Deacon Jim Russell, who serves the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri, and writes on topics of marriage, family, and sexuality from a Catholic
perspective, offers a much-needed historical perspective on how Western society has reached the point where a militant minority - quite
insignificant in relation to the general population - now is able to virtually dictate and influence public policy over the majority
that do not share their unnatural sexual proclivities. And they have done this with the help of media, conventional and online, who aid
and abet this most undemocratic tyranny of the minority over the majority, in large part because the media themselves are a minority
in a world of overwhelmingly non-media people over whom nonetheless the media have been able to exercise this tyranny
themselves in the past several decades.
Re-building a bridge: The connection
between contraception and the 'LGBT community'
We’ve arrived at the end of the road — and we stare into a massive,
rippled fun-house mirror that shows us in its own twisted reflection
the extent of the monumental destruction our journey really caused.
by Jim Russell
CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT
July 10, 2017
Let’s build a bridge.
Not a warm, fuzzy, attention-getting bridge between the Church and the ‘LGBT Community,’ whose architects are misguided masters of error, ambiguity, confusion, and dissent.[A direct hit at American Jesuit James Martin, recently named by the pope to be a consultant to his new Secretariat for Communications and author of a new book about 'bridges' that totally disses Church teaching about disordered sexuality.]
Don’t waste your time.
Across the globe, we already have built more than a hundred bridges that actually lead to a Catholic sanctuary for those with same-sex attraction. It’s called the Courage apostolate, along with its companion apostolate for families of those with SSA, called EnCourage.
No, the bridge we really need to build right now is a replacement for the bridge that was burned and destroyed over the last century or more. We need to come to terms with how we’ve wandered so far away from the truth of who we really are as human persons. We need to look back on the road we’ve traveled and find a way back to the smoldering ash and timber of the bridge we first crossed and then set ablaze long ago.
We need to rebuild that bridge so that we can get back home where we belong.
Here’s the problem: it’s been about 150 years since we were really 'home', and most folks alive today have no idea what that home looks like. Before we can go back, we need to rediscover what 'home' really is and how we moved so far away from it.
From the beginning (two centuries ago) it was not so…
Many Catholics today already possess the intuition that there is a crucial link, so to speak, between Humanae Vitae and homosexuality.
They can see how the severing of the unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations — and the reduction of marital relations to mere 'sex' — paved the way for the ideologies of 'orientation' and 'gender' that generate so-called “sexual minorities” and 'sexual identities.'
Yet, the genie was let out of the bottle so long ago that most of us can no longer see just how glaringly obvious this connection really is. To get a glimpse, one needs to go back to the beginning of the ideological roots that gave us ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ and spawned the chaos we have now.
A show of hands, please: How many of you know that the term ‘heterosexual’ was originally used to describe a condition that was considered, in clinical terms, like the term ‘homosexual,’ to be ‘morbid’ or ‘pathological’?
That’s right. These terms were first brought into use in the last decades of the 19th-century by psychologists seeking to classify sexual attractions, emotions, and acts — not persons, not ‘identities’ — associated with sexual abnormality. Of course, this begs the question — if even ‘heterosexual’ was pathological, what was considered ‘normal’ sexual attraction, emotion, and act?
Normal sexual desires and behaviors all had procreative sex as their focus.
- Acts and desires that directed a person toward procreative sexual activity (acts that properly could lead to procreation) were considered ‘normal.’
- Acts and desires reflecting a ‘morbid passion’ for non-procreative sex acts with someone of the other sex were classified as ‘heterosexual.’
- Acts and desires reflecting a ‘morbid passion’ for obviously non-procreative sex acts with someone of the same sex were classified as ‘homosexual.’ How many people are aware of this?
The original thinking of those who popularized the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ was aligned with the natural-law truths upheld by the Catholic Church regarding
God’s plan that the only normal and natural expression of sexual behavior is marital relations that are always open to procreation. Frustrating the procreative potential of sexual activity was always wrong. It is what so many psychologists of that late 19th century saw as ‘pathological.’
The seismic shift away from this thinking occurred mainly in the early 20th century — because of the birth control movement. The more socially acceptable birth control became, the greater the need to eliminate the procreative framework associated with categorizing non-procreative heterosexual behavior as ‘abnormal.’
The ‘Roaring’ 1920s reflect that transition, with some medical dictionaries by 1923 still referring to ‘heterosexuality’ as ‘morbid passion,’ while by the end of the decade, the first mainline Christian denomination (the now infamous Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930) allowed the use of contraception by its members.
And so the new ‘normal’ emerged — the term ‘heterosexual’ was untethered from its ‘morbid’ status and ‘procreative sex’ fell by the wayside as a norm.
A new norm began to emerge: the bright line between normal and abnormal was no longer whether your acts were procreative or non-procreative, but was instead about ‘who’ your sex partner was.
The ironic twist here is that normalizing heterosexuality by accepting contraception effectively escalated the stigma associated with having homosexual tendencies. The ‘we-they’ divide, so to speak, focused mostly, and more overtly, on whether your partner was same-sex or not.
Society had stepped firmly upon this bridge that led away from home, and promptly struck the first spark that would ultimately set the whole structure ablaze.
From acts to ‘identity’
Meanwhile, another evolution in thinking was underway. While the psychological distinction that saw homosexuality as a mental disorder held sway, more radical thinkers were thinking that, if this is the ‘kind’ of person who commits these pathological sex acts, then maybe the prevalent view that ‘heterosexuality’ was the mark of sexual maturity wasn’t quite right.
Non-heterosexuality in all its forms was viewed basically as some form of sexual ‘immaturity’ that could be overcome with treatments intended to direct a person to heterosexual maturity. But maybe people who committed homosexual acts were a different ‘kind’ of person altogether, some theorized.
If homosexual attraction were somehow innate and fixed, then no amount of intervention would likely alter the homosexual inclination. Further, then homosexual activity could be said to constitute acts ‘proper’ to this kind of person. It could be said that the homosexual inclination represented this person’s identity — they didn’t merely ‘have’ these attractions or ‘do’ homosexual acts. These people actually ’were’ homosexuals.
The decade of the 1950s ushered in pockets of such thinking, with the first few groups being organized to promote the ‘rights’ of this new ‘kind’ of person — the homosexual. Both individual and communal ‘identities’ were being formed and enhanced well beyond what had existed in the past. But because of the continuing social stigma, and the accompanying illegality of homosexual acts, these efforts were fundamentally underground.
In fact, at this time, the origin of the term ‘coming out’ was actually a rather precise parallel to the social convention of a debutante’s ‘coming out’ to polite society as a young, marriageable prospect for interested young men. When a homosexual ‘came out’ in this era, it was his ‘debut’ to this underground community — he was, still in secret, letting this still-hidden group know he was the ‘kind’ of person ready to behave as a homosexual behaves. It was still not a fully formed declaration of ‘identity,’ but it was close to it.
Even so, this pushed society further out onto the bridge, unconcerned as the smoke and flame billowed from behind.
From ‘identity’ to ‘pride’
What truly crystallized the ideologies of orientation and gender into a panoply of newly recognized identities was the civil unrest of the 1960s, energized by the civil rights movement and the patterns established by a variety of ‘minority’ groups seeking to claim their public place in society.
Alongside this was the advent of the hormonal contraceptive pill and the growing pro-abortion movement, both of which brought renewed attention to the divorce of procreation and sex. As so-called ‘straights’ clamored for their ‘reproductive rights’ and worshipped at the idolatrous altar of ‘the Pill,’ as ‘free love’ won the day and sexual promiscuity was celebrated as liberation, and as racial strife brought prejudice and oppression into the media spotlight, the still-largely-underground ‘homosexual community’ took notice.
Their timing was optimal for the explosive revolution of ‘gay liberation.’ It had been decades since society had set aside the procreative standard for sex. Anti-sodomy laws were viewed as antiquated — after all, didn’t ‘straights’ sometimes do that, too? Right around the time of the perfect storm that gave us the Stonewall Riots in 1969, the slogans ‘gay is good’ and ‘gay pride’ had won the day.
By then, even ‘coming out’ had morphed into ‘coming out of the closet.’ To be ‘gay’ was now to claim publicly one’s own personal identity, which brought with it not only entry into the ‘gay community’ but also public status as an unfairly stigmatized ‘sexual minority’ whose civil rights needed protection because, just like race, ‘sexual orientation’ was now a permanent part of ‘who I am’.
And how could ‘heterosexuals’ object? They had their own ‘straight liberation’ decades before, when non-procreative heterosexual sex became the new normal.
Not only could the rest of the world not object to ‘gay pride,’ it was now up to every person to make the socially correct choice. You either had to accept and affirm — not merely tolerate — this newly liberated ‘kind’ of person who didn’t just act a certain way but was ’gay’ to the core, or you were a bigot, a hater, a ‘homophobe,’ to be socially reviled just like any run-of-the-mill racist.
The end of the bridge was now in sight. But what was that smell of burning wood…and sulfur?
From ‘pride’ to…procreation?
Both the irony and audacity of ‘pride’ is clear in what has followed since then. Initially, the ‘LGBT community’ reassured society that it didn’t want what ‘straights’ had—marriage, and children. No, no - it would be enough just not to be ‘hated.’
But the goalposts constantly moved — 'No, we don’t want marriage, just civil unions! And if you object, you hate us' to 'Now we want marriage [and children] — it’s our right. Let us have it or you hate us'.
Now, in a twisted way, we’ve come full circle, back to the beginning,
the point at which procreative potential is desired, but on human terms, not on God’s terms. What was readily jettisoned by ‘heterosexuals’ a century ago is now the ‘marital’ accessory, expectation, and demand of same-sex ‘marriages’: children at all costs.
It’s as though this bridge brought us to a remarkable destination. We’ve arrived at the end of the road — and we stare into a massive, rippled fun-house mirror that shows us in its own twisted reflection the extent of the monumental destruction our journey really caused. We see tortured versions of that which we sought to escape, through the smoke and dust of the hellish horizon of our past.
What would have happened if, a century ago, procreation had remained the benchmark for sexual normalcy, as even the promoters of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ originally accepted? We’ll never know.
An error in the beginning is an error indeed. There is no path forward, except through the looking-glass, the twisted fun-house mirror that confronts us.
There is only one real way home. We need to turn around, stop burning our bridges, and begin to build again.
Fr Z has added his reflections on Deacon Russell’s presentation…
What is the appeal to ‘build a bridge’ really about?
July 11, 2017
I’ve argued here that the homosexualist agenda has been patiently engaged for a long time and is still reaching for that brass ring.
- The homosexualists have slowly been shifting the language about deviant same-sex acts and those who regularly commit them.
- Through the MSM and entertainment industry the image of homosexuality as something hidden and unclean was broken by replacing it with victim status during the flaming up of the AIDS epidemic in certain populations.
- Then the victim image had to be broken and replaced, which was accomplished through cool and with it characters in TV shows and other culture movers. Think of the absurdly high percentage of homosexuals in TV shows, increasing every year. I’ll bet you can’t turn on a TV series now and not find it filled with deviants. BUT! They are the cool and emotionally sensitive ones, who have answers for the dysfunctional and often less attractive ‘hetero’ characters.
- Fuse this culture shift with the rise of no-fault divorce and nearly universal contraception and we have the perfect deadly storm that can rip the sexual act conceptually away from marriage (what’s that?) and procreation (what’s that?).
Now that subcultures are multiplying like viruses, we are just about ready, I think, for the next stage of the assault on the human person and God’s plan. Not content for legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’, the next phase of the homosexualist agenda will soon be implemented: lowering the age of consent (aka the aforementioned the brass ring).
[It’s the age at which a person is considered legally competent to consent to sexual intercourse.]
[I had naively assumed that most, if not all, countries in the world had 18 as the legal age of consent. Great was my shock to learn, looking it up today,
that even in the USA, there are a considerable number of states that have it at 16.
In fact, a look at the current map for ‘age of consent’ around the world shows that 16 is the most prevalent age, followed closely by the ‘greens’
on the map (from age 12-14), led by almost all of Central and South America; China, Japan and the Philippines (and I did not even
know this about my own country); more than third of Europe, and a considerable part of Africa.
With that horrific thought – and I’m right and you know it – I direct your gaze now to Catholic World Report [the article I posted above] where there is an important piece about the ‘bridge’ building that Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin wants to build instead of the bridge that the Church has and can build.
Remember, the agenda has its agents within the Church. If you were the Devil, isn’t that where you would want your agents? Above all?
Whenever I write about any of this, worms come out of the woodwork and send obscene emails as if after all these years that would in some way disturb me. For the record, you poor wretches, I grew up surrounded by cops. I spent my youth (when this sort of thing was still possible) in police stations looking at crime and homicide scene photos and hearing about the cases my folks and their colleagues investigated, raids they conducted. Some of it was really really bad, the stuff of nightmares, which I occasionally did have.
And now I’ve been a priest with over a quarter of a century of hearing confessions under my belt. Priests hear it all. We hear it and hear it and don’t even blink, except to feel compassion and admiration for the courage of those making their confessions. I’ve heard it all. We see it all too, including things like bodies broken on train tracks and poor souls in burn units and mental health wards.
And yet you wretched dopes think that sending hate mail with perversion is somehow going to be effective? You poor sick dupes. I pray for you. But… if you send a threat… I’ll pray for you too, but you’ll also have a whole new experience. But I digress.
Let’s have a good chunk of the CWR piece so you can get the sense before going over there and getting the rest. I’ll provide some signposts…
[Instead of re-posting all the excerpts Fr. Z chooses, I will only report the parts that he comments on, and his comments, in red, as usual.]
…No, the bridge we really need to build right now is a replacement for the bridge that was burned and destroyed over the last century or more. [Did you get that? Over a quarter of a century or more. And this is what Fr. Murray wrote about the other day when he clearly described the pernicious agenda in the Jesuit writer’s book… which did not have an imprimi potest or imprimatur but which did have a nihil obstat from the Jesuit’s superior.]
…Here’s the problem: it’s been about 150 years since we were really ‘home,’[that’s more than a quarter of a century… right? What’s up with that?] and most folks alive today have no idea what that home looks like. Before we can go back, we need to rediscover what ‘home’ really is and how we moved so far away from it.
…They [many Catholics] can see how the severing of the unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations—and the reduction of marital relations to mere ‘sex’—paved the way for the ideologies of ‘orientation’ and ‘gender’ that generate so-called ‘sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual identities.’ [Yep. That’s what I’ve been saying.]
…And so the new ‘normal’ emerged [Isn’t there a TV show by that name?] —the term ’heterosexual’ was untethered from its ‘morbid’ status and ‘procreative sex’ fell by the wayside as a norm. A new norm began to emerge: the bright line between normal and abnormal was no longer whether your acts were procreative or non-procreative, but was instead about ‘who’ your sex partner was. [See what’s happening?]
…Non-heterosexuality in all its forms was viewed basically as some form of sexual ‘immaturity’ that could be overcome with treatments intended to direct a person to heterosexual maturity. But maybe people who committed homosexual acts were a different ‘kind’ of person altogether, some theorized. [This is the ‘made that way’ idea that the Jesuit writer is pushing along with the twisted notion ‘by God’. If homosexuals and same-sex attraction is also made by God, then what can be wrong with normalizing their behaviors and even calling them ‘good’? Remember: the next phase, or brass ring, is the lowering of the age of consent.]
This is an important essay to read, and keep close by for reference. Russell has brought an interesting new dimension to this discussion, at a good moment in time.
[And I'm thankful to Fr Z for opening my eyes to what's on mainstream American TV these days as I only look at TV - Fox News mostly - just to see what the media are up to these days.]
From the Wikipedia entry for the TV show
The New Normal with some edits and notes:
Bryan and David are a happy gay couple [they’re so gay together!] living in Los Angeles, [where else] with successful careers [they’re gay and successful!]. The only thing missing in their relationship is a baby. [Right, that’s what’s missing!] They meet Goldie Clemmons, a single mother and waitress from Ohio. [Uh ohhhh… not so successful, are you Goldie?] Goldie left her adulterous husband [sounds kinda dysfunctional] and moved to L.A. with her 9-year-old daughter Shania to escape their former life and start over. [Yep, a gal with a few problems. If only there were someone cool and successful to help her?] Jane, Goldie’s conservative grandmother, [OH NO! She’s CONSERVATIVE?] follows them to the city against Goldie’s wishes [More dysfunction, right?] thus causing havoc for her granddaughter and the gaycouple. [Remember them? The happy gays with successful careers who only want a baby?] Goldie decides to become Bryan and David’s gestational surrogate,[what the hell is THAT?] [dolore=#0026ff][It's the technical and legal term, of course, for 'rented uterus', i.e., the surrogate gets a fee for agreeing to be implanted with an embryo provided by the same-sex couple, to carry it for nine months and to deliver the baby, to which she will have no legal right whatsoever] and naturally, [‘naturally’… my God how twisted are the minds that write this] her family gets involved. [And quirky hijinx ensue in which the conservative grandmother – I’ll bet – I haven’t seen it – gets in the occasion good point, but is generally thwarted by the happy successful gays who generally have the sensitive solutions and help everyone just get along. Is that about right?]
And then there’s
Modern Family:
’Modern Family’ revolves around three different types of families (nuclear, step- and same-sex) living in the Los Angeles area [again] who are interrelated through Jay Pritchett and his children, Claire Dunphy (née Pritchett) and Mitchell Pritchett. Patriarch Jay is remarried to a much younger woman, Gloria Delgado Pritchett (née Ramirez), a passionate Colombian [are there any other kind?] with whom he has an infant son, Fulgencio (Joe) Pritchett, and a son from Gloria’s previous marriage, Manny Delgado.
Jay’s daughter Claire was a homemaker, but has returned to the business world; she is married to Phil Dunphy, a realtor and self-professed ‘cool Dad’. They have three children: Haley Dunphy, a stereotypical ditzy teenage girl; Alex Dunphy, a nerdy, smart middle child; and Luke Dunphy, the off-beat only son.
Jay’s lawyer son Mitchell and his husband Cameron Tucker have an adopted Vietnamese daughter, Lily Tucker-Pritchett. As the name suggests, this family represents a modern-day family and episodes are comically based on situations which many families encounter in real life. [REAL life. Even if people in this earthly vale have complicated situations like that, is that real? I am reminded of Plato’s analogy of reality and the cave.]
And then there’s
Transparent:
The story revolves around a Los Angeles [what a surprise] family and their lives following the discovery that the person they knew as their father Mort (Jeffrey Tambor) is transgender.
Yet how many of the 118 million homes that have TV in the USA {the number is provided by Nielsen which does the regular audience ratings) actually know or have even heard of persons and situations presented to them by TV as 'normal'???
However, the point of all this massive brainwashing taking place on TV everyday is precisely to introduce the new amoral and immoral certitudes of the dominant mentality - dominant not by numbers, but by virtue of controlling all communications media and thereby being able to impose itself onto the global mindset - so that the great majority of TV viewers (and media consumers, in general) will soon be led into thinking that these aberrations and anomalies are indeed considered 'normal' today and should therefore accept it all as 'right'!
The incredible reach and influence of mass media and communications today is so frighteningly absolute that they have managed to overturn in just a few decades everything that Christianity has preached for 2000 years. It is not wrong to say that what John Lennon bragged about the Beatles back in 1967 - 'We are more popular than Jesus Christ!" - is exactly what the mass media think they are today. Not just more popular but apparently, far more influential. At least in the short run, so far.
And very apropos, even if Pius X, Catherine of Siena and Peter Damian did not mention the many varieties of sexual deviancy today - all known in Biblical times with the exception of 'transformations' made possible by modern plastic surgery and hormones...
St. Pius X and other saints on homosexuals
How they would have dealt with ‘gay orgies’ at the Vatican
By Pete Baklinski
July 11, 2017
The Vatican under Pope Francis has been completely silent after news recently broke of a high-ranking monsignor who was arrested some two months ago in the act of hosting a cocaine-fueled homosexual orgy in a building right next to St. Peter’s Basilica.
[Vatican press director Greg Burke hastened to issue a oneline denial – to two blogsites - of an account of Cardinal Mueller’s dismissal meeting with the pope, but apparently does not think the ‘gay orgy reports require any comment at all from the Vatican. One must therefore presume the Vatican is not contesting the reports at all.]
But silence in the face of blatant sexual deviancy, especially among the clergy, has never been the practice of some of the Church’s greatest leaders, including Doctors of the Church and one saintly pope. During the height of the Renaissance, homosexuality among the clergy was no small problem. Pope Pius V, who was later canonized, directly combatted what he called the ‘horrible crime’ of homosexual practices among the clergy by setting down strict directives.
‘That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal,’ he wrote in his 1568 Apostolic Constitution Horrendum illud scelus.
It is interesting to note that Saint Pius V never shrunk from the duty of his high office with statements such as ‘who am I to judge.’ Rather, he combatted homosexuality ‘with the greatest possible zeal.’ Pius V decreed that not only were active homosexual clergy to be removed from the ‘clerical order,’ but they were to be handed over to the ‘secular authority’ for punishment.
”Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.”
Going back to the writings of St. Paul and even further to the Old Testament, the Church has a long history of speaking out against homosexuality. St. Paul warns the Romans (1:26-27) that
when men chose to worship and serve the creature over the Creator, God gave them up to the‘lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
Elsewhere St. Paul warns that ‘homosexuals’ among other sinners will ‘not inherit the kingdom of God’ unless they become ‘washed…sanctified…justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Two saints, both doctors of the Church, who spoke out forcefully against homosexuality within the clergy are Saint Peter Damian, an 11th-century Italian Catholic reformer and Saint Catherine of Siena, a 14th-century religious mystic.
St. Peter Damian wrote his Book of Gomorrah to Pope Leo IX in 1049 at a time when homosexuality and sexual perversion within the clergy were likely more rampant than it is today. Damien showed no false mercy or compromise in condemning sodomy, what he believed to be the gravest of all sins.
”If this absolutely ignominious and abominable vice is not immediately stopped with an iron fist, ‘ he told the Pope, ‘the sword of Divine wrath will fall upon us, bringing ruin to many”.
Damian warned the Pope that the ‘cancer of sodomitic impurity is creeping through the clerical order,’ decrying the sexual abuse of ‘spiritual sons’ by Catholic priests. He warned that all clergy who are habituated to homosexual behavior should be removed from the priesthood, and that the wrath of God is provoked against those who continue to offer the sacrifice of the Mass while committing homosexual sins. According to Damian, the evil of homosexual behavior
”…surpasses the savagery of all other vices… to be compared to no other. For this vice is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls, pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the intellect, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, introduces the diabolical inciter of lust, throws into confusion, and removes the truth completely from the deceived mind… (and) whoever has soiled himself with the contamination of sodomitic disgrace ... unless he is cleansed by the fulfillment of fruitful penance, can never have the grace of God, will never be worthy of the body and blood of Christ, and will never cross the threshold of the celestial homeland”.
To priests engaging in homosexual activities, he warns:
Beware of inextinguishably inflaming the fury of God against you, lest by your prayers you more sharply provoke Him whom you patently offend by your evil acts”.
Damian expressed profound sorrow for those priests who had fallen into sexual perversion. He promised them that they could be liberated from their enslavement to sin by God and restored spiritually if they repent and do penance.
St. Catherine of Siena said in her famous Dialogues — written as if dictated by God — that
priests who commit homosexuals sins appear before God as those filled with ‘stench and misery.’ Such priests, the Lord told Catherine, not only offend by failing to resist their fallen nature, ‘but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature [homosexual acts]... Like the blind and stupid having dimmed the light of the understanding, they do not recognize the stench and misery in which they find themselves. Continued the Lord to Catherine:
”It is not only that this sin stinks before me, who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it”. Homosexual sin is traditionally one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. The Lord told Catherine that even the demons are repulsed by this sin.
“This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin”.
St. Catherine recounted the Lord saying that prayers and tears are the remedies for such sins among the clergy.
“Never cease offering me the incense of fragrant prayers for the salvation of souls, for I want to be merciful to the world. With your prayers and sweat and tears, I will wash the face of my bride, Holy Church. I showed her to you earlier as a maiden whose face was all dirtied as if she were a leper. The clergy and the whole of Christianity are to blame for this because of their sins, though they receive their nourishment at the breast of this bride”.
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a Catholic blogger, wrote that Satan especially attacks clergy because their ‘influence extends over many souls.
“Take down an individual, okay. Take down a father of a family, better. Take down a parish priest or bishop, even better. Take down officials in the Church’s HQ so that massive scandal can be broadcast by the MSM… a damned ‘good’ day’s work”…
Zuhlsdorf said that it is likely no coincidence that the orgy allegedly took place in the same building where ‘doctrine is overseen for the whole Church and abuse cases are dealt with.’ He said the entire building should be exorcized.
”Enemy demons can attach themselves to places and objects and infest them due to sins that are committed in them and with them. They stick to those places like vile, hell-leeches and claim the right to be there because of those sins until their hold is broken through exorcism. If I were Pope, I would weekly send exorcists around the curial offices to clean house. If I were a bishop, I would weekly send priests around blessing the workspaces of the chancery and sprinkling holy water and even blessed salt”.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 12/07/2017 20:01]