring, although it is more commonly known as masturbation.  In the past, the sexual practice has also been called self-abuse or onanism - now usually considered archaic by many.

In fact, it seems the majority of health professionals, in both the medical and mental health fields, discard the notion there is anything wrong with masturbation.  Indeed, many Catholics since the late ’70’s and ’80’s were often taught masturbation is not a sin.  Progressive theologians and scripture scholars taught there is no evidence in the Bible which would condemn it as a sin, insisting the Church was wrong in the way various scriptures had been interpreted.  In addition, some consecrated persons, those who professed a vow of chastity,  came to the conclusion they too can indulge in masturbation without incurring sin or violating their vow of celibacy.  (Just so long as they didn’t do it too much.  Whatever too much means?) 

(1) While admitting that certain texts cited as condemning masturbation may have another interpretation (Genesis 38:8-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:24), Holy Scripture does include in its condemnation an irresponsible use of sex, and that would certainly apply to masturbation. The Vatican Declaration says that even if Scripture does not condemn this sin by name, “the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of ‘impurity’, ‘unchasteness’ and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.” - Fr.John Harvey 

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic understanding and teaching on chastity and celibacy, has not changed, no matter what the Dr. tells you.  Celibacy or virginity is understood to mean a person voluntarily renounces marriage and sexual activity for the sake of the Kingdom of God.  All Catholics are called to chastity according to their state in life, even married people.  For unmarried people to live chastely, it is necessary to abstain from all deliberate sexual behavior, including autoeroticism or masturbation.

Catholic Sexual Ethics also responds to the objection that masturbation is not a grave moral disorder in certain circumstances. Adolescent masturbation is given as one of the circumstances. The response is that the Church has always acknowledged that circumstances alter cases, and that there are degrees of responsibility in the different kinds of masturbation. But the Church holds that the act of masturbation remains OBJECTIVELY SERIOUSLY WRONG. Rightly she distinguishes between the objective gravity of the masturbatory act and the personal responsibility of the agent.- Fr. John Harvey

Interesting background on the term “voluptuousness”:

“Moral authorities grudgingly acknowledged sex to be not inherently sinful, but very strictly delineated the ways in which sex could be used without spiritual consequences. Medical authorities, by contrast, considered sex to be an essential part of bodily health, noting that abstention could lead to a dangerous buildup of the “seminal humor.” As a preventative measure, physicians recommended regular, but not excessive, sexual intercourse (too little being as bad as too much). However, they took into account that not all people had a morally acceptable way of engaging in sex, and to this end recommended masturbation, drawing on the authority of Late Classical writers such as Galen, who suggests that physicians or midwives “place hot poultices on the . . . genitals” of a celibate woman and “cause [her] to experience orgasm, which would release the retained seed” (Murray, 201). Unfortunately, this was an area in which the medical and the moral definitely clashed. Moral authorities such as the theologian Thomas Aquinas considered masturbation (also known as “onanism” from the Biblical story of Onan; see Genesis 38:7-10) to be “the sin of uncleanliness, which some call voluptuousness” and an “unnatural vice” because it is “contrary to the natural ordering of the sexual act that is proper to human beings” (Summa Theologica 154.5). The only way that moral authorities would excuse masturbation was when it was unintentional, as was the case with nocturnal emissions, because “there [may be] an excess of the seminal humor in the body” which needed to be expelled in order to keep the body in balance. Thomas assumes that the body will take care of this balance itself, and lumps all intentional masturbation under the rubric of voluptuousness.” - Sex, Society and Medieval Women 

Useful Links:

Fr. John Harvey - Good moral theology.

Cosmos, Liturgy, and Sex - Excellent posts dealing with the issue.

Catholic Education and Masturbation

Debate On the Morality of Masturbation 

Share This