The Mystery of the Missing Tweet: English & Welsh Bishops Support Transgenderism – Dissent Prohibited…

Image

From Lifesitenews… 

The tweet was welcomed by American LGBT activist Father James Martin, SJ., who tweeted in response, “I join with the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales in praying for all transgender people, especially those who are persecuted in any way. May you know that you are all God’s beloved children.”

However, English Catholics were less enthusiastic at what some construed as a blurring of Catholic doctrine on human sexuality.
Author and speaker Father Marcus Holden responded to the bishops’ tweet by saying that the secular holiday is part of an “ideological colonisation”:

While we must pray for everyone who has died and fight against persecutions of any group of vulnerable people, ‘Transgender Remembrance Day’ is part of an ‘ideological colonisation’ which Catholics cannot support,” he wrote. “I’m surprised to see this here.”
The English priest concluded with a link to the wikipedia page about the secular, pro-LGBT innovation.
Click here to read the rest of this report, and to reach the links in the above extract…

 

Catholic Truth Comment: 

In a separate development, I received news of a deleted tweet.  Get this, folks.  The Ordinariate of Our Lady of  Walsingham, posted its own tweet (see below), dissociating the Ordinariate from the Bishops’ support for this scandalous celebration of transgenderism (for that is, make no mistake about it, what is going on – this is the usual devious “let’s pray for these persecuted people” way of communicating support for sexual deviancy) only to find themselves (we must assume) rebuked and ordered to remove their perfectly legitimate tweet. Not only is it a perfectly legitimate tweet, but a dutiful tweet.  If they were not ordered to delete it, why would they?  And who ordered them? Who put pressure on them to delete the tweet below?  Do they no longer wish to be dissociated from this statement from the Bishops of England and Wales?  Are they now supportive? What then?

Catholic Truth wholly endorses the content of the deleted tweet, and we will send a link to this blog discussion to the Ordinariate, for their information and to signal our support for their absolutely praiseworthy attempt to stand up for the Faith and true Morals in the face of this latest scandal from the Bishops of England & Wales, as they continue to push the LGBT+++ agenda.   The link is also being sent to the Bishops of England & Wales via their website. 

 

Is Pope Francis right to think he will “go down in history” as a Schismatic? Gulp!

Extracts below, from Christian Order February 2018 editorial: Francis is So Bad, He’s Good  

 

If we speak explicitly, …what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly.” (Pope Francis)

“Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”       (Jesus Christ)

As underlined last month, the filthy fingerprints of the Father of Lies are now all over the Vatican (aka Sodomy Central). Hiding in plain sight, his ‘signature’ is not only apparent in orgiastic eruptions, however. It is also clear and ever present in the leitmotif of this papacy — deception.

This devilish modus operandi is expressed in the slithering papal strategy above, confided by Francis to his Special Secretary for the 2014/15 Sinods, Archbishop Bruno Forte. In October 2014, it was Forte who penned the infamous text calling for the Church to “value” homosexuality. And it was Forte who subsequently revealed that his boss had told him:

“If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you don’t know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Far from “evil”, as Our Lord Himself designated such deceit, Forte found this papal ploy so clever (“typical of a Jesuit,” he sniggered) and so appealing, that he had no qualms whatsoever recounting it during a May 2016 conference on the equally deceitful Amoris Laetitia.

Wherever we look, it’s that sort of papacy. There was even a deceptive symmetry about the Pope’s Christmas message and subsequent stroll across St. Peter’s Square to view the Vatican Nativity. After vespers in St. Peter’s, having just bewailed a “wasted and wounded” year of “lies and injustices” (perpetrated by everyone except himself, of course) our pontifical hypocrite then visited and complimented a subversive depiction of Bethlehem; a ‘wound, lie and injustice’ that passed without papal comment, despite (or because?) it involved a blasphemous nudge and wink to the sodomitic culture he has cultivated.

Pink provocations

Under the pretext of clothing the naked, the life-size nativity featured a naked man lying on the straw right opposite the manger. He was being offered a cloth by a pilgrim, but as one of countless outraged onlookers truly observed, he was “too much a poster boy for the local gym to be a man in need of corporeal mercy.” Indignant Catholics were not alone in voicing their disgust. Even ultra-liberal Facebook drew the line. It rejected an advert centred on the scene with the following explanation: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative”!

Unlike Francis, who blithely praised the Nativity as “inspired by the works of mercy,” its creator, Antonio Cantone, at least displayed signs of a conscience, albeit a guilty one. “It is not a campy nativity,” he pouted, before conceding that it did contain “provocations.” You might say! As Ann Barnhardt discovered:

It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevergine, a Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. The Sanctuary of Montevergine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.

[In 1256], a false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men, after being caught, convicted and condemned to death by exposure for their sickening capital crimes by being tied to a tree, were miraculously saved by the Virgin of Montevergine, whereupon the two sodomites… wait for it… promptly celebrated by sodomizing each other because their “love” had been ratified by the Queen of Heaven, or something.

Blasphemy of the sickest and most demonic sort. This blasphemy spread, and now the Sanctuary of Montevergine is used by Italian sodomites as a mascot for gay pride marches and drag queen conventions. The biggest gay pride march at the Shrine of Montevergine, happens, even more blasphemously, on February 2, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

So the Vatican Nativity scene was made at the Shrine of the so-called “Gay Madonna”, and there is an image of the Icon of the Madonna of Montevergine in the Vatican Nativity scene itself – a CLEAR SIGNAL to the sex perverts that the scene is a bow to them.
So, to all the people who remarked that the figure of the Blessed Virgin in the Vatican Nativity scene looks really, really masculine, almost like a man in drag, I think you have
been vindicated.

Just as Freemasons on every continent, but especially in Italy, imprint their occult symbols on monuments, buildings and structures of every kind, so the inclusion in the Vatican Nativity of male erotica, a masculine Madonna and, in one corner, a replica of the Icon of Montevirgine — known in Italy as “The Gay Madonna” and “The Madonna of the Drag Queens” — were Pink Mafia ‘calling cards which cried out: We’re everywhere! Subverting! Deceiving! Defiling all that is holy, wholesome, innocent and pure!

Such ‘pink provocations’ are now legion and flagrant.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.

Painted by Argentinian sodomite Ricardo Cinalli, the pornographic mural depicts an almost nude Christ figure lifting two nets filled with contorting human figures, including a nude depiction of Paglia himself. Cinalli confirmed that Paglia had approved every stage of the work. He added that Paglia had drawn the line only at depicting the figures in the act of copulating, but agreed “that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.”

Creepy Curia

Thus, forever fixated on political deceptions and lies, our worldly pontiff happily ignores the deceit, mendacity and associated perversions tearing the Church apart. He ignores them because he facilitates and personifies those very traits — as the Forte revelation, the Paglia appointment and a Curia stacked with his creepy placemen make crystal clear.
Aflame with radical Modernism, Vatican Congregations, Pontifical Councils and Institutes, and other curial bodies are all billowing forth the smoke of Satan. Cleansed of orthodox heads and advisers they are now run by sinister figures like Francesco Coccopalmerio (Legislative Texts), Pio Vito Pinto (Roman Rota) and the aforementioned Vincenzo Paglia (Council for Life/Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences), to name just a few. Yet if there is ‘something of the night’ about all these men, and so many other Bergoglian appointees beyond Rome, it goes double for the man who appointed them. 

Schismatic agenda

Modernism alone does not account for Francis. Quite apart from doctrinal issues, he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail. How else to account for the unhinged rants, the perverts he coddles, and, above all, the noxious path to formal schism he is not only set upon but talks of treading? Der Spiegel of 23 December 2016 reported him having said, “It is not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” A boast that flags his instability, it is not, however, an idle one. Daily reports confirm what we all sense: that his cherished place in history (infamy more like) is nigh.  [Emphasis added -Ed.]

Among several schismatic snippets filed at the time of writing, Bishop Bode, Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, wants to bless active homo pairs because he feels that “it is difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” [LifeSiteNews, 10/1/18] Yet in order to comprehend sodomy as mortally sinful behaviour, and so conform himself to the plain-speaking counsel of Christ, it is not so difficult for His Lordship simply to Google the hard science on destructive sodomitic fruits. Like his pontifical role-model, however, the Bishop “won’t speak plainly.” Instead, he babbles. “We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess in a differentiated manner a relationship between two homosexual persons,” he proclaims. “Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?”

As Jesus taught, this sort of evasive, convoluted verbiage — ideological blather that will not countenance a “yes” or “no” — “comes from evil.” And schism is its evil end. To read the rest of this devastating editorial, click here…

Comments invited… 

And to subscribe to Christian Order (recommended) click here

Interfaith… or Interference with God’s Plan of Salvation: does Church matter?

Below, extract from Archbishop stresses unity during visit to synagogue

Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, Glasgow

Archbishop Tartaglia of Glasgow said: “I think it’s important to remember no matter what religion we are loyal to it’s ultimately God that directs and nourishes us in our daily lives and on different perspectives of certain issues, God is talking and guiding us all in our daily lives.

“Ultimately, that is the truth of the matter and it is therefore up to our Churches, Synagogues and Kirk to take that message of a ‘common good’ to the doorsteps of those who don’t believe.

“In a world that has so much devastation we each believe our religion has the truth to finding peace and happiness, but our differences are not the cause of conflict and dispute.

“Here today we are gathered as that witness of a desire for men and women of different religions to promote harmony, especially during Interfaith Week.
“Our role within civic society can help expose people of every class and denomination to a platform in which they can be informed of God’s message of hope and the common good which is a powerful force to unite people.
“As we sit together this morning discussing our Faiths we are grateful for the things we have in common and can be thankful for positive relationships which now exist between different religions and denominations.”  Source – Scottish Catholic Observer (SCO)

Comment: 

Ecumenical and interfaith events such as that described in the SCO report above, make it increasingly difficult to see the point of individual religions.  Are they really nothing more than a group of “peace” movements, at their best when working together to achieve peace, locally, nationally, globally?  Is that what “religion” is all about.   It’s not what I was taught, that’s for sure. I was taught that God has a plan of salvation, and that this plan of salvation is – in accordance with His will – achieved through His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  Surely, if that is true, the Archbishop has a duty to say so and not make statements to the effect that God is pleased with every religion as long as they are looking after “the common good”, whatever that might be at any point in time.  Share your thoughts…  

Scottish Schools to Teach LGBT Rights – Catholic Bishops Tacitly Supportive…

Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon (centre) celebrates with Time for Inclusive Education activists…

Schools in Scotland soon will be required to teach students LGBT history to prevent “homophobia and transphobia” and to encourage exploration of  their gender identity.

That’s according to the London Guardian, which says Scotland has become the first nation in the world to embed teaching about gender options in its regular school curriculum.

The move comes after lawmakers “accepted in full the recommendations of a working group led by the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) campaign,” the report said.

“There will be no exemptions or opt-outs to the policy, which will embed LGBTI inclusive education across the curriculum and across subjects and which the Scottish government believes is a world first,” the report said.

Those advocating for mandates regarding alternative sexual lifestyles were cheered.

“This is a monumental victory for our campaign, and a historic moment for our country,” Jordan Daly of TIE told the newspaper.  Read more here

Comment:  

So, to sum up…  “Scotland will become the first country in the world to embed the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights in the school curriculum…” 

Pride in our national identity used to be a characteristic of Scots.  Well, not this Scot.  I’m thoroughly ashamed to belong to a country – once renowned for its rigorous academic record in education – where evil is being taught (“embedded”) so that young people grow up to think that homosexual activity and “transgenderism” are normal behaviours; something good and desirable. 

And note, importantly, that the Scottish Bishops can’t complain about the fact that  “there will be no exemptions or opt-outs to the policy” [including for Catholic schools, obviously] because one of their priests – Father Paul Morton, Diocese of Motherwell –  actively supports the group behind this diabolical policy, the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE)  Not only does he actively support TIE but the Scottish press lauded him as the very first Catholic “representative” [of the Bishops] to support LGBT education in schools. 

This policy, then, is being implemented in Catholic schools, with the active support of the Catholic Church in Scotland – and that will remain the case unless and until the Bishops take action – publicly – to safeguard children in the Catholic education system against being “embedded” with immoral beliefs which are contrary to Catholic teaching because they are offensive to God. Not for any puerile reasons, not out of bigotry or prejudice, but because such sexual immorality is offensive to God.  

We’ve discussed this LGBT indoctrination in schools before and, to be honest although I saw the headline a few days ago, I contented myself with posting it on one of the topic threads, but now that I’m getting emails from thousands of miles away to alert me to this latest report, I thought it might be time to launch another thread, in the hope of encouraging Catholic teachers and parents to fight this evil with all of their collective might, in a spirit of better late than never.  I didn’t include “priests” in that list.  No prizes for guessing why…

Everyone’s going along to get along, as the saying goes.  Nobody’s fighting back.  Everybody’s terrified of the LGBT +++ juggernaut.  I’m not crazy about it, myself, but I think we need to regroup and DO something.  But what?  When Catholics thousands of miles away are reading that Scotland is proud of being  a”world first” in brainwashing children into the LGBT +++ “lifestyle”, then maybe it’s long past time we were a bit more pro-active in dealing with this scandal.  

Talking’s no use.  I challenged Father Paul Morton to a debate, before, remember?  That went down like the proverbial lead balloon, with the Bishop banning any such debate although not banning Father Morton from his supportive “pastoral” work on behalf of the TIE bunch. I wonder what that Bishop is thinking now, with the “fruits” of his tolerance about to be “embedded” in the souls of children and young Catholics across Scotland. 

I’m fresh out of ideas. Over to thee!  

Priestly Formation: Back to the Future?

Comment:

Clearly, the ongoing flood of scandals involving seminarians and priests calls into question the type of formation taking place (or not taking place) in contemporary seminaries.  The above “A Day in the Life of a Seminarian” offers a glimpse into the training of priests in a “traditional” Catholic seminary.  But note –  prior to Vatican II, the word “traditional” was not used to describe – as now  – a specific group of Catholics.  ALL Catholics were taught to hold fast to both Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which bear equal weight within the Church.

We are reliably informed, as if it’s not obvious, that these days the sort of disciplined seminary life shown in the above video is not the norm in diocesan seminaries.  They seem to be run more like a hostel for young single men, who may come and go as they please, eat out with friends (male and female) and generally live as an independent, single man. 

Surely then, one key ingredient in the ending of the current scandal-ridden priesthood is a return to the sort of disciplined, spiritual, rigorously academic and thoroughly Catholic formation which the students in the above video are enjoying. 

Critics will argue that such a restrictive regime won’t attract modern young men – what do you think?  

Scots Bishop, John Keenan of Paisley, Publicly Supports Medjugorje Hoax…

The Editor writes… 

The stated judgment of the local, investigating Bishop, the Church authority on alleged apparitions, is that the claimed “apparitions” at Medjugorje are not true     Note: the Vatican investigation was launched only because the defiant “seers” refused to accept the decision of their Bishop.

Still, we find “pilgrimages” being organised against the stated wishes of the local Bishop, with priests and bishops setting very bad example by going there and giving credence to what is, effectively, the Devil’s answer to Fatima.  Click here to read the local Bishop’s statement about NOT giving publicity and credibility to this hoax. 

It’s shocking, therefore, but not too surprising to us, to have to report that one of the Scottish Bishops – Bishop John Keenan of Paisley – has defied the wishes of the local Ordinary by accompanying a group called Mary’s Meals (which, from my own, personal – albeit limited – experience of them is up to its neck in Medjugorje) to that diabolical “shrine”. 

Bishop Keenan said: “I was very glad that my first experience of Medjugorje was at the invitation of Mary’s Meals, in order to bless the new centre. We gathered here as a family; Mary’s Meals supporters from Croatia, from the Czech Republic, from Spain, from Italy, from Bosnia-Herzegovina, from Austria, from Scotland and some from Ireland as well.
“As the Mary’s Meals movement grows bigger, there is this sense of the need to return to the source – the wellspring of Mary’s Meals. Therefore, the new Mary’s Meals centre locates itself in Medjugorje where everything began. It allows many people from different countries to be introduced to Mary’s Meals and hopefully take the movement back to their own countries.”

Read the whole report here – unashamedly posted on the website of the Diocese of Paisley. 

Comments invited especially from those who continue to insist that Bishop Keenan is “the orthodox Scottish Bishop,” to which I unfailingly reply:  Yeah, right!  About as “orthodox” as his mentor, Pope Francis.  Yip. THAT orthodox… 

Can’t resist adding that every time I remember Bishop Keenan saying, on his episcopal appointment, that he wanted to “bring Pope Francis’ vision of the Church to Paisley” I have a quiet smile to myself, as I look forward to the spiritual, religious and moral cartwheels he’ll have to turn  if when we get a really sound, traditional pope.  That WILL be fun and worry not, I’ll devote an entire thread to it, be assured…  

English College in Rome: Scene of Latest Seminary/Homosexual Scandal? 

From the Editor…

Some time ago, I was contacted by an English reader who was concerned about a seminarian from an Archdiocese in England who, on social media outlets, has shown support for the “gay culture”. I received evidence of this “support” for the “so-called gay culture” and – given that the Vatican prohibition on the acceptance into seminary and ordination of homosexuals includes not only those who are homosexually active or with deep-seated homosexual tendencies but also those who “support the so-called gay culture” – the material did ring an alarm bell.
However, I didn’t act on the information immediately, but waited a bit before contacting the Rector at the Venerable English College in Rome to ask for an email address for the seminarian in question. I decided that the first, and fair, thing to do was to give the seminarian the opportunity to reflect on the Church’s prohibition on ordaining homosexuals, and to inform him of the fact that, despite his involvement in the “gay culture” having been scrubbed from his internet history, the evidence is still held on file by concerned Catholics.

Promptly, the Rector, Monsignor Whitmore, replied to provide an email address and I contacted the young man on 26 July 2018 explaining that “…a reader in England sent me some Facebook screen shots of you, ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that you were on ‘Pride’ committees – stuff like that -which led me to believe that you – at least at that time – didn’t fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You appeared also, on Twitter, to support a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Since you are on your way to ordination to the priesthood, it would be reassuring to know that the above is all in the past and that you now, fully and unequivocally, accept Church teaching on homosexuality.”

[Name] replied promptly, to assure me that he did now fully and unequivocally accept the Church’s teaching on this matter…” [emphasis added]. I decided that I was obliged to take him at his word, and reassured him on this point.

Then the veritable tsunami of homosexual scandals broke, with shocking insights into the normalising of homo-sexual life in Catholic seminaries, published across the internet. Bishops, not merely tolerating homosexual couplings  (bad enough as that would be) but actually approving such activity within seminaries.

After further consultation with our source in England, I wrote again to the seminarian, my email dated 20 October, 2018,  as follows, but this time, received no reply:

Dear [Name],

Further to our brief email exchange in July, when I was pleased to accept your assurance that you now accept the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, I hope you appreciate that, in the light of the tsunami of homosexual scandals involving priests and bishops which followed our correspondence, given the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of homosexual men or even those with “deep seated tendencies” or who “support the so-called gay culture”, I am unable to remain silent in the face of the evidence of your participation of the “gay” scene, and even support for same-sex marriage.

We are discussing, on our blog, the sacking of a sound priest from both Maynooth seminary in Ireland and St Mary’s Oscott in Birmingham, simply because he sought to apply the prohibition required by the Church. You can follow that conversation here

As you will see, if you read Father Marsden’s Open Letter to the UK Bishops, and contributions from our bloggers, on that thread, I must, on reflection, offer you another opportunity to re-consider your position.

My intention is not to upset you. I hope you understand that, and that I do, in conscience, believe that I was wrong to so readily dismiss the Church’s ruling on refusing homosexual candidates for seminary, in your case. That I was wrong to do so, has been driven home to me by the flood of revelations now in the public domain, and the shocking role of many bishops, themselves homosexually compromised, in the cover-up of homosexual abuse of vulnerable young people – including seminarians.

I look forward to your reply, in the hope that you have, in fact, realised yourself, in the light of the ongoing scandals, that the Church is wise to refuse ordination to those who are actively homosexual, have deep seated tendencies towards homosexuality and/or who support the so-called gay culture, and that you will, consequently, re-consider your own vocation. [Signed…] Ends.

When it became clear that the seminarian was going to sit it out, I felt I had no alternative but to contact the seminary Rector, Monsignor Philip Whitmore, Archdiocese of Westminster, copying into that email, the Vice Rector, Fr John Flynn, Diocese of Salford, Pastoral Director, Fr John Metcalfe, Diocese of Hallam, Academic Tutor, Fr James McAuley, Diocese of Portsmouth and Spiritual Director, Fr Anthony Doe, Archdiocese of Westminster. Thus, nobody at the seminary can claim ignorance of the fact that a seminarian with a public homosexual profile is to be ordained for an English archdiocese. My email – dated 24 October, 2018 – to the Rector, copies to the above-named senior staff, follows:

Dear Monsignor Whitmore,

Some months ago, I wrote to you to request an email address for [Name]. I repeat my gratitude for your speedy response to my request, and I apologise for the length of this email, which, I hope you will come to see, is lengthy only out of necessity. The following is the pertinent extract from my first email to [Name] which explains why I had decided to write to him:

“…a reader in England sent me some Facebook screen shots of you, ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that you were on ‘Pride’ committees – stuff like that -which led me to believe that you – at least at that time – didn’t fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You appeared also, on Twitter, to support a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Since you are on your way to ordination to the priesthood, it would be reassuring to know that the above is all in the past and that you now, fully and unequivocally, accept Church teaching on homosexuality.”

[Name] replied promptly, to assure me that he did “now fully and unequivocally accept the Church’s teaching on this matter…”

Despite the Church’s prohibition on accepting homosexuals into seminary and ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood, I felt I could, in conscience, let the matter rest there.

However, in the light of the subsequent tsunami of scandals involving homosexual seminarians, priests and bishops, not least the persecution of priests such as Father David Marsden SCJ during his work as a seminary formator in not one, but two seminaries (Maynooth and Oscott), I now feel that I am conscience bound to inform you of my concerns about the prospect of [Name] going forward to ordination. Indeed, although I’m sure that you will be aware of the case of Father David Marsden SCJ, you can read about his situation and the attendant growing concern among the laity regarding the failure to apply the Church’s prohibition on accepting homosexuals into seminary, and, subsequently, ordaining them, on our blog here

My own conscience is now troubling me, not least because I am reminded of the detail of the Church’s concerns about homosexuality within the priesthood: “In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.” [emphasis added – Source]

Further, to bring the issue right up to date, I have, only this morning, received the following news from a friend in England:

“At today’s press briefing, Veteran Vaticanist Sandro Magister also asked a question on the Church’s acceptance of homosexuals. Magister asked Cardinal Tagle:

“You have said that the synod has been insistent on the welcome and accompaniment and integration of homosexual young people. So I ask you: In the seminaries throughout the world, we know that the welcome of homosexual young men as candidates to the priesthood is very strong and also very generous, with the effect that Pope Francis has spoken about it in alarming words.”

Last May, Pope Francis spoke behind closed doors to Italian bishops gathered for their plenary assembly, telling them: “The seminaries are welcoming too many homosexuals” and “we need to put the brakes on it.” Ends.

I wrote again to [Name] on Saturday, but, to date, I have not received any reply.

[Ed: at this point I reproduced here, my latest email to the seminarian, dated 20th October – see above].

If, Monsignor, you have any doubts about my concerns, I will readily email you the screen shots from [Name’s] Facebook which show that he – at the very least – “supports the so-called gay culture.” 

Be assured, I take no pleasure in writing any of this but I feel duty bound to place the matter in your hands, leaving it with your conscience and the consciences of the staff copied into this email. [Signed, Editor, Catholic Truth] Ends.

Receiving no reply from the Rector, or any of the priests at the Venerable English College in Rome copied into my email, and since publicity is genuinely our last resort, I wrote one last time to the seminarian as follows:


Dear [Name],

When you failed to respond to my email dated 20 October, I decided that I ought to contact the Rector and other senior staff at your seminary. It occurs to me that I should have copied you into that email, so, with apologies for that oversight, better late than never, please find below, my email to them.

As a friend has just said, when even Pope Francis expresses the view that something has to be done about the rampant homosexuality in seminaries, it’s clear that there is a problem!   Quite!

Thus, I repeat my exhortation to you to reconsider your position; perhaps you would reply to this email by Thursday, November 1, Feast of All Saints, latest, to let me know if you agree.

Since I have not had any reply from your Rector (not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement), then, absent the above requested assurance from you, I will be duty bound to place the information in my possession, into the public domain. That does not mean that I will name you – I won’t do that, but with the available data, it should not be too difficult for informed English Catholics to work out your identity. Obviously, that is not desirable, so I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position, if not as a result of my email(s) then as a result of reminding yourself of the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of those with homosexual tendencies, or even who “support the so-called gay culture”…

[My above email to Mgr. Whitmore et al appended here, in original email – Ed.]

Kind regards – God bless you.
[Signed]… Ends.

Conclusion…

So, what do we learn from the above correspondence? Do we learn that Oscott is not the only English seminary with a serious homosexual problem? Is the English College in Rome also implicated? Well, we certainly learn this:  that there is a seminarian in the English College in Rome who is going forward to ordination despite his documented support for the so-called “gay culture” – and we learn that each of his superiors, knowing this, apparently refuses to apply the Church’s prohibition on his ordination. 

The Church has good reason for refusing ordination to homosexuals. It’s not about “bigotry” or “discrimination” in the pejorative sense. Below, the pertinent section from the Vatican document Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders…

“From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter,

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.  Source   [Ed: emphases added].

Clearly, there is no excuse whatsoever for seminary Rectors to continue to accept and ordain young men with homosexual tendencies or who are supportive of the culture that nourishes this tendency – which is, in fact, a vice.

We have asked the seminarian in question to re-consider his position – that is, to withdraw from seminary and refuse ordination in an act of humble submission to the teaching and discipline of the Church. Failing this, his superiors should refuse him ordination.

Given the flood of recent scandals, and the ongoing scandals at the Irish and English seminaries, Maynooth and Oscott respectively, the senior seminary staff – together with their bishops/archbishops – bear a very heavy responsibility before God for their defiance in refusing to apply the crucial criteria for the discernment of priestly vocations. The crisis in the Church today is essentially a crisis in the priesthood and that crisis is hallmarked by the widespread infestation of homosexual activity and mentality, into the once glorious Catholic priesthood: “This Congregation reaffirms the need for Bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a conception of the ministerial priesthood that is in accordance with the teaching of the Church. Let Bishops, episcopal conferences and major superiors look to see that the constant norms of this Instruction be faithfully observed for the good of the candidates themselves, and to guarantee that the Church always has suitable priests who are true shepherds according to the Heart of Christ.”

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.

Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries.

Comment: 

Presumably, our approaches to both the seminarian and senior seminary staff will continue to be ignored.  Hopefully, bloggers and readers will feel rightly outraged at this blatant disregard for the Church’s prohibition on accepting into seminary and ordaining homosexuals, including men who – like the seminarian referred to above – support the “gay” culture.  Given the flood of scandals which are continuing to shock the world, then, hopefully you, too, will contact the senior seminary staff at the Venerable English College in Rome – click here for email addresses. Let them know that you have read about this scandal on this blog and they’ll perhaps realise that rudely ignoring the genuine concerns of the Catholic people, isn’t going to work. 

Is there anything else, then, that we can do,  beyond the above calling to account of those with responsibility to deal with this situation, and the obvious prayer and penance?  Let’s hear it!   But first, an important note…

Important Note…

Please do not speculate, in the comments, as to the identity of the seminarian reported in this article.  or name any seminarians at the English College in Rome.   If you have information pertinent to this situation, please contact the Rector directly, and if you think Catholic Truth can help in any way, email editor@catholictruthscotland.com   Indeed, it would be useful for us to be able to include in any future reports the fact that the identity of this seminarian has been reported to the Rector by others, independently of our approaches.  However, here, on the blog, no names, no pack drill… Anyone flouting this instruction will be blocked from participating in the discussion.