Just because it's funny and nuts and people take him seriously. Seriously.

Fr. Z's Peace Plan...

So, what to do about North Korea?

Since this blog is probably being monitored by teams from about 17 national security agencies, here’s my idea! 

• Make a deal with China: they annex NOKO.

• Convince Seoul to agree or at least shut up about it.

• Give China money to feed the NOKOs for 2-3 years.

• China allows US and South Korea to invest in economic and commercial infrastructure in China’s new province/protectorate.

• Result: China gets buffer state it can control (better than it can now), the West get’s a place to invest, and the world is rid of a threat.

So, fellas, kick the idea upstairs and see what happens.  This might be better than death and destruction. 

And to the teams from the agencies, who probably also watch me through my phone, as I’ve said before, if you send me your addresses, I’ll send you some pizzas!  Deal? - Fr. Z

Really?

Just don't look at the flash and you'll be fine. 

Reading online mystics ... and other potential triggers.

Nosturdamnbiznus

Yesterday I was reading an online mystic.

Something happens when I do that.  I suppose it's like going to an apparition site and being so moved, after you get home you start having locutions or even visions ... and messages to fill a book.

So anyway - I wanted to post an earthquake warning but wasn't real clear about where it would happen.  Then, while searching Google for fun gifs, I came across Franco Zeffirelli, who has been on my mind lately - for whatever reason.  To make a long story short, I was curious if he had died without my having heard about it.  I discovered he is 93 - he was born the same year as my parents, 1923.  My parents are dead - so I'm thinking he may not have a long time to live.  Which explains my post suggesting he may need our prayers.  I am serious about that - he's one of my favorite artists in the world - and I really do pray for him.

I unconsciously phrased the request the way I did because I think I had been influenced by an online mystic and I just wanted to see if I would be 'right' about Zeffirelli.

Still confused?  Think I'm crazy?

I was reading an online mystic who talks about things to come ... the presidential elections, the economy, the US dollar, China, Obama, bad weather, and so on.  He wrote some stuff demonstrating he had been 'right' about this and that, as well as posting a couple of clarifications on predictions yet to materialize - just in case they don't turn out the way he predicted.  He also modestly boasted that old cronies, business friends, political friends, and others are coming around, admitting he was 'right' about this or that, and asking what they should do now - which is such a boost to his credibility - right?*

. . .

After reading enough of that stuff,  I kind of get in the mood and issue my own warnings sometimes.  One of these days I just might be 'right' too.

Here's my latest prediction:

Beer will soon flow in the streets of La Crosse, Wisconsin; beer will flow from all sides, people will act in unusual ways, almost as if they were drunk - pandemonium will ensue and all will be in tumult ... Yet just as quickly, the rescue will be made manifest.   I'm thinking the chaos will commence somewhere between the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and the Feast of the Guardian Angels, 2016.  

Remember - you heard it here first.

Refugees fleeing La Crosse

It could happen.

*If a prophet wants to be right or modestly boasts that he was right, chances are his prophecies are his own and not from God.  I might be wrong - but I don't need to be 'right'.

I think I'm beginning to believe in conspiracy theories ...

As the cesspools overflow: Father Dwight Longenecker knocks it out of the park!

It appears the inmates in the asylum 

have clogged the system with toilet tissue 

and their own brand of 'fishwrap'.

Cesspool Maintenance Tips

Father Dwight Longenecker asks if the radical traditionalist blogosphere is not only “a cesspool,” but an asylum for Catholic crazies. - Crux

Fr. Longenecker is one courageous priest and I will never ever criticize him again.  Ever!  I'm serious.  He's pretty much covered the online clogged cesspool problem - unfortunately, Father doesn't have a solution on how to flush out the sludge that has accumulated at the bottom and unclog the system.  As the article says, some Catholic blogs may be cesspools, but saying so won't help.  One fills up, and another one opens - so it's really all about waste management... but I digress, as they say in Rome.

Although I'm glad Fr. Longenecker identified the most problematic cesspools.  It's a dirty job but someone has to do it thus Father offers a bit of history here:

-source-

In February 2015 Rosica’s lawyer threatened to sue Canadian blogger David Domet. Domet blogs at Vox Cantoris and is a member of a clan of traditionalist bloggers who trade in sensational accusations about the Catholic Church, of which they claim to be faithful defenders.

Michael Voris’ Church Militant website jumped to Domet’s defense, a major tempest in a teapot blew up, and Rosica’s lawyer backed off. 

The traditionalists continued their campaign against Rosica on a variety of other fronts, putting him firmly in their crosshairs. 

Are Rosica’s criticisms fair, or is he just licking his wounds and nursing a grudge against sensible, holy and well-meaning Catholic conservatives? Perhaps it is worth letting these folks speak for themselves. 

A quick click through David Domet’s Vox Cantoris blog reveals a few common themes. The Holy Father is consistently disrespected, referring to him as “Jorge Bergoglio.” This is common usage across radical traditionalist websites and blogs. 

Does this qualify as a “cesspool of venom and vitriol”? Maybe not. But dig a bit deeper into radical traditionalist sites such as Michael Matt’s The Remnant, Steve Skojec’s 1Peter5, or Anne Barnhardt’s blog, and Rosica’s words will not seem like an exaggeration. 

Anne Barnhardt, refers to Pope Francis as a “diabolical narcissist,” and in an interview at Creative Minority Report calls the pope a “fag hag.” 

The anonymous Mundabor, like most of the radical blogs, calls for Amoris Laetitia to be withdrawn and ponders how a heretical pope might be deposed, while Barnhardt, writing here at The Remnant,writes an incendiary and ludicrous article calling for “all bishops who are true Catholics” to rise up and depose Jorge Bergoglio. - Crux

I sincerely mean this when I say, thank you Fr. Longenecker for having the courage to write this commentary.  I'm an unknown crackpot with a website, so I have nothing to boast about, but pointing out these crazies online is a work of mercy.  God bless you!

You'll need it - because the s--t is going to hit the fan now.

Song for this post here.

Stray thoughts: Man Crises Intervention - Dress Like a Man for Mass.

Mr. Catholic

Suit and tie required.  

For Mass.

If men dress like a man that means suit and tie.

For Mass.

Many are beginning to recognize the severe Catholic “man-crisis” and the necessary imperative to aggressively “emangelize” Casual Catholic Men. While new ardor, methods and expressions are needed from the Pope to the parish priest, laymen need to step up to their personal responsibility and respond to Christ’s commandment to make disciples. 

But the average Catholic man who is beginning to take Christ seriously about His call for all men to bring Him disciples, might be at a loss: “How can I evangelize other Catholic men? I haven’t been taught.” 

For those men (and all men), here is a simple but powerful way to immediately begin to make a difference: Dress like a man for Mass. - Finish reading here.

There's more to it than that of course, as the author details in his essay.

It sounds so 'Stepford' to me however.  Perfect uniformity, safe and secure in your parish.  Wife perfectly coiffured, dressed modestly in a dress, hat or mantilla covering her long uncut hair appropriately tamed in a French twist, kids all spit and polished in really smart clothes - polished shoes.  Nothing wrong with that.  Protestants do it.

They will know we are Christians by the way we dress.

A lot of guys have said one reason they don't go to church is because people are always watching to see what others are wearing.  Maybe modern Catholic Evangelicals haven't heard that before.

A suit is pretty much a corporate uniform in the eyes of ordinary people.  Some people don't even own a suit.  Just saying.

First place at banquets.

Something is off with Catholic Evangelicals.  There seems to be a Protestant ethic about them which I have trouble recognizing as Catholic - a sort of Prosperity Gospel mentality seems to have pervaded contemporary Catholic evangelization.  To put it bluntly, I had this to say to a couple of friends concerning a similar topic ...

There's something which strikes me as rather phony about some of these Catholic evangelists - something businessy, a little too well heeled, a little too commercial perhaps. It seems to me they place their trust in organizational skills, based upon business models and strategies, projecting goals/growth strategies. They get air time on Relevant Radio, they're showcased on EWTN, then launch themselves onto the lecture circuit. Catholicism becomes a career. They get awards and accolades for their work. They initiate surveys and institutes for special studies ... they run the Church like a business and they profit from it. Something is off.

How to get men back to Mass and why...

Gotz family to raise.

Song for this post here.

Dirty low-down ... The F-word online and other vulgarities.

Chester-cat-ton

Where to start?

Recently I watched some deleted scenes from Seth Rogen's film, The Interview, one of the worst films ever made BTW.  The scenes contained a constant use of the F-word and other vulgarities - much worse than some Catholic blogs ...

Which prompts me to ask:  Why do you people have to use the F-word when you write your egregious posts?

What?

Transgender issues.

I think I am as repelled by transvestite/transgender stories - including transgender celebrities - as most ordinary men and women are repelled by the very notion of homosexual sex.  (I too regard homosexual acts as repellent.)  I guess what I'm trying to say, without any self-righteousness, is that transgender-ism is completely foreign to me - and literally disgusting.  Hence my inability to discuss intelligently the Bruce Jenner story, which aired last Friday evening.  Jenner did not impress me as someone sane - in fact, if he hadn't stressed how serious he is, I would have thought the interview was a stunt.

Nevertheless, I can't speak to the issue because I honestly don't understand it and I find it repulsive.  Trans-stuff has been around for a long time - I've known men who became women.  I went to school with one guy.  I never hung out with these people.  I always viewed drag as a joke - the serious drag queens I considered as freaks.  I simply had nothing to do with them.  When I heard that some of the guys I knew went in for the surgery, I thought it was a gross deception.  When I heard their stories discussed in documentaries, my visceral reaction was that their life stories were creepy - like a Steven King novel.

Self-referential trans-analysis.

Yesterday I came upon an analysis of Jenner's psychological state.  The person writing seemed to rely on some sort of gay diagnostic system purporting to explain what happened in Jenner's childhood to make him this way.  One can't do that without all the facts; medical, pharmaceutical, therapeutic and psychological analysis, the subject's diagnosis history, and so on, are necessary to discover what may have happened to cause him to choose such a drastic life-style change.  Not even a professional therapist, psychologist-psychiatrist, who never met Jenner could do that.  We can't diagnose or judge a person based upon our limited personal experience - be it gay or straight - nor can we compassionate another based solely on clinical research and diagnostics from a biased source.

That said, I came upon a transsexual story written by Walt Heyer, a man who underwent transgender surgery early on, yet lived to regret it, and warn others about it.  If you want to know more about transgender - read a person's account who actually went through the process.  He was not a gay man - like Jenner - he was never attracted to men - hence the diagnostics used in the post I read yesterday, based on homosexual experience, behavior, etc., can't automatically be overlaid onto the pathology of a transgender person.

Heyer's story begins like this:

The dark and troubling history of the contemporary transgender movement, with its enthusiastic approval of gender-reassignment surgery, has left a trail of misery in its wake.

Bruce Jenner and Diane Sawyer could benefit from a history lesson. I know, because I suffered through “sex change” surgery and lived as a woman for eight years. The surgery fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems.

The beginnings of the transgender movement have gotten lost today in the push for transgender rights, acceptance, and tolerance. If more people were aware of the dark and troubled history of sex-reassignment surgery, perhaps we wouldn’t be so quick to push people toward it. - Finish reading here.

Mr. Heyer's story is deeply unsettling.  His experience of childhood abuse - dressed in grandma's clothes - is just plain creepy.  His photos - then and now creep me out.  Like Bruce Jenner's or Chaz Bono's current photos creep me out.  Transgender creeps me out.  I sincerely apologize for having made fun of transgenders - their stories are horror stories on several levels.  Without doubt, the person needs to be accepted and compassionated - a spiritual act of mercy which is very difficult without charity.  I need to pray for charity.

When you write your story, your conversion story online, in a book, on EWTN ...

Try being discreet.  There is an SSA blogger who writes about stuff I never even heard of before - really creepy porno stuff.  Maybe that helps others - but maybe it's like another variation of porn?

Likewise, there's a woman online who had a nearly unbelievable sinful life, she claims she was a pole dancer and slut, had a few kids, put herself through school, married a wonderful man and lives happily ever after as a Catholic notable.  She has kids - I left a comment once on being careful about going into details about her sordid past - because some day the kids will go online and read that mommy was a slut.  I may be mistaken, but the last time I checked, her profile-bio changed - she appears to have cleaned it up.

Pornified lives.

I think people have to practice discretion and not make their blogs into some trashy novel or 'B' movie screenplay - even when it may be an underlying motive for writing.  Many times we write and speak using foul language that is out of place on a Catholic blog.  The following from St. Paul may shed light on what I'm trying to say here:

As for lewd conduct or promiscuousness or lust of any sort, let them not even be mentioned among you; your holiness forbids this. Nor should there be any obscene, silly, or suggestive talk; all that is out of place. Instead, give thanks. Make no mistake about this: no fornicator, no unclean or lustful person--in effect an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with worthless arguments. These are sins that bring God's wrath down on the disobedient; therefore have nothing to do with them. - (Eph 5:3-7)

Clean up your act.

When I read such disingenuous twaddle on your blogs I mistrust your judgement, I question your sincerity, I don't trust your 'witness' and fidelity, and I remind myself that none of us have any authority over the lives of others - and none of us really know what the 'real' problem is - even though we make claims that we do.  Hence, advice bloggers seem to me to be more like snake oil salesmen - with a Donate button.

And I laugh out loud.  I react with nonsensical posts - twaddle of my own - about all the topics you write about with such vigor, hoping to keep your imaginary Henry VIII title of Defender of the Faith.


Song for this post here.

Minneapolis On The Map Again! Little Mogadishu and the terror recruiters are here.

The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis

 is sometimes called "Little Mogadishu."

Right here in Minneapolis.

Six Minnesota men are accused of planning to travel to Syria to help support the Islamic State militant group.

The Department of Justice said the men, who were arrested in two different states Sunday, are all charged with “conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.” Some are facing similar additional federal charges.

“As described in the criminal complaint, these men worked over the course of the last 10 months to join ISIL,” said U.S. Attorney Luger in the news release. “Even when their co-conspirators were caught and charged, they continued to seek new and creative ways to leave Minnesota to fight for a terror group.” - Bring Me the News

I think it might be more accurate to state that Minneapolis has a 'terror recruiting problem'.

This is the city in Minnesota where most Somalis live.

All the headlines say the recruiters are from Minnesota - but they're pretty much centered right here in Minneapolis.  As our Mayor noted recently:

We are also a city of refugees, of people who escaped war and persecution and were welcomed here. Minneapolis is known across the world as a safe harbor for refugees and we should be proud of that history. - Mayor Betsy Hodges, State of the City Address

BTW.  One of Mayor Hodges' main goals for her administration is Minneapolis Climate Champs Challenge.  It's a huge concern. (Freedom to marry is also big on her agenda.)

We know our collective future depends on our ability to have a planet — and a city — that can sustain life with clean air, clean water, nourishing food, and stable weather patterns. - Mayor Hodges

Really?  I'm thinking public safety may need some attention as well.  

Get. Out.

I wonder what brought this on?

Actually, it was the Irish priest who outed himself from the pulpit last weekend.  I mentioned it here.

What was the statistic Jeannine Gramick cited?  40%-50% of priests are gay?  And she and a whole bunch of others think they should all come out.  That doesn't mean they are sexually active - I hope - but either way, if they all Got. Out. who would be left?  What would be left?

I sometimes wrote on how homosexuals weren't supposed to be admitted to seminary or religious life, but despite the rules, they have been admitted and most likely continue to be admitted.  I have no control over that ...  Then there are so many questions.  What if they used to be gay but are now just SSA?  What if they were notoriously gay - but now just have another job that keeps them busy after parish office hours?  What if they are gay and celibate - like gay-Catholics - and the actually say gay?  Then Michael brings up the fact there are gay bishops and gay friendly bishops - then what do you do?  What if you want to report a suspicious priest?  Or request that a Courage chapter be established in the archdiocese and he won't let you because he's against it?  What to do?

What to do Michael Voris?

I just want to be able to receive the sacraments and go to Mass - oh - and when I'm dying, please call a priest.  Make sure it's not a woman though.

If it's not one thing it's another, isn't it?

That Deadly Sin: Greed

'They have abandoned me, the font of living water, and dug for themselves leaky cisterns that cannot hold water.' [Jer. 2:13]

Monsignor Pope writes well about the capital sin of greed, or avarice.  He covers it.  Of course, commenters disagree with him.  We don't like to consider that we, ourselves, may be - probably are - infected with such a tendency...

Too few of us are willing to consider that greed is really a problem we can have. Greed is always something that other guy has.

Of course it doesn’t help that we live in a culture of consumption, which constantly tells us we don’t have enough. The car we’re driving isn’t as good as this other car we could be driving (according to the commercial). And so even though we have a perfectly good car: one that has four wheels, a working engine, and probably even air-conditioning, it still it isn’t good enough, and we are actually drawn to feeling deprived by the clever marketing experts of Madison Avenue. So it is with almost every other product or amenity that is sold to us on a daily basis. Therefore it almost never occurs to most of us that we may have crossed the line somewhere into greed. Despite having even six- and seven-figure incomes, many still feel deprived.

Once again, it’s the other guy that’s greedy; I’m not. It’s a problem that those nasty rich and powerful people have. Never mind that I’m pretty darned rich myself, living in a home with running water, air conditioning, and amenities like granite counter tops and widescreen TVs.

But when do I honestly look at myself and wonder if I am greedy? When do I ever conclude, on a very personal level, that I have more than enough and that I need to be a lot more generous with what has become excessive in my life? When do I ever apply the old precept that if I have two coats, one of them belongs to the poor? And yes, I understand that it’s good to have something laid up for a rainy day. But when do I ever ask myself if I’m really trusting in God, or just trusting in my rainy day fund? When do I ever wonder if I’ve crossed the line?

I realize that some of you who read this post will find it disturbing. Let me assure you, so do I. These are uncomfortable questions. - Monsignor Pope

Greed.

This vice has been on mind recently. I often think of the Gospel passage, "Avoid greed in all of its forms."  There are many forms of greed, many motives, many expressions - which may explain, in part, why it is so difficult to detect in ourselves.

This morning, the prayer from the monthly novena to the Infant Jesus touches upon it:

O Little King, attraction of all hearts, we hail that blessed hour and moment in which you were born of the most pure Virgin Mary in the poverty of Bethlehem.  You did not need earthly pomp or riches, for they could add nothing to your Infinite Majesty.  Teach us that true riches are within and that it is not what we have but what we are that counts. Amen.

Maybe that has little to do with what Monsignor wrote - but like I said, I've been thinking about this a lot.

Some of those thoughts ...

• Bloggers can be greedy for stats and followers, praise and affirmation.  

• Some bloggers who accept donations can up their donation quotas as donations increase.  Enough is never enough.

• Some people online, poor though they may be, flaunt their education, academic degrees, and expertise - which are a form of riches.  They are greedy for the recognition they believe these gifts deserve.

• Michael Voris recently came out with a video advising Catholics not to give their hard earned dollars to the Church, suggesting it is like giving money to an alcoholic.  Though I understand what he is saying, especially in light of church closings and selling off church goods - more often than not, such churches built and appointed on the back of the working-immigrant poor; and considering dubious charitable contributions by the USCCB, as well as money spent on legal issues connected to the sexual abuse crises.  I get it.  Nevertheless, the emphasis is on money.  Voris and his network do fundraising as well.  In this recent contest, the emphasis is placed on money. It appears to always come down to money - which is obviously something highly esteemed by all.

Show me the money.

Then there is the Acton Institute.  I have difficulty understanding priest involvement in the Institute.  I have difficulty understanding why someone who lives on the kindness of strangers, a sort of gyrovague priest, would take such an active interest in the world of finance?  Especially after a comment like this:

"I enjoyed the phrase: “Social Justice” is a catch word for something that I want and therefore the government should provide.  I would add: With someone else’s money." - Fr. Z

They all take donations - they all live on someone else's money.  And they keep asking for more.


"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God."

Historically, the Popes have addressed economic issues, Pope Francis is no different.  Cardinal Dolan recently stepped into the conversation as well - pretty much to soften the effect of what the Pope says upon Americans.  I'm just not sure Cardinal Dolan is on the same page as the Holy Father.

"The Pope's critiques have direct relevance to economic inequality and injustice that clearly exist in the United States today," says Jesuit Fr. David Hollenbach, professor of human rights and international justice at Boston College. The cardinal "needs to reflect on the extraordinary growth of inequality of income and wealth in the United States when he suggests that Pope Francis' criticisms of capitalism do not apply in this country."

"Cardinal Dolan misses what Pope Francis sees so clearly," Father Christiansen says. "The growth of inequality everywhere including the U.S. is a result of American-style capitalism and the financialization of the economy." He continues:

Stagnation in wage growth and the trickle-up economy has shrunk the U.S. middle class and hollowed out the economic power of those who remain in it. Pope Francis understands this when he links addressing poverty to reversing inequality.

For generations, Catholic social teaching has understood and taught that improving the condition of the poor means holding inequality in check. Thanks be to God, that Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have underscored that teaching in the most emphatic ways.

Unfortunately, too many well-to-do Catholics prefer getting their economic ethics from the Acton Institute rather than the Vatican.  - NCR

All of our works are tainted by avarice.

Greed is a deadly sin - it eats away the soul.  It places conditions upon charity and marginalizes those most in need.

Avoid greed in all of its forms.

These greedy persons fall into all kinds of sins out of love for temporal goods, and the harm they suffer is indeterminable. 

The avaricious man, because of temporal goods, is unconcerned about setting his heart on God's law, and consequently his will, memory, and intellect wander far from God, and he forgets him, as though he were not his God at all.  The reason is that he has made gods out of temporal goods and money.  St. Paul indicates this in declaring that avarice is a form of idolatry. [Col. 3:15]

Many in the world today, their reason darkened through covetousness, serve money and not God, and they are motivated by money rather than by God, and they give first consideration to the temporal price and not to the divine value and reward.  In countless ways they make money their principal god and goal and give it precedence to God, their ultimate end.

Likewise included in this category are all those miserable souls who value earthly goods as their god and are so enamored of them that they do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives when they observe that this god of theirs undergoes some temporal loss.  They despair and commit suicide for wretched reasons, and demonstrate with their own hands the miserable reward that comes from such a god.  Since there is nothing to hope for from him, he gives despair and death." - John of the Cross, Ascent, Bk III, Ch 20

Song for this post here.

Going out to the existential peripheries...

The so-called 'New Homophiles'.  

I haven't quite been able to understand them.  Thanks to the new video series the group is developing, and listening to their conversation - which is easier to understand than some of their writing and which can be challenging at times - many of my reservations have been quieted.  (I still don't like 'genderqueer' - but I kinda sorta get the intent.)  "They" may not all be comfortable with everything either.  From Joseph Prever, aka Steve Gershom:

My own position within the Side B world is, I think, a little weird. Ruse’s piece made me uncomfortable and annoyed, largely because it made us seem more heterodox than we are. Some Side B stuff, on the other hand, makes me uncomfortable and worried, because bits of it bear the smell of, or the smell of the danger of, self-deception: the line between “my homosexuality is a gift and a blessing because of all the gifts and blessings that have come with it” and “my homosexuality, per se, is a gift” is blurrier than I’d like. In some cases it’s not blurry at all, but just nonexistent. I don’t think I’m okay with that, but I have yet to formulate exactly why. - Source

It all kind of clicked for me when Eve Tushnet describe the church she attends in Washington.  She described it as a faithful Catholic church where all sorts of same sex attracted people attend - including some who may not be comfortable with the entire content of Catholic teaching on sexuality - yet.  The point is they are there and people like Tushnet and the others are there to meet gay people where they are at in today's reality.

It's very Franciscan - in the Pope Francis sense.*  It seems to me they are on the peripheries.  I'm more a Courage kind of guy, but there is room in the Church for another approach - so long as it is faithful.  Especially if we want avoid 'tying up burdens too hard to carry - without lifting a finger to help them' for people.  It's a different approach than Courage - but I don't think their work is a negation of Courage - just another approach.  I say that, because their video conversations really sounds like stuff Courage people discuss, and certainly what many young people discuss when it comes to living chastely and celibately.

I had a really nice lady write to me about one of her children who recently 'came out'.  That's a critical time for someone - especially the new found sense of freedom one experiences.  Naturally, most people see the Church as restrictive and rejecting to gay people.  My friend is worried, as any parent would be.  What to do?  Someone just coming out may not be ready, or interested in the Courage format when they 'just come out' - but they might be inclined to listen to - or at least watch the videos offered by the Sexual Authenticity-Spiritual Friendship group.   It may help them understand they are not excommunicated for discovering in themselves an a homosexual inclination or attraction.  (Courage doesn't teach that either, but neophytes may still be in identity celebration mode, and not interested in being told, "don't say you are gay".)

That said, I think we have to avoid segregating people and groups.  Our evangelization efforts should not be 'sectarian' as it were, or devolve into factions such as the EF vs OF Mass issue.  My point with this post is to point out that I see nothing contrary to Catholic teaching in the videos promoted by this group.  Not long ago I was accused of  being a 'new homophile' - a term now becoming more or less pejorative - so I know what it feels like to be accused of not being a faithful Catholic or embracing some sort of 'homo-heresia'.  I may not agree with everything these folks say or how they express themselves, I may not always understand it, but I believe they are faithful and uphold Catholic teaching in their work.

*I want to include some things Fr. Paul Check said in an interview not long ago, which may be helpful in understanding where I'm coming from - Fr. Check was commenting on something the Holy Father said, and I think what Fr. Check said may relate to the Spiritual Friendship group:

Fr. Paul Check is Director of Courage Apostolate, and in a recent interview with CNA, Fr. Check shares his insight into what the Holy Father may have intended with his comment. Fr. Check's words are very helpful and may offer a more spiritually hospitable and conciliatory understanding of the attitude taken by the Holy Father, while putting at ease those who think the Pope made a mistake - or was indicating a change in Church teaching.

In the Scriptures, Jesus does not hesitate to teach doctrine and basic truths to large groups, as in the sermon on the mount. Yet he also “engages people in another way, a very personal way, one at a time.”

“I think that the emphasis Pope Francis is bringing to us right now is on the second way: very personally, listening to people and speaking with them and 'walking with' them, guiding them, bringing them to Christ,” explained Fr. Check.

“I am not an authoritative interpreter of the Pope's comments,” he cautioned, “but here's the way I understand them.”

The priest then turned to the story of Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well who has had five husbands.

“Our Lord knows well that there is a moral question here that's involved, and indeed it's a chastity question. The woman is living in an 'irregular' way. But he doesn’t begin the conversation with her about the moral problem. Instead, he talks with her about her interest – and more than her interest, her desire for God.”

“So he engages her in a very personal way about something that is already resident in her heart…he speaks with her about God, and then he speaks with her about the life of God…(and) also about her desire for eternal life, which is something that we all have,” Fr. Check continued.

Jesus “engages her in this very lovely sequence, and he keeps the conversation going with her until he reaches that point when it is appropriate to say, and when she can receive, what it is that she’s about to hear about the irregular condition in which she’s living, and she doesn’t deny it.”

“But he has established a relationship with her, and I think this is very much what our Holy Father is suggesting: that we are to walk with people, to get to know them, (although) of course, we don’t have the benefit of knowing what’s in someone’s heart the way that Jesus does, so all the more reason that we have to take care,” Fr. Check noted.

“I think that personal engagement, the walking with, is something that he is proposing,” and “I think the Holy Father is very prudent and charitable in wanting to think about how people receive the message of the gospel today and to find ways in which that teaching can be announced in a way that people can receive it.” - Finish reading here.

When Pope Francis talks about evangelization, he acknowledges there will be mistakes - but they can be corrected. Pope Benedict said something similar when speaking of priests who work in youth ministry, that in searching for a way to convey Church teaching sometimes mistakes are made - but they can be corrected. Sounds a bit lenient in our day when errors abound, but 'that's the way love goes'... I think.

Just a reminder:  I'm a Roman Catholic, a single man - I'm not part of any group, sect, movement or cult.  Every thing here is simply my personal opinion and observation.

Honey!  This sounds like a cult!

What?

The Development of Doctrine and Forming a Synthesis of Homosexuality ...

 

Locating The Missing Myth.

Which is the title of a new book by Giles Herrada, PhD.

Gilles Herrada, PhD, worked as a research scientist at Columbia and Harvard universities in the fields of reproductive biology and neuroscience. He now dedicates his time to understanding human sexuality and the evolution of symbolic realities in human cultures.

The “missing myth” needs to be invented.

 The gay Catholic movement* - new homophiles ;) - may be way ahead of Dr. Herrada, if not in sync.  Not that it's necessarily a bad thing - except when people claim medieval mystics were gay and the authors of a gay spirituality.**  But that's an old post.

The Missing Myth is an interesting study - I've only read reviews and excerpts so far, but I'm certain it will be helpful to those interested in contributing to the development of doctrine as it applies to Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality, as well as for those interested in developing a new mythology of homosexuality.

There are 9 controversial claims in The Missing Myth ...  (My comments in red.)

1 Biological and anthropological data do not support the existence of a “gay” gene but are consistent with the existence of a complex biological mechanism (the “loose switch”) responsible for generating the spectrum of sexual preferences that we observe among people.

2 Homosexual behavior has provided a startling evolutionary advantage by reinforcing social bonds and strengthening the coherence of the group.

3 The claim that homosexual can’t or don’t reproduce is inaccurate: historically speaking homosexual desire never was regarded as incompatible with the duty of reproduction; and even today many homosexuals would reproduce if only society would let them invent a new kind of family that is not based on the heterosexual model. - That's happening now. 

4 The way homosexual acts, love, and desire are represented in the myths of a particular culture constitutes the only trustworthy indicator of whether homosexual relationships are integrated or not in this culture.

5 Diverging from all other religious traditions, Judeo-Christianity is singularized by the total lack of positive depiction of homosexual love and desire in its mythos. - That's because homosexual behavior is a sin.

6 Today homosexual love still lacks a connection to the “sacred”. - I wonder why?  I'm being facetious of course.  Not to worry however, gay Catholics are developing a queer spirituality .

7 Modern homosexuality, which differs dramatically from all ancient forms of homosexual relationships, has evolved so as to largely embodies the modern Christian relational ideal, a fact that neither the Church nor gay theorists appear willing to acknowledge.  - Not true - gay Catholics are hard at it.

8 Ironically the strong homophobic character of Judeo-Christian culture created the evolutionary context that made the emergence of modern homosexuality possible. - I blame the Cistercians, Aelred and Bernard.**  Evidently their mysticism is very adaptable to LGBTQ sensitivities.  What?  Facetious again.

9 The greatest evolutionary puzzle about the human species is not homosexuality but menopause: most women past 50—nearly a quarter of the female population—cannot reproduce. - Source

 “What is the new mythology to be, the mythology of this unified earth as one harmonious whole?”  - Joseph Campbell.





*My apologies for depending upon labels, but I have no other choice when it comes to this subject.
 

The New Homophiles and the Old Uranians

Untitled, Henry Scott Tuke

The third way...

Austin Ruse wrote a very good article on the 'new' homophiles - gay-faithfully chaste and celibate Catholics who identify as gay.  Some of the new homophiles mentioned replied they were amused, disturbed, angry, at first - but then Austin Ruse politely replied to their objections, and/or concern, explaining that he was making forming his judgments based on the literature they have produced.  Indeed, I liked Ruse's approach and analysis, as well as his conclusion that this new 'movement' bears watching.

It gets so complicated when we discuss anything gay, queer, SSA -  it all becomes very tiresome.

Of course, there are good things being discussed and explored by the 'new faithful-gay-Catholics' who have written books and online articles on the issue of same sex friendship and non-genital intimacy.  It's quite good - although with some of the writers, the ordinary reader must wade through a great deal of intellectual-philosophical discussion - not unlike the complexity of research associated with Theology of the Body.  If they are writing for an exclusively academic audience, that is fine - but it becomes a tad esoteric, even gnostic for my gay relatives on the East Side of St. Paul, not to mention some of my Beauty School, Art and Design graduate friends.  They aren't interested in religion anyway, nor would they be interested in such research, so I suppose it isn't an issue.

Much of the discussion on spiritual friendship is quite good, but it seems to me it can at times, become unnecessarily complex.  Speaking rather subjectively, often times some of the writers from this movement lay out arguments how (their) younger generation are very comfortable with same sex friendships, just as they are with opposite sex friendships - that neither pose any danger to chastity or romantic intimacy.  Evidently some church people have said such close friendships can be an occasion of sin.  (Straight Catholics have the same issues BTW.)

Nothing new here.  The acceptance and practice of close, intimate friendships is not exclusively something younger people have discovered and excel at.  It is completely naïve, if not exclusive to make such a claim.  I grew up enjoying very close friendship with males and females.  We traveled together, slept together, lived together - no sex, no physical intimacy - no problems.  We are all still friends - some have families, others remain single, and since we live in different parts of the country, some of us no longer get together as we once did, but we keep in touch.  Some of us are gay, some bi-sexual, but the majority are heterosexual.  No one identifies by their sexual orientation.  Each is comfortable with their gender ... and perhaps there lies the difference between the new homophiles and the old.  But that's another post.

Speaking of old...

Ever hear of the Uranians?   (Not anything from Uranus, however.)  The new homophiles should be familiar with this late 19th century movement.  Like some of the prominent new homophiles, the 'prominent Uranians were trained Classicists'.

I know of the Uranian movement because of my art studies.  In my research I came across the artist Henry Scott Tuke and his figural work (shown at top).  He painted nude males, mostly adolescent, but his work is not homoerotic, though it is highly esteemed by gay men, both in the artist's lifetime, as well as today.

Tuke's work strikes me as rather innocent, he never painted erotic images and rarely painted boys showing genitalia.  In fact, what he does very well is that he portrays same sex friendship uncorrupted - and natural.  I find the life of Tuke interesting - though he had gay friends, I've come across nothing to suggest that he engaged in homosexual activity.  So I'm not sure Tuke would have considered himself to be Uranian, nor would he have intended his work to be pederastic* - I may be misinformed however.  If he did, I hope he repented like Oscar Wilde.

If I may, I'd like to suggest another possible reason why some gay Catholics seek to develop a particular gay-spirituality of same sex friendship, which may have something to do with a classic symptom in homosexuals (men) - that is, an inability or difficulty in forming healthy, nonsexual friendships with the same sex.  Natural, healthy same sex friendship is a source of healing and wholeness for those with SSA, and I think it should be encouraged, not discouraged.  Having a man-crush is one thing, and it's natural - pursuing it or fantasizing romantically about it is disordered.  But that's also another post.

"To have altered my life would have been to have admitted that Uranian love is ignoble. I hold it to be noble - more noble than other forms." - Oscar Wilde*

So what is it?  Definition of Uranian, from Wiki - for the sake of brevity:

Uranian is a 19th-century term that referred to a person of a third sex—originally, someone with "a female psyche in a male body" who is sexually attracted to men, and later extended to cover homosexual gender variant females, and a number of other sexual types. - Source

Today it is called 'queer'.  Queer is the third way.  There are queer Catholics who dissent from Church teaching and there are queer Catholics who are faithful to Catholic teaching and accept that homosexual acts are sinful.  Then of course, there are SSA Catholics who refuse to identify as gay or queer, and who live an ordered life of celibacy and chastity - just like the new homophiles, only the SSA's most often can be associated with Courage Apostolate, an organization the new homophiles are not comfortable with.  I could discuss that further, but I cannot take the time to do so right now.  Suffice it to say that many of the complaints about Courage suggest that well adjusted queer folk just do not need a support group, and so they formed their own - for normal gay people.

I've often speculated that gay people, especially gay Catholics like to think of themselves as a unique species - not unlike the Uranians, and within that paradigm, each person is a particular species - so no one may actually type them or generalize about them - unless they happen to be part of their movement.  It's difficult to ever pin them down however.

Their approach to spiritual friendship seems to me to tend toward the idealized and romantic, and in this they sometimes resemble another late 19th century movement, the Pre-Raphaelites, who imaged an idyllic chivalry.  At any rate, I can't help feel a few of the new homophiles are somewhat elitist and exclusive, not admitting challengers to their theory and research, and never, ever those 'parroting' traditional Catholic teaching.  Though they bend over backwards to be charitable, they can be rather condescending in their assertions.  That is not to condemn them, nor am I suggesting they are not having an impact for the good - insofar as softening the Church's official tone on homosexuality.  Gay Catholic dissenters have also had a similar impact, whether one is willing to admit it or not.  The 'new homophiles' have been rather well received by a number of churchmen - especially those who coincidentally, may not appreciate Courage Apostolate either.

Nonetheless, as Austin Ruse concluded in his essay, "The conversation is fascinating ..."


*Interestingly enough, the delectation for adolescent boys demonstrates something quite common to homosexual men, don't you agree?  Especially considering the sex scandals that keep popping up.  It is what happened to that monastery in Sketis...
 

The Contagion of Catholic Scorn for Pope Francis.

It isn't just so-called 'liberals' who can be accused of trying 'to build a wall between Francis and Benedict'.

Catholics who dislike Francis are accusing the Pope of 'snarky comments' during his homilies at Mass.  They wonder who he is talking about? 

He fills his own daily fervorini with snarky comments about hard to identify groups of people.

Other critics are compiling lists for The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults.

Others say he 'makes digs' at people and economic systems.

Commenters on blogs actually question the Holy Father's sanity and intelligence.

I do seriously wonder if he has dementia. "Rambling" is the kindest one can say about some of the utterances.

Reminds me of something I read elsewhere:

How the Devil works to undermine and reduce the priest and priesthood (and papacy)!  People are all to willing to do the Devil’s work when it comes to this sine qua non of our salvation and God’s plan.

+ + +

 

Sometimes we may not know of what spirit we speak.

 

Worse than that, sometimes we do, insisting we have a right to do so.  Over the years I've known many devout Catholics who knew more than the Pope - some even boasted they were more Catholic than the Pope.  I encountered such people during the reigns of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.  Some of them were priests and religious, and some of them abandoned their vows, frequently because they knew more than the Pope.

 

Many more were laity.  Well educated in theology and dogma.  One friend left to join a Protestant group.  I remember how surprised I was after he wrote to me how wrong Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin was.  At one time the poor man claimed contemplative graces from God in prayer - and he was most likely correct.

 

Another woman I knew - exorcised from demons, she claimed - a faithful follower of a rather charismatic, albeit strictly traditionalist, deliverance priest, she too abandoned the Church.  She studied and knew all the encyclicals and especially the Syllabus of Errors - nearly by heart - she 'searched the documents for eternal life', and used what she found to condemn those who didn't measure up.  She condemned Pope John Paul II as a heretic.  She told people who didn't measure up to her standards that they were going straight to hell, with all their protestant relatives.  She literally wore her religion on her sleeve, draping herself in medals and crucifixes and scapulars, etc..  She had a big orthodox voice online at one time.  Then one day - she blew it all off and returned to her old religion, Wicca.

 

I've known guys who have gone in and out of the SSPX like a revolving door.  I've know great defenders of the faith, who condemned every misstep of the clergy and the bishops, even going so far as to attribute to themselves the Pauline boast "I opposed [Peter] to his face" - who have fallen away. 

 

Most of the people of whom I speak have fallen away.  Some went to Protestant churches, some went to the SSPX or another Catholic break-away group.  A couple went to the Orthodox, and some simply returned to the vomit of paganism and their former way of life.  At some point in their zeal, they likely scandalized ordinary, faithful, Catholic believers, as well as those just beginning to believe.  Then their 'lights' went out.  Like foolish virgins they went to get more oil, and never came back.

 

Be careful. 

 

We ALL have to be careful!  As St. Paul cautioned:  If you think you are standing strong, be careful not to fall. [1 Cor. 10:12]  We can not only scandalize others and drive them away, or cause them to join in our negative criticism with their own snark, we can even fall away ourselves.  We need to examine ourselves ... every day.

Have my words, actively or passively put down God, the Church or people?   Have I inflicted wounds on the Body of Christ by showing disrespect, dissent or disdain?  Have I mocked online the leadership of the Church—whether it’s my pope, my bishop or my pastor? - Deacon Kandra, Examination of Conscience

I'm guilty.  Christ have mercy. 

On becoming a saint...

Why did the rich young man go away sad?

He asked: "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?"  He obviously kept the commandments - but he was rich... and we all know the rest of the story.  Yet as John Paul II points out, there is a deeper meaning to the question the nameless young man asked: ""Then someone came to him...". In the young man, whom Matthew's Gospel does not name, we can recognize every person who, consciously or not, approaches Christ the Redeemer of man and questions him about morality. For the young man, the question is not so much about rules to be followed, but about the full meaning of life.  [...]  In order to make this "encounter" with Christ possible, God willed his Church. Indeed, the Church "wishes to serve this single end: that each person may be able to find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with each person the path of life".¹⁵

We all ask this question ourselves - we all seek the meaning of life, to understand - especially the moral teachings of the Church, which run contrary to modern culture.  We look for examples of holiness and goodness, to inspire and help us live according to the Gospel - hence we question moral teaching and its apparent limitations.  We want to find someone, something, to support us, to inspire us on the narrow way, which may be in fact, far more constricted than we at first imagined ...

34. "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?". The question of morality, to which Christ provides the answer, cannot prescind from the issue of freedom. Indeed, it considers that issue central, for there can be no morality without freedom: "It is only in freedom that man can turn to what is good".⁵⁶ But what sort of freedom? The Council, considering our contemporaries who "highly regard" freedom and "assiduously pursue" it, but who "often cultivate it in wrong ways as a licence to do anything they please, even evil", speaks of "genuine" freedom: "Genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man. For God willed to leave man "in the power of his own counsel" (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God".⁵⁷ Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known.⁵⁸ As Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: "Conscience has rights because it has duties".⁵⁹

Veritatis Splendor - what does it have to do with gay saints?

Gay people seem to have an especially hard time today, since everything in the culture militates against any sort of moral censure on homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.  Catholic teaching is said to constrict, to limit personal freedom.  Many gay people go away sad.  Veritatis Splendor is for me, one of the most important documents and keys to understanding all that the Church teaches - and under girds the more specific moral teachings on the homosexual person from the Ratzinger CDF and papacy. 

Faithful and chaste 'gay' Catholics look for ways to make Catholic teaching more understandable, more acceptable to gay people.  Nothing wrong with that, to be sure.  Some religious and non-religious gay people also look for saints to inspire and elevate 'gayness'.  On some level, I think that is part of the reason some people search for gay saints.  (Secular gay saints are people like Harvey Milk, Matthew Shepard; such 'gay icons' are often exploited for propaganda purposes.)   Some may even look for a spiritual 'lover' in the saints, a romantic hero.  I think that is why some of the saints gay saint makers write about, are very often depicted in art as ideally handsome and in a homoerotic manner. 

Of course, there are sincere, devout persons who look for a saint they can befriend, someone they feel they can know intimately - one who understands what they go through, what they suffer, what they rejoice over, aspire to, and so on.  Patron saints are often very personal - in fact some imagine they choose us, that we do not really choose them.  I see it as Divine Providence and simply a natural dimension of the communion of saints.

Are there really gay saints?

Until the 19th-20th century the terms gay/homosexual didn't exist.  Same sex sexual behavior, like masturbation, was considered unnatural vice - contra naturam.  Homosexuals would probably have been referred to as Sodomites - a vice too wicked to speak its name.  An unnatural vice even the devils reject - according to the Dialogues of St. Catherine:

It is not its sinfulness that displeases [the devils], for they like nothing that is good. But because their nature was angelic, that nature still loathes the sight of that horrendous sin actually being committed. It is true that it was they who in the beginning shot the poisoned arrows of concupiscence, but when it comes to the sinful act itself they run away. - Chapter 124

Of course there were several saints who condemned same sex sexual behavior.  Their teaching is like a thorn in the side of contemporary LGBTQ persons, Catholic or not.  Nevertheless, it is important to take it into consideration in order to counter claims that certain 'couple' saints, or BFF saints were actually gay and the Church somehow knew and approved.  From St. Peter Damien:

“Just as Saint Basil establishes that those who incur sins [against nature] … should be subjected not only to a hard penance but a public one, and Pope Siricius prohibits penitents from entering clerical orders, one can clearly deduce that he who corrupts himself with a man through the ignominious squalor of a filthy union does not deserve to exercise ecclesiastical functions, since those who were formerly given to vices … become unfit to administer the Sacraments.” - St. Peter Damian

Long story short - the saints and Church Fathers, in accord with Scripture, condemned homosexuality.  Therefore, one is not likely to find a 'gay saint' - although today, if it makes one feel better, they can imagine people such as Sergius and Bacchus, who were known to be friends, to be really close friends who lived chastely and became martyr saints.  In fact, saints such as Blessed Cardinal Newman, can be a very good example of holy friendship - friendship which is completely chaste and disinterested - untainted by any romantic/erotic disorientation.

I'd like to suggest that if one is looking for a patron, one ought to cultivate devotion to one's guardian angel - who could be closer to us than our angel?   If you want a canonized saint to be a patron for gay people, one might do better to look amongst the penitent saints, the martyrs for purity, the misfit saints, and more specifically, the saints who preached against the vice.  Seriously - who better to help someone struggling with same sex attraction than those who condemned it?  Out of charity, they owe it to those who strive to live according to Catholic teaching.  All saints endured the spiritual battle - that is how heroic virtue is forged.

These days, I understand things much more simply than I did when I was younger.  So for me the issues surrounding 'gay' is really not so much about overcoming something, as it is about embracing chastity - loving God with all of my being, and my brother as myself.  It is about becoming holy, our sanctification is God's will. 

All I can say to this saint business, if you really want a special saint - there are many, many in the Church calendar, and many newly beatified and canonized to look to. 

However, if you really want a gay saint - become one yourself.  Go to Christ, in the Church, in the Blessed Sacrament and ask:

"Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:16)