Matt Walsh: “Homosexuals must be banned from the priesthood — no exception. They must be banned. I said this has to be ruthless, brutal, uncompromising and so that’s one of those steps. Every homosexual priest — banned.”
Good statement. However, homo clergy are – officially – banned from the Church already, as homosexuality is – and has always been – not compatible with the priesthood.
Only an age as stupid as the Age of Insanity can come to the point of even beginning to believe that a person afflicted by this horrible perversion may have his hands consecrated, and everything should be fine provided he is celibate. Such a thinking shows a desensitisation for perversion that is, in itself, a sign of the vast perversion of sane thinking now reigning among the mainstream.
There is no place for priests in the Church. A priest is supposed to be – as much as possible – a holy man, and a pervert can never be a holy man, as Satan is ravaging him from the inside. Would anyone think that a person with an incestuous tendency can be a priest, provided he does not sleep with his mother? Seriously, what do these people have in their supposedly Catholic heads instead of a brain?
We need priest who know to speak out, as it is very reasonable to assume a lot of priests know a lot more than the average pewsitter about the Seminary time of their now-colleagues. We need journalists to publish credible and substantiated allegations. We need to force our clergy to purge as many homo priests and bishops as possible; not out of their own courage (which they don’t have) but because of the immense pressure coming from a laity now booing them at every step, not giving them every money, insulting them with everyone they know, denouncing them as the unworthy, miserable pariah and rejects they are; we need to create a climate in which it is too risky for a homosexual to think of the Ecclesiastical career, because if the events of 2018 start even a half serious purge and cause a number of prominent heads to fall there will be no saying when the next purge comes, and what its severity will be.
Every homosexual priest, banned.
Start getting used to the idea, and promote sanity within the Church again.
The WSJ obviously understands zippo of Catholicism. But I trust they can print a quote right.
Cardinal Wuerl himself admits defeat, and say the final Relatio has not even a recommendation that communion may be given to adulterers. The WSJ – who understands zippo of Catholicism – goes on to add Francis could do it, but again I do not my Catholicism from Muslims, either.
The facts on the ground are very clear. Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Burke have also confirmed the fact. Their criticism concerning the ambiguity of the text is extremely welcome, but nowhere they say that the heretics got their way.
In this time of rampant media manipulation,min which reality is shaped by emotionalism and perceptions, it is duty of every blogger, priest or layman, to state the facts as they are:
1) The text does not make ANY concession, NONE WHATSOEVER, to the heretics.
2) The text does so in that usual fluffy, PC obsessed, “nice” way we have been seen continuously since 1963 at the latest.
The events of the last days remind me of one of the main cultural differences between Italy and Germany. N Italy, when the national football teams wins an important game 1-0, with a penalty on the 90th minute, after a horrible, dirty game full of tricks, everyone rejoices. Why? Because victory was achieved. In Germany, everyone complains about the overplayed players, and the horrible game. Why? Because they have very lofty standards, and victory – no matter how scant – is not enough. And because they aren't the solar chaps that we are, of course.
What shall I say. Some people just can't win well. It is more important to them that they feel miserable, and announce the imminent end of the world.
How powerful they are with the simple! How many of the latter there are!
Cardinal Wuerl has now made clear what the strategy of the Modernist faction (led by TMAHICH) against orthodox Catholics (factually led by the SSPX, and by Cardinal Burke in the Conciliar camp) in the months leading to October will be: comparing them to “dissenters”.
Wuerl’s aim is transparent enough: leveraging on the love for orthodoxy of your common Catholic to create an aura of rebellion around those who defend Catholic orthodoxy, whilst letting the heretics appear orthodox because the Pope sides with them.
Mind, Cardinal Wuerl makes no names concerning who the “dissenting” brother bishops are: but Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider immediately come to mind, together with the five Cardinals who authored “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”. Others have also spoken, but I think these seven are the main targets.
Will it work? Nope. Catholicism is a very strong plant, not easily eradicated from the West. Those who are instructed in Catholicism will not fall in the stupid trap. The stupid will, but they were lost anyway.
Now the problem of Wuerl, Francis and all the other heretics is this: they can certainly make an impression on the masses by telling them what they want to believe, but Catholicism is not a democracy. There will always be enough bishops, priests and laymen to utterly expose the lie, and cause a nuclear conflict that defies the scope of the rebellion on day one; because there will always be a compact front of true Catholics making it impossible for the others to claim that “the church has changed”. And I am talking of the West here. In Africa and vast part of Asia, the heretics have lost already.
Everyone knows what reality is. Even the most stubborn divorced-and-remarried, communion-taking activists will be forced to recognise that a heretical hierarchy had to pretend the rules have changed in order to accommodate them. There is no escaping facts, however loud you shout.
The slandering of orthodoxy has just found a new term, and who knows whether, perhaps, many more will be found until the High Noon showdown at the Synod. But it will never work.
If Francis thinks he can ram heresy down the throat of Catholic faithfuls and have them swallow it whole, he is very much deluded. His lies will be eagerly accepted by all those in desperate need of hearing what they know are lies, but all the others will atomise his pontificate both in life and in death.
Oil your guns, fellow orthodox Catholics. Come October you may have to use them day in and day out in your warfare against heresy from the highest place.
Christus Vincit. Christus Regnat. Christus Imperat.
And it came to pass that the organisers of St. Patrick's Day parade caved in to popular pressure and corporate sponsorship and decided that faggots, lesbians and all the other variety of militant reprobation are welcome to the parade dedicated to the Saint, because… they are prostitutes.
A Monsignor of the diocese of Washington and blogger of some repute (about whom I have blogged and reblogged on several occasions: Monsignor Charles Pope) then writes a rather blunt blog post, openly questioning non only the opportunity of such exercises, but the smartness of those who continue to cling to such phantoms of the past after they have been, very clearly, highjacked by the Enemy.
And then… what do you think? In pure Soviet style, the Archdiocese of Washington, who publishes the blog, pulls the article.
Catholicism on the Internet presence of a US Archdiocese? God forbid! We must at all costs avoid that the immense fraud of “Inclusiveness”, “no sense of judgment” NuChurch be exposed for what it is!
Let us pull the article, then. We don't want to be “divisive” now, do we? Let's make a united front and march together with the perverts instead. More “inclusive”, you see. In the brave fag world of the contemporary US church, Catholic voices must be silenced so that the little (or huge, as the case may be) minions of Satan do not feel uncomfortable, and can continue to guffaw their bollocks undisturbed.
Thankfully, the almost omniscient (or at least extremely well-informed) Rorate Caeli has the text.
Ah, the beauty of the Internet! The blog post will now soon have a wider circulation that we could ever hope. Reblog the article on your blog, please. Tweet it around. Let the world know at what point of complicity with evil NuChurch has arrived.
Now let me think one moment: who is in charge over there?
Cardinal Wuerl, you say?
How is it that I am not surprised?
March forward, brave US Cardinals. Hand in hand with militant faggots and lesbians, singing the song of “inclusiveness” in the new “age of Mercy”.
Enjoy their company. You will see it is going to continue for very long after you die.
This beggars belief, but is apparently true. Some of the American Cardinals in Rome had already started to organise daily briefings with the US press.
So, before the election of a Pope the Cardinals take a short rest from their daily activities to have a chat with their buddies, the journalists, and keep in touch with the folks at home.
Cool, man. Or, as Cardinal Dolan would say, “that's a biggie, dude”.
One cannot escape the suspicion the Cardinals are talents stolen to the stage. I'd have thought better of Wuerl, but not after the matter with Father Guarnizo after all.
The impression remains of people interested mainly in a stage, and unable to resist the temptation of the media circus of the year.
President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better. Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage. I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.
In a moment of desperation, you may think only Catholic bishops may be so ill with political correctness as to suspend one of their own because he had the temerity of defending Christian values, as Cardinal Wuerl did with poor Father Guarnizo. Still, a moment of quiet reflection would then rapidly persuade you if the Only Church has such people, the church imitations scattered around will probably not be immune from them.
This is what has now happened with the organisation calling herself “Church of England”. The churchofenglanders apparently have “lay preachers”, and I assume these are people who talk at length to their faithful about Christianity, probably outside of a liturgical setting.
From what I understand, the status of lay preachers must be reviewed and confirmed every year; which makes sense, because if the lay preacher has left his wife to live more uxorio with the fruity coworker, or suddenly start to talk about the holiness of so-called civil partnerships, even the CoErs will probably decide to put an end to his preaching. Up to here, all should be rather logical.
Where things become somewhat surprising is where a chap who has been a lay-preacher for 50 years is suddenly suspended because he dared to defend marriage. The heretical, but rather well-written blog Cranmer informs us a lay preacher for 50 years was suspended just for that. This being the so-called church of England things were, of course, rather slimy, and more than a bit oily.
Let us see the concatenation of events: lay preacher suggests the faithful support the coalition for marriage; some other lay preachers disagree with him (Yes! Yes!! They disagree with him!.. I know!!) and then run to the prof to say how wicked he was. The prof (in this case calling himself archdeacon; but this is irrelevant, as they all have no valid orders anyway) then informs the poor chap he is suspended for two months; no wait, this is the so-called coE, and nothing is made openly and with clear words. The poor preacher is, then, told he is not to preach for two months, but he is not suspended; erm, well, not really, is he now? He just can’t preach, which is different… of course…. I mean…. right?
This “suspension that is a suspension” is ordered so that the controversy may abate, but the unChristian lay preachers are not suspended.
When above mentioned Cranmer (the blogger) points out to the fact, the matter enlarges itself. In the meantime, the poor lay preacher silenced for being Christian and defending marriage (which is the official position of the so-called c of E, so far as they can ever have a position) has recurred to the head master (in the c of E, they call themselves “bishops”; see above) and the headmaster has said the prof hasn’t really suspended the pupil, has he now…. and we only want to give everyone time to reflect… and we shouldn’t quarrel about such secondary things as Christian values… so divisive, you see…. and yes, he can’t speak, but really this is not due to him being a Christian, but is rather to do with…erm…aahh.. other issues….
Really, who does this head master think he is: Cardinal Wuerl?
To a simple mind like mine, Father Guarnizo is right because he has done what every good priest, in every age of the Church, would have done in his place.
Alas, it would seem that just because Canon 915 was written in order to achieve exactly the aim the Church wanted to achieve without Canon 915 for almost two thousand years, it is now allowed or even mandatory to examine whether really, really, really all conditions called for by Canon 915 to refuse communion were present.
I truly wonder. It is as if in front of a canonical text people would say “let us stop thinking for a moment, and let us examine the dispositions of the Canon as if they existed in a purely theoretical vacuum”. The fact is, they don’t. They exist in the real world, and they exist to express a need that was there before Canon 915 was written, and because of which it was written in the first place. When in presence of a lesbian who openly declares her homosexual relationship to a priest before a ceremony consisting of, among others, a couple of dozen of her relatives there are still doubts whether said priest should protect the Host from desecration, I truly wonder what has become of us.
Still, in case you are not satisfied with what the basic common sense and the Christian logic of the last two thousand years should have suggested you, and want to spend some time reading a very detailed, extremely well argued and, most importantly, adherent to common sense and common Catholic feeling explanation of canon 915, you have to do nothing more than to click the following links:
Both text are absolutely impressive not only in the rigorous logic and spotless foundation of every steps he takes, but in the exemplary clarity of the language used. Whoever he is, this Fr Anonymous is a cannon.
The arguments used as clarification in the second post are, in my eyes, clear enough already from the reading of the first post, so that you may skip the second post without detriment to the clarity of Fr Anonymous’ argument. For example, in my eyes the idea a woman would live in a lesbian relationship with another woman at the point of bringing her “lover” to her mother’s funeral, but without her lesbian concubinage being known among her siblings and relatives – at the latest at the funerals, and applying basic common sense a long time before – is completely preposterous. Beside the fact we do not exactly have to do with a shy wallflower here, when things have come to such a point of brazenness if you would pretend with me the relatives didn’t know and – even in this absurd case – wouldn’t know at the funeral at the latest I would seriously ask you what’s wrong with you. From the beginning, it seems to me that basic common sense was the first victim of this controversy.
Still, the two posts give a clear, detailed explanation of why Father Guarnizo acted in conformity of Canon 915 (which is as to say: why Canon 915 does nothing else than translate in a canonical norm elementary Christian rules of behaviour concerning the Most Blessed Sacrament). You will find the reading extremely interesting not only because so well written, but because so intrinsically sound.
Fr Anonymous raises a second question, the conformity to Canon law of the measures taken against Fr Guarnizo. I have not dealt about it here, but the argument in favour of Father Guarnizo is not less cogent than in the matter of his denying communion to the lesbian female.
Once again, this squabble reminded me of one of Father Corapi’s most lovable quotes (also to be found in my “quotable Catholic”):
My grandmother, who had only an eighth grade education, knew more than many theologians because she knew the truth.
Excellent blog post from George Neumayr at the American Spectator (a magazine I link to; there aren’t many).
In the Guarnizo affair, it appears Wuerl was the real engine of Father Guarnizo’s, well, undeserved punishment, and the man on whom the blame must be apportioned. I wasn’t there, of course, but as I tend to believe (sinner that I am) a priest with a spotless reputation rather than a lesbian wannabe Buddhist activist, and there’s no doubt in my mind Guarnizo did what he had to do, did it as quietly as he could, and is now punished for having acted as a true priest should.
Some of the most interesting passages from this interesting blog post:
Cardinal Wuerl’s silence is deafening. He still hasn’t commented directly on his baldly unjust “administrative leave” order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. Nor has he explained to the faithful why Barbara Johnson, the self-described practicing lesbian and Buddhist to whom Fr. Guarnizo properly denied Communion, enjoys a canonical right to the sacred species.
Perversely, Cardinal Wuerl has at once violated the canonical rights of a faithful priest while inventing out of thin air a “policy” that orders his subordinates to distribute the Eucharist to anti-Catholic activists and defiant mortal sinners.
The word “pastoral” should make the faithful groan at this point. It is one of the great weasel words of the “spirit of Vatican II” Church in America. The word “pastoral” invariably dribbles from the lips of bishops like Cardinal Wuerl who regularly expose their flocks to wolves. Jesus Christ said that the “good shepherd” watches the gate. Cardinal Wuerl’s “policy” is to leave it wide open for the Church’s fiercest enemies. This is why the Pelosis and the Barbara Johnsons just keep coming up for Communion. Since Cardinal Wuerl refuses to control the sacrament, they will.
A Church official who has watched Wuerl’s persecution of Fr. Guarnizo with horror commented to me that if Jesus Christ had served in Cardinal Wuerl’s archdiocese “he would be on administrative leave too.” Unlike the Cardinal Wuerls, Christ never felt the need to play patty cake with the enemies of the Church. He liked struggling sinners but not unrepentant ones who seek to defile his temple.
I have no desire to participate in this worldly game of ring-kissing in which the Cardinal Wuerls wallow. They enjoy the trappings of their office without actually exercising it for the good of souls. They demand 13th-century obedience while behaving like 21st-century flakes who play church in costume and staff.
As St. Augustine said, God does not need our “lies.” He needs our truth-telling, even if that truth-telling means wounding the egos of derelict successors to his disciples.
Kudos to Mr Neumayr and the American Spectator. This culture of “sensitivity” has to stop, and be replaced with a culture of Catholicity instead.
What being “sensitive” leads to is under everyone’s eyes.