Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Operation Catechism: The Homo-Heresy Makes the Final Assault

by Andrea Zambrano

Change the Catechism. If its doctrine does not coincide with the new desired orthodoxy concerning homosexuality, it will be better to adopt the solution of Alexander the Great, who with one stroke of his sword decided to untangle the Gordian knot in his own way: by cutting it in two.

In the same way, in order to accept and definitively clear the way for homo-erotic practice, it is necessary to address the fundamentals, and from there everything will be easier. Now that an attitude of laxity and acceptance of homosexuality as a natural variant of human sexuality is becoming increasingly common, there remains only one small obstacle to adding a full affirmation of LGBT rights as an ingredient in the “Christian salsa” – to remove the Catechism of the Catholic Church, considered the last obstacle to be overcome.

Thus the battle will now move to a doctrinal level, but everything must be prepared with an affected and reassuring language which only a certain attitude of clericalism knows how to do. Above all, there must first be sent forth pioneers who make themselves interpreters and spokesmen of this line of thought. A small group of theologians and priests, a few bishops and even so-called pastoral workers, who lead a solitary battle outside of all restraint [from the Magisterium], but who place themselves prominently in view in their dioceses, while the silent majority is dozing.

The last shot, chronologically, is given to certain lay people, according to the precisely-ordered tapestry of the tearful cause. So reports Repubblica, telling the story of two parents who have accepted their lesbian daughter and have now joined the team put together by the Bishop of Civitavecchia, Luigi Marrucci, who himself belongs to the so-called Christian LGBT movement. “We were firmly convinced that homosexuality was a sin,” they say. And now? “We prayed and read the parable of the Prodigal Son, and we came to understand that Lord accepts all without judging. Martina is living in the truth and we love her as she is.” What truth are they speaking about? Certainly not the truth of the Gospel or the story of Sodom in the Bible nor the truth of the Catechism, to which they make a little peep towards the end of the story: “The problem is with the Catechism, which says that homosexuality is an intrinsically-disordered orientation.”

Here we have found the stumbling stone. This is the key observation necessary in order to “finally” clear the way for the homo-heresy in a Catholic tone. In fact this interview did not just happen by chance, rather, it was initiated from afar. Above all, to affirm the incompatibility of the Catechism, i.e., Catholic doctrine, with the world as it is experienced to be, which would be a worldview based on immanent experience and thus not based on truths of the Divine Law. But so it is.

Chronologically, [those who want a Catholic revolution] must now put in doubt the truth about homosexuality as taught by the Catechism, as Avvenire observed here with a well-laid out editorial by Luciano Moia: “There are those who, recognizing the Catholic Tradition contained in the Catechism, maintain the necessity of an affective life conducted in chastity. But there are also those, including bishops and theologians, who ask the Church to make a more profound reflection on the significance of sexuality, not excluding a [permissive] revision of moral theology.”

Who is right in this flirtation with moral relativism? The latter group seems to understand. Look at how here they are laying the groundwork to consider the Catechism no longer untouchable, introducing the virus of revision, as if the truth about man and the divine plan for the human race was merely a social construct subject to changing opinions.

After the Avvenire article [May 2017] a top-secret mini-council was held, in the course of which was laid the foundation, so to speak for the future dismantling of articles 2357, 2358, and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which it says that “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

The meeting was promoted by one of the Jesuits who has been most closely involved with the work of clearing the way for homosexuality, a certain Fr. Pino Piva, who for some time has been the most “listened to” – at least in Italy – among homosexuals who profess to be Catholic but who do not accept the way of chastity proposed by the Catechism and also by the 1986 Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons written by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

This Fr. Piva, newly moved to the Jesuit house in Bologna, has been gathering together groups of LGBT Christians and those operators who have been working in recent years in various dioceses following specific agendas, always being very careful of course to make sure that there are no experiences of prayer offered by Courage or the group called “Lot” run by Luca di Tolve, which hold views on homosexuality faithfully in line with the Magisterium.

Joining this little team is also a bishop, who has helped out at these meetings but without intervening. The meeting is open to LGBT believers and to priests who have joined them in undertaking the most “diverse” lifestyles, without any pretense of trying to correct them, but rather desiring to throw into the dragnet all of these experiences and approaches as a way of addressing the theme of homosexuality in the life of the Church. There is only one common denominator: being critical of the Catechism, now considered the principal obstacle to a full gay-friendly opening to homo-erotic practice. Expressions like “sin”? Old-fashioned. “Welcome”? Only if you accept homosexuality as a natural variation of sexuality. “Love”? Only as a jumble of feelings and not as a naturally-ordered plan desired by God.

Little is known about what takes place at this meeting, but something came out on the blog of Fr. Mauro Leonardi, another promoter of the homo-erotic cause, who has been in the game for a long time, even to the point of interviewing Vladimir Luxuria [an Italian “transgender” celebrity who as a Communist politician was the first openly “transgender” member of Parliament in Europe]  without discussing or questioning any of her [his??] thinking. Leonardi, who writes a widely-followed blog, has dropped some real zingers, such as this one: “If however, as is true for the large majority of homosexual persons, one is convinced that the homosexual condition is natural and desired by God, can the only response of the Church really be: ‘As long as you don’t adhere to the Catechism (and besides, the Catechism is not the Gospel) you cannot receive the Sacraments?’ Is it even possible to confess sins which one’s conscience does not believe to be sins?”

In sum, once we have eliminated all objective data on human nature and the divine order, homosexuality is also nothing other than a matter of each person’s opinion. And as such it must be accepted and promoted. In fact, also quoting the bishop present at the Bologna meeting, Leonardi said, “I do not tell you to adhere to the Catechism. I say: the Church still does not have an answer.”

It would be an objectively grave matter if a bishop was promoting the thesis of rebellion against the Catechism, which represents not a mere code of laws taken off the street but the normative architecture on which the Faith is based. And it would be just as disturbing if a bishop truly affirmed that the Church still does not have an answer. Because in reality there actually is an answer which displays a united charity and truth in a truly thrilling way with respect to chastity, to which homosexuals are also called, as the experience of Courage has demonstrated. But now the gauntlet has been thrown down and the crusade against the Catechism must go forward.

How will they proceed? They have also been sharpening their weapons on this strategy: drawing their inspiration from the “revision” of the Catechism proposed by Pope Francis on the death penalty and his pronouncements about the past concerning [the teaching of the Church about] the abolition of slavery. Arguments which are completely different, but useful here to justify a method of dismantling [the Catechism] that can now be useful for the homo-erotic cause.


Originally published in Italian at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

249 thoughts on “Operation Catechism: The Homo-Heresy Makes the Final Assault”

  1. It is an absolute disgrace that 1 to 2% of the population is having this kind of impact. Shall we bless pedophilia (wait….don’t answer that)? Shall we affirm anorexics when they say they are overweight? Should we say it’s great that some people have multiple personalities?

    • I do not think that it is merely 1 to 2 percent. I do think it is significantly more. But percentages are for statisticians and those on the fence.

      One cannot reproduce without two sexes. The cell structure of the anus/rectum is one way, columnar epithelium directed, oriented diagonally, toward the exit. Its design is nothing line the vagina or the mouth. At least this is what I recall from my biological science days studying human anatomy, if my memories are accurate.

      The design pre-technology, seems to me to be for a penis and a vagina, not for a penis and a rectum/anus. Yes, I know there are other possibilities. But, generally, this is the main “issue”.

      Unless one worships technology. Which is where I think the hearts and beliefs of many are being lost, though not only there.

      Technology is more of a curse than it is a blessing. With it, anything goes.

      I wish I could recall where I heard it from first, but all I recall is that I was taught that not everything that could be conceived, should be attempted.

      God, please help us.

      If I have offended anyone with this, Steve, please remove this post. But, that is not my intent to offend, rather, just to be honest.

    • Pederasty is on the secular cards and it’s promotion will be evident at some stage down the road,
      though I believe it will not gain traction due to: Divine Chastisement.

    • It is Dissociative Identity Disorder. The name was changed, partly because Multiple Personality Disorder sounded like it validated the existence of complete separate persons within one individual. This is not the case, although to the individual who is affected by it, it appears to be so.

      It is not great. It is miserable. The causes are even more miserable. But it is better than outright psychosis, which is the alternative.

      Also, people are right when they say there is no such thing as repressed memory, because the correct diagnostic term for this phenomenon is Dissociative Amnesia. You can look it up in the DSM-V.

    • Er, sorry, Brian, I feel obliged to answer that very obvious question.

      Yes, we shall be forced to bless the paedos. And those with urges towards the dead. And those in horizontal relationships with their furry friends. And the guys with whips and chains. And….anything else you can imagine.

      Carson Holloway did a superb job years ago in “Touchstone” magazine, pointing out the inexorable logic which leads you down the Rabbit Hole (or, more accurately, Hell Hole) once you yield the argument for “respectable” sexual liberation for consenting adults.

  2. Since childhood my thoughts were the most heinous human act violating nature itself and God it’s author was homosexuality, that men would perform such shameful degrading acts, and women with women. My earliest conviction was this affront to all that is good if it were universally approved would be sure sign of the End and the Final Judgment. My childhood fears have been surpassed with its growing approval within the Church given at times oblique, at time shocking approval by the highest authorities within. Aquinas deemed it an abomination, The Apostle Paul Rom 1 a ‘retribution’ inflicted on unbelievers. God withdrew the last vestige of good from them and they turned to shameful acts men lusting for men and women for women receiving justice. What is so perplexing are the many faithful who say we should not be strident in opposition. Rather we should make nice. Meanwhile evil is stridently spreading “while the silent majority is dozing”. We either stand for truth or by timid inertia we stand for the Evil One. Let us stand with Christ and the witness of the martyrs and saints.

    • Father, you may have seen here at 1P5 a post by someone saying he was a priest and a member of the Legion. (Is that true?
      Who knows? Another commenter warned me that he is a frequent poster at other sites who always pushes the liberal line.) Read what he wrote to me and it won’t take long to see that he is soft on sodomy. He has an excuse for every instance of Francis’ own missteps in that direction and praises the premiere modern apologist for sodomy, James Martin, SJ. I think it undeniable that there is a movement ensconced within the hierarchy of the Church to trash St. Paul and 2000 years of constant teaching. One cannot help but wonder about the affective disposition of the men who push this agenda of degradation. In the political arena, I remember that many who fought to end Prohibition did so because they liked to drink. (No, I have nothing against drinking. I use this only as an analogy.)

      • I’m not aware of anyone who was a priest though a few defended current papal policy as compassionate. That is seen on other Catholic websites and some quite extreme in favor of radical change. Most however welcome the change on communion for D&R. That’s the issue in which many perhaps more are misled.

      • I immediately knew exactly who you were talking about. Carl Kuss LC.
        He frequently comments at NCRegister at Edward Pentin’s blog. He is a proficient Bergoglian apologist. Mind numbing. Rabid, to put it bluntly.
        You can waste a lot of time on that guy.
        Been there, done that.

        • Thanks for this information, James. Many years ago, back when the pervert Maciel was still head of the LC, I remember that the son of a conservative friend of mine suddenly withdrew from the Legion. He seemed disgusted (the father, that is) but did not wish to discuss the matter. I suspect now his son discovered the disease that infected that whole organization. As they say, the fish rots from the head down. Over the years, the more I learned about the LC, the more alarmed I became at its influence, so I was bitterly disappointed when, instead of disbanding totally a sick organization, the Vatican decided to simply reform it. Moral problems in its ranks have surfaced after the reorganization, and I’m not a bit surprised.

      • Now that I read James response to your query Johnny I do recall a person who commented here that fits the description.

        • Just so, Father. I deplore this sin and find it almost incomprehensible, but I go out of my way to be kind to anyone suffering from it (it is, after all, a cross borne by those who have a personality disorder, so “suffering” is the proper term). The empathy I feel, however, would never involve encouraging them in this sin; what kind of compassion would that be? Also, in my mind I always imagine the person in question as someone who refrains scrupulously from this activity and who is, therefore, admirable from a moral standpoint.

    • My heart breaks for my Protestant friends and family who see what they see going on in the Catholic Church and feel that even listening to Catholic doctrine means spitting in the face of Jesus.

        • They simply cannot understand why we would associate ourselves with “The Catholic Church”.

          Of course they miss the fact that ignoring the faith issues, they live in mortal sin of contraception, divorce/remarriage {very few in the latter}, etc. The issue in fact is that we are heading the same direction where they already are, except most of my family and friends consider themselves superior due to their association with some form of evangelicalism where they believe they adhere to the strictest morality, blinded to the reality that Protestant morality is Catholic immorality, at least on paper, as on the whole they know almost no Catholics who actually adhere to traditional Catholic teaching on moral issues.

        • The concept of scandal is completely gone. Along with the concept of the common good which is being replaced with The Individual Good.

          • The error of autonomous individualism is now the norm in the modern world, and is infecting the Church at alarming speed. What I say, what I feel, goes. Period. Moral anarchy is coming, and it’s going to be very ugly. “Who am I to judge?”

      • Converts to the Catholic Church have been providential since most are well informed on doctrinal issues and defend the faith. Other websites have exec editors who are converts and do a great service to the Church. What you possess is the truth taught by Christ definitively stated and defended for 2000 years in the Apostolic Tradition. Hold fast to that treasure because that is precisely your calling. Our Lord warned a time would come when his Gospels would be relentlessly repudiated. Christ expects us to show valor in the face of adversity. He is with you and I and many others and will strengthen us with fortitude and wisdom. The Battle apparently has begun.

        • That’s true. I chose to convert to the TLM after a life time of Protestantism. I wasn’t born into it. I did a lot of reading and studying before I made that change too.

          • That’s what I continue to read from converts Chester. My regret is I didn’t have a convert priest on my staff when i served as chief of chaplain at a Govt med center. Instead I had to deal with a priest alien to the faith and protected by Govt regulation. The Baptist former military chaplain was more Catholic that the Catholic priest. I hope and pray more will convert and join the increasing vanguard remaining true to the Gospel of Christ.

      • Yes this is killing me too. I have spent years trying to bring my Protestant friends to the True Faith and now one couple who are earnestly seeking the Truth now told me in confidence they are convinced Francis is the False Prophet.

        • Well at least they got that right. The False Prophet is a Catholic teaching and since he will sit in the temple of God (the Catholic Church) acting as if he, himself, were God (grossly abusing his office)….only a certain member of a certain religion has the innate capacity to affront God in that manner. Who else can really by subvert God’s divinely established office, someone external? Not likely. Who can deceive “even the elect”? Joel Olsteen or a man sitting in Peter’s Chair? Martin Luther exploited widespread Catholic knowledge on the whore of Babylon to get people to abandon the Church in 1519….please study the apocolyptic rhetoric of the reformers…it was very effective. They twisted the authentic teaching to fit their false narrative, but the power lay in inescapable Catholic truth in the prophecy that there will one day be a false counter church at the end of time. She is robed in scarlet and purple (the colors of cardinals and bishops) and holds a chalice in her hand from which all the kings of the earth will drink—her Fornication is a biblical term of apostasy and unfaithfulness to God. What do we see today? A Vatican that has gone round for 60 years to all the kings of the earth telling them that they and their people don’t need to convert (in essence there is no true faith) and now at the stage of telling everyone that morality is in the eye of the beholder.

          • Is it possible that the antichrist is already here and has been here for some time now? Does the antichrist have to be a public figure or can the antichrist operate behind the scenes?

          • Definitely both and. Except the spirit is the more powerful component than the man. The Church is compared to a tree, like any organic thing, it has a natural life cycle of birth, growth, decay and death. When the Church as an institution can no longer fulfill the Divine Commission, this is when Our Lord draws the curtains down on history. There is no point continuing human affairs any longer for truly that is “the end of history”. I think we are at, or if not at, we have certainly been near that stage since about 1965.

      • According to the teaching of the V II Church they have nothing to worry about because they do not have to be Catholic to be saved.

      • I’ve kicked over joining the church for a number of years now. Of late, I’ve been increasingly inclined to just wait for the Schism to happen, so that I don’t have to un-join. This kind of thing confirms me in that view.

          • Well, I have you to worry about it for me. I don’t think leaving Protestantism right now, and joining your church is much of a step up; you guys are just now going through all of the same turbulence as the mainline Protestant denominations have been. Same Orthodoxy vs. Sophistry problems both places, as in Neuhaus’ Law, which states that “where orthodoxy is optional, sooner or later it will be proscribed.”

          • Yes, but our Church is the Bride of Christ, so will recover eventually, unlike yours. I was under the impression you were thinking of converting, which is the main reason I said what I did. Is that not really the case then?

          • What louiseyvette said. Despite our current problems, the Catholic Church is not another Protestant denomination but the Mystical Body of Christ. And if you know it to be true, you cannot get to heaven outside of Her.

          • All will suffer in the coming years. If Rome & the flock endure pre-antiChrist, it will be much worse in the sects and groups blown about by every vain wind of doctrine, with no Catechism, graces, or true authority. The world, the flesh, and the Devil are waging full-on war against Christ, his Mother, and the storm-tossed ark of His Church– is it better to be out in rowboats, and not the Ark?

          • Talk about getting into heaven, what about the antics of this homo-erotic clergy, bishops and priests, leading people astray and preventing people from entering the Church by terrible scandal.
            They will have to bear a heavy responsibility before God.
            Oh sorry – “who am I to judge”!!!

          • louiseyvette, salvation has nothing to do with being Catholic (or Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, or non-denominational). It has everything to do with believing in Christ’s work on the cross to atone for human sin once and for all time. I assure you, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and non-denominational believers with a simple faith in Christ will get to Heaven before these cassock-wearing, pseudo-intellectual jackals and false shepherds.

          • Most Catholics will reply that the church also teaches those who are not formally Catholic but ‘sincerely seek God’ are in some way connected to the church of Christ meaning that they are part of the universal church and to say otherwise will mean that God is unjust- what about Mahatma Gandhi or Buddha they were so holy weren’t they?
            Note that this kind of response severely undermines the Great Commission of Matthew 28 and the Jesuit missionaries were not only wasting their time converting Buddhists and Hindhus but they were committing sins against them by believing that their religions cannot provide them salvation. Sorry, just had to get this out, I hear this drivel everywhere nowadays.

          • Those religions cannot provide salvation which only Jesus Christ and his Church united to him can provide. Whatever is good in them as a result of the human efforts of their founders comes to them through him, but they cannot save anyone. St. Athanasius and other Fathers, on rejecting the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Christ and reduced him to a being a mere creature, held that if Jesus Christ is not truly God, then we cannot be saved. It should be clear to any sane mind that human beings cannot save themselves or the world. Reading the Bible, we can easily come to that conclusion.

          • I agree, but the twist that’s placed on that is that God manifests himself in all world religions in one form or another and though filled with defects, they are not only not grave enough to damn but by ‘acting in faith towards God’ they can attain salvation and are therefore part of the universal church without the need to give assent to the truths of the Catholic faith. I hope you understand that the post-conciliar language is filled with ambiguities and can be moulded to fit several interpretations and the doctrine of ‘Outside the church there is not salvation’ has been greatly undermined in the past 50 years.

          • Thhat’s Rahner’s Church, not the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not use obfuscating languange, rather he said things like “he who is not with me is against me; he who does not gether with me scatters”.

          • Non-Christian religions are the product of the human mind and some of them are really bad such as Islam or the religion of the Carthaginians, of the Phoenicians, and others. God in his Providence can help people seek the truth and do good with all the limitations that there are without divine revelation, but they are not a manifestation of God.
            As for Gandhi and Buddha, we cannot declare them saints, as only the Church declares saints. There were surely sincere in their efforts. For a good amount of time Martin Luther King was considered a kind of “saint”, but the beans will be spilled and it was discovered that he was an adulterer. On the other hand, we should not condemn anyone, especially if the details of his life are unknown to us. “Judgment is mine,” says the Lord.

          • To the more leaning universalist Catholics who comprise much if not most of the church today, that’s a non issue. I never said that was right, but it’s a mindset that must be reversed, people in the past who attempted to convert to Catholicism were told to stay in their religions and do their best over there- I think that sums it all.

          • I know. My priest never did that thank god, not even when during my RCIA classes pope benedict stepped down and they elected the new guy. He talked me out of running out the door of the church.

        • Don’t fear. The Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ. It was so that the Church could exist and be “the pillar and ground of truth” and the instrument of salvation for all that God created the world, revealed HImslef to Abraham, Moses and the rest of the O.T. prophet, and why Jesus came among us, died on the cross and rose from the dead, left us the sacraments and the Apostlic Tradition. Yes, over the centuries, there have been many scoundrels who have done great damage to the Church and there is a fair share of them these days, but have no doubt that the truth revealed by Jesus Christ will prevail and his promise to the Churhc will be fulfilled. In other periods, great evils have come upon the Church, but it still stands. I assume you are a Protestant or in any case you have never received the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. Don’t wait, Jesus told a parable about those called to wedding banquet Mt 22,1 and following verses. The true teaching of the Church was preserved thanks to so many great Fathers of the Church and Doctors and lived by great saints whose life was a living Gospel, not to mention the thousands of martyrs who go before us and intercede for the Church. This present “poison” which some are attempting to inflict on the Church will not perdure. .

          • In that case, a reply to you, and to most of the previous respondents: Ask yourselves, is the general tone here that the sky is falling? Nearly every story I see here is of that general vintage.

            Therefore, I hope you’ll understand if I fail to be persuaded by a group of people who clearly have less faith in your institutions than the comments above indicate.

            I know how the future rationalizing will go. In the event of major schism over these matters, some future wordsmith will propose plausible-sounding arguments that whatever orthodoxy emerges from this debacle will have been the “true church” all along, and that argument, when it is inevitably made, will not be entirely invalid. However, that argument will also confuse the typologically distinct (I’m channeling Cardinal Dulles here) categories of church-as-mystical-communion with church-as-institution, by saying, ahh, since orthodoxy within the church-as-mystical-communion has survived, then the true church-as-institution must have survived right along with it.

            I don’t know what church-as-institution sorts of entities will emerge to become the home of the orthodoxy of the future, though if I were betting, I’d say that Chaput, Esolen, and Dreher are collectively on the right track. To wit, I will decline your generous offers to chain myself to a sinking institutional ship (as nearly every article on this site indicates) and instead take comfort in the mystical communion aspect of the church, in anticipation of whatever new institutions providing a home for orthodoxy emerge in the coming decades. And emerge they will. In that, I do have plenty of faith, as should all of us.

          • Pragmatic and uninspiring.

            “To wit, I will decline your generous offers to chain myself to a sinking institutional ship (as nearly every article on this site indicates) and instead take comfort in the mystical communion aspect of the church,……”

            How do you propose to take “comfort in the mystical communion aspect of the church” when you are
            not inclined to join it?
            The Sacraments are not available elsewhere, for a start.
            It seems like you are hanging back in the woods, waiting for the perfect Ark to be built, all the while listening
            out for the sound of distant flood waters, before deciding to pop out from the trees and make a run
            for the main door.
            Unless I am misunderstanding you….

          • You seem to be deluded in your distinction between the Church as an institution and as a “mystical communion”. The Church is the extension of the Incarnation and it is made up of human biengs, Peter, Paull and the rest. So necessarily, it has to be an institution. Some aspects of its institutional character are of divine origin such as it hierarchical structure founded on the apostles and based on the Sacrament of Orders. Others are not and are open to development and change. The way the Roman Curia and other institutions have evolved over time and will continue to do so. What cannot happen is that there be a dichotomy between the instituional aspect and what you call “mystical communion”. They have to be united.

            There doesn’t seem to be much logical connection between the points you make. It is, therefore not easy to figure out what you are tryng to express. For instance: “and instead take comfort in the mystical communion aspect of the church, in anticipation of whatever .institutions providing a home for orthodoxy emerge in the coming decades. And emerge they will.” You seem to think that orthodoxy (right doctrine) is somehow tied to what you consider outdated “institutions” and that new ones will emerge. Well, The Church originated from the Incarnation Jesus Christ, Son of God, founded on the Apostles, and its foremost task is to proclaim the Gospel to all peoples (The Great Commmission) and it can only do that by preserving the Apostolic Tradition and being faithful to Scripture, both of which conntain the word of God. . Non essential structure which have arisen over the centuries and are not of divine origin come and go, but what have they to do with the preservation of the Apostolic Tradition? They can be useful for at one time and be changed. However, the fundamental structure of the Church cannot change. That includes the Petrine MInistry, the College of Bishops, presbyters, deacons and they laity. Consecrated life does not form part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, but is is an extremely important part of it and has been there form the beginning, as St. Paul mentions in his First Letter to the Corinthians.

            Of course the “mystical communion” aspect is also essential, but it should not be placed in opposition to the institutional aspect, as the Church is for human beings, not angels.

            There is such a thing as development of doctrine as St. Vincent of Lerins and Blessed John Henry Newman explain, but it cannot involve contradicting what the Church has always and everywhere taught. If we are no in a state of doctirnal chaos, so was the Church in the fourth century when almost all the bishops adopted the Arrian heresy. That was overcome and orthodox teaching established once again. The same will happen this time, as Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

          • My wife and I are (very) recent converts to the Catholic Church. Our families are many generations deep in the form of Protestantism that we fled. Your post here touched a chord with me, and I wanted to share my thoughts for your consideration.

            1. You wrote, “Ask yourselves, is the general tone here that the sky is falling?”

            Yes, it is. So much so that I have been mulling over a draft of a letter to the site’s owner-editor to share my sincere concerns that he focuses too much on negativity and not enough on positive, actionable pieces for Catholics looking for ways to restore tradition to Holy Mother Church. The byline at the very top of the front page claims that 1P5 is about “rebuilding” and “restoring,” but the almost universal tone is instead one of lament and something I would almost, but not quite, describe as despair.

            If you’ve been investigating the Church for years, I assume you’ve investigated the nearly endless sea of Catholic websites. I would offer as a counterpoint to 1P5 in the blog of Father Z, which captures many, if not all, of the concerning events occurring in the Church today, but which also presents an entirely different tone… one of hope, and strength, and which also includes positive entries that are useful for those seeking traditional Catholicism, that enduring Body of Christ:

            2. You wrote, “Therefore, I hope you’ll understand if I fail to be persuaded by a group of people who clearly have less faith in your institutions than the comments above indicate.”

            I’ve had to stop reading 1P5 with any regularity, because it was upsetting me and causing me to feel genuinely alarmed about the state of the Church with which I have only recently entered full and proper Communion.

            Now, please don’t get me wrong. I love 1P5 and I support their mission. I think these events need coverage, absolutely. My feedback, should I send it, will be simply to urge Steve consider a change in tone and the inclusion of more positive, practical articles about “Rebuilding Catholic Culture” and “Restoring Catholic Tradition.”

            1P5 played a very important role in my own conversion to the faith, as it was, quite honestly, the very first place where I encountered devout, serious Catholics who clearly loved their Faith and who were very, deeply concerned about it. I can never thank 1P5 for that, and all of the commenters here who share their love of the Faith.

            One of Steve’s articles about witnessing the horror of the Eucharist when given in the hand was an astonishing experience for one who was muddling through the doctrine and trying to decide if it was what God intended–here I saw a sincere man who really and truly *believed* in the Real Presence. 1P5 also played a tangible part in my wife and I visiting an FSSP parish serving the TLM first, rather than one of the many Novus Ordo parishes in our diocese, when we reached a point in our study where we wanted to see a Mass and decide for ourselves if we believed it was a pleasing (or offensive) form of worship being offered up to God. We were seeking orthodox Catholicism, the Catholicism that had endured for so very long, against all odds… and I was terrified that some of what I’d read about Novus Ordo parishes might have scared us away when the very idea of considering Catholicism still felt a little insane. But God is so gracious and so merciful, and here we are in the bosom of the Church with a fantastic pair of Priests who spent a year teaching us the Catholic Faith.

            I say all of these things simply to share that after hundreds of hours of study, prayer, discernment, and, most importantly, the grace of God, my family came to believe that the Catholic Church is, truly, *the* Church. It is the Body for which Christ in His High Priestly Prayer prayed so fervently for unity, a unity that simply does not exist in Protestantism nor in the Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome (a group we also studied vigorously).

            In spite of all these portents and scandals, the Catholic Church is the only body which can lay claim to that unity. The testimony of history is also on its side, even secular historians who are well versed in the matter admit as much. The Arian crisis was a thing, and look at how it brought the men of the early Church to their collective knees… yet Christ prevailed then, as He will prevail now, and He will never forsake the Church He founded on the rock of the See of Peter.

            3. You wrote, “I know how the future rationalizing will go…”

            You seem very well studied in matters Catholic, but I wonder–have you looked deeply at the history of the Church? I speak of the visible, the Catholic, Church. The Bride of Christ has always endured. The Catholic Church is not a schism, nor has ever been born from schism. You can look back in every century stretching back to Christ Himself and find the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

            4. You wrote, “…and instead take comfort in the mystical communion aspect of the church, in anticipation of whatever new institutions providing a home for orthodoxy emerge in the coming decades.”

            I am no canon lawyer nor am I a theologian, but my pastor, a man I have grown over the past year and more to respect as a Man of God as I have no other person I have met in my life, assured me that a man who realizes that the Catholic Church is, in fact, what she purports to be, and rejects her and remains in a heretical sect, does not enjoy the hope of salvation. He is not limiting God’s mercy in the judgment He will execute against each of us, which He reserves unto Himself, but He speaks from the enduring tradition of the Church and I would not quickly ignore that. Your very convictions endanger your soul if you remain on the fence not because you truly have doubts about Catholic doctrine, but because you hesitate over the current scandals in the Church.

            Also, I should pray more for those by whom these scandals are coming, and those who are discerning who are scandalized. How many others seeking the true Church have been scandalized and scared away, sheep hesitantly approaching the one sheepfold but scattering into the hills instead?

            I will pray for you, friend, as you seek God’s truth. May the Lord God bless and keep you, and bring you home.

    • Amen!

      Sad that they forget the prodigal was lost and dead in sin but when humbly repented returned to the Truth who said he was not found and saved… the daughter and any of us must do the same….

    • Bishop Robert McElroy out of the Diocese of San Diego is definitely on board with changing the catechism to favor homosexuals. He said it uses ‘very destructive’ language against homosexuals. ** – Unbelievable!!!

      • Why does he not consider much of what Jesus has to say in the Gospels and St.Paul in his epistles as “very destructive”. Well, of course, it is very destructive of evil if it is taken seriously. Bishop McElroy, instead of misleading the faithful, ought to meditate on what the Prophet Ezequiel in ch 13 has to say on evil pastors and also what Jesus says on beginning his ministry in the Gospel of St.Mark, the first of the four, “”The Kingdom of God is close at hand, repent and believe the good news” (Mk 1,15) and so many other passages, and of course, Romans ch 1.

    • Dear Fr. Morello,

      As I did with another article a few days ago, I posted a comment to the present article that I actually should have posted as a reply to your own comment. I’m sorry for this oversight. I’ve pasted my comment below for your consideration. Thank you!

      “And it would be just as disturbing if a bishop truly affirmed that the Church still does not have an answer. Because in reality there actually is an answer which displays a united charity and truth in a truly thrilling way with respect to chastity, to which homosexuals are also called, as the experience of Courage has demonstrated. But now the gauntlet has been thrown down and the crusade against the Catechism must go forward.”

      Unfortunately, the writer of this article himself illustrates the disturbing problem with the current, 1992 version of the Catechism when he writes above “Because in reality there actually is an answer which displays a united charity and truth in a truly thrilling way with respect to chastity, to which homosexuals are also called…” The writer here affirms that there are such creatures as “homosexuals” who are definitively such. Tragically, the Catechism itself refers to “homosexual persons” in a way that suggests the immutability of their homosexual impulses as a definite orientation, rather than a form of disorientation that is alien to human nature and is rather a product of The Fall of Man. The Church’s ministry is not to call “homosexuals” to chastity, but to call sinners to chastity — every single one of us. The last thing that anyone needs is a self-adhesive label that seeks to categorize unchastity and merely keep it at bay, instead of uprooting the irrational ideation that anyone is defined by the diabolical fantasies they experience.

      So weak is the current Catechism’s teaching on homosexualism that it refers to this diabolical impulse not by reinforcing its moral evil, but by merely saying that “It’s psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. How “unexplained”? Is homosexualism an example of “giftedeness” that comes from God? Or is it, rather, a persecution of sinners by the devil and his demons? Previous versions of the Catechism, prior to the modernist revisions we are labouring under in our own time, recognized sodomy for what it is: a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. On what basis can such an abominable sin now be justified? Answer: if the definitive moral component of this evil is replaced by that psychological materialism of the soul: Modern Psychology. When doctrinal statements are made to sound not like Apostolic reflections on Divine Revelation, but rather like a like clumsy acquiescence to immoral sexual behavioural patterns that clamour for self-legitimization, then that part of the Catechism becomes a chink in the armour of the formal apparatus of the Church.

      It is my prayer that the Catechism will be changed — not to eliminate its current weak and equivocal formulation on sodomy, but rather to restore it to its truth and vigour. We will never help people to recognize that they are truly “new creations” in Christ if we affirm them in their false belief that they are homosexuals by nature who simply must refrain from acting-out their erotic impulses.

      Holy Family, pray for us!

      St. Paul, pray for us!

      St. Peter Damian, pray for us!

    • Thanks for defending the faith Father.
      Today is Paul’s Feast.
      From a homily by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop
      For love of Christ, Paul bore every burden
      Paul, more than anyone else, has shown us what man really is, and in what our nobility consists, and of what virtue this particular animal is capable. Each day he aimed ever higher; each day he rose up with greater ardour and faced with new eagerness the dangers that threatened him. He summed up his attitude in the words: I forget what is behind me and push on to what lies ahead. When he saw death imminent, he bade others share his joy: Rejoice and be glad with me! And when danger, injustice and abuse threatened, he said: I am content with weakness, mistreatment and persecution. These he called the weapons of righteousness, thus telling us that he derived immense profit from them.
      Thus, amid the traps set for him by his enemies, with exultant heart he turned their every attack into a victory for himself; constantly beaten, abused and cursed, he boasted of it as though he were celebrating a triumphal procession and taking trophies home, and offered thanks to God for it all: Thanks be to God who is always victorious in us! This is why he was far more eager for the shameful abuse that his zeal in preaching brought upon him than we are for the most pleasing honours, more eager for death than we are for life, for poverty than we are for wealth; he yearned for toil far more than others yearn for rest after toil. The one thing he feared, indeed dreaded, was to offend God; nothing else could sway him. Therefore, the only thing he really wanted was always to please God.
      The most important thing of all to him, however, was that he knew himself to be loved by Christ. Enjoying this love, he considered himself happier than anyone else; were he without it, it would be no satisfaction to be the friend of principalities and powers. He preferred to be thus loved and be the least of all, or even to be among the damned, than to be without that love and be among the great and honoured.
      To be separated from that love was, in his eyes, the greatest and most extraordinary of torments; the pain of that loss would alone have been hell, and endless, unbearable torture.
      So too, in being loved by Christ he thought of himself as possessing life, the world, the angels, present and future, the kingdom, the promise and countless blessings. Apart from that love nothing saddened or delighted him; for nothing earthly did he regard as bitter or sweet.
      Paul set no store by the things that fill our visible world, any more than a man sets value on the withered grass of the field. As for tyrannical rulers or the people enraged against him, he paid them no more heed than gnats. Death itself and pain and whatever torments might come were but child’s play to him, provided that thereby he might bear some burden for the sake of Christ. (Roman Franciscan Liturgy of hours)

      • Appreciate your providing this beautiful account of The Apostle. I’ve learned to realize thru the years what a great Apostle he is. St John Chrysostom said Saint Paul emulated Jesus Christ more than any other.

    • Well, if the Heretics want to revise the Catechism, they would also need to revise ALL the different Bibles:

      “As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” – Jude 1:7

    • There can be no doubt, Fr. Morello, that the gloves are now off on this issue and ‘making nice’ is off the table. We must confront these heathens with the harshest most damning language we can compose short of outright profanity. They are tools of Satan and must be marginalized and defeated.

  3. And many thought and agreed that this —, could rightly change the Catechism of the Church, regarding the death penalty?
    I remember hearing a homily, during my travels, at a NO parish, speaking glowingly of this change by Francis

    So a pope can just…….poof……..change the teachings of the Catechism……..just like that? of course…..who in the hell is going to stop him?

    This is not about pleasing the one or two percent of the laity who suffer with this disorientation; that is not their miserable goal, it is about the destruction of not only the family, but the core of God’s creation. Twisted and perverted Satan is taking his tail and wrapping it around the Church and around every person he can devour: homosexuality is his finest tool!

    WE must stand strong, stand with our faithful priests.
    The time is upon us. Are we for Christ or are we not?

        • Shame on you! You have NO idea of what Karl has been through. That poor man has endured a foretaste of purgatory if not hell on earth and your post doesn’t help him.

          In the name of Our Lady of Sorrows, I beg you to retract what you posted. Thank you.

          • I don’t know what you mean, “shame on you.” “Deleted” is cryptic to say the least. A combox is not a social club for the few who are familiar with each other.

      • We shall see Karl, soon enough, where are faithful priests.

        So many of us have been so abandoned for a very long time………what’s a few more years or even more, if it should come to that?

      • I don’t understand, was your post deleted? I was slandered and abused by a group of priests who are using the Church as a smokescreen for their homosexuality. They get to play dress up and live together in a big rectory as long as they talk orthodoxy. Nobody is the wiser except those who notice the malignant narcissism.

  4. There’s another candidate for the title of Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great available! Perhaps Cecile can arrange to travel to Rome with the next group from the Democrat National Committee. That way the Vatican press office can say that conferring this honor on her was, in fact, a slight, that normally DNC members are given a private meeting with the pope!

    • Johnny,

      I think you have picked a winner for this Order of St Gregory the Great! As befits its pompous name, only the most extreme and outrageous criminals merit it. An ordinary paedo would not be worthy; one who rapes hundreds of children AND is hailed as a public benefactor, like Jimmy Savile, is more like it. A one-off abortionist should be rejected; only one who is responsible for thousands or millions of abortions, like Lilian Ploumen, should get this gong.

      I haven’t forgotten your question to me on another thread – how do moral monsters get away with their crimes, especially the really famous ones like Bill Clinton, while ordinary people get hammered for much less? Here is an enthralling article on the BBC after the Savile debacle broke. For many decades the BBC was as infested with paedos as our clergy are. I recall the schools quiz programme mentioned, “Top of the Form”, very well. This programme was cleaner than squeaky clean, more wholesome than motherhood and apple pie. Needless to say, it was run by a paedo.

      The author notes how television makes people larger than life and grants them an almost God like status. The readers’ comments below the article make it clear that, right from the start of his career, ordinary viewers regarded Savile as bizarre, if not downright depraved. It was the senior people who protected and promoted him for decades. This magical transformation of the famous evil ones plainly works for the clergy also.

      • Your analysis is on the mark, Bill. And you’re absolutely correct about the corrosive effect of television. I’ve had only one chance to appear on TV my whole life (in connection with a lay campaign against the chancery’s covering up abuse in my diocese, no less!), and it was quite revealing. When I saw the result of the interview later on the television set, I could have sworn it never happened that way! Television ‘lies’ even about the size of the room where those interviewed are sitting!

  5. Their Scriptural ignorance is bottomless. The Prodigal Son was forgiven because he repented of his evil living and returned to his Father. This “just the way you are” stuff is pseudo-Biblical crap. False exegesis = false gospel, every time.

    • Excellent point. And the Prodigal Son was driven to repentance only after experiencing total humiliation and degradation – being forced to look after pigs, the most horrible task for a Jew. Jesus was plainly linking severe punishment to serious sin.

      • Just to say, about another jesuit,… Henry J Nouwen who wrote among other (crap) a book called “Return of Prodigal Son”,… who actually has never returned to his Father,… H.J.N was also a homo-attracted, and he was for a long time searching himself in the far east, among the buddhists, and other pagans… In one of his books he literally wrote, that he cannot believe other way than how the Hell must be an EMPTY place!
        2+2 = That lla of those kind of the jesuit-goeroe’s, and there were and are a many, have one common thing with each other. The name of that is – “liberation theology” crap.

  6. If this proceeds to fruition a great number of “Catholics”, priests, bishops and the present “Pope” will punch their ticket to the depths of everlasting Hell.

  7. Honestly, I view this development as yet another bout of mental gymnastics the papal apologists at Catholic Answers et al will have to perform to maintain the “Francis hasn’t changed anything” line. The reason I say this is because said apologists are constantly referencing the 1994 Catechism—and ONLY the 1994 Catechism—in virtually every argument they make. A side effect of this, however, is that they demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with Church teachings and documents (e.g., the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, the traditional Mass [which they view as merely an “aesthetic” and matter of personal taste]) as they were taught prior to the JPII pontificate.

    So in a way, it is good to see a full frontal assault upon the 1994 Catechism (which, if we’re honest, was already dodgy enough with its incorporation in the 1997 revision of JPII’s personal reservations against capital punishment). My hope is that it will drive more people who consider themselves “conservatives” into the realm of traditionalism. And I sincerely do mean this; it happened to me, and it can happen to anyone else willing to acknowledge reality.

  8. The truth has been systematically turned on its head. Rather than the Church forming the world’s spiritual and moral standards entrusted to her by Christ, it is the world that increasingly shapes the Church.

  9. The day will come when a fearless leader in the Church will loudly define homosexuality for what it truly is: demonic possession.

  10. Whoever wrote the phrase “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” must have been sitting directly under the spotlight of the Holy Spirit. It’s no wonder the gay community want it removed. John says: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, because their acts are evil.” (John 3:19-20) The truth always sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.
    That little phrase tells the whole truth about homosexuality. It’s a disorder, a disorientation. As a therapist working with same-sex attracted Christians, this is the first truth they must accept. This doesn’t make them bad or unloved by God because they SSA. But this little phrase tells a big truth. Homosexual behavior is unnatural like a number of sexual practices: prostitution, pedophila, sexual addition and a host of hundreds of paraphilias (bizarre sexual behaviors). I pray that no one allows them to strip this phrase from the Catechism. Hold fast to the truth! If this little phrase is eliminated, the whole Catholic Church will have succumbed to a lie with staggering consequences. W.Consiglio MSW DMin

  11. These people who are homosexual and their supporters do not want to be welcomed into the Church, they want the Church to change and they know that any change in doctrine would destroy it. That is the Satanic end-game. The Catechism is a book filled with words that symbolize the Creed of the Roman Catholic Faith. They can alter it, cut and paste, or burn them all, but they can never destroy the Church because the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and It’s Creed is in our hearts and minds. He knows His own, and we know Him. This should all become clear in a few years – if Parolin or someone like him is elected, then there will a new problem that will force a schism. But for now, Our Lord knows and as with Fr. Weinandy and all those hundreds of carrion eating sea gulls that did a fly-over PF’s head on his way to view the blasphemous Nativity Scene – He is signaling that He is very aware. Lest we all fall into the pit, we must remember Our Lord’s “New Commandment… to love one another as I have loved you”. We will be our own worst enemy if we forget this.

  12. Wasn’t there a bit in the prodigal son story where the the son, before he resolves to return to the father, says, Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.”? Isn’t that a necessary part of returning to the Father — recognizing the sinfulness, and repenting? Not just returning and going on as before.

  13. This is really quite simple to resolve here. What is wrong with homosexuals besides everything? The Lord says the homosexuals do not love each other, but lust for each other. Lust and Satan are one. When homosexuals load up on lust, then Satan is inside them, owns them, calls the shots in their lives, which leads to destruction and death. Homosexuals only live to an average age of 44. Which is an average of 30 years off one’s life. Now, how intelligent is that? The term gay, is slang. It does not mean homosexual. That is how insane Liberals truly are here. Satan, sin and death are still one. Dying early in life is not intelligent. But, the Liberals love their sins, and they pay the price for it. Someone dies of AIDS every 15 seconds. That would be over 2 million per year. The homosexuals are spreading AIDS in the bathhouses of the big cities. Yet, the liberals don’t even raise an eyebrow on that. Liberalism and SATANISM are one. You can’t market satanism, but you can market Liberalism. Which is the embracement of all evils, all wrong doing. Matthew 25:41 says Liberals do not go to Heaven. Because there is no evil in Heaven.

  14. They can “revise” all they want, but they can’t change what Christ and His Church have already defined. I am so enraged I can hardly write, let alone speak, in words fit to print, not only at the prideful, and sick, simpering, so-called shepherds of the Church who are pushing these smiley-faced doctrines of hell as the new and improved church of catholic-lite, but also at the silence–absolute public silence–of the majority of priests, bishops, and cardinals. Their silence at this point can only be viewed as indifference, fear or complicity!
    (Question marks are not adequate for the spirit of the following)
    Cardinals and bishops, where are you when heresy, apostasy, scandal, sacrilege, are spewing from the Church like filth from a giant overflowing toilet! Where are you when priests under your authority are promoting these reeking heresies! Where are you when the mass is turned into some clownish mockery of Christ’s holy sacrifice! Where are you when the Holy Body of Our Lord is manhandled and passed around as if it were a snack cracker during holy communion!
    Silence! Fear! Indifference! God already knows your measure. We are learning your measure. You are splitting Christ’s Church more surely and profoundly than the condemned heretic Luther, whom so many of you now hold in such esteem, ever dreamed of doing. Does it ever occur to you the consequences that you are laying up for yourselves!
    You may succeed in splitting the Church, but the schism will be yours; not ours. The schismatics will be you, not us. We, who here in the pews, are not all sleepwalkers and spiritual lemmings. We know what the Church has already defined; we know how Our Lord expects us live and conduct ourselves. We know that Our Lord has not changed his mind on anything–even if you say otherwise.
    By the grace of God, we will not follow the hell-bound into hell. We will seek out true shepherds who know Our Lord and love Him for showing us 2000 years ago how to avoid hell, and who reject any doctrine that teaches otherwise.
    So, bad shepherds, if you have no fear of God, go ahead and continue formulating your twisted gospel to go along with the twisted church you are trying to build.
    We will stick with the holy priests and bishops who teach the Holy Gospel through the Holy Church that Christ gave us–wherever we have to go to find it.

    • wewjudesaid:January 24, 2018 at 6:27 pm

      After Bergoglio is gone (death or resignation) the Church (or at least the fraction of remaining faithful bishops/cardinals) had better quickly declare Bergoglio’s papacy null and void due to Benedict’s invalid resignation….otherwise there WILL be nothing left of the Catholic Church (ie specifically Her claims of supreme Papal authority/infallibility that developed over the last 1,000 years or so) as you and I know it.

      What would remain would be a remnant flock of faithful Catholics, who would evolve into an independent “Western/Latin” Orthodox Church similar to the Russian, Greek, Syrian, etc. Orthodox Churches, with it’s own specific Catholic (ie minus claims of the supreme Papal power/authority) spirituality. The vast, vast majority of Catholics (ignorant or malevolent) would remain part of an ever more decentralized, secularized/liberal Catholic Church similar to that which we now see with the Anglicans and other progressive/liberal Protestant denominations.

      That is my best educated guess as to how things will play out (short of a miraculous intervention by God) over the next 10-20 years. Nothing internally really changes for the faithful just the externals!

      • I also hope that, by whatever judgement, the Bergoglian papacy is voided, be it through invalidity, heresy, what have you–one could even hope for, and I don’t think this prideful of me to suggest, a sincere conversion and repentance on Bergoglio’s part while he is still pope. That’s a long shot, I know, but he has a soul too, and we should want him to be saved.
        But for now he is the pope, and we don’t have the authority to declare it otherwise. We are not sedevacantists, so we acknowledge that we have a pope, but we also acknowledge that we are stuck with a bad pope whose statements hop back and forth from sound doctrine to error. How can the faithful be expected to give assent to anything that he teaches that is already condemned by Christ and the Church? Sorry, no can do.

        • It would be much better for faithful cardinals/ bishops to formally correct a bad pope, and not to remain silent, in my opinion.
          By their silence, the papacy is being harmed. We may be stuck with him, until his demise, but
          while he breathes the air of this earth and continues to promote heresy and great scandal, he needs to
          be corrected, for the sake of the papacy, if nothing more.

      • I think that if we scratched our heads a bit, you and I could probably come up with the names of several more. I don’t have the list of names, but I would certainly hope that all of the other churchmen who joined their names and reputations to the dubia and the other various petitions that have been made known to the public during this past year will show themselves to be among them. I admire and respect what they have done so far, but vivid, takin’ it to the streets, type of action is what we need now from them to wake up the Catholic world that hasn’t yet crawled out of bed. And since most people are not bold leaders, but rather followers, I believe that once a few faithful, snarling, alpha dogs among these churchmen rise up and begin biting the modernists, there will be more good, but not so snarling, churchmen join the pack. I don’t know if this will happen, but they had better put something together soon, hadn’t they?

      • I think that if we scratched our heads a bit, you and I could probably come up with the names of several more. I don’t have the list of names, but I would certainly hope that all of the other churchmen who joined their names and reputations to the dubia and the other various petitions that have been made known to the public during this past year will show themselves to be among them. I admire and respect what they have done so far, but vivid, takin’ it to the streets, type of action is what we need now from them to wake up the Catholic world that hasn’t yet crawled out of bed. And since most people are not bold leaders, but rather followers, I believe that once a few faithful, snarling, alpha dogs among these churchmen rise up and begin biting the modernists, there will be more good, but not so snarling, churchmen join the pack. I don’t know if this will happen, but they had better put something together soon, hadn’t they?

      • One more note: on the local level, I’m fortunate enough to have an FSSP parish with great priests about 1/2 hour drive from home. These men are definitely good shepherds, and I try to go to mass there most of the time even though they are in a different diocese than one I reside in. I know that there many good Catholics who can’t get to a TLM parish because there are none even remotely close to them, and perhaps not even a half-way acceptable N.O. mass around them. I can only imagine how stressing that must be. But in the long view of it, the various Traditionalist seminaries seem to have plenty of good, young priests in training who are bursting with the desire to be good shepherds, so I’m optimistic about more TLM parishes continuing to pop up each year. So, maybe finding good shepherds will less difficult as we go along. I certainly hope that it will be so.
        P.S. Sorry about the tripling of the other post. There must be an echo in here. 🙂

  15. The new Catechism from the 1990’s has caused much confusion and scandal among Catholics. What the new Catechism says on Muslims and how that used during the crisis is one problem. The section on masturbation has caused confusion. The new Catechism has other problems as well. Frankly I do not care what they do with this Catechism. I do not use it. I do not recommend anyone use it. I recommend the catechism of the Council of Trent , the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of St. Pius X. Lets not forget who the editor of the new catechism was. Here is the ” editorial secretary” of the new Catechism Cardinal Schonborn:

      • CCC 2352 states “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’
        moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into
        account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of
        anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not
        even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”

        This has caused some (Priests and laymen) to believe that masturbation is a venial sin if it is a sin at all. Laymen should not be confused in this manner. Such words may be proper for a moral manual for Priests but not a Universal catechism of the Church given the crisis in the Church and the world.

        The vice of masturbation has always been understood to be objectively a mortal sin and each act needs to be confessed and absolution is needed for the forgiveness of sins. The new Catechism has caused much confusion on this point. Getting this wrong could easily lead a souls to hell both of the Priest and laymen. For a good breakdown on Confession and related matters check this out:

        • Can anyone for certainty claim that a sin that is objectively intrinsically evil is genial sin? How do we actually know with all certitude? Also, do reduce culpability automatically mean something is venial sin?

      • I agree with you both!
        In that cathecismus modernus is the way for the sodomites already prepared, by indeed, figures as Kasper & Schonborn. But, do not forget, the final signature on cathecismus modernus is signed by IPII.

        • They need a New Catechism to go with their New Mass, New Rosary, New Lectionary, New Liturgical Calendar, New Sacraments, New Arithmetic (2+2 = 5), New Paradigm.
          All building blocks for their New Religion.

          • Exactly! Those building blocks builds a New church, which the rulers of this world needs for their new w. order.
            And how much easier it is to ‘take over’ the existing Church of Christ! Hitting two birds with one stone. Try to destroy what they most of all hates, the Church, and in the same time ‘re-use’ it for their humanoid new church for their new w order. Which is, btw. invention of Satan himself, of course.
            See here how the anti-christ will be hatched:

            Hosanna Maranatha!

          • Amen to that. Just as I was typing my comment, I hadn’t seen that someone echoed my exact thoughts. Though saying these things in public would result in us being labelled as ‘fundamentalists’ , ‘rigid’ and ‘Pharisees’, I have a strong feeling that there are quite a lot of us who share this feeling that something’s wrong, and the changes had more than something to do with it.

    • you bring up an interesting point. What are the negative effects of adhering to the Baltimore Catechism and ignoring the newest version?

      • I think none.
        With those three Ccc mentioned we are good. We are safe.
        The same can be said for the true Latin VULGATE Bible and the proper translation/editions of it, like DRA for English version.
        All others, so called modern versions are kind of semi Bible with errors.
        I wrote about that often before here. Recently with a few examples as John 5,4, Judith 13, Tobit 6 and 8…

    • Agreed, and I’d like to add the Catechism of St Robert Bellarmine on which the Baltimore Catechism is based on. It just bugs me to see that the post-concilliar popes made ‘new’ just about everything – the mass, Canon Law, sacraments , new canonization, new evangelization, and an addition of a set of Mysteries to the Rosary (though optional). I think these changes which took place in the last half century dwarfs any change or set of changes that came before that in such a period of time.

    • Somewhere I’ve mislaid my 18th century Catechism by Dr. Kirwan. It’s in Irish and I’m praying to Saint Anthony it turns up (we moved in the last year and it went astray). But for my kids, I’m using the Baltimore Catechism now (btw, “Baltimore” is “Baile an Ti Mór” meaning ‘village of the big house’).
      So far I’ve only one complaint: it refers to God as The Supreme Being”. God is the Absolute Being, Being Itself (Being with a capital “B”) whereas a “supreme being” is like Zeus. I’ve heard it said that Richard Dawkins won’t argue against someone who clearly teaches Absolute Being. He’s all geared up to argue against “Supreme Being” but won’t touch “Absolute Being.”
      Other than that, the Baltimore Catechism holds up very well indeed.

  16. The Prodigal Son came home repentant. Why do people choose to skip that fact? God judges. Granted, He judges hearts, but He has laws. If we have no laws, no rules? We have no life. We are on the road to having no Church, as well.

    • This is exactly the argument that I have been making on OnePeterFive and elsewhere for a few months. My earlier postings were in response to Sandro Magister’s excellent and depressing article showing how Pope Francis’ teachings are pointing towards Universal Salvation All Round.

      Plainly, with Universal Salvation there are no eternal consequences for any earthly actions. Come home, A Hitler and C Manson, all is forgiven – or rather, there was nothing to forgive in the first place. And there’s no point in the existence of a Church, except perhaps as a secular conservation society to look after all the peerless buildings, art treasures and libraries. Any surplus investment income could be passed to Bill Gates’ foundation for philanthropic purposes.

  17. Yes, along with revising the Lord’s prayer because Pope Francis has “discovered” it’s a bad translation unlike any of his predecessors. Heck, why stop there? Revise Genesis too because that is also a “bad” translation. May the Lord save him from himself.

  18. As earlier commentators on this thread have noted, the Bible obviously needs drastic revision in many places to keep up with the revised morality. It is not just same sex couples who will need their unions blessed and fully incorporated into mainstream Church life. What about the paedos? Years ago, Carson Holloway pointed out the inevitable grim logic leading from “respectable” sexual liberation for consenting adults to mass abuse of children:

    Once you abandon traditional Christian teaching on marriage, “Anything Goes”. And it goes much further than the original singers of that old song could ever imagine. Obviously, there are tiresome sayings from Jesus, e.g. Luke 17:2:

    “It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

    But, let’s face it, Jesus didn’t have the benefit of modern theological insights. He plainly didn’t have any doctorates in the sacred sciences or someone would have mentioned it. Once we have reinterpreted Scripture properly, we will allow anything.

    Have we got any good arguments against the liberationists? Actually, there are loads of them, though you might have to look outside the Catholic Church for some of the best written and most coherent examples. Check out Alastair Roberts, a rising star among British theologians. Admittedly, it must feel like a professional engineer being forced to write a 10,000 word thesis explaining why square wheels on your car are a bad idea. But that’s the mess we are in. You cannot answer 10 word appeals to “love” and “tolerance” in a snappy soundbite.

    Carson Holloway has also done sterling work in arguing against same sex marriage:

        • Here’s is the latest from Fr. Cristoforo on Pope Francis.


          “Drafts part LVIII: in about a month the schism” of Fra Cristoforo

          Date: 1/23/2018Author:anonimidellacroce201773 Comments

          ” Drafts part LVIII: in about a month the schism” of Fra Cristoforo

          It will arrive sooner than we thought. Terrible news comes from Santa Marta.Bergoglio, who has touched his loss of popularity in these days of his trip to Chile and Peru, seeing the further failure of his wedding gossip in “airplane” has decided to play everything for everything. And in about a month will propose the famous “oath” to his magisterium, of which we had spoken before ( scisma-di-fra-cristoforo / ).

          Schism motive. Because so many Priests will oppose.

          This oath will be made before the diocesan bishops. Who will have the task of writing down who has been faithful or not. The priests who will not adapt will be suspended latae sententiae.

          And here the schism will begin. Because as far as I know, not all Priests will be available to implement this oath.

          Dark times are expected for the Catholic Church. We pray the Virgin Mary. And we make so much Eucharistic Adoration.

          Fra Cristoforo

          • This action would seem to help clarify great confusion in the Church. If a Priest signs this oath, find one who won’t sign. Schism is very unfortunate but the Catholic Church must remain and can’t just change into an entirely new religion. This would seem like such a foolish move for the bad guys, since most are tolerating every evil, even if complaining; but I’ve noticed that evil is never satisfied with tolerance and always insists on active participation.

          • I wonder when but more importantly if SSPX will start recruiting Novus Ordo priests? We must pray for guidance. We certainly can stay if the Church turns officially heretical.

    • Bill, I signed off too quickly when I last answered you. I wanted to thank you for sending along the article about Gamlin. Fascinating reading. Thanks again.

  19. The ccc of PJII has already changed the teaching on sodomy for those with an understanding of modernist double speak, just as V II docs changed the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The mask is now ripped offf and you have a choice, stick your head in the sand and pretend it is not so, accept the fact the V II Church is an apostate counter church along with its popes, entertain the idea that maybe the roman right of the Church is not the true church, or the gates of Hell have prevailed. There are just no other options the rational mind can conceive to understand what we now face.

    • “Stick you head in the sand…” Nope
      “the gates of Hell have prevailed” Nope
      “the Roman (Rite) of the Church is not the true church” – by this do mean go Protestant?
      “accept the fact the VII Church is an apostate…” Accepting this, what options do we have, what actions so we be attempting to remain faithful to Christ and Tradition?
      I’m fairly certain that the problem is understood, but what’s not clear is what the proper and right action/reaction should be. Problem-Discussion-Solution, the first article is becoming clearer by the day, the second is well underway, the third is sadly lacking and frankly outside my current skillset to address (thus I look to the anonymous posters on the internet (don’t judge)).

      • “I’m fairly certain that the problem is understood, but what’s not clear is what the proper and right action/reaction should be.”

        Like you I can’t answer this question and I have no idea what to do other than try to keep the faith as it has always been taught in my heart, try to stay in a state of grace, and throw myself on the mercy of God. I think only faith will get us through this.

  20. Fasten your seat belt, folks. 2018 is just getting started. On the agenda: 1) discussion of “blessings” for same-sex couples, 2) the synod on “youth” and discernment, where the Church is going to listen to the “prophets” who are young people, 3) the world meeting of families, and 4) the decision on instituting female deacons. You can bet that the “god of surprises” will be in full force this year.

  21. What we see here is the pernicious influence of Modernism on Catholic theology which emerged in disguised form in the ambiguity of Vatican II documents and came forth, little by little, in the evil Spirit of Vatican II. The main error Modernism is that it believes there is no fixed truth but that truth evolves depending on the circumstances of life, e.g. Situation Ethics, Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis in general. Please see Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. article, written in 1946, on the New Theology.

  22. The “false” Church is crystallizing right before our eyes. It’s happening rapidly. The catacombs await us.

    One sees clearly in this how persecutions begin. Firstly, the zeitgeist must proclaim a certain set of rules or ethics to be “just” and “proper”. Acceptance of this new paradigm must then spread throughout society. Then begins the task of seeking out those who dissent and refuse to accept the vox populi. Then begins the task of ostracizing the refuseniks, marginalizing them and finally, eliminating them. Homosexuality, in the space of just 2-3 decades, has made logarithmic leaps in both public and ecclesial acceptance. Those who proclaim sodomy to be sinful are now portrayed as “mean” and “haters”. There is no place in society for “haters”, my friends. What should we do about these “haters”??

    In this way, the persecutors claim the moral high ground, the refuseniks are portrayed as evil and the stage is then set for the inevitable. We’re largely at this point, now. Certainly in society at large and increasingly so within the Church, thanks to the efforts of people like the pitiful James Martin SJ. God has been forgotten and when God is forgotten, history teaches us that it always ends badly.

  23. The consecration of the Temple to Satan in ’63 didn’t happen some say, while others say they never heard of such a thing. Well, if this comes to pass we will all be consecrated to this perversity by HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. Lord send your Son and end this madness.

  24. This is great news. I like the fact that the sodomites are no longer content to silently subvert the Truth but are now openly confronting and rejecting the Truth.

    The starker the choice the better for all involved.

    As for what Pete and Pam protestant thinks, who cares?

    They are all heretics (members of a false religion) who also reject the Truth of Christ and who also refuse to follow His commandments which He taught is how we show we love Him. Objectively, props dont love Him.

    The Apostles and The Early Church Fathers didn’t worry at all about the passions and proclivities of those outside the fold – after a few attempts at converting them they marked them as heretics and shunned them.

    Of course, the new theology (out of which the desire to succor sodomy sprang) now considers those members of heretical groups as members of the One True Church whose heresies are not only salvific but considered to have been created by The Holy Ghost.

    The new Catechism also teaches that Jesus gave scandal -two times- which means that objectively the Catechism teaches that Jesus was a grave sinner for the Catechism also teaches that to give scandal is a grave sin that is proportionally more wicked according to the authority of the one causing scandal.

    I’d burn every subtle catechism in existence but the Pope is worried about global warming….

    The Roman Catechism is the safest one to read

  25. On the plus side, at least these heretics are finally showing their cards. No more of this Fr. Martin “I’m not changing church teaching…” nonsense. No more “accompaniment” talk from priests. Now we cut to the heart of the matter and everyone will be forced to take sides. Good thing God is on ours. Hail Victory!

  26. Western Civilization is based in the moral rules which now a group of uncivilized but full of pride druids want to repeal. They are called modernists, but they are a kind of adamites abusing the Roman Catholic Church. We have to face them; they would destroy the traditional Church, Europe and everything that is in their way.

  27. Sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance. Homosexuality allows the devil entry into the Church successfully through the back door and it will end, as always, in evil.

  28. “And it would be just as disturbing if a bishop truly affirmed that the Church still does not have an answer. Because in reality there actually is an answer which displays a united charity and truth in a truly thrilling way with respect to chastity, to which homosexuals are also called, as the experience of Courage has demonstrated. But now the gauntlet has been thrown down and the crusade against the Catechism must go forward.”

    Unfortunately, the writer of this article himself illustrates the disturbing problem with the current, 1992 version of the Catechism when he writes above “Because in reality there actually is an answer which displays a united charity and truth in a truly thrilling way with respect to chastity, to which homosexuals are also called, as the experience of Courage has demonstrated.” The writer hear affirms that there are such creatures as “homosexuals” who are definitively such. The Catechism itself refers to “homosexual persons” in a way that accepts the immutability of there homosexual impulses as a definite orientation, rather than a for of disorientation that is alien to human nature and is rather a product of The Fall of Man.

    So weak is the current Catechism teaching on homosexualism that it refers to this diabolical impulse not by reinforcing its moral evil, but by merely saying that “It’s psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. How “unexplained”? Is homosexualism an example of “giftedeness” that comes from God? Or is it, rather, a persecution of sinners by the devil and his demons? Previous versions of the Catechism, prior to the modernist revisions we are labouring under in our own time, recognized sodomy for what it is: a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. On what basis can such an abominable sin now be justified? Answer: it the definitive moral component is replaced by that psychological materialism of the soul: Modern Psychology. When doctrinal statements are made to sound not like Apostolic reflections on Divine Revelation, but rather a like clumsy acquiescence to immoral sexual behavioural patterns that clamour for self-legitimization, then that part of the Catechism becomes a chink in the armour of the formal apparatus of the Church.

    It is my prayer that the Catechism will be changed — not to eliminate its current weak and equivocal formulation on sodomy, but rather to restore it to its truth and vigour. We will never help people to recognize that they are truly “new creations” in Christ if we affirm them in their false belief that they are homosexuals by nature who simply must refrain from acting-out their erotic impulses.

    Holy Family, pray for us!

    St. Paul, pray for us!

    St. Peter Damian, pray for us!

    • It’s curious that modern “progressives” both inside and outside the Church forget an insight of Simone de Beauvoir (one of their own!) in her seminal book, Le Deuxième Sexe. While discussing lesbianism, she wrote a truth applicable to all sodomic sex, viz. that it is a choice deliberately taken by its practitioners. Today, the cheering squad for this perversion likes to pretend that it is inborn, that those who’ve given themselves over to this degradation are helpless to resist the urge. This is, as you ably and aptly point out, a lie.

  29. Second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, Chapter 4, 3-5
    “For there shall come a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and will indeed turn away their hearts from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labor in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober.”
    (Douay Rheims Version of the Holy Bible)
    When Humanae Vitae was issued, and the countless numbers of Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious and Lay persons took it upon themselves to revile, neglect, reject, or excuse It’s contents in a manner displeasing to God, the end result would be schism, heresy and apostacy. One wonders how many schismatic Parishes, let by heretical priests under the auspices of Bishops who are hirelings are actually functioning in the name of the Catholic Church.
    Just wondering.

  30. All we’ve really got here is one real church – rather small in number – and one fake church. The fake church is doing a lot of damage to the real church in a variety of ways – mostly leading souls to Hell, but it can’t actually change the real church. So as sickening as this all is, we need to keep perspective. It’s not like The Faith can change.

    • St. Francis of Assisi Prophecy:
      Shortly before he died in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the members of his order and warned them of great tribulations that would befall the Church in the future, saying:

      Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

      The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.

      Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

      There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

      Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

      Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

      Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.

      (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250;)

        • The very basic of the Catholic Faith is by most Catholics in the last 6 decades so much watered down, with thanks to the false spirit “zeitgeist” pushed by and promoted on IIVC, that a huge amount of all Catholics, cannot be even called Catholics, because they do not believe, let alone live as Catholics.
          This day, 26.01.2017. there are not much true, the faithful Catholics in this world.

  31. It seems to me that if a Bishop or Priest or Cardinal does reject and actively promotes their rejection of that which is to be held by the Faithful for belief, as pertains to Faith and Morals, then the consequences of their actions could possibly mean their loss of Authority. For instance, if a valid Mass is said by a schismatic priest, then it becomes illicit and are not the Faithful at risk? In my humble opinion, every lay person has a responsibility to KNOW in as far as they are able, what their parish priest believes and dear friends, Humanae Vitae was the line in the sand. It is the right of every Catholic to demand TRUTH and to reject those who are distorting It.

  32. Given the enlightenment of the Homo-Heretics one could envisage the organization of a future annual
    pilgrimage to the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah on the plains of the river Jordan, a solemn enterprise in
    which trees of remembrance are planted, rainbow kites are flown, and colorful wreaths laid.

    Indeed if the organizers are thorough, an honorable mention for Lot’s Wife would be merciful given her
    compassionate glance back at their FALLEN brethren.
    A pillar of salt? Hardly. A pillar of the community and an example of turning the other cheek.

    But they would have to “admit” that God made a “mistake” so I imagine such an enterprise to be doomed.

    So the Homo-Heretics have only one available option:
    Let’s just dismiss it, it’s a fable, and as for St.Paul, well he was ignorant of human “complexity”.
    Dismiss Common sense, the Natural law, the reality of Demons, and the exclusivity of pro-creative love.

    • Thanks again Johnny, for highlighting a splendid example of true humility by a wonderful cardinal – not the PF exhibition of “humility” (ride around in small car surrounded by millions of dollars of security). As usual, I can’t help remembering St Paul’s advice about love of money being the root of all evil. A large tame official church potentially offers more money than a persecuted minority, especially if it gets some sort of state subsidy as a bribe. Note as an example the filthy rich German hierarchy channelling a massive slice of their church tax to the Vatican.

      “CNA reports that on Wednesday, Jan. 23 in the Vatican, Hong Kong’s 86 year old Cardinal emeritus Joseph Zen (陳日君) appeared in Saint Peter’s Square, lined up in the cold with other petitioners, seeking to deliver a letter directly into the hands of Pope Francis.”

      • Back when I first began to understand the true nature of Francis’ papacy, Bill, I coined a phrase and used it among friends; I referred to the pope’s “ostentatious humility.” I thought I was quite clever, but just a while later, I saw at least two well-known writers use the same phrase in different articles. What I’d thought was an artful turn of words was merely accurate description for anyone who cared to look!

        • When it comes to displays of “poverty” and “humility” by the high and mighty, an Indian supporter of Gandhi made the all-time classic remark. He complained how much it cost to keep Gandhi in holy poverty.
          Seeing that one estimate placed the extra cost of PF’s occupancy of the Casa Sanctae Marthae suite as $400,000 a year, we should be grateful that not all clerics live in such humble abodes.

          • And grateful that Jorge Bergoglio didn’t choose an even MORE humble abode! Nice line from Gandhi’s supporter, a classic.

          • Exactly that, Miguel. Somewhere I read (The Political Pope perhaps?) that some of his colleagues in Buenos Aires were struck by then Bishop Bergoglio’s penchant for arriving late to meetings so that he could announce to all something about problems with his chosen humble conveyance of the day, the metro or the bus.

  33. The only quarter from which you hear strong, confident, vehement, regular, condemnation of homosexuality these days is altright blogs and podcasts.

    And not uncoincidentally, the altright is rising. People are sick of this sh&!.

  34. Another element feeding this is the all but discouragement over the past several decades of the Sacrament of Confession, which obviously requires that “judgmental” task of examining ones conscience. They will not be finished altering the CC until all sin is “accompanied” with some lame rationalization as they soon will with Humane Vitae.

  35. I date a woman who is orthodox. If we ever got married how could I even begin to have her consider conversion in light of all this diabolical behavior from our “churchmen”? The minute she sees what is going on in the “one Holy catholic and apostolic church” she would literally laugh. Sure you and I know the traditional teaching of the Church is true, but many people considering conversion look at what is happening and they find reasons to run. This is the reality. Thanks to satanic Jorge. Moreover, say we have kids – I’m supposed to convince her to have them assist at clown liturgies led by homosexual pedophiles? Not happening. She would even fundamentally challenge getting married in a Catholic Church if our marriage could end up equivalent to homosexual blessing. Never in a million years thought the church would put me in these positions. Nice work boys!

    • Sorry to sound forthright, but why consider marrying an orthodox who was not willing to convert BEFORE you got married?

    • I converted a month after Bergoglio was elected. My adult kids came later.

      You don’t convert because of a Pope. You convert because of Jesus Christ and Him Crucified and the truth of His Church.

      Good grief look at the Orthodox and come back and tell us how holy and righteous they are.

      Or ever have been.

  36. The Catechism should have never been revised in the first place. If the first edition was truly the “sure norm” it was touted to be, then it should have been left alone. Slippery slope.

  37. As if this subject was not depressing enough….Rod Dreher’s blog of 24 Jan 2018 contains this horribly accurate contribution from a reader on how lack of consensus among Christians undermines any legal resistance. Our enemies can already throw Pope Francis’ comment “Who am I to judge” at us if we take a principled stand against “gay marriage”. They can already quote creatures like Timothy Radcliffe, former Master of the Dominicans, who tell us how wonderful gay sex is.

    No, I don’t give a fig what PF truly meant or if he was quoted out of context. Imagine what it will be like if any more concessions are infiltrated into official Church documents.

    UPDATE: Reader Brendan says that the ongoing collapse of orthodoxy among professing American Christians on the subject of homosexuality is going to have serious legal implications for the orthodox:

    The trouble, Rod, is that this unfortunately does impact the application of anti-discrimination law.

    If it can be shown that most Christians do not believe homosexual activity is a sin, and that homosexual marriage is acceptable for Christians, then it becomes much harder for a Christian who *does* see these things as unacceptable or sinful on the basis of her faith, even if held sincerely, to convince a court (or bureaucrat) that their objection is truly “religious” in nature — again, because other people who share the same religion find the behavior unproblematic from their own religious perspective. The court or bureaucrat will tend to then see the more conservative/traditional believer’s perspective as being not rooted in religion (after all other people who believe in the religion are fine with the acts in question, perhaps the majority of people who believe in the religion) but rooted in animus which has extra-religious bases. Meaning you lose.

    This is why the mass apostasy of Christians in the US on this issue is so problematic for traditional Christians. We will, as a result of this, lose legal protections — that is, their apostasy on this issue will strip us of legal protections for the orthodox views on these issues, as a practical matter. We will be permitted to hold our views, and to preach them in our churches, and enforce them there in a narrow and strict way that directly pertains to our liturgical services — but that’s it. That’s what’s coming, and the mass apostasy among non-traditional Christians is going to be the hammer, the main hammer, used against us in this regard.


    • “We will be permitted to hold our views, and to preach them in our churches, and enforce them there in a narrow and strict way that directly pertains to our liturgical services — but that’s it.”

      Not even sure we’ll have that. Top of the class, post. Thank you.

    • You are right. The gays can take their cue from the civilly remarried. If the civilly remarried dont think what they did is a sin, then the gays can say they dont believe what they are doing is a sin for them because “God made them that way”. “God making them that way” is the popular myth. What is really happening is the whole notion of “sin” is being attacked. This is the diabolic nature of Relativism. Instead of people accepting what God says is a “sin”, people make up their own mind. And you are right about the division in the Church over this very important principle.

      • Pope Francis seems to be dangerously close to abolishing the very notion of sin in sexual matters. After his very public humiliation when he was forced to defrock the paedophile Inzoli, whom he had previously pardoned, he commented that he would not pardon any more paedophiles and that paedophilia was a sickness.
        So you are no more to blame for molesting little children than for having multiple sclerosis? I am not clear if armed robbers can get off as they were plainly suffering from incurable kleptomania. And serial killers merely had serious anger management issues.
        This medicalisation of “sin” fits in perfectly with the most bizarre of PF’s recent announcements as described in Sandro Magister’s excellent article on the Four Last Things. Sandro noted that PF’s speeches seemed to exclude Hell and imply Universal Salvation All Round. Of course – why should we wretched creatures be damned for having various incurable diseases?

    • It is true. And if the unthinkable happens and Francis does go into schism, will his church become essentially the “Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association” and Catholics will be illegals. Even here, in the US, we’re just an administration away from that.

  38. We witness The Church under heavy siege. Psychologically, WE develop a “siege mentality”
    We need to keep our lives simple, a life of simple Prayer and Faith.

    In addition to such simplicity of Prayer and Penance, it is wise to take up and/or continue with healthy
    hobbies and interests within our abilities. Take up walking. Read innocuous fiction/non fiction. Refresh
    strategy for the welfare of Family. Extended Family.

    Our lives are very short, maintain balance, maintain perspective, ignore the wiles of the Evil One who
    seeks to break our Spirit.


  39. The author writes. “They have also been sharpening their weapons on this strategy: drawing their inspiration from the “revision” of the Catechism proposed by Pope Francis on the death penalty and his pronouncements about the past concerning [the teaching of the Church about] the abolition of slavery.”

    Surely, finally, a full, all-out Schism would erupt Krakatoa-style, if this happens?
    Or is that just wishful thinking? Or should it be wishful thinking? The mind reels.

    • This site and a few others would erupt, but among the Catholic sheeple who depend for their news on lying mass media and leftist lickspittles like George Stephanopoulos (aka Clintonopoulos) and Wolf Blitzer, nothing much would happen. Their ‘news’ providers have already convinced them that capital punishment is somehow unchristian. Changing Church teaching for them is little different than changing the Constitution. They haven’t a clue.

      • I hope that more than a few Catholics are better than mindless sheeple. There are so many serious Catholics in the secular press around the world that not even PF could escape a serious mauling. Endorsing gay marriage/partnerships would be such an undeniable breach that anyone with a brain, including plenty of intelligent atheists I could name, would see that the Church had abandoned all credibility.

        It is one thing to welcome all sinners and forgive seven times seventy, as Jesus commanded. It is another to allow or even encourage people to sin seven times seventy. Large numbers of principled Protestants would be united in their opinion of the Whore of Babylon.

        The revolutionaries cannot amend the Bible without opening themselves to endless merciless derision. It would be like that over-enthusiastic Nazi (I think it was riotously described in William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”) who demanded the deletion of the Old Testament and the revision of Jesus’ teachings to be fully in line with National Socialism.

        As other commentators have noted, such a debacle would provoke a long overdue scrutiny of the 1994 Catechism and its defects. This document plainly cannot claim the status of Papal infallibility. My favourite howler is para 2240: “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country”. You have to vote??? What if you are faced with morally intolerable alternatives?

  40. This is the exact same technique used by John Paul II and Cdl. Ratzinger (during his tenure at CDF) to change centuries of teaching from both Scripture and Tradition concerning capital punishment for murder. This is from an article I wrote for “The Remnant”:

    John Paul’s revisionism finds its roots in his 1995 encyclical “Evangelium Vitae.” While condemning abortion, contraception and euthanasia, John Paul declared capital punishment to be fundamentally unnecessary:

    “Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime…In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.

    “It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment … ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (emphasis added)

    The head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during John Paul’s tenure – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI – changed the catechism to reflect the late pope’s view.

    “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority must limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.” (emphases added)

    Before “Evangelium Vitae,” the catechism read, “If, however, bloodless means…authority should limit itself….” (emphases added).

    What is the difference between “should” and “must”? “Should” is advisory but “must” implies a demand. With these substitutions, Ratzinger and John Paul changed the fundamental moral criterion from the divine image within humanity – a criterion imposed by inspired Scripture – to the State’s ability to incarcerate capital felons.

    Here’s the entire article:

    To those of you who are complaining about Francis’ arbitrary theological renovations, I ask this:

    Where were you two decades ago?

      • The question is whether the Catechism is a “sure norm” (JPII) of Church teaching. If it can be easily revised simply via papal whim, then it wasn’t so “sure” in its prior editions, nor is it so “sure” now.

      • Todd, it’s not a matter of comparing John Paul’s words to the homosexual cabal, as you put it. It’s a matter of affirming what has been taught for centuries without opposition. The message of Scripture, as reinforced by the teachings of such Doctors as Aquinas and Augustine, is clear: Murder is so heinous a violation of the divine image in humanity that execution is the only appropriate, proportional punishment. See Genesis 9: 5-6. Read the entire article to which I linked to appreciate the full import of what JPII did.

        If the CCC can be changed without resistance when it comes to capital punishment for murder, it can be changed with regard to virtually everything else. And if that’s true, then the Magisterium, has no more credibility than Oceania’s Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s “1984.” And if that’s true, then the Magisterium doesn’t deserve any respect, let alone assent, from any morally thinking Catholic.

  41. The Church has traditionally viewed homosexuality as “disordered.” Chastity outside of marriage was viewed as suiting God’s order in the natural world. We all know mankind is fallen, and will invariably disappoint. Yet if homosexuality is viewed as disordered and chastity natural the sinful may yet be helped limiting behavior that ideally should not take place. In our world I’ll take the bargain. Obviously it’s hard to push back against the sexual revolution. But think about the Church’s view of natural law. Disordered behavior will not bring good things. And how has the natural world reacted to the sexual revolution? Simply put by waging war against the human body with sexually transmitted diseases that are growing ever more aggressive and difficult (sometimes impossible) to treat. The worst of the lot remains HIV which is largely confined to the homosexual community. It no longer kills quickly, but its victims cannot be cured – the retro-viral drug cocktail needed by everyone infected ravages the body with side effects and lowers life span. I am not saying that God punishes sinners on earth with plague. I do believe the natural world was created by God and mocking natural law with libertine sexual behavior almost invariably brings a kind of punishment. God’s plan allows for disease, disorder and tragic mishap. But the consequences of the sexual revolution – often psychologically harmful as well as physically dangerous – stand out because they are self-inflicted. It is appalling to think that the Church would grow to approve of behavior that is seriously harmful, when Church tradition has shown itself to be very well advised as well as just.

    • Thank you for articulating so well what it is the truth of the matter. It helps to clarify my own thinking and to grow in wisdom when I read something so well stated.
      As someone who struggled with sexual sin in various forms of heterosexual expression for many years, I reached a point of almost debilitating darkness in my early thirties. Through God’s loving grace, I met a priest who helped me to get on a path of repentance and conversion. It was a struggle with many missteps and failures and, in ways, it is one that still continues today so many years later. However, I’m grateful that the priest in question never softened the message of Catholic teaching on sex.
      The priest told me to wear a St. Joseph medallion which he blessed. He reminded me that St. Joseph was one of very few men in scripture that was called righteous and that, as a husband and father, I should ask for his intercession in my periods of struggle. To this day, i wear that medallion and, in moments of temptation, I still do.
      I am not a theologian and I don’t entirely understand the issues surrounding AL. However, I do understand in a very profound and first hand way the truth of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality. While I try to be charitable to PF and those that surround him, I’m afraid they are messing with fundamental teachings that must be held fast in this time of mass sexual confusion and disorder.
      It pains me to say it but if RCC teaching on homosexuality changes, I’m afraid I will have to leave the Church and try to find a spiritual home somewhere else for it will have ceased to be a place of truth and will surely follow the path of mainline Protestantism to become a church of nothing rooted in the phoney belief that “a God without wrath brings men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”.

  42. These Churchmen better start worrying about offending God rather than the LGBT Community in town. The road to Hell was always paved with good intentions. Do they allow recounts on conclaves?

  43. –> “We were firmly convinced that homosexuality was a sin,” they say. And now? “We prayed and read the parable of the Prodigal Son, and we came to understand that Lord accepts all without judging. Martina is living in the truth and we love her as she is.”
    This portrays a deep lack of understanding of our relationship with God and sin. He does not accept all behavior without judgement. If He did, there would be no point in the Ten Commandments. The prodigal son returned to the father admitting to his misbehavior and asking for forgiveness. He admitted to his faults. That is the first step in reconciling with God. We have to admit our sins, ask for forgiveness and make a firm purpose of amendment. If we do that, God will always welcome us home. If we do not, we condemn ourselves.

  44. I have given literally thousands of catechisms out to people on my travels, but I never give out the CCC because it is imbued with the VII modernistic waffle and thus dangerous. So what is described here just proves the dangers of CCC and other catechisms such as YOUCAT as they already have at their foundation the new orientation of VII and thus susceptible to further devious tinkering. Best to always use and promote the Baltimore, Pius X or the Penny etc.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...