At The Catholic Thing there is an interesting piece about Stephen P. White. The writer looks at three pieces which concern The Present Crisis in the Church, and draws an interesting conclusion.
[…]
These three pieces represent a shift away from denying a connection between homosexuality and the abuse crisis and toward an open attempt to normalize homosexuality among clergy. The stakes, in other words, have been raised.
Pope Francis, for his part, has reiterated (more than once) the Church’s prohibition on admitting men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies to seminaries. He reportedly told the Italian bishops, “If you have even the slightest doubt, it is better not to let them in.” He has upset activists by saying of homosexual priests and religious, “It would be better if they left the ministry or consecrated life rather than live a double life.”
“normalize homosexuality”
That’s the immediate goal.
The next goal for the homosexualist lobby will be to lower the age of consent.
Meanwhile, since it is increasingly evident that most people are not buying into the “clericalism” excuse, the homosexualists are shifting gears to drive toward something even more demonic.
Loading ...
Meanwhile, the Methodists voted two days ago to prohibit homosexual “marriage” and non-celebate gay clergy.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2019/02/methodists-vote-to-uphold-traditional-sexual-morality/
Homosexuality already is ‘normal’ among clergy in the Novus Ordo sect. The Lavender Mafia since Vatican II has done a good job ensuring this.
[Most of the priests I know do not celebrate the traditional form. Your statement is deeply offensive to me and to all the good priests I know. I’ll let this comment remain, for the sake of demonstrating my profound displeasure.]
I believe this has been the plan all along. Through their lies, the homosexual community has made an art out of getting the public to accept their demands by claiming that their destructive behaviors and crimes are the result of “hate” against them.
For example, in the ’80s and ’90s all attempts to get the homosexuals to change their behaviors to stop the spread of AIDS were met with outrage and disbelief. Instead, we got movies like “Philadelphia” to drum up support for accepting those very behaviors out of a “pity” driven by the popular media. Now, AIDS is still a scourge but no one can talk about it.
We were told that allowing “gay marriage” would end the problems of homosexual promiscuity and promote stable relationships. Now we know that was all a ruse to destroy real marriages.
Next, we were told that homosexual seminarians were acceptable and would accept celibacy. Now we see that was never the case.
I think the real game here is to destroy celibacy in the priesthood. Francis will likely play his “stand” on homosexual priests against his hints of allowing married priests and perhaps even women into the priesthood. That’s been his standard game: To appear strong on one issue only orchestrate events to “force” another related attack on true Catholic culture. (Just look at how he decries abortion while giving awards to abortionists.) Acceptance of homosexuals would soon follow once the celibacy barrier is cracked. The push for lowering the age of consent will wait until the public at large has accepted it (IMHO).
Lust being one of the Seven Deadly Sins should give our hierarchy pause. No matter how you construe homosexuality it has to be a filthy way to express ones self. How quickly we forget that it is the primary way that the AIDS virus is transmitted.
“Lust being one of the Seven Deadly Sins” Not anymore, apparently, according to Francis who refers to sins of the flesh as “the lightest sins”. No, he’s not sewing confusion among the faithful at all.
Well, the Seven Deadly Sins do tend to be lighter than others; that’s why they are at the root of sins and, while sins themselves, not particularly big ones among them. (That is, if we open the list, as some do, with “vanity”, not “pride” which is properly speaking something different, and if we understand “envy” as “temptations to envious thoughts somewhat indulged in”.)
Sins of the flesh, at least if simply that – i. e., fornication with a consenting partner of the opposite sex, both neither bound by marriage nor vow and firmly opposed to abortion in case there should be offspring, without contraception – that certainly is one of the lightest mortal sins of them all.
Yes, I do think suchlike – if it happens – weighs lighter than when an instructed Catholic wilfully without excuse misses a Sunday Mass or eats meat on Good Friday.
Of course, that doesn’t make it non-mortal.
But while there’s a lot of things that can be said in criticism of our Holy Father, the modern habit to understand “a light sin” or even “the lightest of sins” as “not a sin”, rather than – which would be logical – the contrary (“certainly a sin even if light”) is not of his making.
If I recall correctly, sins are Deadly or Mortal because they kill sanctifying grace in the soul. In my opinion, if one is not in a state of grace you can continue living quite happily in that state, because you will forget what God’s grace felt like.
You may then die in the body. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to Hell.
Thus, many people walk the wide and easy road to Hell, perhaps even laughing at the idea of damnation. They have forgotten, or never knew, what being in a state of grace feels like. Their minds are darkened. Good becomes evil, and evil, good, to them.
We need more bishops to roar from the pulpit about the Four Last Things.
Now, they are not called deadly because they kill the sanctifying grace in the soul.
Some sins are called mortal, and they kill the sanctifying grace in the soul.
Unchastity does so, of course, but because it is “by accident”, as it were, a mortal sin, not because it’s a deadly sin (in the sense of “seven deadly sins”). Other deadly sins, such as gluttony, are (almost always, or for practical purposes always) venial.
The deadly sins are called deadly sins – at least a different term in English; not so in German – because someone mixed them up with the mortal sins and they are erroneously called “mortal sins” in other languages, so “deadly sins” was a convenient manner of clearing the confusion and reminding people that, first, all sins are deadly and these, being at the root of sinful behaviour, do so in a special sense. But not because they, as such, kill the life of the soul; that’s the definition of “mortal sin”, not of “deadly sin”.
I think it would help if the current crisis can be demarcated into two issues: abuse, and covering abuse. It can be conceded that homosexuality is not the cause of the abuse, but it is certainly the cause of the cover-up because 80 percent of the abusers were homosexual and the cover-up was conducted by the closest friends of these homosexuals, who can reasonably be assumed to be themselves homosexual.