Given that homos/effeminates are accepted by the Novus Ordo today and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity/effeminacy is "natural" now, what has been the Church's teaching on this subject? How have they been dealt with? And how should you deal with them?
This is a good question. After Matthew's reply, below, was this,
I know that it is an abomination and a mortal sin and the implications it has in the eyes of God and such, but what I meant was, how has the Church dealt with them in the social sphere in the past[?]
Were they allowed in Catholic schools before? Should they ever be? Or were homos not even open and public before Vatican II? I really don't know about this...
There was an important docuмent promulgated in 1961 or thereabouts, by
Pope John XXIII, that was given to all the bishops of the world, but not made
public. In it, the Pope forbade anyone suspect of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies to
be admitted into the seminaries, and, if they are found out once already a
seminarian, they were to be summarily dismissed on that grounds. I think
this text is quoted in Engle's book
Goodbye Good Men. The docuмent itself received scant notice by most bishops, and years later
it was found on many of their bookshelves covered with dust, and apparently
never so much as opened, for the pages were still stuck together from the
printing house emulsion on the edges of the paper.
Nor were its principles applied, unfortunately. This is one of the many
examples of a strong teaching having no value when it carries no bite.
It had no "teeth" for it was not publicized, and it contained no attached
anathemas nor consequences of not following its "recommendations."
Other members familiar with my posts might sigh and say "there he goes
again," but IMHO it is right down the alley with Pope John's outspoken
policy (as pronounced in his Oct. 11th Opening Speech) to set aside the
Church's medicine of condemnation of error, and instead rely on something
else, something that is not medicine at all, namely the mercy of God. It is
in this DESOLATION of Sacred Tradition that our problems to this day are
founded, for if the Pope officially refuses to condemn error, the Keys of
Peter may as well be hanging in a coat closet on a wall hook, along with
the flashlight and the FOOTBALL codes!
P.S., Pope John
erroneously referred to God's mercy as "medicine" in the
same speech where he abandoned the condemnation of
error. This
bold, IN-YOUR-FACE-LIE has stood now for 51 years, unopposed, essentially,
that is, except on obscure Internet posts like this one, and in the words of
staunch defenders of the Faith, priests who celebrate the True Mass, for the
Newmass is INHERENTLY ANATHEMA to the pronouncement of such things!!!!!
What we saw instead, therefore, was the OPPOSITE IN PRACTICE. In
Chicago, the notorious Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the darling of the
pederasty movement, was fairly promoting a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network of priests,
and Mahony was one of his collaborators. The martyred priest, Fr. Alfred
Joseph Kunz suffered a ritual Freemasonic assassination on the night of
March 3rd, 1998, after he had not ceased his efforts to expose this
international network of pederasts after being warned by unidentified
messengers. After 15 years there are still no suspects in the murder case.
At the time, I called all the Catholic media centers in America looking for
answers and they all told me that they had known about the murder (of a
Catholic Priest, mind you!) but they had decided not to run the story because
they did not want to upset the readership, or they knew it was "A matter of
intelligence" not to even post an obituary. The quote was from Tod Tamberg
of the Los Angeles Tidings, Mahony's diocesan paper. Tamberg was editor from
1992 to 2000. He told me this "off the record." I had the impression overall
that somehow the editors of the so-called Catholic publications did not need
to be told not to report on the Kunz ritual assassination, which should have
been front page news even in secular papers. I went from parish to parish
in my area (there are hundreds of them in Los Angeles) and could find no
one who would so much as believe me that this murder had happened, let
alone the horrific details of it, because of the FACT that it was NOT IN THE
NEWS, not even in the "Catholic" media.
Tamberg's name is easy to remember: "Tod of the Tamberg."
At a local seminary, St. John's Camarillo, I knew a seminarian who was
expelled, and he had friends who were likewise kicked out. This was even
before the Fr. Kunz martyrdom (who no doubt is a saint in heaven, since he
died in cold blood defending the Faith of Catholics). He said that there were
three reasons for being so expelled, and those were 1) When you are found
studying Latin 2) When you are discovered studying the Canonized
Traditional Latin Mass and/or its prayers, and 3) When you are repeatedly
caught praying the Rosary.
Now, how can you have a good seminary when students are punished for
studying the Language of the Roman Church or its Mass, or for praying the
Rosary?
That was the
tod of the tamberg -- sorry,
tip of the iceberg. When they were
expelled for those things, the official reason was always something else, such
as "disobedience," or "non-compliance with regulations," or "excessive
unexcused absences," or "persistent refusal to abide by the dress code." That
kind of thing. But this was only at the waterline of the iceberg.
The most alarming news to me was, that in order to be admitted as a
seminarian, you have be ALREADY ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, or else FRIENDLY TOWARD
THEM, because
if you are in any way opposed to being in the company of
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, you will not be admitted on the basis of your "LACKING
PASTORAL SENSITIVITY.'Their behavior should be condemned and corrected.
Sodomy is a sin against nature and an abomination before God.
So anyone who finds himself with these tendencies must remain celibate and chaste.
That sums up Church teaching perfectly.
And to put a fine point on it, Pope St. Pius V ordered sodomite clerics to be defrocked, tried by the local regency and then burned at the stake.
Cardinal Law, Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal X, Cardinal Y... CALL YOUR OFFICE!
This indeed sums it up!
And therefore the big question is, how do you get from point A to point B???
How do you get from the place of the Church officially condemning it as a
sin against NATURE (this means a most fundamental sin, at the very root of
our existence as human beings!) and an ABOMINATION before God, etc., to
the place where the Church in practice REQUIRES IT, and treats it as NORMAL,
and as a PREREQUISITE for new priests? Such abandonment and DESOLATION
of Church doctrine, even dogma, has no precedent in recorded history.
One might even say it is the abomination of desolation in the holy place,
let the reader understand (cf. Mt. xxiv. 15).
Sodomy is objectively a mortal sin against nature. It is impossible to "not know" this by purely natural means so any unrepentant sodomite will be damned to hell for all eternity. The excuse that a person may not really know it is a grave sin or that a person really did not have full consent of the will is preposterous on its face.
Those individuals who do not engage in the sin but nonetheless publicly proclaim their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity share in the guilt of those who do commit those sin by the scandal they cause. Remember the ways in which a person can be an accessory to another's sin. In general, normal people do not proclaim nor establish political movements celebrating their in ordinate attraction to other people's wives or husbands or their desire to shoplift goods from the store. Publicly proclaiming one's perverted attraction to the same sex tends to "normalize" such perversions in people's minds. Thus, in today's society, many, many people are damning themselves to hell for all eternity by their vehement defense of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, whether they are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or not, which includes virtually all the Conciliar bishops, including the self-styled bishop of Rome.
This was actually why my daughters decided they did not want to go to secular summer camps anymore. Though the camp directors never brought up the issue, each have told me that, at some point at camp, usually sitting around the campfire, the girls would start talking about very inappropriate subjects and one subject that always came up was ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Virtually every girl (most of them public high school kids) seemed to think it obligatory to make a comment in defense of, or at least toleration of, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. My eldest would not simply stay quiet and frequently clashed with her fellow campers telling them that it was a disgusting perversion. She told me that the girls were usually so shocked to hear anyone say anything negative about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that they didn't know how to react!
What I find most interesting is that the most outspoken "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rights" advocates are also firm believers in Darwinian evolution. Yet these two concepts are incompatible since the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs should not propagate their genetic mutations. Fortunately for them, Modernists are not required or expected to be consistent in anything, so no one worries about this inconsistency in their "science".
The testimony of TKGS, especially in the "campground" setting is very helpful.
"...the girls were usually so shocked to hear anyone say anything negative about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that they didn't know how to react!"
God bless your daughter for being a witness to the truth. Unfortunately,
sending our children out into the world these days is like handing them over
to perverts. I experienced a bit of this growing up in the Vat.II era, but it is
light-years more perverse today than it was then.
Cardinals Law and Mahony have spent so much time sheltering pedophiles, I doubt that they have had time for any actual sɛҳuąƖ sins themselves....
It's hard for me to believe that anyone can be so devoted to protecting the
practitioners of a vice without being at least a "closet" practitioner himself.
It came out later that Cardinal Bernardin was quite the fella with the guys.
I don't have any specific info on Mahony but I met him on many occasions
and there is no way to be sure he was not a homo. He appeared to be the
type that "hides it well." But there was a manner about him, one you can see
in videos of his "sermons," where he would slowly pace back and forth in front
of the altar, like a wild beast behind bars in the zoo, but there were no bars.
Some people liked to see that because they were able to get a better look
at him when he moved from right to left, when other heads were blocking
their view. You see, there's something in it for everyone!!
Topic: What has been the Churchs teaching on homos (Read 2384 times)