July 7 is the First Day of the Novena to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel

O most beautiful Flower of Carmel, 

Fruitful Vine, Splendour of Heaven, 

Holy and singular,

Blessed Mother of the Son of God, 

Immaculate Virgin, 

assist me this my necessity. 

O Star of the Sea, 

help me and show me you are my Mother.

O Holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth,

I humbly beseech you from the bottom of my heart, 

to help me in this necessity; 

there are none that can withstand your power.

O, show me you are my Mother, 

O Mary, conceived without sin, 

pray for us who have recourse to thee. 

Sweet Mother, I place this cause in your hands. 

Thank you for having clothed me in your scapular,

Thank you for leading me to your Son,

Thank you for having heard my prayer.

St. Therese, intercede for us.

Let's pray for one another to become holy.  

I am especially asking Our Lady to undo all the knots caused by my sins and infidelities and defects of character, which have scandalized so many people in my life.

Consecrated Virgins should probably visit a doctor to determine if they are still a virgin ...

You are going to have to see the doctor first,

because the order of widows won't touch you

and we're pretty sure you're a used woman.

Would that Dr. Peters and Fr. Z had any say in it.

Distinguished canonist Ed Peters has taken a look at the new document from the Holy See about consecrated virginity. I’ve only briefly perused it and not yet commented. However, in a nutshell he states a problem with it that I noticed. It’s sort of a big one.

Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago punts on one problem, fixes a second, but greatly worsens a third
With papal approval the Roman dicastery in charge of consecrated life has just published an important document on consecrated virginity, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago. Now, according to the plain terms of ESI, the Blessed Virgin Mary, archetype of virginity consecrated to God, would not be eligible for admission to the order of virgins, but Mary Magdalene, model for women who, Deo gratias, set aside a promiscuous life, would be eligible.
Something, I suggest, is seriously wrong with such norms.- Fr. Z

I dunno.  Women in pants and all.  How can they be admitted?

So anyway, a wonderful Servant of God, Archbishop Luis M. Martinez understood the mercy of God very well when he taught, "The Blood of Jesus makes fallen souls virginal."  This is what the teachers of the law seem not to understand.  Although it's Canon Peters job to make these distinctions, but he's just one canonist with an opinion.

That said, some Third Orders permit private vows and recognize secular consecrated life.  Likewise, there is nothing to stop a person from consecrating their virginity - lost or regained in the sacrament of penance - privately and without any worldly recognition, wedding ceremony, or ecclesial title.  Saints have done this for centuries.

The Mass itself is made soft and effeminate – neither masculine nor feminine. - A. Esolen

Botero

Really?

Fr. Z endorses Esolen's latest article for The Catholic Thing, praising him for another clear-eyed piece about effeminacy in the Church.  I love posts like that.  Solving the problem of effeminacy in the Church - it's such an easy fix.  Academics seem to have it all figured out.

So anyway, one would think these guys would be able to point out the origins of the problem - but they won't do it - because Esolen needs to keep his job.  It's also more convenient to blame the homosexuals and the 'queering' of the Church.  It is a problem of course, but it isn't the only problem...

Yesterday I came across a post shared by Janet Smith on modesty in dress for Mass.  Dr. Smith posted this image she shared from another FB page:

Subsequent comments were interesting, and in the defense of pants for women.  I love posts like that - especially in contrast with posts such as Fr. Z's and Esolen's.  Among other women responders, Rachel Lu also commented on Janet's post:

Rachel Lu I normally prefer for women to wear skirts and dresses to Mass (which is what I myself generally do) but not because slacks are *immodest*. They are not. And I think they should get a pass sometimes for non-Sunday Masses and maybe on very cold winter days.

Other's said they never knew anyone considered pants to be immodest.  

Like I said, I love it when these discussions arise online.  On one level because people pay too much attention to what other people wear to Mass - if you live in really big cities, no one cares or notices, because those in attendance can be so diverse.  Small town minded folk pay a great deal of attention, and it's annoying to encounter them.  That said - 'who am I to judge?'  Better yet - 'who are they?'  I digress.

Can pants be immodest?  Yep.  But there is another problem, maybe more serious and culture changing and directly related to the pansification of Catholic men.  Two birds with one shot takes down both arguments.  Women want to wear pants, women and men want a masculine clergy and liturgy, women want a greater role and influence in the Church.  Women want what men are having...

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Or is there?  Because everyone bitches about it.  Trads and academics lament the gays and the limitations placed upon women who insist upon dressing and acting like men.  (And I laugh!)  It's true though - which is why I enjoy jumping on this subject with Cardinal Siri's notice against women wearing pants - or dressing like men.  It seems more relevant today than ever when men's fashions are changing and becoming more effeminate than ever.

Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the sexes.

Cardinal Siri spoke out against it before the pill was introduced, before abortion was legalized, before 'no-fault' divorce, and so on.  And way before LGBTQ rights.  Remember the time Professor?  "Do you remember a time, readers, when you could spend a whole day, actually a whole month, occasionally even a year, and not give one passing thought to the issue of sexual perversions?"

Remember the time?

Can't have it both ways - or can you?

Just saying.  I do enjoy throwing it back at 'them'.  I mean, what are they going to do about it?  How, what do they think these laments accomplish?  Was Cardinal Siri a prophet?  Trads think he should have been pope - others think he was pope - and haven't had one since.  (And I laugh!)  Seriously, what is blame game?  What does it accomplish?  Why such lamentation?

So let's review the Siri notice, and then explain why you think the Liturgy and the priesthood is so effeminate while the women in our lives wear (the) pants?  (And I laugh!)

Requiem for Cardinal Siri

Séminaire de Gricigliano - ICRSP

I'm thinking the ICRSP might agree with the following.

Cardinal Siri.

In 1960 Cardinal Siri advised the clergy and faithful of Genoa regarding immodest fashions for women, including wearing men's clothing - trousers.  In view of these adaptations assumed by women and how they dress, is it any wonder that gender ideology has emerged as a result?  Or transvestism by gays and lesbians?  Or the fact that women let themselves go and become morbidly obese - much like Burgermeisters of old?

I. The first signs of the collapse of civilization is the use of men’s clothing by women and girls, even mothers of families.

First, with regard to covering the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers cannot be said to constitute in itself a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman’s body than do modern skirts. 

Second, for clothing to be modest, however, it must not only cover the body but also should not cling too tightly to the body. It is certain that some women’s clothing today fits more closely to the body than trousers, but the latter can also be tight fitting – and in fact generally are so. Therefore, wearing such tight fitting clothing causes us no less concern than exposing the body. Thus it is that the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is one aspect of the problem that must not be left out of a general judgment on the topic, even if it should also not be artificially exaggerated.

II. There is, however, another aspect of women wearing trousers that seems much graver to us.

The wearing of men’s dress by women primarily affects the woman herself, first by changing the feminine psychology proper to women. Second, it affects the woman as the wife of her husband by tending to corrupt the relations between the sexes.Third, the woman as the mother of her children loses dignity in the children’s eyes. Each of these points should be carefully considered. 

• Masculine clothing changes the psychology of women
• Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the two sexes - Read more here.*

 Song for this post here.

Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati

Today is the feast day of Blessed Pier Giorgio.

Pier Giorgio's bedroom at the family home in Pallone.

Floods ...

Giovanni Gasparro

Blood of Christ, save us!


July is devoted to the Most Precious Blood of Jesus.

"In Christ's blood we are made strong, even though weakness persists in our sensuality ... since our reason is made strong in Christ's blood, we must drown ourselves in this sweet glorious ransom." - S. Catherine of Siena

That flood pours into our souls in and through the sacraments - especially the sacrament of penance.  In the Eucharist we are inebriated in it ... "and in that blood we are freed from our weakness."

The Centurion and the beloved servant.

Did Jesus approve a same sex relationship?

That's how Today's Gospel has been interpreted in contemporary gay exegesis, based upon translations and meanings of the original Greek words, pais and doulos - used for servant or slave in different accounts - which can have a sexual connotation.  A Roman might have a slave used for sex, or a young male concubine.  The interpretation makes sense, but I'm not sure the Fathers would have understood it exactly in that way.  Even if they had, homosexual acts can never be approved, therefore it could never be interpreted as approval of a gay union.

Regardless of how it is understood, it's absurd to imagine Jesus giving his blessing upon a same sex relationship in either account from Luke or Matthew.  The Centurion prayed for a cure for a beloved servant-slave, no mention is made of their relationship or domestic situation.  Some suggest that the Centurion didn't want Jesus to enter under his roof because he was afraid the young servant would fall in love with Jesus and leave him.  Where do people get this?

When Christ said he would come and heal the servant,

The centurion said in reply,

"Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof;
only say the word and my servant will be healed."

We say that before the reception of Holy Communion.  

It is an acknowledgement that we are unworthy to Have Jesus enter under our roof, our soul.  It is an act of faith, a sort of confession of sin, and/or of our unworthiness.  It can't be a pretense or something to hide behind to feign humility.  The faith of the Centurion in the power of Christ is detailed by the soldier as he describes how he commands those subject to him and attributes the same power of command to Christ.   Our Lord healed the servant because of the Centurion's faith.  What their relationship was is never part of the narrative.  Perhaps it was a homosexual relationship - how would anyone believe from the narrative that Jesus approved of it?  In the case of the Samaritan woman, he didn't show approval for her relationship with a man who wasn't her husband.  neither did he approve of the sins of the woman caught in adultery - he told her to go and sin no more.

If anything, Today's Gospel demonstrates that salvation is available to the Gentiles, even those in sinful relationships, and Jesus shows us once again that His mercy is for everyone.  Perhaps the Centurion didn't want Jesus to come to his house simply because he was ashamed?  Maybe he really meant what he said, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof."  Maybe when he returned home and found the servant healed, they both became followers of Christ?  That's a more reasonable interpretation. So imagine what you will, Christ came to call sinners, so it doesn't matter if the Centurion and his servant were straight or gay.  When we follow Christ, we leave behind our former way of life, we repent of our sins.

Anyway.  Today concludes gay-pride month, and I want to try and make this my last post on the subject.  I think I have become more and more irrelevant on this and many other subjects and I need to leave it be.    

How we treat the stranger and the migrant.

This rosary was cut from the wrist of a migrant 

and discarded by the Border Patrol. (Courtesy of Tom Kiefer)

We separate families, and can't reunite them or match the kids with the parents when we send them back.  We strip them of their very meager, very poor possessions, and throw it out.  We dehumanize them, strip them of any dignity, and throw them back like unwanted fish.

A former janitor collected the discarded possessions of migrants, the ever so poor personal property 

"deemed by border patrol agents to be 'non-essential' or 'potentially lethal.'"

When he began rummaging through the bags of trash, Mr. Kiefer was horrified to discover that it contained more than uneaten food and other garbage. He found shoes, wallets, and even rosary beads and bibles. 

“I could not in good conscience let those items remain in the trash,” Mr. Kiefer, 59, said in a recent interview with America. - America

I make retablos and relicarios.  Americans collect such things.  Museums exhibit these devotional items.  They are precious even to non-religious people.  Yet we confiscate and deem as worthless these devotional items carried by the poorest of the poor.  The humble, devout migrant, have their meager possessions taken away and thrown out as so much trash.  We treat their person in the same way, we have deemed them as non-essential and potentially lethal.

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” - Ezekiel 16:49

Differently ordered friendship.

Friends.

Revisiting 'Spiritual Friendship' proposals.

I don't know.  The Catechism teaches one thing and everyone else seems to want to load up heavy burdens on top of what the Church asks of gay Catholics - or rather, 'Catholics who experience same sex attraction'.  These people are doing a lot if they abstain from homosexual acts, including porn and masturbation and affectionate embrace - or cuddling-spooning with proteges and friends.  You know, like Cardinal McCarrick liked to do with seminarians.

The Church does not want people to define themselves by their sexual inclinations and so on, and truth be told, many really do not do that, despite the fact they say they are gay.  Don't say gay, just don't, and you are fine.  Many of the Spiritual Friendship leaders-advocates support all of that, though some like to use 'queer' as a cultural differentiation, and others will say 'gay' when they are speaking to anyone outside organizations like Courage or when speaking in front of a strict-observance-pastoral setting.  Fighting those terms of identity is going to get much harder when kids have been taught from pre-school/daycare on that some people are indeed gay or lgbtq.  It's part of the culture - they are everywhere - gay-advocates, if you will.  The culture is 'homosexualist'.

Author D.C. Lyons, writing on Crisis seems to be revisiting the issue where Austin Ruse left off.  He goes after Spiritual Friendship writers, beginning his essay:

It seems the “Spiritual Friendship” think tank cannot catch a break among fellow Christians. Militant homosexualist Catholics say they don’t go far enough, and magisterially faithful Catholics think they go too far. And now Protestants from various backgrounds are challenging and criticizing their plan to hold a summer conference. Can’t we all just be spiritual friends? Why the push back?

Crisis readers may recall other writers taking on this group, which seeks to avoid the “doing” associated with homosexuality but embraces the “being” associated with our culture’s subhuman taxonomy of identifying certain individuals as part of the “LGBTQ community.” “Spiritual Friendship” writers also seek to make room for forms of so-called “same-sex friendship” that are raising legitimate concerns among lots of fellow Christians. - Crisis

Granted, there may be legitimate doctrinal concerns chiefly because the SF movement strikes many as an attempt to rewrite the Catechism, redefine friendship into a civil union, kinda-sorta, although that is never really articulated.  I think Mark Shea used to refer to their 'legitimate concern' as worried the group is a sort of fifth column movement to change Catholic teaching.  I have sometimes considered it as a means to develop an unique, gay spirituality, such as early homophile movements attempted, and so on.  The author has a good point when he gets to the focus of his opposition,  regarding the identity issues, which really are at the root of the movement.

It’s particularly self-contradictory for Belgau—or anyone—to suggest that “sexual orientation should not be the basis of an all-encompassing identity” while simultaneously stating that some sort of central calling or vocation arises from the “gay experience” that must be discerned because of that experience.

Seriously, if something is so central as to shape one’s vocation, does it not split a hair or two to also claim it’s not a big part of your identity? - Crisis

That right there seems to get to the heart of all discussions on the subject of gay=ssa, or lgbtq----, labeling and identity.   For me it is why all these discussions verge upon the disingenuous when you shake them out, or to use Lyons words describing SF literature, one gets lost in the "complex, convoluted, and often-sophistical landscape of years of written output from this group."  To be sure, I don't have the same fears as Lyons or Ruse for that matter, but it is all too complex and convoluted for ordinary Catholics concerned with keeping the commandments and living in fidelity to Catholic teaching to spend much time worrying and debating about.  The Catechism and CDF documents on all of this are clear and unambiguous, and to take that 'no' and somehow twist it to a 'maybe' or an 'yes' is never going to work.  As for gay people who are out and comfortable with their 'identity', they have little or no interest in religion, much less the Catholic faith, or any Christian denomination other than Episcopalian, which means they have no interest in the SF movement whatsoever.

Lyons seems to think that same sex friends who were once lovers or actively gay, can't really form a close, virtuous friendship.  He goes back to Genesis with the reference to seeking "a suitable partner" for the man, in a legitimate attempt to point out how it would be impossible for same sex friends to find that in one another.  I have no problem with that, and I doubt anyone else would.  Chaste, celibate, same sex friends would necessarily have rejected such a spousal understanding of their friendship - if they ever thought of it in those terms - knowing it is simply unachievable for same sex friends.  Virtuous friendship is necessary for people with inordinate same sex attraction - the 'spousal' dimension just doesn't fit.

One must never discount the power of grace and particularly the grace of conversion, aided by the sacraments, prayer, good works and good spiritual direction.  Remember ...

But for those who live in the midst of the world and yet strive for true virtue, it is necessary to ally themselves to one another by a holy and sacred friendship through which they stimulate, assist and encourage each other toward good.

Friendship is a virtue, and the greatest saints have had friends without harm to their advancement along the road of perfection. Perfection does not consist in abstaining from friendships, but in having only those that are good and holy. - S. Francis De Sales

Disinterested friendship McCarrick style.

Such a lack of civility!

I was watching the World Cup and couldn't help but notice how rough the game is.  Goalkeepers push players out of the way, players push and shove and kick other players.  Even the referees are rude.

It's a lot different from kick ball.

Penance, penance, penance.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life ...

Thinking of the penitent saints - their example is always a good correction.

I have to try to figure things out.

Be patient with me, Lord.

I have tried very hard to understand what is going on and I have tried to be charitable and accepting ... especially of myself.  I know I've been wrong about many things, too trusting and all of that.  I feel like a sheep without a shepherd, and no one is calling my name.  Maybe I don't recognize their voice, or worse maybe I don't want to.

I need to try and figure out what is happening.

I wonder if our times are simply more like the 11th century rather than the 'Great Apostasy' or the final 'end times'?  I was reading an older article in CWR on The Book of Gomorrah and thought it must be more like the 11th century than anything else.

This is one of the most interesting and relevant aspects of the book for the modern reader. Damian sees “sodomitic vice” as not only including homosexual acts (which he holds to be the most grievous kind of sodomy) but any form of sexual perversion, which notably includes contraception and masturbation, which he regards as closely related. In chapter four he notes that God “struck Onan, the son of Jude, with an untimely death because of this nefarious offense,” that is, spilling his seed upon the ground rather than completing the sexual act in the natural way.

I believe that by placing contraception and masturbation under the heading of “sodomy” Damian is recognizing a truth that seems to be all but completely forgotten among Catholics today, and that is that the sexual revolution and the rise of the social acceptance of unnatural sexual behavior is rooted in a contraceptive mentality that divorces the sexual act from its natural procreative purpose, and tends to make it into an act of selfish, narcissistic lust. Given the almost universal acceptance of contraception in our society, is it surprising that we have become so numb and unconcerned about the rise of more perverse forms of the same fundamental vice, and even applaud them? - Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Today may be much worse because men in the Church promote sodomy as a virtue, not a vice - hence the general confusion and falling away.  I've been rather dismissive of that.  One must be careful lest one lose one's soul.

The reason it is important to me to figure this out should be obvious, though the damage has been done.

Fixing a hole.

The Innocence of Fr. Phillips ... A Mystery

It seems we'll never know what happened at St. John Cantius, Chicago.

So says New Catholic at Rorate Caeli:  "After months of speculation, the Congregation of the Resurrection (C.R.), the order to which the founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, Fr. Frank Phillips, belonged, issued a final statement on his situation..."

Something happened. What happened? The Congregation of the Ressurrection and the Archdiocese of Chicago have an obligation to make public those parts of their conclusions that can be made public (that is, with names or other information that could identify specific persons blacked out). Otherwise, the removal of Fr. Phillips will be seen as a persecution motivated not by his "improper conduct" (what was it?), but actually by his good work at St. John Cantius. The people have a rightful expectation to know what actually happened. - New Catholic

Something happened.  Of course something happened.  Cardinal Cupich obviously felt he shouldn't return.  He has no obligation to explain himself - they never do - unless some legal suit develops.  If Fr. Phillips hasn't been silenced - then perhaps he can explain what happened.  If there remain credible allegations perhaps someone can bring forth a civil suit of inquiry?  But the original allegations involved adult men.  Maybe it was consensual?  I'm way out of my league here. 

I seriously don't know and I'm not interested in the answer - unless it involves a sort of Catholic #Metoo development.  After the Cardinal McCarrick story broke, I'd be interested in cleaning up the scandal that keeps giving.  Now that it's safe to point out that the homosexuals in the clergy are not limited to the Novus Ordo, perhaps men will come forward and Catholic teaching, as well as Catholic discipline on the admission of homosexuals to seminary and religious life can be clarified.  (Or at least get rid of the hypocrisy and cover up surrounding it.  Maybe Fr. Martin could take the lead here?)

I hope it all gets sorted out.

The stench.

I was praying and thought of how some of the saints referred to sins of the flesh as the stench of sin.  Pope Benedict called it the 'filth in the Church'.  St. Catherine of Genoa called it a 'contagion'.  In St. Catherine of Siena's Dialogue Our Lord referred to it as the stench.  I returned to my archives and found the following post from 2006.

Still troubled by events in the Archdiocese and deceptive clergy, I returned in prayer to the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena. She wrote about the troubles and scandals of her own day, not in order to spread scandal but to reassure the faithful that Our Lord was aware of what was going on and was going to remedy it. She spoke that her words might bring to repentence those who offend God and give scandal to the faithful. That we might listen to her discourse again, I will quote from the Dialogue concerning homosexual priests.

"I am telling you this to make you see what great purity I demand of you and them, and especially of them (priests), in this sacrament. But they do just the opposite to me, for they come to this mystery wholly impure - and not simply with the sort of impurity and weakness to which all of you are naturally inclined because of your weak nature (although reason can calm its rebellion if free choice so wills). No, these wretches not only do not restrain their weakness; they make it worse by committing that cursed unnatural sin. As if they were blind and stupid, with the light of their understanding extinguished, they do not recognize what miserable filth they are wallowing in. The stench even reaches up to me, supreme Purity, and is so hateful to me that for this sin alone five cities were struck down by my divine judgment. For my divine justice could no longer tolerate it, so despicable to me is this abominable sin. The stench displeases not only me, as I have said, but the devils as well, those very devils these wretches have made their masters. It is not its sinfulness that displeases them, for they like nothing that is good. But because their nature is angelic, that nature still loathes the sight of that horrendous sin actually being committed. It is true that it was they (the devils) who shot the poisoned arrows of concupiscence, but when it comes to the sinful act itself they flee..." - Dialogue

The evil of forming false friendships, inviting seminarians to sleep with you, to call you uncle Ted is so corrupt and disgusting.  To corrupt a seminarian, a priest, and to elevate these men to positions of honor and respect - is wicked and vicious.

"Spiritual deception is the state of all men without exception, and it has been made possible by the fall of our original parents. All of us are subject to spiritual deception. Awareness of this fact is the greatest protection against it. Likewise, the greatest spiritual deception of all is to consider oneself free from it". - Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov

I could pretty much have said the same thing...

I honestly thought the rumors were invented by disgruntled, traditionalist-fruitcakes.

The first time I ever heard the truth about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C., finally exposed as a sexual predator years into his retirement, I thought I was listening to a paranoiac rant.

That was before I realized that if you wanted the truth about corruption in the Catholic Church, you had to listen to the extreme-seeming types, traditionalists and radicals, because they were the only ones sufficiently alienated from the institution to actually dig into its rot. (This lesson has application well beyond Catholicism.) - Douthat, #Metoo Comes for the Archbishop

This is the painting I did of a dream I had

shortly after my return to the sacraments

in 1972 - today it makes more sense than ever.

The Nativity of John the Baptist

I need you today.

And today, it doesn't matter ...

Everything remains the same.

Respect for the earlier guidelines.

Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers. - Source 1961 Criteria

An author at Crisis has a post contrasting the 'homosexualist' priest with the priest who may have homosexual tendencies.  Sorry - but that distinction may be difficult to ascertain these days.  Once again, an article such as this gives false hope to the homosexual man convinced he has a vocation, although he is unable to integrate his sexuality and live chastely.  

One would have to be blind not to have seen the results of ignoring the 1961 admonition I cite at the beginning of the post.  People have to wake up.  How many priests removed from ministry, how many in jail?  How many have been sponsored by bishops who shared the same tendencies?  How many candidates were given false hope and or assurances they have a vocation?  I have known men who searched for a bishop to sponsor and ordain them, convinced God told them they have a vocation.  So often we are deceived by our own opinion or the bad spiritual direction of another.

I'm reminded of something Fr. Geiger wrote several years ago, referencing private revelations, I think it works in regard to this post as well, again, I may be wrong.

[T]he autonomous personal conscience sometimes lays claim to a false discernment when it sets private revelation and presumed personal graces against the magisterium. The desire for union with God sometimes leads individuals to attach themselves to extraordinary manifestations of the “spirit,” but in such a way that weakens their attachment to the Church. Thus, Catholics continue to embrace New Age spirituality, or some dubious private revelation, or a personal insight even though they know that their conviction runs contrary to Church teaching or discipline. 

The discernment of spirits is so important today because there are many voices competing for our attention, and it is all so easy to assume that that what we hear, or even what we think and say comes from God. - Fr. Geiger

Again - I may be wrong. But just remember, "No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God."  Pope Francis emphasizes the need for discernment, humble discernment, and he too recommended against admitting homosexuals to seminary, saying: “if you have even the slightest doubt it's better not to let them enter."

Holy crap!  Read this!

The McCarrick story doesn't bode well for 'building a bridge' ...

Unless of course people continue to ignore the facts.

Because of bishops like McCarrick, one can assume it is probably why seminary rectors and vocation directors never turned away gay candidates. Despite the fact the Holy See has always taught such men should not be admitted to seminary, something Pope Francis recently reiterated. Yet even the faithful - clergy and laity together - have pretty much made the exceptions to that rule their policy. (Three years of chaste celibacy is no guarantee - as recent cases clearly demonstrate.) People have to know that, especially former gay men who think they have a vocation, and those bishops who sponsor them. That is terribly unfair to the candidates, BTW.

The problem has always been a problem of homosexuality and NOT paedophilia. If you read prohibitions against admitting homosexuals or men troubled by temptations and falls against even solitary sins, you know the problem is not limited to paedophilia.  One must not forget that 'minor seminaries' were preparatory schools - high school boarding schools - a gay priest in charge might well be tempted to 'help a seminarian accept himself' - so to speak.

Anyway - don't tell anyone I said that.

Again, despite his good intentions, Fr. Martin's, S.J. bridge building effort maybe should be looked at a bit closer by superiors and vocation directors.  His teaching on the subject of homosexuality is what gay-friendly priests and bishops have always taught, albeit privately.  It is exactly what all the documents since 1961 have warned against when it comes to admitting homosexuals to seminary and religious life.

I'm repeating myself here, but I really want people to pay attention now that the McCarrick story is public.  The corruption in the Church because of this problem has to be worse than we can imagine.  I'm reminded of the 2013 Vanity Fair article, The Vatican's Secret Life, (Despite headlines about a powerful “gay lobby” within the Vatican, and a new Pope promising reform, the Catholic Church’s gay cardinals, monks, and other clergy inhabit a hidden nether world.) - an in depth look at the homosexual influences among clergy in Rome.  What is particularly disgusting about the story is how it remained an open secret among clergy and religious in Rome, as well as among many of those who studied in Rome.  Once again, it's front page news with the McCarrick scandal.

I'm pretty sure this is the filth and the corruption that Popes Benedict and Francis.

Do yourself a favor and read, Religiosorum institutio - Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, Pope John XXIII - 1961.  It might help people understand the decline of vocations in our day.

Have at it Catholics.

The most loving thing to do is is to share your bed with someone. - Michael Jackson

Cardinal McCarrick's in trouble.

I thought of the Michael Jackson quote only after I was told about the story - which broke today -  about Cardinal McCarrick and an alleged sexual abuse incident.  Embedded in the story are anecdotes revealing accusations that years ago the Cardinal used to have seminarians sleep with him - not for sex, but to cuddle.  As Mame would say, "now what could be more wholesome or natural than that?"  Just kidding.

Seriously, the rumors about the Cardinal's homosexuality are spreading online like wild fire.  I have heard the rumors for years and ended up disliking the gossips who repeated it to me.  Many who delight in repeating these stories are reformed gays who tried their vocation in numerous outfits which accept men with ssa and or former gays.  In such environs, gossip about gay priests, bishops, and cardinals is shared with delight and scorn - especially if they themselves have been somehow rebuffed or passed over.  I know that sounds bitchy - because it is bitchy.  Gay stuff is bitchy.  So the bitches are out slandering Cardinal McCarrick - and if the claims are all true - then it's outright detraction - to the extent those ordinary Catholics who do not follow 'court gossip' wouldn't have known about it.  Without real documentation - it seems to me these stories also verge on calumny.  I may be wrong, but there is something wrong with how eager 'devout' people are to spread scandal.

Anyway.  As everyone now knows, Cardinal Dolan announced that McCarrick is under suspension from ministry while a credible allegation that as a priest McCarrick abused a minor - a boy - is investigated.  That's SOP for credible allegations, priests have come through that untainted and resumed ministry.  It can spark other allegations - but they remain allegations and will be investigated.  Unfortunately it appears the Cardinal has had similar allegations against him by adults - 3 cases - two were apparently settled out of court.

I'm not defending McCarrick or gay priests and bishops, but I'm also not going after them the way some people online are in the process of doing.  Catholics who read Randy Engel's book, The Rite of Sodomy are intent upon exposing the dark history of homosexuals in the priesthood.  Good bye good men and all of that.  Truth be told, bishops like McCarrick is probably why no one paid attention to these rumors and books in the first place.  Because of bishops like him, one can assume it is probably why seminary rectors and vocation directors never turned away gay candidates.  Despite the fact the Holy See has always taught such men should not be admitted to seminary, something Pope Francis recently reiterated.  Yet even the faithful - clergy and laity - have pretty much made the exceptions to that rule their policy.  (Three years of chaste celibacy is no guarantee - as recent cases clearly demonstrate.) People have to know that, especially former gay men who think they have a vocation, and those bishops who sponsor them.  That is terribly unfair to the candidates, BTW.

The problem has always been a problem of homosexuality and NOT paedophilia.  Don't tell anyone I said that though.  Oh.  And the stuff Fr. Martin, S.J. is teaching is what gay-friendly priests and bishops have always taught, albeit privately.  How many times I was told to just accept myself and see Jesus in the eyes and limbs of my lovers.  Just look and see what has happened in the last 50 years.

Just saying.

Prayers for the Church and her ministers for purification and fidelity to the Gospel.

Song for this post here.