Will Seminary Document Stay Straight?

 

 by John Vennari

 

Joseph Kellenyi, a former seminarian who was persecuted by the strong gay subculture among seminary students and faculty, noted the following about celibate homosexual clergymen: “I have heard time and again that the sexual orientation of priests and seminarians does not matter, as long as they are celibate. Yet when gays come into positions of authority they knowingly and consistently appoint gay men to important key positions."

 

 The news media buzzed in early October with reports of a new Directive from the Vatican addressing whether homosexuals may be admitted to seminaries.

Previous reports indicated that the Directive, which has been in the works for three years, contained an absolute ban on homosexuals in seminaries.

But an October 7 report in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera said the 16-page instruction will not contain an absolute prohibition, but will admit homosexuals who can prove they have been celibate for three years.1

This report was seconded by the National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen. He wrote, “A forthcoming document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise ‘prudential judgment’ that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.”

Those three cases are:

    • If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;

    • If they are part of a “gay culture,” for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);

    • If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently “strong, permanent and univocal” as to make an all-male environment a risk.2

If these reports are true, then it appears the Vatican has caved in to the homosexual lobby. The “three year celibacy” clause defies traditional Catholic discipline, and is contrary to clear language of the 1961 Vatican document, “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders”3 In Section D of the Instruction: “The Required Chastity”, we read:

Right-thinking Catholics had hoped that the new Directive would contain the same sort of unambiguous ban as did the 1961 Instruction. It appears that this may not be the case. If the new document contains the “three-year” clause, then the Vatican has left the door open for homosexuals to continue to be admitted to Catholic seminaries. 

 

Laughable

 

 News of the alleged three-years-of-celibacy loopholes excited ribbed comment from various acquaintances to whom I had sent the October 7 report. One priest asked, “How can anyone show they’ve been celibate for three years? Present a blank dance card?” Another friend added, “Or show elicit sworn testimony from every gay bar and bathhouse in a hundred mile radius? Will there be a Vatican Office for Oversight of Homo-celibacy?” One said, “Even bankruptcy courts wait seven years before someone is cleared.” And another, “Just like anything nowadays, there is never a ‘straight’ answer.”

Oddly enough, the three-year-celibacy loophole contradicts the expressed sentiments of US Archbishop Edward O’Brien who is overseeing the present Vatican investigation of American seminaries. Arch-bishop O’Brien said in September that anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations should not be admitted to the seminary. He also said these restrictions should apply even to those who have been celibate for ten years or more.5

Archbishop O’Brien, who leads the Archdiocese for Military Services in Washington D.C., told Associated Press why he supports a complete ban on homosexuals in the seminary, “... generally speaking, in my experience, the pressures are strong in an all-male atmosphere,” he said. “And if there have been past failings, the Church really must stay on the safe side. ... The same-sex attractions have gotten us into some legal problems.”6

While one agrees that the complete barring of homosexuals to the priesthood is necessary, there is much more at stake than legal problems.

The homosexual abuse of boys has ruined the lives of countless young men, and caused immeasurable suffering to the victim’s families. It has scandalized non-Catholics and Catholics, and has degraded the holy priesthood instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

These outrages have been the occasion of incalculable sacrilege. Yet I know of no one in the hierarchy who has ever called for a massive campaign of reparation to expiate these sins of homosexuality and sacrilege that cry to Heaven for vengeance.  

 

“No Connection”

 

 It is a constant claim in the media, when reporting on the clerical abuse crisis, that there is no connection between homosexuality and the current clerical abuse scandal.

Debbie Weill, executive director of DignityUSA, which represents “gay and lesbian Catholics,” accused bishops of “scapegoating” gays to divert attention from the failure of church leaders to protect children.7

Likewise, Time Magazine pontificated, “Al-though there is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, the current Vatican thinks cracking down on the former will help correct the latter.”8

The Associated Press duly printed, “Experts on sex offenders have stressed that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that did not stifle questions about homosexual seminarians.”9

The Boston Globe weighed in quoting Dr. Fred Berlin, associate professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins Medicine: “There is no evidence that a male homosexual is any more risk to a boy than a male heterosexual is to a girl, and one of the problems within the Church is that they are confusing the issue of homosexuality with the issue of child abuse and pedophilia.”10

Despite these alleged expert opinions, the cold fact remains that most of the recent clerical scandals are cases of priests preying on teenage boys. In fact, a study performed for the US bishops by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that among the 10,667 individuals who alleged they were abused by a priest between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent were male adolescents.11

That’s homosexuality, and it is at the root of the present scandal. It must also be noted that the homosexual network has always, by and large, shown itself favorable to pedophilia and same-sex liaisons with teenagers.

This is admitted by pederasts and many homosexuals. In 1998, for example, North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) representative David Thorstad eagerly proclaimed to a standing-room-only “gay” and lesbian group in Mexico City that “Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization ...”12

Further, it is well known, though often not reported in the press, that NAMBLA is a welcome participant in “Gay Pride” parades nationwide.13 

 

The Lady Doth Protesteth Too Much?

 

 Despite these facts, and the colossal pile of ruin that the homosexual scandal has left in the Church, there was no shortage of trendy clergymen hissy-fitting over the proposed Seminary draft. They were also enraged about the Vatican investigation of U.S. seminaries launched in early September. (Two of the questions included in the questionnaire given to all U.S. seminarians and faculty members are: “Do the seminarians or faculty members have concerns about the moral life of those living in the institution? [This question must be answered]; Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? [This question must be answered].”)14  

Father Gerald Chojnacki, head of the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, wrote a letter to his priests saying that he was asking bishops to tell Vatican officials who are drafting the policy barring homosexuals from the seminary “of the great harm this will cause many good priests and Catholic Faithful.” Father Chojnacki’s letter was written in September, before news of the “three-year-celibacy” clause surfaced.

Chojnacki said he would be working with the Conference of Major Superiors, which includes Jesuits, Franciscans and other religious orders, and with the bishops to fight “for the opportunity of a gay person to say yes to God’s call in celibate service and chaste religious life.”15

According to the same report, “priests in religious orders said in interviews that anger is building among their members about the prospect of a ban on gay seminarians.”

This is a curious attitude. Every red-blooded male I know believes barring homosexuals from the priesthood a good idea. What then are we to think of men who fight passionately for the entrance of homosexuals into the seminary?

Father Donald B. Cozzens is author of the book The Changing Face of the Catholic Priesthood, in which he argues with little regret that the priesthood is becoming a gay profession. He complained that the seminary investigation may end up in causing celibate (homosexual) faculty members and seminarians to withdraw. “That would be a major mistake from my perspective,” said Father Cozzens, “First, I think it’s unfair if not unjust for committed gay seminarians and faculty who are leading chaste lives. And secondly, I don’t know how you can really enforce that.”16

This is the same Father Cozzens who made the following remark on National Public Radio about the cavalier way in which he and his friends swore the Oath Against Modernism prior to their ordination:

This statement speaks less against the Anti-Modernist Oath than it does against Father Cozzens and his peculiar friends. Here is a man who admits that he and his comrades betrayed the Catholic Faith and perjured themselves before God. To break a solemn Oath, or to partake insincerely of an Oath to God, in the objective order, is a mortal sin against the Second Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in vain.”

Yet these priests began their priesthood by swearing to God an Oath they had no intention to keep.18

Is it any wonder that a man like Father Cozzens who harbors this audacious attitude toward the Second Commandment should fall into the pro-homosexual spiritual blindness he suffers? Can it be coincidence that the upsurge of modernism in the priesthood coincides with the upsurge of homosexuality in the priesthood?

It is no coincidence at all. Sound Catholic morals are built on sound Catholic doctrine. Modernism pulverizes Catholic doctrine, so the morals of the modernist can easily become a perverse house built on sand.

Another neo-modernist, Father Thomas J. Reese, former editor of the Jesuit magazine America, argued that with the shortage of priests, the Church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.

“You could have somebody who’s been in the seminary for five or six years and is planning to be ordained and the rector knows they’re a homosexual,’‘ said Father Reese, ‘’What are they going to do, throw them out?”19

Well, yes. If a man is unfit for the priesthood, he should not be ordained. Even modernist seminaries have their own criteria for who is fit and unfit. What, for example, would a modern, Novus Ordo seminary do with a sixth-year seminarian on the verge of his ordination who suddenly admits he is a Holocaust denier, or who says that after ordination, he intends to celebrate only the Latin Tridentine Mass with or without the explicit permission of his bishop. This type of young man would be banged out of the seminary quicker than you could say ‘syllabus’. But the homosexual, whose proclivity should bar him from Holy Orders, must be ordained nonetheless says Father Reese.

(As for the new criteria for modern seminarians, Catholic World NewsA recently reported that five seminarians at the Irish seminary of Maynooth were suspended for a particular form of misconduct. What did they do to deserve such censure? Were they homosexual? Did they engaging in scandalous activity? No. They were kneeling for Communion at Mass.)20

Then there was Professor Dan Maguire of Marquette University, the laicized priest now on his second marriage. Predictably Maguire snipped, “They are going to exclude gays, when what they should exclude is mandatory celibacy, which I would describe as a failed experiment.”21

Well it might have been a failed experiment for himself, but not for the Church at large where tens of thousands of good men for centuries have fulfilled the Biblical injunction to priestly celibacy in holy, self-sacrificing lives.

Interestingly enough, the point of priestly celibacy arose at the October Synod of Bishops in Rome underway at the time of this writing. Certain bishops argued that due to the vocation shortage, the Church should “rethink” the practice of priestly celibacy.

This proposal was countered by bishops from countries in which the Orthodox church is prominent. These bishops explained that a married priest often feels divided between his family and his parish, that it is much more difficult to move a married priest out of a parish where he may be having problems if his wife has a job and his children are in schools. In so many words, they argued that a married priesthood can create as many problems as it allegedly solves.22

No, the true solution to the vocation crisis is neither married clergy nor admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, but to clean out the seminaries of any corrupt inhabitants, and to reinstate traditional doctrine and liturgy that Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII would recognize as Catholic. 

 

Church Targeted for Infiltration

 

 Sadly, the influx of homosexuals into the Church was barely checked by Pope John Paul II, whose lax governance stretched for more than 25 years.

Granted John Paul inherited the problem from the revolutionary pontificate of Pope Paul VI, but eradicating the pestilence never seemed high on John Paul’s priorities. For more than a quarter of a century, wherein the new “Civilization of Love” program with its interfaith precedents, world travels and Luther-an-Catholic accords dominated John Paul’s agenda, the homosexual/pederast problem festering within the Church fanned out to pandemic proportions.

It was only when the pederast scandals hit the headlines in early 2002 that Pope John Paul’s Vatican gave any appearance of addressing the problem. Gary Wills, no friend of the Catholic Church, was unfortunately correct when he commented in 2000, “many observers suspect that John Paul II’s real legacy to his Church is a gay priesthood.”23 The Church John Paul left behind must now deal with that legacy.  

The Catholic Church now groans, bloated with the massive weight of homosexuals in the priesthood, religious life and episcopacy. Yet the influx of homosexuals into the clergy should not have taken the Vatican by surprise. It was planned and warned against decades ago.

Father Enrique Rueda, in his 1982 landmark work The Homosexual Network, Private Lives & Public Policy, documented extensively that homosexuals successfully targeted religious organizations for infiltration, especially the Roman Catholic Church.

The reason is obvious. “There is no question”, writes Father Rueda, “that the main stumbling block in the theoretical and practical acceptance of homosexuality by American society has been traditional religion. This has been perfectly understood by the leadership of the homosexual movement.”24 And “the importance of gaining support of the churches or at least neutralizing them is widely acknowledged by homosexual leaders.”25

Father Rueda gives as an example the New York Times story, “From Quiet Seminarian to Homosexual Spokesperson.” William R. Johnson, “ordained” in the United Church of Christ, gave an interview in which he indicated several factors which are important for the advancement of homosexuality in the “church”, be it Protestant or Catholic.

Johnson’s principles, Father Rueda explains, constitute a model program for the conversion of a “church” into an agent of the homosexual movement. The factors considered important to Johnson are:

    • The desensitization of the church of sexual ethics;

    • Promotion of pro-homosexual legislation by religious bodies;

    • Establishment of homosexual organizations within the churches (Such as, within the Catholic Church, Dignity, New Ways Ministries, or AGLO, set up by Cardinal Bernadine);

    • The ordination of homosexuals to the ministry, preferably “liberated” homosexuals who are identified with the movement’s ideology;

    • Willingness of homosexual clergymen to accept dual roles as leaders in the religious bodies and the homosexual movement — in fact, as agents of the movement within the churches. 26

Johnson’s priorities, comments Father Rueda, not only indicate how important religious institutions are to homosexuals, but provide a checklist for ascertaining the degree to which a specific religious institution has been infiltrated by the homosexual movement.27

Father Rueda documents a vast homosexual network among various de-nominations including the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, Vatican II’s encouragement of “inter-religious dialogue” is what made possible the pan-religious cooperation among homosexual groups.28

Father Rueda then chronicled five primary means by which homosexuals infiltrated seminaries, chanceries, and Catholic institutions.

1) Patterns of Collaboration, citing many instances of cooperation between Roman Catholic institutions and leaders of the Homosexual Movement.

2) Intellectual Infiltration: This is done by Catholic theologians and “experts” who publicly challenge the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality, and suffer no ecclesiastical penalty for doing so. A few examples follow:

    • A 1977 editorial in the influential Jesuit magazine America made the false claim, “the application of Scriptural texts that condemn homosexuality is dubious at best”.29

    • Dominican Father Donald Georgen authored a widely-distributed, pro-homosexual book entitled The Sexual Celibate. Far from suffering penalties from the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious, Georgen was elected Provincial of the Chicago Dominican Province after the book was published.30

    • The February 1981 issue of Notre Dame Magazine, contained an article by Father Robert Griffen who spoke of a young homosexual man (unnamed) who confessed that he had been “unfaithful” to his homosexual partner. Father Griffen writes that he absolved the young man’s “sin of unfaithfulness” and sent him home to his boyfriend.31 There is no record that Father Griffen was ever disciplined by the bishops or the Vatican.

3) Networking: These are pro-homosexual groups such as the Catholic Coalition for Gay Civil Rights, “Call to Action” and numerous other organizations. Hundreds of Catholic “priests and religious in good standing” belong to these openly pro-homosexual groups.32

4) Homosexual Clergy: Father Rueda quotes a number of pro-homosexual clergymen, most notably, Christian Brother Gabriel Moran. While speaking to the 1977 Conference of Christian Brothers, Brother Moran intimated that “religious communities were the ideal setting for homosexual relations”.

Father Rueda also explained the tactic of the homosexual movement to present “homosexuality and heterosexuality” as “two varieties of the same question”.

Then there’s the following quote taken from Communications, a newsletter for homosexual Catholic clergy: “I am finishing up my theological studies at the Jesuit School of Theology in Chicago. I was ordained last June. I work part-time as assistant pastor of an inner-city parish in the Black community. I am gay. I have been out with my superiors since I was a novice, and aware of my gayness, they have approved me for vows and now for ordination.”33

5) Homosexual Orders: These are not formally approved orders in the Church, but groups that have organized while the local bishop looks the other way.34

The two most successful of these “orders” are the influential New Ways Ministry,35 an organization, complained Father Rueda, whose very existence is “more than passively tolerated” by the US bishops. The other is Dignity Inter-national, whose purpose is “to unite all gay Catholics, to develop leadership, and to be an instrument though which the gay Catholics may be heard by the Church and society.” Dignity makes no secret that its goal is to “promote the cause of the gay Community ... We move towards the time when a gay Catholic lifestyle is accepted.”36

Father Rueda lamented that the United States bishops have taken no effective action against these organizations. New Ways Ministry and Dignity, he writes, are “more than passively tolerated” by the hierarchy. He further complained that in the case of these groups, “lack of action” from the US Hierarchy “can be legitimately construed to be ‘passive encouragement’.”37

Keep in mind, Father Rueda’s book was published in 1982. That’s over twenty years ago. This has been a raging scandal for decades.

Bringing it up-to-date, Michael Rose, in his book Goodbye! Good Men, catalogs many instances in which a homosexual subculture of both students and faculty in numerous seminaries deters the heterosexual man from continuing to study for the priesthood.

Rose quotes former seminarians and recently ordained priest who explain that the “gay subculture” is so prominent that some of these institutions have earned irreverent but descriptive nicknames, such as Notre Flame (for Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans) and Theological Closet (for Theological College at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.). St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore has earned the nickname, “The Pink Palace”.

Joseph Kellenyi, a former seminarian who was persecuted by the strong gay subculture among seminary students and faculty, noted the following about celibate homosexual clergymen: “I have heard time and again that the sexual orientation of priests and seminarians does not matter, as long as they are celibate. Yet when gays come into positions of authority they knowingly and consistently appoint gay men to important key positions.”38

Atila Sinke Guimaraes documents and denounces the vast homosexual network now within the Church in his 2004 book Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia.

And Randy Engel, who has researched the subject more extensively than probably anyone, demonstrated the horrifying depth and breadth of the homosexual subculture within the Church in her CFN series: “Saint Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah, A Moral Blueprint for Our Times”.39 Here she exposes the vast underworld of homosexual clergy protected by the “over-world” of corrupt bishops. 

 

This scandalous conference was
held at the Jesuit's Canisius
College with the approval
of Bishop Edward Kmiec
of Buffalo
 

Homosexual Celebrations at Jesuit Universities            

 

 It is now to the point where Catholic colleges conduct public homosexual gatherings with no impediment from the local Ordinary.

On June 9-12 of this year, Canisius College, a Jesuit institution in Buffalo, hosted “The Second Annual Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender Conference for Jesuit Colleges and Universities”.40 I was one of a group of Catholics who took part in a public demonstration against the outrage, but the protest did not stop the event. Nor did the bishop of Buffalo do anything to prevent it.

In fact, The Buffalo News — which only re-ported the event as a “conference on gay issues”, a sanitized phrase less repellent than the true title, “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Conference” — reported the conference was “approved by Buffalo Bishop Edward U. Kmiec.”41

This is not surprising since two months earlier, Bishop Kmiec allowed the “Gay Men’s Chorus” to perform a concert at Blessed Trinity Catholic Church in his diocese.42

The beat goes on. In early October, the Jesuit Gonzaga University celebrated National Coming Out of the Closet day for homosexuals. An eyewitness told CFN, “They had rainbow balloons up everywhere, a meeting place in the main dining room and a huge rainbow colored arch over the Crosby center. They also had a grouping of rainbow colored balloons tied around the statue of Bing Crosby. There was a symposium in which one of the Jesuits was going to boost this effort at ‘Coming Out’ and encourage straight people to come out and be allies.”43 

 

Seminaries Not the Only Problem

 

 All of this brings us to an important question: Since seminaries are only one of the areas in which the homosexual agenda is advanced within the Church, what about the other areas? What will be done against homosexual priests who still flaunt their orientation? What disciplinary measures will befall Jesuits like Father Gerald Chojnacki who has pledged defiance against the ban on homosexuals in the seminary, and calls others to join his crusade? What about the heads of the Catholic colleges who welcome homosexual events on campus?

These are all legitimate questions, since multiple reports about the upcoming Vatican Instruction claim that “ordained priests will not be affected” by the document.44

And what about the many homosexual bishops who protect and enable homosexual priests and the homosexual agenda within the Church? Catholic World Report recently listed the names of homosexual bishops whose proclivity only came to light through the offices of the Civil Justice System or the media: Retired Bishop Dan Ryan of Springfield, IL; Retired Bishop Tom Dupre of Springfield, MA; Retired Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, CA; Retired Bishop Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY; Retired Bishop Keith Symons of Palm Beach, FL; Retired Bishop Lawrence Soens of Sioux City, IA; Retired Bishop Joseph Hart of Cheyenne, WY; Retired Bishop Anthony O’Connell of Palm Beach, FL; Non-Retired Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL; and Retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee.

CWN observed, “This isn’t a [complete] roster of gay bishops. This isn’t even a roster of gay bishops who have misbehaved. This is list of only those gay bishops whose misbehavior has gotten them in trouble with the law — and that so deeply that their proclivities were objectively undeniable.”45 Can such bishops be counted on to enforce a homosexual ban if they are unwilling, too weak, or blackmailed to disregard Vatican orders?

What about the chanceries, also infested with pro-homosexual clergy and staff?

And what about the classrooms? Will the Vatican finally put a halt to the insidious corruption of youth through “Catholic” sex education purveyed by warped and perverse Catholic priests and bishops? Many of these sex-ed courses are pro-homosexual. One entitled Growing in Love, now in use, is a pro-homosexual sex-ed aimed at Catholic Kindergarten children.46  

 

No Time for Compromise

 

 It is not my intention to wallow in the homosexual scandals within our Holy Catholic Church. I only wish to point out that the prospective clean-up is massive. For any such measure to be effective, no compromise can exist on any point. There can be no “three-year-celibacy” clause that officially — in a Vatican document — leaves the door open for homosexuals to enter the seminaries. Any compromise in the upcoming document will send a signal that the Vatican is still capitulating to the powerful homosexual stronghold within the Church.

And there are still more questions: will the Directive have teeth? How will it be enforced? What penalties will befall those who disregard it?

In a sense, the Instruction is already disregarded. Observers predict that the document will not change anything. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter noted, “the document might not have much impact at all in the long term, like two previous documents from the Holy See setting out the same policy.”47 England’s Mike Hirst, news editor of The Tablet, said “Things won’t change after this, it’s far less stringent than a lot of people thought it would be. But I think there will be a certain amount of relief among the liberal wing who thought that a witch hunt would be in the cards.”48

Ridding the Church of the present homosexual grip is a daunting task. A solid Catholic Pope such as Saint Pius X would have a hard enough time cleaning house wherein the corruption is so pervasive. How much more difficult will it be for Pope Ratzinger whose fabric is so badly damaged by the modernist New Theology49 he has espoused all of his priestly life? It is hoped that if he can make a stand nowhere else, he will at least make a stand on paper, that the document will contain no flexibility whatsoever in admittance of homosexuals in the seminary.

How the document will be enforced in the years to come remains to be seen. 

 

“The Most Evident Mark of God’s Anger”

 

 In the meantime, Catholics should increase their prayers of reparation. We may complain about the state of the Church, we may lament the corruption of many clergymen, but we must ask how much we are to blame for the current disaster.

It has been said that God gives us the leaders that we deserve. Saint John Eudes expressed similar thoughts in words that should fill us with fear and remorse:

“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds.

“When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return, O ye revolting children and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’ (Jer. 3, 14:15). Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.”50

Irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin!

If the post-Conciliar crisis of Faith and clerical scandals are the measure of our iniquities, then our sins are great indeed.

There is no doubt that Our Lady meant what She said when She warned, “Only I can help you.” Let us increase our acts of prayer and reparation as Our Lady asked at Fatima. Particularly, let us renew our devotion to the Five First Saturdays of Reparation for the blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us also fulfill the injunction of Fatima to “pray a great deal for the Holy Father”.

 

 Notes:

 

 1. “Gay Men Can Be Priests if Celibate-Report,” Reuters [U.K.], October 7, 2005.

2. “No Ban on Gays Expected in Vatican Document; Will Advise ‘Prudential Judgment’,” John Allen, National Catholic Reporter (On Line), October 7, 2005.

3. Promulgated by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961.

4. Canon Law Digest, Volume V, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, SJ., A.M., LL.B., S.T.D. and James I. O’Connor, S.J., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.D. [Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1963], p. 471.

5. “Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence,” New York Times, September 15, 2005.

6. “U.S. Prelate: Gays Shouldn’t Be Ordained,” Associated Press, September 12, 2005.

7. Ibid.

8. “What Will the Bishops Do Next?” Time, October 17, 2005.

9. “Vatican Won’t Ban Gay Priests, Official Says,” Associated Press, October 8. 2005.

10. “Vatican Bid to Find Gays in Seminary Stirs Controversy,” Boston Globe, September 16, 2005.

11. Ibid.

12. David Thorstad, “Pederasty and Homosexuality,” speech to an audience of over 600 at the Sema Cultural Lesbica-Gay in Mexico City on June 26, 1998, and published on the NAMBLA web page. Quoted from “Saint Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah, A Moral Blueprint for Our Times, Part II,” Randy Engel, Catholic Family News, July 2002. (Reprint #727 (complete 2-part series) available from CFN for $4.00 post-paid.)

13. A sampling of articles that report NAMBLA as a welcome participant in “Gay Pride” Parades are: “Cultural Conditioning Produces the Media’s Anti-Catholicism”, Jack Kenny, The Union Leader (Manchester, NH), March 20, 2002; “Q: Would Vermont’s Civil Union Law Be Good for Other States?, No: Same-sex Civil Unions Amount to One More Step in the Unmaking of Civilization”, Don Feder, Insight on the News, June 19, 2000; “‘Til Laws Do Us Part’: Anything Other than One Man Marrying One Woman Is Wrong,” Rep. March Paschall, Denver Post, April 9, 2000; “The Post Soft-pedals Perversion”, Reed Irvine, Chattanooga Times, November 28, 1999; “We Are Now on the Cusp of Re-paganizing Our Culture,” Richard Lessner, Union Leader, March 26, 1999; “The Art of Good Hate Crimes,” Patrick J. Buchanan, The New York Post, August 8, 1998.

14. “Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence,” The New York Times, September 15, 2005.

15. “Jesuit Official Protests Gay Priest Ban,” Associated Press, September 30, 2005.

16. “Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence”, The New York Times, September 15, 2005.

17. “Father Donald Cozzens discusses his life as a priest, his latest book and the recent crises in the church,” WHYY, Fresh Air with Terry Gross, October 24, 2002. [emphasis added]

18. Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, one of the most eminent theologians in America, “The man who taught or in any way aided in the dissemination or the protection of Modernist teaching in a seminary or in a Catholic university” after taking the Oath against Modernism “would mark himself, not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith, but also as a common perjurer”. “The Sacrocrum Antistitum and the Background to the Oath Against Modernism,” Msgr. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1960, p. 260.

19.  “Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence,” The New York Times, September 15, 2005.

20. “Unfit for Priestly Service,” Catholic World News, October 5, 2005.

21. “Rome Targets Gay Men in Seminaries,” Hamilton Spectator, September 17, 2005.

22. “John Allen on Pope Benedict’s First Six Months,” National Public Radio, October 9, 2005.

23. “Challenging the Church,” Tad Szulc, Washington Post, June 4, 2000.

24. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, Father Enrique Rueda [Devin Adair, Old Grennwich, CF, 1982], p. 243. Father Rueda’s book is out of print.

25. Ibid., p. 244.

26. “From Quiet Seminarian to Homosexual Spokesman,” New York Times, January 25, 1977. Cited from ibid., pp. 249-250.

27. The Homosexual Network, p. 251.

28. Ibid., Chapter VII, “Relations Between Religious Organizations and the Homosexual Movement”.

29. America, June 25, 1977, p. 1558. Cited in The Homosexual Network, pp. 332-333.

30. As Provincial, Father Georgen was also the nemesis of both Father John O’Conner and Father Charles Fiore, and why these two fine priests were persecuted and driven from the Dominican Order.

31. The Homosexual Network, pp. 335-336.

32. Ibid., pp. 337-340.

33. Ibid., p. 345.

34. Ibid., p. 351.

35. Founded by Father Robert Nugent and Sister Jeanne Grammick.

36. The Homosexual Network, pp. 362-3.

37. Ibid., pp. 362 and 370.

38. Good Bye! Good Men, Michael S. Rose (Cincinnati: Aquinas Publishing, advance reviewer copy, 2002), pp. 93 and 115.

39. “Saint Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah, A Moral Blueprint for Our Times,” Randy Engel, Catholic Family News, June-July 2002. (Reprint #727 [complete 2-part series] available from CFN for $4.00 post-paid.)

40. See graphic of flyer on page 14.

41. “Gay Men’s Chorus Sparks a Regional Values Dispute,” Buffalo News, June 16, 2005.

42. “Will the Real Catholic, Please Stand Up?”, Brenda Easely Web, Western New York Catholic (Diocesan Newspaper of Buffalo), p. 33. Sadly, the author writes that she was scandalized that outside the church during the Gay Men’s Chorus concert there were Catholics protesting the event. In a statement that depicts the typical vapid thinking of contemporary diocesan newspapers, Mrs. Webb puzzled, “Since when, pray tell, is it a sin to share good music with others?”

43. From private correspondence.

44. “Vatican May Let Celibate Gays be Ordained,” United Press Inter-national, October 8, 2005.

45. “Trust Us to Fix it,” Catholic World News, June 16, 2005. CWN reported this in an attempt to answer the question: Why at the June 2005 US bishops meeting did the bishops sidestep addressing whether or not homosexuals should be admitted to the seminary? CWN answers: “Because the question of whether gays should be ordained cannot be addressed without first addressing a considerably more explosive question: the number of bishop-disputants who are themselves gay and have a profound personal interest that there be no public examination of the connections between their sexual appetites, their convictions, and their conduct of office.”

46. See “The Sodomization of Innocence: Homo-Church Invades Catholic Kindergarten,” Randy Engel, Catholic Family News, April, 2001. (Reprint #575 is available from CFN for $2.00 postpaid.)

47. “The Word From Rome,” John Allen, October 7, 2005.

48. “Three-year Celibacy Rule for Gay Priests,” The Scotsman, October 6, 2005.

49. Consult lecture: “Modernism Repackaged: The ‘New Theology’ of Vatican II,” J. Vennari. (Lecture from 2005 CFN conference -- on cassette or audio CD --  available from CFN for $8.50  pospaid).

50. Saint John Eudes, The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations, (P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1947) pp. 9-10.

 

 

Reprinted from the November 2005 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292 *  cfnjv@localnet.com

CFN is published once a month (12 times per year)  • Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy

   Home  •  Audio Cassettes • CFN Index