Everything Must Be Gay All the Time Even in the Church

by

 

Ushering in the Church of Love, one heresy at a time.

Ushering in the Church of Love one heresy at a time.

The pseudo Church of all things loving, which is quite the opposite of the Catholic Faith, was once only a ridiculous ghost seen on television and in the minds of proud perverts.  Suddenly it has manifested, much like Bruce Jenner, into an frightening reality from one end of the Catholic world to the other.

The Boston Globe’s smug CruxMag usually tries to restrain its glee at the victories of the Church’s enemies.  It pretends to be somewhat Catholic in the hopes it will catch more flies.

Not anymore.

So what to make of same-sex attraction? The logic says: Since sexuality is inextricably linked to procreation, sex that is non-procreative is disordered. Good logic, but an invalid conclusion. Why? Because of our current understanding of the origins of homosexuality.

If it is not chosen, if it is something that seems to be (as current science continues to demonstrate) as much a part of human personality as opposite-sex attraction, then it is part of how God created a person. To suggest that an involuntary orientation deeply linked to the need for human connection and relationship was put there by God but meant to be suppressed and unused is to depict God as a wicked prankster placing insupportable, arbitrary obstacles in the path of people for whom he supposedly has infinite, creative love.

And here’s where we start to see the dead end of this chain of reasoning — this branch of the tree has just gone as far as it can grow, and is no longer contributing to the life of the whole. Regardless of whether anecdote and data are singular and plural, wherever I look and listen, there is someone who is troubled by the fact that a young person whom they love is more and more alienated from the Church because of the current teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. If, as the current polling data seem to show, young people are dropping away at increasing, even unprecedented, rates on account of this issue, then this branch of the tree is literally a dead end.But another branch is producing real fruit, and it is that branch to which those supporters of same-sex marriage who still identify deeply with Christian tradition — with the “Church” in its full, proper meaning — are looking when they politely or impolitely defy public condemnation of same-sex marriage by clerics of their Church and march or vote in favor of it.

But make no mistake — they are being “swayed by their Church.” They know perfectly well that “their Church” preaches “This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35). They know that their Church preaches “God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in them” (1 Jn. 4:16).

They look at the same-sex couples they know who seek to be married, and they see mutuality, and commitment, and fidelity, sometimes in the face of overwhelming vitriol and resistance.

They see relationships that welcome and nurture children.

They see love. And they know what their Church preaches about that.

Our world today is everything gay everywhere all the time.  We have transgender country singers, gay football players, men crying and whining on television, pronoun enforcers and kids punished for having a gender.  No one is permitted to speak against it.  Any communications will get you fired or sued.  Gay is never a choice, as if people were snails.

Few are actually committed to being gay so why this enormous worldwide push from our overlords?  What is their end game? How far will they reach into our Church?  What will it be when they are through?

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Pell Gets the O’Malley Evil Eye

by

 

Sending out psychic drones

Sending out psychic drones?

Things are looking grim and ominous for Cardinal Pell, high-level curial reformer yet famous defender of the Faith at that heresy-laden Synod on the Family.  He appears to be getting the evil eye from Cardinal O’Malley, the man in charge of those caustic pro-gay professional victims who are spreading their hate from within the offices of the Church itself.

Jean-Louis De La Vaissiere writes:

External experts brought in by Pope Francis to help tackle the tiny city state’s ills are answering the papal call for openness — and infuriating some Holy See stalwarts in the process.

Over the past few months members of the pope’s commission for child protection — handpicked by Francis to help root out sex abuse in the Catholic Church — have publicly attacked a cardinal and a bishop.

The cardinal in question is the Vatican’s finance chief George Pell, who was accused by commissioner Peter Saunders of being an “almost sociopathic” man who covered up abuse and tried to buy the silence of at least one victim.

Australian Pell, who was described by Saunders as “a massive, massive thorn in the side of Pope Francis’s papacy”, threatened legal action and was defended by the Vatican, who stressed Saunders was only expressing his personal views.

Despite the anger among red hats in the gilded corridors of Saint Peter’s, Saunders — a British child abuse victim — stood his ground and has not apologised.

The anti-paedophilia body has strong ties to survivor groups who are highly critical of the Vatican, and its members readily draw attention to the Church’s flaws, even if it embarrasses the very man who appointed them.

These newly empowered survivor groups are plain enemies of the Church and priests.

Now the office run by Cardinal O’Malley, the most senior man at the Vatican appointed to handle such matters, has issued a statement calling on Cardinal Pell to respond directly and promptly.

It was Curial Gang of Nine’s O’Malley who signaled the doom of targeted K.C. Bishop Finn several months before his ultimate resignation.

“The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, as mandated by the Holy Father, Pope Francis, has no jurisdiction to comment on individual cases or inquiries,” the statement issued yesterday evening reads. “Regarding Australia’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into Institutional Child Sex Abuse, all appropriate questions are being dealt with by the Truth, Justice and Healing Council in Australia, which is coordinating the local Church’s response to the Royal Commission’s findings,” the statement says. “The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors remains dedicated to its mission as outlined in the recently approved provisional Statutes, which is to help the Church worldwide protect minors and make certain that the interests of abuse survivors and victims’ are paramount. To this ends the Commission considers it essential that those in positions of authority in the Church respond promptly, transparently and with the clear intent of enabling justice to be achieved.”

Just like FrancisChurch has done with Bishop Finn, with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and with other good bishops in South America, Italy, now Belgium; they are muscled aside in the name of murky or overblown scandals.

Meanwhile there’s almost nothing the liberal friends of Francis can do to lose their exalted positions in the Church today.

See here,

see here,

see here, and

see here.

 

 

Pope Francis Is Confused About St. Francis

by
Loved for his holiness, not his hipster agenda

Loved for his holiness not his hipster agenda

At Crisis Samuel Gregg counters the accumulated image of a saccharine St. Francis who gave his life to the poor.  People are hijacking St. Francis, using his name for their own less-than-Christlike agendas.

Such ideas about Saint Francis don’t fit well with some portrayals of the medieval hermit and friar that have emerged in recent decades. Many of these have been developed, as illustrated by the doyen of Italian historians of Francis and the Franciscan movement, Grado G. Merlo, to exploit Francis for numerous contemporary religious and political agendas, ranging from pacifism to radical environmentalism. Franco Zefferelli’s well-known 1972 film Brother Sun, Sister Moon presented the saint, for example, as a type of winsome eccentric who was all about shattering conventionality. In his 1982 book Francis of Assisi: A Model of Human Liberation, the liberation theologian Leonardo Boff portrayed Francis as one who, conceptually speaking, would help us move away from a world dominated by “the bourgeois class that has directed our history for the past five hundred years.”

Leo Boff is one of the many rehabilitated Marxist pseudo-Catholic thinkers in the Pope FrancisEra.

So what are some aspects of Saint Francis’s life detailed in Thompson’s book that will surprise many? One is that although he sought radical detachment from the world, Francis believed that he and his followers should engage in manual labor in order to procure necessities like food. Begging was always a secondary alternative (29). Another is that Francis thought that the Church’s sacramental life required careful preparation, use of the finest sacred vessels (32), and proper vestments (62). This is consistent with Francis’s conviction that one’s most direct contact with God was in the Mass, “not in nature or even in service to the poor” (61). While Francis is rightly called a peacemaker and one who loved the poor, Thompson stresses the saint’s “absolute lack of any program of legal or social reforms” (37). The word “poverty” itself appears rarely in Francis’s own writing (246). It seems Francis also thought that it was absolute rather than relative poverty which “always had a claim on compassion” (40).

When it came to Catholic dogma and doctrine, Francis was no proto-dissenter. He was, as Thompson puts it, “fiercely orthodox” (41), even insisting in later life that friars guilty of liturgical abuses or dogmatic deviations should be remanded to higher church authorities (135-136). Hence it shouldn’t surprise us that Francis’s famous conversation in Egypt in 1219 with Sultan al-Kamil and his advisors wasn’t an exercise in interfaith pleasantries. While Francis certainly did not mock Islam, the saint politely told his Muslim interlocutors that he was there to explicate the truth of the Christian faith and save the sultan’s soul (66-70). Nothing more, nothing less.

Francis is of course especially remembered by Christians and others for his love of nature, so much so that another saint, John Paul II, proclaimed him the patron saint of “those who promote ecology” in his 1979 Bula Inter sanctos. Francis’s deep affinity with nature and animals was underscored by those who knew him. The killing of animals or seeing them suffer upset him deeply (56). In this regard and many others, Francis didn’t see the natural world and animals as things to be feared or treated solely as resources for use (57).

Unlike many other medieval religious reformers, however, Francis rejected abstinence from meat and wasn’t a vegetarian. Nor was there a trace of pantheism in Francis’s conception of nature (56). Francis’s references and allusions to nature in his writings, preaching, and instruction were overwhelmingly drawn from the scriptures rather than the environment itself (55). More generally, Francis saw the beauty in nature and the animal world as something that should lead to worship and praise of God (58)—not things to be invested with god-like qualities. G.K. Chesterton’s 1923 popular biography of Francis makes a similar point: though he loved nature, Francis never worshipped nature itself. Francis’s relationship to nature, Thompson observes, shouldn’t be romanticized. The saint even viewed vermin and mice, for example, as “agents of the devil” (225).

Francis is a saint because he was faithful.  He lived the Gospel so closely that Our Lord granted him countless miracles including imprinting him with His own stigmata.  He was poor as a discipline, as a sacrifice, and example.

Francis’s goal was souls.  His was the work of God.  His mission was to rebuild the Church, not tear it down or make it into something profane.

He was no liberation theologist, trying to take over the world by demonizing the wealthy, overturning the social order, and flouting the natural laws in the name of the poor.  He threw all that materialism aside when he was quite young and picked up the cross of Christ.