First adultery, now sodomy
Mainstreaming sexual depravity with a smiling face
in the church of Bergoglio
by Christopher A. Ferrara
June 7, 2017
Meet Father James Martin, SJ, the ultra-progressive, pro-“LGBT community,” pro-“gay marriage” friend of Francis whom Pope Bergoglio has just appointed a consultant to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communication, which oversees Vatican TV, radio and social media.
Followers of this ecclesial subversive are well-acquainted with the sickly smile and rather prissy manner with which he answers the just criticisms of orthodox Catholics as he busily undermines the constant teaching of the Church on matters sexual, including her constant condemnation of the intrinsic evil of sodomy as one of the sins that cry out to Heaven for retribution.
Amoris Laetitia having launched a diocese-by-diocese overthrow of the teaching of John Paul II (in line with all of Tradition) that it is “intrinsically impossible” for people living in adulterous “second marriages” to receive Holy Communion while continuing to engage in adulterous relations,
Father Martin is clearly acting as a point man for the mainstreaming of sodomy in the life of the Church.
Hence the publication of his book “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity.” Translation: How the Church Can Be Led to Accept Sodomy.
To those who think this characterization of Father Martin’s polemic is extreme, consider his answer to the key question during an interview concerning his book, aptly headlined
“This Vatican adviser is moving Catholics toward LGBT inclusion.” The interviewer asked Martin the following question to which he gave the following answer:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ Do you affirm and agree with this teaching and language?
“I’m no theologian, but I would say that some of the language used in the catechism on that topic needs to be updated, given what we know now about homosexuality. Earlier, for example, the catechism says that the homosexual orientation is itself ‘objectively disordered.’ But, as I say in the book, saying that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is disordered is needlessly hurtful. A few weeks ago, I met an Italian theologian who suggested the phrase ‘differently ordered’ might convey that idea more pastorally.” [Oh, the semantic game! In morality and ethics, where the right order is the norm, isn't 'differently ordered' also 'objectively disordered'???]
What do we “know about homosexuality” today that the Church did not know before? Sodomy is still sodomy. Notice, however, that Martin ducks the question about homosexual acts as such — that is, sodomy — and pivots to the “homosexual orientation,” which he denies is “intrinsically [i.e., in and of itself, always and everywhere] disordered.” He would prefer to call it “differently ordered,” meaning not disordered.
But if the homosexual condition is not intrinsically disordered, then the sexual acts proceeding from it would not be intrinsically disordered, but merely “different” from heterosexual acts. Quite simply, then, Martin denies the Church’s infallible moral teaching, of bimillenial standing, that sodomy is intrinsically disordered.
Quite the contrary, he implicitly relates the act of sodomy to “the part [of the homosexual] that gives and receives love.” His treacly appeals to mercy, love and inclusion conceal what is nothing but a monstrous obscenity from the pit of hell.
Now, if sodomy is not intrinsically evil [which would deny the Biblical accounts of God's punishment for persons committing unnatural sex acts - how can Martin forget Sodom and Gomorrah?], then how can adultery, fornication, and the use of contraceptives be intrinsically evil? They would not be, and the Church would have been wrong to teach otherwise for two millennia.
But a Church that could be wrong about such fundamental moral questions would not be the Church founded by God Incarnate, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, but rather a merely human institution no different in essence from the Protestant sects that rebelled against her authority 500 years ago.
Over the ensuing centuries those sects have come to condone adultery (in the form of divorce and “remarriage”), fornication, contraception and, finally, sodomy, with some of these sects even purporting to “ordain” as “priests” and “bishops” both men and women who notoriously engage in this abominable vice.
Father Martin, in short, is a leader of the “pro-gay” brigades now storming the citadel of the Church in what they think will be a successful final assault on her moral ramparts.
Should the ramparts fail, the Church’s moral edifice would topple and her mission would be at an end, if that were possible. But it is not possible.
As Sister Lucia, affirming the Church’s indefectibility from the perspective of Fatima, told Cardinal Caffarra, a defender of the ramparts, while “the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family,” Our Lady “has already crushed its [the serpent’s] head.”
Meanwhile, however, the ultimate victory that will be God’s does not excuse us from our duty in the present moment: to expose for what they are the wolves in clerical garb who are attacking the Church from within — with smiles on their faces and the beguiling rhetoric of love and mercy that is really the worst sort of spiritual cruelty.
Mons. Paglia defends cathedral’s
pornographic, homoerotic mural
as an ‘evangelizing’ tool
by Pete Baklinski
June 7, 2017
ROME, June 7, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A leading Vatican prelate is defending a homoerotic mural he commissioned in his former Italian cathedral in which he is portrayed as clasping a semi-naked man.
While Catholic critics have called the work “blasphemous," "disgusting," and even "demonic,” Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life and former head of the now defunct Pontifical Council for the Family, says the mural was meant to be an “evangelizing” tool.
“One great theme of my preaching in such circumstances was reliance on God’s mercy to deliver us from eternal punishment, and in that context I was presented with a project for a mural that would show
the risen Christ gathering into nets all of wounded and suffering humanity and, as their Redeemer, bringing them with him as he ascended to Heaven and the Father,” the Archbishop said in a June 6 interview with National Catholic Register’s Ed Pentin.
“In the mural, humanity is shown naked to express its radical poverty, and I too am included in the mural as one who needs redemption no less than anyone else. It has been in the Cathedral for more than 10 years with no objection from the local Catholic community, and I believe it is seen by the community as a part, perhaps to some a too fleshy part, of an overall evangelizing commitment,” he added.
Paglia was appointed last August by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. He also heads the Pontifical Academy for Life. As the former head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Paglia oversaw the development and launch of a Vatican-approved sex-ed course for teens that contained explicit images.
The Archbishop commissioned homosexual Argentinean Ricardo Cinalli to paint the cathedral mural in 2007. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.
Cinalli told the Italian newspaper
La Repubblica in March 2016 that the archbishop oversaw every detail of the work.
“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” he said. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.”
In the right-hand net, what appears to be young naked children can be seen entangled with the bodies of older men and women (see time 2:45 of video below).
In one instance, one male can be seen with his hand between another male’s legs groping his reproductive organ.
The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.
Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. Wearing his skull cap, he is depicted as clutching another semi-nude man who is tenderly embracing him.
Cinalli told
La Repubblica that the naked people in the nets were meant to be “erotic,” although he said Paglia drew the line when Cinalli proposed to show people actually copulating.
“In this case, there was not – in this sense – a sexual intention, but erotic, yes,” Cinalli said. “I think that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.” He later added, “The one thing that they didn’t permit me to insert was the copulation of two people within this net where everything is permitted.”
But Paglia denied in the interview that the mural was meant to be erotic, chalking-up criticism to people having diverse standards of modesty.
“The mural is not and was not intended to be erotic in any way, including homoerotic, but I am aware that artistic standards of modesty and appropriateness vary widely even in Western and Western-origin cultures, and that seems to be the case here,” he said.
But Catholic artist and author Michael D. O’Brien told LifeSiteNews in a previous interview that erotic or not,
the real problem with the mural is that it gives the viewer the “false message” that “all sexual activity, regardless of how depraved, is blessed by God.”
“Unlike the past masters of religious art who have painted the nude — one thinks of Massacio's 'Expulsion from Paradise' or Michelangelo's 'The Creation of Adam' —
in Cinalli's work the human body and sexuality are paramount, and redemption is merely the excuse or the costume in which it dresses for the performance of the artist's real intention: Everyone is loved by God and therefore all sexual activity, regardless of how depraved, is blessed by God,” he said.
“This false message is in direct contradiction to the urgent imperatives of Sacred Scripture. It also violates the norms outlined by St. John Paul II in his Theology of the Body, in which he devotes a significant section to nudity in art.
The dignity of the human person, he emphasizes, must always be respected by both artist and viewer, and
any depiction of the naked human body should lead to the contemplation of the whole truth about man — his eternal value.
The problem of pornography in the modern age, John Paul II writes, must be assessed according to Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, about purity of heart and about its opposite, adultery of the heart,” he added.
O’Brien called the mural
“neo-pornography thinly disguised by its apparent religious theme.” “It is not about divine mercy. Nor is it about the inherent dignity of humanity in its masculine and feminine forms. It is the misuse of art as socio-political, sexual propaganda,” he said.
Maureen Mullarkey, a member of the International Association of Art Critics and senior contributor to The Federalist, also criticized the work, writing on her blog in March that Paglia’s mural was a “true scandal” for the Church.
Mullarkey called the mural an “out-and-proud” display that reveals not only a “creep,” but a much deeper problem within the Vatican under Francis’s pontificate.
“Paglia’s narcissism — the urge to flaunt his liberation from the moral considerations he is pledged to honor — is stunning. It is a finger in the eye of congregants who trust in a priest’s fidelity to his vows. To place it in a public house of worship is treachery. It is also a declaration of Paglia’s own trust in his immunity from reprimand,” she wrote.
Mullarkey wrote that the painting forces congregants to “peep through a keyhole at [Paglia’s] sexual inclinations—and suggested behavior.”
“Abandoning reticence, Paglia disdains his own flock. He is taunting them. There is malice in that,” she wrote.
“The true scandal here is the basis — which goes unmentioned — of Paglia’s confidence that he could broadcast his sexuality on a cathedral wall without fear of censure,” she added.
Paglia told Pentin in the interview that he did not think it “productive” for him to answer the charge that the mural is demonic.
“While I want to make my answer to this question useful, and am sensitive to the concerns raised in it,
I don’t think that specifically addressing the hyperbolic, and inaccurate, adjectives ‘blasphemous’ and ‘demonic’ is productive,” he said.
The nonsense of “reconciled diversity”
Bergoglio promotes a concept he identifies as Lutheran
by Christopher A. Ferrara
June 6, 2017
In his prophetic encyclical
Mortalium Animos, forbidding Catholic participation in the nascent "ecumenical movement" of Protestant origin, Pope Pius XI condemned the notion, then being promoted by Catholic proto-"ecumenists," that "the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life."
This notion, said Pius, reflects the "false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy." That error, as any honest observer must admit, is precisely
what the generality of the Church's leadership, from the Pope on down, have effectively embraced over the past fifty years. [As usual, Ferrara falsely and outrageously lumps John Paul II and Benedict XVI with the post Vatican -II progressivist anti-Catholics.]
Nor can this error be defended on the ground that "ecumenism" is rightly practiced between the Catholic Church and those who profess to be Christians for the aim of "promoting Christian unity." For as Pius XI rightly insisted, and as reason itself would counsel, "the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it."
[Which is precisely the goal of the ecumenical movement - Ut unum sint - no matter if that goal seems just as distant today as it was more than a hundred years ago when the movement began. Obviously, it is not to be achieved by compromising the truth and teachings of the one true Church of Christ.]
That is, there can be no Christian unity without profession of the same Faith, which means adherence to the same doctrines of "the divinely revealed religion" which Pius XI warned would be abandoned if "ecumenism" were carried to its logical conclusion. For divine revelation consists precisely of the very words uttered by the Word Incarnate, the Apostles and the Magisterium of the Church that Christ founded, which has transmitted and explicated the divinely revealed religion faithfully down through the centuries.
Thus, as the Oath Against Modernism required seminarians, priests and theologians to profess — before it too was abandoned after Vatican II, along with the teaching of Pius XI —
the Christian faith "is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord."
But Protestants of various kinds, Pius XI rightly observed, do not profess the truth that is received by hearing from an external source, which is ultimately God Himself, but rather a mixture of revealed truth and human error which comprise what Pope Pius called "a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching."
That candid assessment of the multivariate Protestant religion, however, has also been
abandoned by the Church's leaders [certainly not by Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedoict XVI!] as "ecumenism," having been allowed to invade the Church, has in practice obliterated the necessity of right doctrine — what God has revealed — for the salvation of souls.
It should be no surprise that this immensely destructive ecclesial development, fulfilling Pius XI's dire prophecy to the letter, has been taken to a new level by the current occupant of the Chair of Peter.
In his address on June 3 to a mass gathering of the rowdy, pan-Christian "charismatic renewal" movement,
Pope Bergoglio exhibited his usual disdain for the doctrine Christ and the Apostles revealed, declaring that "peace is possible through our confession that Jesus is lord."
And what of the vast doctrinal differences between Catholicism and the "mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching" in the various Protestant denominations? As Francis admitted: "But if we accentuate the differences, we are at war, and we cannot announce peace." The "ecumenical" answer to this "ecumenical problem" is simply to accommodate the differences! Here Francis expounded the ultimate error of the "ecumenical movement":
"We have differences. But, eh, that is obvious. We have differences. But we desire to be [with dramatic emphasis indicating that applause is expected] a reconciled diversity. This word do not forget, but tell it to everyone: reconciled diversity! And this word is not mine, it is not mine. It was said by a Lutheran brother. Reconciled diversity."
"Reconciled diversity" is utter nonsense. There can be no reconciliation of doctrines that contradict each other. Thus, there can be no reconciliation of the Catholic Church's divinely conferred status as the one true Church, the divine institution of seven sacraments, the sacrificing priesthood, the primacy of the Pope, the infallibility of the Magisterium, the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic immortality of contraception, abortion and sodomy, with teaching of religious sects that deny every one of these truths.
The chasm is unbridgeable, which is precisely why Pius XI insisted that
the only path to Christian unity is the return of the dissidents to the one true Church.
Francis did not invent the novelty of "reconciled diversity," which originated with the heretical teaching of Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens, whose writings on the subject called for the monstrosity of "theological pluralism" in the Church. Not surprisingly, Pope Bergoglio told the crowd of some 50,000 that "It is important to read the work of Cardinal Suenens on this. Very important."
The Catholic mind is staggered by the spectacle of this pontificate, which is the apogee of every destructive ecclesial trend of the past fifty years. But one cannot look away from the spectacle and act as if we have no Pope.
One can only expose and licitly protest what is happening for the sake of the truth that makes us free, while praying for the hastening of the divinely appointed reversal of this unprecedented crisis in the Church.
The beginning of that glorious counter-revolution will be signaled by the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by a holy Pope in union with a hierarchy that has returned to the path from which so much of the human element of the Church has so tragically deviated since the fateful year 1960, when the Third Secret of Fatima that was to be revealed was instead suppressed by the very Pope [now St. John XXIII] who should have revealed it.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/06/2017 00:04]