National Homosocialism

Sometime back, Marty wrote a post entitled "Rise of the Planet Gay?" and in it Marty considered the intolerance of certain dimensions of the gay community as the Western world heads towards predictable persecution of those who don't accept their ideology and who maintain a faithfulness to a realistic ethical sexual view.

This week Marty presents to you a real concrete example of such harassment, persecution and hatred from a Homosocialist Network in the USA, towards those who won't accept, profess, and kneel to their Doctrine and Lifestyle.

Have a read of how this couple's business has been ruined by the hatred of certain Militant Homosexualists who couldn't accept that there are people in the world who have a different position than them and who won't go along with their life-style.

Make no mistake. This is a hate crime. They hate people who won't accept their Doctrine and Practice and who won't participate in their Celebrations. They hate people who stand with God, and who stand with Christ and who won't endorse their behaviour.

This is no longer about tolerance, but about FULL APPROVAL by ALL of their thing. And in forcing all to approve of their behaviour, they become the very tyrants that they falsely accuse us of being.

From Todd Starnes at FoxNews

A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.

“Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.

“The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”
– Aaron Klein, owner, Sweet Cakes By Melissa

“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”

The Washington Times has also weighed in giving more details of the hatred inflicted upon these poor people. 

An Oregon baker with Christian beliefs who was forced to shut down operations after refusing to make a cake for a planned same-sex wedding says her faith in God has not wavered — and in fact, has grown stronger because of the ordeal.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, who claim a Christian faith, operated the Gresham, Ore., shop, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. In May, because of their religious beliefs, the Kleins turned down a request from a lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowmann, to bake a cake for their upcoming wedding.

The lesbians, in turn, filed a complaint with the state, touching off a massive gay activist outcry that ultimately led the couple to shut their business doors — the business they had spent years building — and move operations this past weekend to their home.

They're still not sure how a home baking business will work, Mrs. Klein said, in The Blaze.  But they said they had little recourse but to try. The couple has five children, who are now being home-schooled.

The outcry from the gay community over their refusal to bake the lesbians' cake hit hard at their vendor business. Many cut ties and left them in limbo. The business had already suffered a tight winter; Mrs. Klein said the negative reaction from the lesbian cake ordeal likely pushed their revenue situation into the category of dire.

"We coasted it through the summer to see how it would be," Mrs. Klein said. "We had quite a few wedding cakes that we had booked, and people cancelled. The referrals that we would get, none of those came in."

Meanwhile, Mrs. Klein had a message for those facing challenges in life: Don't give up on God.

She said, in The Blaze: "It is so worth it just to sit back and watch how God provides for you. I struggled in the past with trust and even with my faith in Him and through this my faith has grown, my trust has grown tremendously. Yeah, I have lost something I worked really hard for and lots of years put into, but I know that really doesn't matter. My eternal home is what matters. I'm going to bring all that with me. … I'm happy and OK and I'm being provided for."

The lesbian couple hasn't dropped their complaint, and if the State Bureau of Labor and Industries rules in their favor, the Kleins could end up paying a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation — and up to $50,000 for emotional damage, The Blaze said.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Klein said a movement has already popped up to stop the family from operating the bakery at their home. A Facebook page called "Boycott Sweet Cakes by Melissa" has generated more than 500 "likes."

Mrs. Klein said of the social media campaign that's now being waged: "They're already planning to harass me. They're just continuously doing this. They just don't want me to be in business at all."

The Kleins have been subjected to vicious messages these past weeks — and the hateful emails keep pouring in, she said, to The Blaze.

A sampling: "People like you will burn in HELL, you racist pigs."

And another: "Your homophobic rants will not be forgotten and you will go out of business. This is the 21st century [expletive]."

And a third: "Do everyone a favor and fall off a cliff."

And one more: "Maybe your [G]od will send you some cat food to eat when you are living on the street?"

The Gay Dogma, created by Militant Homosexualists (not all gay people, obviously), is now something which the 'Enlightened Western World' and 'Its Pro-Gay Leaders', is expecting and pushing everybody to imbibe and swallow, including traditional Africa, especially Kenya.

Russia has recently outlawed the promotion of homosexual propaganda (not homosexuality itself, just its free promotion as 'normal' in the public square) and has been denounced by the War-Dictator Obama and many others. Thankfully several human rights groups have rushed to Russia's defence. 

Soon, we will all be forced to convert to this Homosocialist Doctrine or be attacked and destroyed by these people. Ridicule, denouncement, underhand tactics, threats, blackmail, persecution, and prosecution, will follow if we don't. It is becoming increasingly clear that none are allowed to dissent pubicly and express their disagreement openly from this indoctrination. It is becoming tyrannical.

In the East, based on fundamentalist irrationality, Militant Islamists often bully people into submission to their belief. In the West, based on fundamenalist relativism, it now seems to be the Militant Homosexualists who are threatening people into submission to their Doctrine.

In the past, people often freely and willingly took their religious profession from their King, such was the attitude towards community and monarchy.

After the Enlightenment, things often went sour in terms of state authority and religion (especially around the time of the Reformation); and in the 20th century it got one hundred times worse, with certain horrible atheistic ideologies arising (Communism, National Socialism), which meant that people had to bow to a state mandated doctrine and existence, enforced by ruthless Dictators and their henchmen, who caused everybody to suffer immensely, as they ignored basic human rights and religious freedoms.

Today, in the West, built on Relativism and Enlightenment thinking, the main Dictator of public moral doctrine and life-style, from which none are allowed to dissent without dire consequences, is the 'democratically run' Media, influenced heavily by certain groups (especially the Militant Homosexualists) which have cleverly understood how to use it to their advantage in order to slowly brainwash the masses, under the catch-cries of liberty, open-mindedness, evolution, and self-determination.

On this point, just consider how Holywood and American TV has deliberately pushed the Gay Dogma with many and varied shows which have normalised it and made it 'cool'. 

Through this subtle brainwashing, people in the West have now adopted another form of totalitarian belief, which is underpinned by unstable arbitrary relativistic whims, but which is something that all seem to think is enlightened and inspired and 'tolerant' because it comes 'from the people', aka, 'the mob'. It is very far from being tolerant.

The Media, through all its forms, now influences what people think to such a degree that most people allow it to govern their ethical compass, especially when it comes to sexuality and life-issues.

And it seems that in some parts of the USA, if citizens don't submit to this new 'Enlightened Way', then some Militant Homosexualists will punish people personally, as shown by the stories listed above.

And most of the post-moderns who allow the Media to manipulate their psychology and world view, just sit back, and say, "Oh well, served the homophobs right. They should have abandoned their medieval thinking and just accepted the 'Enlightened Doctrine'."

The new orthodoxy and orthopraxis is now what the Media dictate to people as politically correct, 'tolerant', and open-minded, through a subtle form of digital osmosis and streaming consciousness, which is leading new generations of young people into the abyss of despair and political oppression.

It's no longer just a matter of letting gay people have their quiet life-style, but now all must accept their doctrine, profess it, and honour its 'goodness', as we kneel at that altar and worship that hedonistic 'god'.

If you stand out publicly against it on conscience grounds, or religious grounds, they will treat you like the Nazis treated the Jews; except the difference is, they will employ that very paradigm against you, and call you a prejudiced 'Nazi' for not complying with their 'Enlightened Doctrine', simultaneously as they use Nazi tactics to make you submit to their Homosocialism.

For them, they see it as comeuppance. The glove is on their hand now and they will make you submit to their 'superior morality'. If you don't, they will run you out of town, and soon they will have you imprisoned for being 'homophobic'.

Ironic really: It's becoming illegal to call homosexuality a disorder in certain places, and soon, so-called 'homophobia' (people who won't accept their homosexual behaviour as 'normal') will be the new disorder that dissenters will be forcibly 'treated for' by the State. 

It'll start with ridicule and pressure, then soon it'll become State enforced Doctrine than none can contradict openly or publicly. Then it's 'Game On' for the persecution of faithful Christians who won't submit to their tyranny. 

Fr Z had some interesting comments

They won’t stop until the age of consent is eliminated.
Even then they won’t stop.

They won’t stop until the Valar step aside and the One destroys Númenor.

As a Tolkien enthusiast, Marty honours Fr Z's metaphor.

We are called to stand against this totalitarian brainwashing. Civilization is at stake. Our salvation and theirs is at stake.

Just recently, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Springfield Diocese (USA) has declared that a Catholic woman, Mary Stachowicz, is a 'Martyr for her faith', when she tried to evangelize a troubled homosexual co-worker who was living an highly active multi-partner sexual life-style. This young man subsequently broke into her house and brutally murdered her for trying to share Christ with him.

Many people, upon reading such an account, will think that Mary has done the wrong thing; that she should have kept her mouth shut, she shouldn't have shard her views; in fact, she was the one who was wrong to share her views, and that she is the narrow-minded bigot who got the consequences of her actions…

National Homosocialism is on its way; and its Gestapo are forming up. A few more years and we'll be invading Poland…

Marty the Rethul


More persecution just come to hand…

A further confirmation of the homosexual mafia in action, "Airman won’t support same-sex marriage, punished by commandrix" from Fr Z

Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander faces possible Court Martial

"Updating our earlier report on Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, a Christian serving in the Air Force whose unit is now commanded by a lesbian: according to Monk’s complaint filed with his superiors, he was relieved of duty for refusing his commander’s order to say he supports gay marriage. Now the Air Force has taken the first steps to criminally investigate Monk for talking to the media about his situation. Despite the fact that earlier this year the Obama-Hagel Pentagon said they would never court-martial a service member for their Christian faith, they have taken the first steps to possibly court-martial Monk.


On Monk’s situation, Gen. Boykin says: We now see what is happening to Christians under President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. This appears to be an intimidation tactic to send a message to other Christians in the military that you better not speak up when we violate your religious liberty. A statement to the media is not an official statement, so it’s absurd to consider charging him with this crime. The Obama-Hagel military leadership is not officially court-martialing Christians for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, but you will be punished and might even face a court martial if you stand by the principles of your Christian faith when you are serving in uniform. A court martial is a criminal prosecution in the military. Depending on the crime, punishments can range from reduction in rank and withholding pay to dishonorable discharge from the military or even imprisonment. Boykin said FRC and the coalition is collecting signatures for a petition to the secretary of the Air Force, calling upon him not to punish Sergeant Monk for refusing to compromise his Christian beliefs."


Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments: 22

    1. Abenader September 10, 2013 at 10:00 am

      Sorry to 'hijack' this post Marty but the older "Francis and the Franciscans" post is well, closed. Latest news related to that situation is that the 'leader' of the 6/7 man dissident group has now being appointed as………………..General Secretary. That's right, GS.!!

      Obviously, this is done with the approval of the Pope.

      On another note, does anybody know the whereabouts of Bamac? Our "mum's" been awfully silent lately. Hope and pray that she is in good health and (hopefully) on holiday.


    2. Marty Rethul September 10, 2013 at 10:10 am

    3. Marty Rethul September 10, 2013 at 10:12 am

      No problem Abenader. Sad times.

    4. bamac September 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      Thank you for your prayers Abenader … have had a few health hiccoughs of late which have made me cut back on the time I could spend on the computer …. anyway I felt that sometimes I had used up  more than my share of comment space on B F  … I am sure that I have too much milage on my mouth and typing fingers !

      I read the link that you gave but didn't feel that the holy Father would have had to give his aproval for the appointment .  Maybe I have it wrong but I felt that the move was an internal one within the order itself and not from elsewhere …  why do you feel that the Holy Father must have given his approval? Religious congregations elect their own officials I felt sure .

      On this topic … Marty, all of this has been their plan from way back hasn't it  … makes one wonder just how much further they will go .There are many homosexuals and lesbians who are not interested in all the political pushing , they just get on with their lives without interfering with anyone else's way of life  … how do they feel about the activities of the activists I wonder !


      Mrs Mac


    5. Abenader September 10, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      Welcome back Bamac.

      Absolutely correct, I/we got no way of knowing that the Holy Father gave 'the nod' to this latest move but could we see this sort of thing going on under Pope Emeritus Benedict? Further, considering that the Holy Father knew that a young lady wanted to abort her child as she was pregnant from a married man, it's a hard sell to suggest that there is an 'unawareness' of what's ocurred with the Franciscans. Further, if that be the case that this was an internal move, where does the authority come from considering that (according to reports) there are 6/7 dissidents? I dont see that happening. This was an 'ouside' move and as Roberto de Mattei predicted recently (whether accuratley or not), some of these have come to pass.

      "In the coming days and weeks we will know the plans of the Commissioner, Fidenzio Volpi, better, but their rough lines can already be guessed: isolate the Founder Father Manelli, to isolate him from the General Council of traditional brothers loyal to him, to isolate the "traditionalist" brothers in the periphery, and hand the leadership of the order to the dissidents; entrust the novitiates to Fathers are not in suspicion of "traditionalist"; sterilization of publications and the Franciscan writings that deal with within the Church of "controversial" topics, including: avoidance of Marian "maximalism," one "covered" rigor in moral teaching and especially any criticism, be it ever so respectful, of the Second Vatican Council, plus opening of the Order to the "ecumenical dialogue" with other religions; restriction of Vetus Ordo to special exceptions in short, the destruction the identity of the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception, which is even worse than their removal".


      Furthermore, Im sure that the Franciscans will appeal to the Holy Father (if he is unaware, which appears that he is not). What might the result be?


      Also, in an earlier column, de Mattei adds "In order to "cement" the decree, said Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, it received the approbation ex auditu from Pope Francis, to which the brothers have taken every opportunity to appeal to the Apostolic Signatura. [++Burke]"

      Im not sure, but it appears that the Holy Father knows or knew? 


    6. Teresina September 11, 2013 at 10:48 am

      Marty, your blog reads a bit like a modern-day feeding Christians to the lions – the arena this time being social  networking, etc.  These homosexuals and their supporters are engaging in pure evil and as you say more of this can be expected.

      These sort of tactics, although not on such a scale, have also been used in New Zealand:

      The more decadent society becomes, the more these attacks on Christians will worsen.  From Cardinal George's column:

      "Speaking a few years ago to a group of priests, entirely outside of the current political debate, I was trying to express in overly dramatic fashion what the complete secularization of our society could bring," writes the Cardinal. "I was responding to a question and I never wrote down what I said, but the words were captured on somebody’s smart phone and have now gone viral on Wikipedia and elsewhere in the electronic communications world. I am (correctly) quoted as saying that I expected to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. What is omitted from the reports is a final phrase I added about the bishop who follows a possibly martyred bishop: 'His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.' What I said is not 'prophetic' but a way to force people to think outside of the usual categories that limit and sometimes poison both private and public discourse."

      We must pray for each other and for the conversion of sinners …

    7. bamac September 11, 2013 at 11:09 am


      You say thart as the Holy Father knew about that poor girl he must also have  known about the election  in the Franciscans leadership … the girl herself had written to the Holy Father telling him about her situation which is how he was able to phone and support her … I doubt that the Franciscans told him about their plans … he would only have known about it after it had happened …. maybe I am wrong but I have never known of any appointments in any religious congregation having to be approved by the Holy Father … has anyone else ?  Sincere question as I am interested in knowing one way or the other.


      Mrs Mac

    8. Teresina September 11, 2013 at 11:45 am

      Good to have you back, Mrs Mac!

      In response to Abernader's post I have had a look at the Franciscan website.  It seems that Fr Alfonso has now a monopoly of control over the Franciscans of Mary Immaculate – looking at the governance of the Franciscans these are the roles he fills:

      Assistant General for the Apostolate

      Assistant General M.I.M

      Assistant General for the Missions

      Assistant General for the Media

      General Delegate for the Marian Houses in South America, Africa and Central Asia (Kazakistan)

      He is the only spokesperson.  I don't think all of this augurs well for the Franciscans.  Fr Alfonso appears to be a media-type of priest who took quite a high profile at World Youth Day reporting for Zenit  What he is doing doesn't seem compatible with the life the Franciscans have been leading up to now.

      What is unfortunate about the whole thing is that it is likely to divide the Church more:


      The alleged pretext for banning the Tridentine Mass was that it was accompanied by criticism of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Criticism? These prelates cannot get out much. The world and his dog knows that the Second Vatican Catastrophe was the worst disaster ever to afflict the Church. It led to the abandonment of their vocations by half a million priests, monks, nuns and religious, the apostasy of countless millions of laymen, the loss of any familiarity with basic doctrine and, due to the rejection of all moral discipline, a massive sexual scandal. This they called “Renewal”. Vatican II renewed the Church in the way that the atomic bomb improved the environment of Hiroshima.

      Mainstream theologians are now openly challenging Vatican II. Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, described it as “a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of ‘superdogma’ which takes away the importance of all the rest”. More recently, Monsignor Bruno Gherardini, dean of the theologians of the Lateran University, wrote that “none of its doctrines, unless ascribable to previous conciliar definitions, are infallible or unchangeable, nor are they even binding…”

      After half a century the skids are finally under Vatican II. That is why the surviving flower-power clique from the 1960s is trying to re-ban the Tridentine Mass. It is a doomed project: if the cruel proscriptions of Paul VI and the Stalinist rigour of bishops whose authority was then unchallenged could not crush the Old Mass, today flourishing and expanding, does a discredited and scandal-ridden hierarchy whose credibility has evaporated imagine it can win this fight? The modernists will rue the day they provoked this war.'   Gerald Warner"


    9. Teresina September 11, 2013 at 11:48 am

      I have to add that the sentiment " Vatican II renewed the Church in the way that the atomic bomb improved the environment of Hiroshima" sums up well the general view of those I know who have remained obedient to the Church in the face of what has transpired since the Second Vatican Council.  I have looked hard to find any good fruits from the Second Vatican Council but can find none …

    10. bamac September 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm


      Isn't there a difference between the actual documents and intent of Vat 11 and the spin that has been put upon them by those with a bent for change in Holy Mother church ?  There is the actual Vat11 and the twist that has been put on the spirit of it ..twists and losses  that we have experienced in many ways since …. these were surely never envisaged in the calling together of the council .

      Mrs Mac

    11. Teresina September 11, 2013 at 2:43 pm

      Mrs Mac, yes, there is the "spirit of Vatican II" which has been an attempt to put a false slant on Vatican II, but there is also an attempt to gloss over some of the concerns about Vatican II where some of the documents appear to be a complete break with the past teaching of the Church.  This has interfered with the mission of the Church and with evangelisation because how can we evagelise when there is a Vatican II document that more or less states that all religions are equal?  There is a problem right there.  Mons Gherardini (who is in good standing with the Church and is one of the theologians at the Lateran University) has written several books on the subject.  One is Vatican II, a debate that has not taken place.  He explains:

      "“If we wish only to blame the post-Council, so be it, for it is not at all free of wrongs.  But also, we must not forget that it is the natural son of the Council, and that it is into the Council that it has found the principles upon which it has then founded its most devastating contents, to the point to exhausting them.

      “We must however say a few words concerning one aspect of the conciliar aggiornamento.  This is particularly important to me because it is a part of the Tridentine tradition and because it is in conformity with the sacramental reality of the priest.  It is of him that I wish now to speak.

      “As much in Lumen gentium 28/1, that says textually: “The priests […] are consecrated to preach the Gospel,” as in Presbyterorum Ordinis 13/2, which voluntarily places the ministry of the Word at the highest place in the priest’s functions, we see a clear modification of the Tridentine tradition, according to which the priest is ‘ad conficiendam eucharistiam.’  He is, of course, destined to other finalities, but all are placed after that of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

      “But in the Vatican II texts, all that is not in relation to the ministry of the Word becomes secondary, forgetting the condition of the priest as a mystical continuation of Christ, and thus the Christic basis of sacrificer and glorifier of the Father, which reflects on the priests and forms his first characteristic.

      “Consequently, how can it be coherent to declare that such a radical overturning of the Tridentine tradition is also perfectly coherent with the preceding magisterium, and constitutes the material of infallible, irreformable and dogmatic validity?  I candidly admit that I do not understand.” (p. 82-83)

      Then, Msgr. Gherardini offers to the theologian who would accept to “open the debate” a work method, and he invites him to begin with distinguishing four levels in the conciliar documents:

      “It seems to me that to begin, and always after having considered all the implications, a good critic should consider Vatican Council II on four distinct levels:

      a) the generic level of the ecumenical council as an ecumenical council;
      b) the specific level as pastoral;
      c) the level of reference to other councils;
      d) the level of innovations.” (p. 84)

      “The Vatican Council (…) present a fourth level, that of its innovations.  If we look not at each teaching, but at the spirit that conceived and produced them all, we could maintain that the Council was entirely on a “fourth” level, or that all can be found on this level.  The ‘against’, of which I spoke at its place, places Vatican Council II, whether we like it or not, on the level of innovation; and even of a singular innovation, the most radical, that which, before looking at things, took on a “Garibaldi”, that is, a revoluntionary allure;  and let us say that before coming concretely to surprising and manifest ruptures, the ‘against’ was a loud and decided ‘no’ to the fundamental inspiration of the former magisterium.  The innovations that were successively decided were the logical consequence.

      “A reader who would not necessarily be a specialist, but who would have a few historico-theological notions, will be able to distinguish between them with no trouble.  Let us take a formal point of view, the new concept of ‘constitutio‘: it is at this new point that it engendered copies of constitutions in which the constitutive mode disappeared behind an improper and vague language, voluntarily deprived of definitory intentions, and often replaced by profane language; and that, at the invitation of Pope Roncalli, repeated afterwards by his successores.  What is more, this concept opened the doors of the ‘constitutive’ even to foreign elements.  You must read Gaudium et Spes attentively and without preformed ideas: one might ask, in sum, what link there can be between the vast majority of themes treated, not only in the second part, but also in the first part of this text, with the nature and the specific apostolic activity of the Church.  The novelty places the Church on the level of the States and their institutions;  it makes of the Church an intervening party among others, and derobes her not so much of her function as the conscious critic of history, but rather of her nature of ‘sacramentum Christi‘ and of the responsibility that follows from this as regards eternal salvation.  The Church thus becomes an entity, in dialogue with other entities.  The Church promotes dialogue to realize ends that are indeed lofty – progress, peace – that turn her away from her specific task which is to preach the Gospel, to actualize and apply the merits of the Redemption, and to propagate the reign of God: in all, all that has to do with the life of grace, until the moment of Parousia.” (p. 87-88)

      Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place, Ed. Courrier de Rome, 112p"

      Mrs Mac, I think that some in the Church are frightened of opening a can of worms so perhaps just want to gloss over Vatican II saying all the errors were caused by the "spirit of Vatican II" when in reality there are certain documents that need to be examined and amended or perhaps even disgarded if the Church is to carry on with Her mission.

    12. Abenader September 11, 2013 at 5:32 pm

      Mrs Mac, sorry to flog a dead horse but for me, my question still remains that even if the Holy Father found out after the 'deeds' had been done, could he not have intervened? To me, by not intervening, he is (indirectly) giving tacit approval. Remember that we can sin by commission and ommission ("…..for what I have done and what I have failed to do……."). After all Francis is the Pope (or is only the bishop of Rome)?


    13. bamac September 11, 2013 at 7:11 pm

      On the same horse Abenader, maybe he will intervene , we cann't be sure on that score yet can we … and what about the bishops who might not live up to following the Magesterium and fail to lead the souls that have been entrusted to them along the path of true faith  … priests who lead souls astray by their wayout method of celebrating Mass;  supposed Catholic theologians who claim to teach Catholic theology but are dissidentin their teaching  … more cause for intervention?   Pope Francis wants to bring the LCWR leaders back into line  but is not doing that overnight either is he . … them is just me thoughts .. will get off this poor horse ,


        Mrs Mac

    14. bamac September 12, 2013 at 11:35 am

      Teresina ,

      You mentioned above about Vatican 11 … Have just come upon this interview which I found helpful in understanding what was originally intended to be the outcome of the council and what was made out of it by those who wanted change.


      Mrs Mac

    15. Teresina September 13, 2013 at 12:10 am

      Thank you for that link Mrs Mac, that is a very interesting video and well worth watching.  The Bishop very clearly sets out how Vatican II has been distorted and points out the documents that are vague and are open to misinterpretation and also some that have broken with the traditional teaching of the Church.

      I found a blog which summarises some of what the bishop says for those who may not have time to listen to the full video.  Bishop Schneider is particularly concerned about collegiality – where Lumen Gentium can be read to say the Pope is only one bishop among equals, which he points out has never been the Church's teaching and that Christ gave the authority to Peter.  Not only is that problematic, but as Mons Gheradini points out that in Lumen Gentium: "We see a clear modification of the Tridentine tradition, according to which the priest is ‘ad conficiendam eucharistiam.’  He is, of course, destined to other finalities, but all are placed after that of the Eucharistic sacrifice".  Since the Second Vatican Council we have seen a move away from the traditional view that the Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice.  No doubt that is due to the problems with Lumen Gentium. 

      Mrs Mac, I can't see how the problems in the Church can be corrected when documents like Lumen Gentium stand as they are.  What is being done is a papering over the cracks, but the cracks are still there.  We consider liberals to have erroneous views as regards the Mass, the Papacy, etc, but in reality while those documents exist without clarification we haven't got a leg to stand on because that is what is stated in some of the Vatican II documents that actually do break with the traditional teachings of the Church as Bishop Schneider states.

      I've set some of the comments below but the full article is here:

      So, what ambiguities does the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider find problematic?


      His first example is the doctrine of collegiality found in Lumen Gentium. Without citing any passages in particular, he opines that the document teaches the headship of the Pope in an "insufficient" way and that the document can be read to mean that the Pope is a first among equals who has only a of primacy of honor, ignoring or downplaying his actual jurisdiction and role as episcopus episcoporum. Schneider does not cite a text directly so I will not comment any further except to say that the view of collegiality that Schneider finds "insufficient" is very common manner.


      Staying in Lumen Gentium, he spends quite a bit of time with Lumen Gentium 16, which he forcefully says  "needs and explanation." The problematic passage he cites is the sentence which states that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God." His specific problem is which the last sentence, which states that Muslims and Catholics together adore the one God. Schneider says that this statement is extremely clumsy and admits of  "two substantial different levels" of interpretation. He goes on to make a phenomenally important distinction between belief in one God according to natural reason and the supernatural virtue of faith, which alone is pleasing to God:


      "We adore God always as a Trinity…our adoration is an adoration of supernatural faith. To worship God as Creator only or one God only, there is no need of faith. The use of your reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able only by his reason, natural light of reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as Creator. Consequently, to worship Him according to his knowledge of natural reason. These are the Muslims – they have no supernatural faith and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God, as Trinity, they rejected Him they have no faith. Therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural."


      The Muslim worship of Allah is not the same as the supernatural worship of the Trinity, which alone is pleasing to God. Thus, even if they claim to worship the same God based on a certain historic pedigree, their worship is fundamentally different from Catholic worship and cannot be pleasing to God because they lack the supernatural virtue of faith. When Voris mentions that Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently encouraged Muslims to keep their faith and said that we worship the same God, Schneider dryly says, "The Cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. Now you observe why it is necessary to strengthen this essential distinction."


      Also on Schneider's naughty list is Gaudium et Spes 12, which begins with the statement "all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown" (finis et culmin). In his analysis of this passage, :


      "I think this expression is very ambiguous. It is not correct because all the things which exist on earth have their finality in God and have to glorify God as their summit…all things that exist are created for the glory of God and for Christ, through Him and for Him. Christ is the end of all created things. The aim of this expression was that God created all non-rational things for the service of man, and that man is the ruler or king of this creation because God gave man such a dignity. But I think we cannot say this in this manner. We have to stress, even so, the created things on earth are created for man, but not ultimately for man…so we have to explain this also, otherwise it is an anthropocentrism, and this is all part of the crisis of this past fifty years, this anthropocentric vision. And not only vision, but practice, also, Christian life, liturgy and theology. Very anthropocentric. And this is the biggest danger of humanity, for the Church to be anthropocentric, because this was the first sin of Adam and Eve. This is very dangerous, and such expression of our Council texts can be used for such things and therefore need more explanation."

    16. Teresina September 13, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Mrs Mac, in the video link you give reference is also made to comments by Cardinal Kasper a few months ago when he said that ambiguities were deliberately written into Vatican II documents.  These comments were published in L'Osservatore Romano.  The writer of the blog that I quote from says he finds it "staggering" that no Catholic publication has taken up these comments of Cardinal Kasper.  I myself think it is just part of this "pasting over the cracks" mentality that hopes that the problems that have arisen since the Second Vatican Council are going to just evaporate.  Yet we have a serious problem of Catholics not knowing the truths of their faith and what to believe and a liberal group pushing for more and more watering down of the truths of the Church because they're standing firm on a pile of Vatican II documents that Cardinal Kasper has said contain deliberate ambiguities.  Really Cardinal Kasper's comments blow away the "spirit of Vatican II" papering and show that the Council was manipulated by those who wanted to change the direction of the Church and it has been all downhill since then – as the statistics show.


      "In L'Osservatore Romano (April 12, 2013), Cardinal Walter Kasper made the absolutely stunning admission that ambiguities were deliberately inserted into Vatican II documents — an admission that would pretty well vindicate all the alarms sounded by the likes of Michael Davies about "liturgical time bombs," and the like. Specifically, Kasper is reported as admitting the following (emphasis mine):

      “In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.”

      “For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintry look, and shows clear signs of crisis.

      “For those who know the story of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this [the state of confusion] will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The [Second] Vatican, however, is a special case.”

      Why is this not front and center in the discussion of the Catholic media?! This is a STAGGERING admission! The only other place I could find anything immediately about this was a brief post by Robert Sungenis, "Cardinal Kasper Admits to Intentional Ambituities in Vatican II," in The Bellarmine Report (April 17, 2013), and a Catholic Answers Forum HERE (Dated April 15, 2013), which led me to the original Italian version of the L'Osservatore Romano article translated by Google into English HERE (with the relevant quotes from Kasper); as well as the post, "Cardinal Kasper: Pope Francis has launched 'new phase' on Vatican II" by John Thavis (April 11, 2013)."

    17. bamac September 13, 2013 at 1:16 pm

      Thank you for that Teresina,

         Just a short link to a talk by Pope Benedict shortly before he retired  ( not too long this time!)

      Mrs Mac


    18. Teresina September 13, 2013 at 11:06 pm

      Thanks for the link, Mrs Mac.  Your original video link wasn't too long for me, and Michael Voris' stuff is always interesting.  I really enjoyed listening to Bishop Schneider who seems a very gentle man.

      The link re Pope Benedict is very good too.  Pope Benedict promoted the hermeneutic of continuity.  I have read comments that the Vatican will never admit the promblems with the Second Vatican Council.  Pope Benedict has come closest when, as Cardinal Ratzinger he made the point that Vatican II is not a dogmatic council and is open to change.  He also said that there may need to be another council called to rectify the errors that have been occurred since the council.  Pope Benedict may also have feared the liberals would push for greater change if any attempt at correcting the docs were made.  Certainly Orthodox Catholics are in the minority at this time.

      But what will happen if Pope Francis pushes for further collegiality which is contained in Lumen Gentium, which it is said he favours? That would mean that individual bishops would have the authority to make decisions for their own diocese – much like the Anglican Church.  Further fragmentation of the Church and possibly a major schism this time.  What is going to happen to the Church's call to evangelisation when Lumen Gentium says all religions are the same and even Cardinal Dolan saying the Muslim should stick with his own faith?  What do we evangelise people to, that is the question.  

      This is a good article explaining the hermeneutic of continuity and the difference in views.  


    19. bamac September 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm


      Many thanks for the introduction to the site in the above link  … hadn't seen it before and am now looking forward to having more time to visit it deeper.


      Mrs Mac

    20. Abenader September 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm


      What is the difference between evangelisation and conversion? Should not evangelisation efforts be aimed at conversion i.e. conversion to the Holy Roman Catholic church without which there is no salvation? It is apparent that the church has stopped preaching conversion (if the statements by some of her princes are anything to go by).

      Collegiality, if pushed by Our Holy Father will possibly as you say, end in schism. As is overt, there is a dividing process already ocurring.

      Might the 'war' between 'bloggers' indicate what is occurring within the upper echelon?


    21. Teresina September 14, 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Abenader, yes, in effect I see evangelisation and conversion as one and the same – the Church still teaches that there is no salvation outside the Holy Roman Catholic Church – and that has been confirmed by both Blessed John Paul II The Great and Pope Benedict.  The problem is the interpretation of Lumen Gentium – which is a departure from the former teaching of the Church.  The Church has always taught: extra Ecclesiam nulla salus  "outside the church there is no salvation" and Wiki has a good summation of the various popes who have defined this, e.g. Pope Pius IX said: "But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: 'And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matthew 18:17); 'He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me' (Luke 10:16); 'He that believeth not shall be condemned' (Mark 16:16); 'He that doth not believe, is already judged' (John 3:18); 'He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth' (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned' (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the 'false prophets… who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction' (2 Peter 2:1)."[8]"

      What did Vatican II say:    Lumen gentium, 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."

      That is a change to what the Church has continuously taught as a dogma in the past and that is why we are getting comments such as that of Cardinal Dolan that the Muslim should keep his faith.

      It makes a mockery really of the martyrs who died for the faith during the reformation and on other occasions if any church is a means to salvation.

      Yes, there is definitely a dividing process occurring.  And I think you are right probably there is a "war" going on in the upper echelon, and the comments of Bishop Schneider and Mons Gheradini are a hint of that.  In fact I heard that one of the the reasons the Franciscans were clamped down upon is that they were adopting what Mons Gheradini has said as regards the Second Vatican Council.

      Pray for the Church!

    22. Teresina September 16, 2013 at 10:05 pm

      Back to Marty's original post, I see Rorate Caeli has a relevant post –

      Transgender teacher’s suit against Catholic school gets green light

      Marla Kralikowski's wrongful termination lawsuit against St. Francis Preparatory School was given the green light by a Queens judge. She claims she was fired for her sexual orientation after 32 years of teaching, but the school claims it was due to her 'insubordination.'