A Theologian Speaks About Homosexuality

In great need of our prayers.

Browsing around the net I already in the past found this theologian, Ronald L. Conte, to be one of the very good ones.

Besides strict orthodoxy, the man has the rare gift of expressing himself in an extremely clear and concise way; never becoming boring or convoluted but always sticking to the point and bringing it to his readers with great clarity. He is a bit like the GAU-8 Avenger of Catholic doctrine, aiming straight at error and secular folly.

I stumbled upon an article of him about homosexuality which – as it seems to me – goes straight to the heart of the problem without sweetening of the pill, but also without apocalyptic visions of collective destruction.

His approach is – again, as it seems to me – highly sensible. He looks at the most frequent questions arising in these disturbing times and gives to all of them a straight, but never uncharitable answer. His words are far more pungent than the more subtle, but still extremely clear Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons; he goes beyond the Vatican document by addressing the problem of homosexual clergy (in those very months addressed by the new Pope Benedict in the sense expressed by him) and he clearly addresses the issue of the different degrees of sexual sins (something actually clear to every Southern European from the cradle, but apparently less clearly perceived in colder climates). His radical words seem to me to echo St. Pius X’s very clear stance (though in a slightly different context) in Horrendum Illud Scelus.

At the same time, Conte’s approach is – again, following that mercifully supple approach so typical of traditional Southern European Catholic understanding – not such that he leaves the homosexual – even the one still struggling with his problem – without hope. Only final impenitence is what will lead him to Hell. Prayer, and hope, and a serious struggle are the way. This should be repeated to every rebellious homo, perhaps hiding under the excuse that he “cannot change”. Firstly he can, and secondly he is supposed to try anyway.

We want to hope and pray that many of those who today claim a right to abomination as if it were a “human right” will end up, in time, seeing the light. Unfortunately, they are not helped much by a society which condones abominations as if it were something normal or even just. In the end, full awareness of the extent of the problem is the key to an approach which, to be crowned with success, must be so radical as to be, literally, life changing.

If I had been asked as an adolescent which one among homosexuality, bestiality, child rape, incest or euthanasia would one day have been considered normal by an awful lot of people, I’d have laughed out loud. The absurdity of that!

Thirty years later, homosexuality has been delivered to secular mainstream consciousness as a “choice”. Euthanasia might well be on its way. Bestiality and incest might well follow (just wait that the perverts discover their “human rights”, how “oppressed” they are and that they are denied the “freedom” to marry their brother, or sister) and probably only child rape will (if the child is very small; otherwise Tatchell & Co. are already waiting to get their hands at them) have to remain in the realm of the abominations. In the new world, abomination will probably be saying the truth out loud; or not driving a Prius.

It is therefore always refreshing when someone writes in a way which lets your humble correspondent ask himself: “this is what has always been considered common sense and common knowledge in the past; how on earth have we come to the point that one has to expressly point out to this?”.

Please join me in a prayer for the unrepentant homosexual of the world (that they may see the truth) and for those who begin to understand the scale of the problem but are still too weak to either see the truth in all its tragic reality or to radically change (that they may find the strenght to win their battle, or at least persevere until the end in fighting it).


Posted on November 10, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Assuming the downward trend in what is considered socially acceptable behavior continues, my bets are on polygamous and/or polyamorous marriages as the next big “freedom.”

    If the percentage of Muslims in the West keeps growing, this will certainly be true.

    • You are right, NSS,
      I forgot that!

      And why, pretty please, should our dear friend and neighbour Mohammed (the most frequent name among new born children in Blighty, apparently) not be able to keep his mini-harem of three or four wives? After all he can pay for them (perhaps: otherwise it’s handout galore, see Abu Hamsa), says “good morning” in an awfully nice way and takes care that their burkha always looks proper!
      Ah, these oppressive Christians!!


  2. There’s something vaguely Jansenist about Mr. Conte’s theology. This is a bit disturbing, mostly because it contradicts his previous affirmation of the Catholic view of free will through cooperation in grace:

    Mr. Conte: […] suppose that a person (a) has repented from homosexual sins and received forgiveness in Confession, AND, (b) that he or she sincerely believes Church teaching that homosexuality is evil and that homosexual acts are always gravely immoral. Such a person should still not receive Communion, nor any of the Sacraments, except Confession. (Last Rites could be administered, if such a person was near death.) Such a person should continue to pray, to remain chaste, and to learn and practice the true faith, going to Confession regularly, but not yet receiving Communion. Only after a long period of chaste and prayerful living, and many sincere Confessions over a long time, should such a person be allowed to receive Communion.

    This is not Catholic theology. So long as a person goes to Confession and is truly contrite, he or she should confidently approach the Sacrament. In fact, Catholicism teaches the opposite of Mr. Conte: the worthy reception of the sacraments strengthens the soul against sin through the infusion of divine grace into the soul. I don’t know where he got these ideas from, but they are smack of Jansenism. There is no need to discern election, and there is no need for the limited atonement. The Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed all-welcoming for all those who are confessed and sincerely contrite. This is very dangerous, and I hope Mr. Conte will reconsider this notion.

    • Welcome to the forum, Cryptojansenist,

      you make an interesting observation.

      Mr. Conte writes in (or runs) a forum on an internet site called “Catholic Planet”. I’m sure if you were to write (or even to copy and paste) your observations on his forum he’ll answer you.


  3. I’m not sure I would call those statements “Jansenism”. Going to a Catholic schoolnearly fifty years ago (taught by a reasonably strict order of nuns…in habits) I can well remember the stress that was given to one’s personal worthiness to receive Communion even after a proper Confession was made. While not forbidden to receive Communion the nuns would encourage a longer, prayerful reflection after Confession, even if that meant some time.

    I myself hesitate to jump in the Communion line after a particularly painful Confession. Rightly or wrongly I might wait a Sunday or two before daring to approach the Communion rail.

    Rather than “Jansenism” I might label this “prudence”.

    Just a thought.

    • My experience is more similar to Schmenz’ one.

      When I was a child, I distinctly remember some old people saying that Communion was a very special thing. They would approach it only after some kind of “special” fast and penance, it was not considered somethig you do when at Mass unless you are guilty of mortal sin. Of course this was no mandatory, but I think it was a reflection of the fact that they thought they would only receive communion when, so to speak, at their best.

      Again, this was their perception. I am not saying that this was the rule, nor that it should.


%d bloggers like this: