Pope St. Felix III is often quoted as having said:
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men—when we can do it—is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
I would venture to say that these words have been repeated more often over the last two years than the previous five hundred, and for obvious reasons!
In any case, recently I’ve been pondering these words relative to activities in the Archdiocese of Baltimore where I live, while reflecting on the question:
How much gay activism has to take place in the parishes of a given diocese, without any apparent opposition from the local bishop, before it is reasonable to imagine that he approves of it, and perhaps even encourages it?
Some readers may recall that I addressed this issue in a video that I made back in October in response to a truly scandalous event hosted at St. Matthew in Baltimore, one of the areas notoriously “gay friendly” parishes.
Taking place on so-called “National Coming Out Day,” the event was truly nothing more than an officially sanctioned gripe session for those who reject Church teaching on homosexual activity, led by the pastor, Fr. Joseph M
uth.
To make matters worse, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Catholic Review, covered the event in an article that provided exactly no defense of the Faith whatsoever, and even published a sacrilegious image of the Crucifix (right) to accompany it.
I wrote to Archbishop Lori at the time (as did a number of friends), urging him to issue a strong, equally public, rebuke of this terrible offense against Our Blessed Lord.
Some readers may also recall that I made a follow-up video some weeks later, making note of the Archbishop’s silence; even going so far as to suggest that Archbishop Lori is a friend of the LGBT movement.
This time, a very high ranking official from the Archbishop’s Office responded rather swiftly.
How?
Not by voicing outrage over the misuse of archdiocesan property at the hands of LGBT activists and their sympathizers, but by decrying the content of my video.
(For the present moment, I will keep details of that complaint to myself, but suffice it to say that the person involved lacked the wherewithal to approach me directly.)
Not long thereafter, a very good priest that I respect a great deal spoke with me about the content of that video, and thanks to his wise counsel, I came to the conclusion that while my grievances are entirely legitimate, I had gone beyond the bounds of charity in the conclusions that I had drawn, and so I deleted it.
All of this backstory brings me to the present…
The “Upcoming Events” calendar published on the website of the Archdiocese of Baltimore contains an announcement for the screening of the gay activist documentary, “Anyone and Everyone,” hosted by “the gay and lesbian ministry” of St. Ignatius in Baltimore.
You can read a synopsis of the film on the Archdiocesan website (linked above), but more insight into the nature of this gay propaganda piece can be gleaned from a review that was published in the NY Times back in 2008, the gist of which reads:
Throughout the film … the couples involved allude darkly to other families that have been torn apart by the same pressures … We don’t meet the parents who, rather than rejecting religious beliefs to hold on to a child, have done the opposite.
Instead the film ends up being a sort of pep talk for parents and general plea for gay rights.
Why, one wonders, is a “plea for gay rights” that celebrates “rejecting religious beliefs” being shown in a Catholic parish?
More pressing still, why is this event being promoted by the Archdiocese of Baltimore?
Now, I may not be the most pious parishioner in the pew, but the spiritual guidance recently received is not lost on me…
So, in the spirit of charity, I will simply assume that Archbishop Lori must be unaware of this most recent misuse of a Catholic parish under his authority at the hands of LGBT activists. As such, I have taken it upon myself to make him aware of the matter.
One would hope, and dare I say reasonably expect, that as a result of having made His Excellency aware of this problem, two things will happen very soon:
1) The announcement promoting the screening of “Anyone and Everyone” will be removed from the Archdiocesan website.
More importantly:
2) The event will be cancelled by order of the Archbishop.
I will let you know how he, or a member of his staff, responds.
Until then, I will just continue to ponder the question:
How much gay activism has to take place in the parishes of a given diocese, without any apparent opposition from the local bishop, before it is reasonable to imagine that he approves of it, and perhaps even encourages it?
Your question is appropriate, but, I fear, the very fact that you ask it fills me with dread and despair. I pray that a simple and sincere letter from you to the Bishop would suffice, but I’m afraid it won’t.
We must surely be dealing with ‘powers and principalities’, diabolical disorientations on a very mass scale.
We know one of the major reasons is that the church has cozied up way too much with the State; Germany’s tax system being the prime example of that, but also parochial schools in the US and Catholic Separate Schools in Canada testify to this. Any answer to your question has to include ripping the Church from the evil grasp of the State, or, if this sounds too libertarian, placing the State in its true place in relation to the Church. But this cannot happen without divine intervention. So a speculative answer to your question is this: a general debilitation of the state is necessary, and for this to happen, in order to save the Western world, western so-called national states have to suffer an economic catastrophe and dismemberment.
I recently came across a passage of St. Paul at 1 Corinthians 6:9, which states: “Do not err (or do not be deceived!), neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind (i.e. homosexuals)…etc.. shall possess (or inherit) the kingdom of God.” It is plain and clear that homosexuals and active homosexuals cannot and shall not possess the kingdom of God. There is no other way to interpret this. This only begs further, more theological and mystical questions: 1) is there a theological war against St. Paul (is there open rebellion against St. Paul’s theology)?; and 2) is the bulk of western civilization at this time suffering from a mass hallucination?
For lust is a shameful sin,
a crime that should be punished.
It is a fire that burns all the way to hell.
Job 31:11-12
Of course…that applies to everyone
All the reviews we see online rave about this documentary as a great social-awareness tool- mostly because it ignores cultural and religious boundaries and presents cruelty as a common experience of so many homosexual “children” who try to “come out” to their family or church groups– which in turn is blamed for their becoming depressed and suicidal. (One review claimed a 40% rate among homosexual students verses a 10% rate in the general student population.)
====
It sounds to us like moral misdirection- away from treating the sin as deadly, and same-sex attraction as abnormal, and towards blaming religion and society for making active homosexuals “feel bad” about themselves. The implied solution is then “obviously” to make them feel accepted and welcomed and loved AS they are.
__
Amazon.com provides reviews from viewers. Many praise the parents who take the attitude “I love my child, right or wrong”, and one described a scene which demonstrates a promotion of more confusion about the meanings of love and hate, verus true charity:
“There was a mother in this film who said she approached her church’s pastor about her gay son. The pastor told her the typical playbook line: “We hate the sin, we love the sinner.” “The mother took away a viewpoint of this phony-baloney statement that I found refreshing.(the reviewer says) She reasoned that in other words, you hate my son – when Jesus taught the Supreme Commandment is LOVE, you said the word “hate”.”
=========
[p.s. For the factual record, ” Hate the sin, love the sinner” is not a direct bible quote. Mohandas Gandi altered and used it in his autobiography in 1929, but took it from a letter of St. Augustine (written in 211) which contains the phrase
“Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum” which translates roughly as
– “With love for mankind and hatred of sins.”]
p.s. What none of the reviews mentions is any Church teaching against homosexual sin.
A recent blog at The Catholic World Report has an article entitled Catholicism’s Man-Sized Crisis Matthew James Christoff on the “New Emangelization” May 07, 2015 Joseph M. Hanneman . Link is http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3860/catholicisms_mansized_crisis.aspx . The comments and responses to the article’s ruminations on the bleeding of men from the Catholic Faith, among which yours truly made several comments, show that a large majority of men have left because of the effeminate, homosexual, and gay enabling culture of softness in the Church. It was nice to see many staunch defenders of the Traditional liturgy there too. When I hear bishops boo-hooing about the lack of vocations, and the loss of men and faith in the Church, it seems to me, and to others, that its a no-brainer- get rid of the fairies and restore the liturgy!
Fr Rodriguez
http://youtu.be/lDn2D84m1r0
Since Kasper, Bergoglio’s ‘serene’ theologian, preaches that the indissolubility of Marriage is in no way decided upon by the Word – God Incarnate, the words of a mere Apostle might likewise be as nothing to these ‘beat of the age’ folks.
Thanks for the link.
–
PS. Fr Rodriguez: another priest persecuted for keeping the Faith and protecting the flock.
“How much gay activism has to take place in the parishes of a given diocese, without any apparent opposition from the local bishop, before it is reasonable to imagine that he approves of it, and perhaps even encourages it?” Who else is responsible for crushing that continuum of error in his diocese or for letting it continue? Exactly what is the crozier for these days in the hands of a Bishop?
Indignus Famulus,
–
Regarding my previous post on the article, “The Holy See’s Fatima Deception” wherein I state that Our Lady did not say on the 19th (? – see below) of August that the miracle of the sun would be diminished on account of the children being kidnapped, my source for that statement is no less than Sr Lucia’s own memoirs:
–
This is the whole account for the August 19 (?) apparition, as per her fourth memoir:
–
The 13th of August, 1917
–
As I have already said what happened on this day, I will not delay over it here, but pass on to the Apparition which in my opinion took place on the 15th, in the afternoon. As at that time I did not yet know how to reckon the days of the month, it could be that I am mistaken. But I still have a recollection that it took place on the very day that we arrived back from Vila Nova de Ourem.
–
I was accompanied by Francisco and his brother John. We were with the sheep in a place called Valinhos, when we felt something supernatural approaching and enveloping us. Suspecting that Our Lady was about to appear to us, and feeling sorry lest Jacinta might miss seeing Her, we asked her brother to go and call her. As he was unwilling to go, I offered him two small coins and off he ran. Meanwhile, Francisco and I saw the flash of light, which we called lightning. Jacinta arrived, and a moment later we saw Our Lady on a holmoak tree. “what do you want of me?” “I want you to continue going to the Cova da Iria on the 13th, and to continue praying the Rosary every day. In the last month, I will perform a miracle so that all may believe.”
–
“What do You want done with the money that the people leave in the Cova da Iria?” “Have two litters made. One is to be carried by you and Jacinta and two other girls dressed in white, the other one is to be carried by Francisco and three other boys. The money from the litters is for the festa of Our Lady of the Rosary, and what is left over will help towards the construction of a chapel that is to be built here.” “I would like to ask You to cure some sick persons.” “Yes, I will cure some of them during the year.” Then looking very sad, Our Lady said: “Pray, pray very much and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them.” And She began to ascend as usual towards the east.
http://fatima.ageofmary.com/overview/in-lucias-own-words/fourth-memoir/
–
Now, this being the case, I am pretty astonished at the account given in “Vol 1. of The Whole Truth about Fatima…” by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite. Page 235.
Does the author give some kind of footnote with a source to the alleged statements by Our Lady on the 19 (?) of August.
–
It seems someone changed Our Lady’s words from those in the original Sr Lucia fourth memoir and the change got “stuck” over subsequent books and publications!
Unlike their Master, these bishops neither use the crozier as a sword nor by proclaiming the unadulterated truth do they lay down their lives for their flock. Many have long ago given up laying down their lives for their sheep. They will have to account for this on their Judgement day.
These bishops should pray that before that dreadful day comes men of true conviction rise up and give them a proper thrashing.
I find it amazing that the priest whose opinion Louie respects believes that charity is merely one-sided. How charitable is it for a Bishop, a shepherd, to allow the flock under his care to engage in activities that will lead to their damnation. Louie was expressing outrage at the loss of souls–he had no ill will at the bishop. His consternation and upset was completely justifiable. Souls are at stake. Remember, St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face for heresy and went to jail. Later, Our Lord Jesus Christ asked Saint Nicholas, “Why are you here?” Nicholas responded, “Because I love you, my Lord and my God.” Christ then presented Nicholas with his copy of the Gospels. Next, the Blessed Virgin vested Nicholas with his episcopal pallium, thus restoring him to his rank as a bishop. Apparently God did not think Nick needed to be reprimanded for lack of charity! It’s a shame that Louie’s priest-confidant has compromised with the Immoral Majority.
There is no opposition to this sinful behavior because the gay element within the church is very powerful. How many bishops, clergy etc. in the church are gay? I wonder.
Mary Regina, what’s happening here is a direct result of the influence of Saul Alinski. This evil man has spread his poison throughout North America. The plan? Whenever a principle is at stake, direct the discussion to something around the issue – in this case the Bishop’s evil deeds in allowing, nay fostering, this perverted activity in his diocese gets lost in the discussion of the uncharitable language Louie used.
–
This is just so typical! The Bishop never has to answer the original charge that he allowed, and fostered, evil and endangered souls under his care – no, and he never will as long as he can use one of Alinski’s favourite tactics: mis-direction.
–
The good priest who advised Louie was simply overlaying the original issue with the mis-direction of ‘charity.’ He’s not wrong in doing this, but after Louie re-words his challenge, the original message MUST continue to be shouted from the housetops!
–
This is done with Poor Francis all the time. When he says something directly opposed to Church Teaching and Tradition we all spend a lot of time talking about the translation, or the mis-understanding, or even what he could possibly mean. Heck we even get lost in the discussion that he may be simply trying to flush out heretics!!!! The original evil is lost. The Catholic press begins to criticize our right to call the pope on these fundamental issues. We get sucked into this and defend our right and duty to speak out – result: original evil is planted thoroughly in the minds of the many-headed and we all move on.
–
In politics this is staying ‘on point’ and the very best of them will not allow their core message to be mis-directed. Watch them. They almost never answer a question directly. They will re-state their position. “I’m glad you asked that question” they will say – oh so honestly! Then they re-vomit their evil message, changing the wording ever so slightly.
–
Diabolical Disorientation indeed.
Uh… is NONE within the range of appropriate answers to the question?
The “filmmaker” of “Anyone and Everyone” that will be showing on Friday, June 15, 2015 in the diocese of Baltimore about which Louie’s post is concerned here is (poet and greeting-card lady) Susan Polis Schutz. Her grandparents were JEWISH immigrants from RUSSIA, as noted on Wiki here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polis_Schutz
_____
“Russia will spread her errors……….”
Dear In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Yes, there is a footnote, [#51] citing Fr. Joaquim Alonso’s “Old and New History of Fatima” (which in the French is actually ” Histoire ancienne et Histoire Nouvelle de Fatima”) page 91. Interestingly, what we find written online about him, and what Father Gruner mentioned many times, was that his eight years of painstaking work chronicling Fatima was suppressed by the Bishop at the time, for political reasons, and that it was notable for its criticism of things being added to the accounts of the seers. (ironic, to say the least, considering THIS situation). The task of proving or disproving these claims is monumental, considering all the works written which claim to “prove” or “disprove” all the others. Perhaps we’ll just have to wait till the truth is revealed by Sister Lucia and Our Lady themselves?
Well said. Amen!
Dear Barbara,
You’re right. And the best thing WE can all do to counteract these machinations, is to keep repeating the truths about these grave sins, along with the constant Church teaching that un-repented mortal sin -even one on a soul at the moment of death- results in immediate damnation for all eternity.
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
So true. This woman is part of the 1960’s revolution. Met her husband at a party at Princeton, and motorcycled around with him for four years before they were married. Protested the war etc…. Formed one of the largest greeting card companies in the world, and got even richer when they went electronic on line years later. Eldest son graduated from Princeton and then told them he is “gay”, which they fully accept “without judgment” and which motivated the making of this movie. He’s a Democrat and Congressman.
These people have great influence world-wide.
http://www.sps.com/authors/susan.html
I.F.,
–
The only “proving” one need do is look to Sister Lucia’s own memoirs. According to these, the words: “the miracle will not be so great etc” was concocted by someone once the memoirs were written and the error was passed on from writer to writer… Lucia is THE witness given to us by God for relating to the world the words of Our Lady of Fatima.
–
It’s like Our Lord saying: “The act of redemption will not be so great because of the sinful Pharisees…”
God is not limited in the greatness of his works due to the actions of sinful men.
On the contrary – He allows evil in order to bring about a greater good.
Louie,
–
I understand you are acting out of charity in assuming that the Archbishop isn’t aware of the screening of the pro-gay film, but at this juncture – being so far in the apostasy as we are now, is it even prudent – I will go further and say, even charitable, to give these prelates the continued benefit of the doubt?
–
As far as I am concerned, just a single act of pro-sodomy propaganda within a diocese is enough evidence to cause a violent suspicion of tacit approval of sodomy to arise in one’s mind – and if the act is repeated, as per St Felix III’s quote, not opposing the sin is for all effects and purposes the same as consenting to it.
I have to agree with what you say here, only that I don’t think that the priest necessarily has “compromised”, but that he is giving his advice out of an erroneous view of what charity really constitutes.
1) & 2) go both together.
Sin in the soul leads to a general darkening of the intellect and eventually to a sort of psychosis wherein plain facts and observations are no longer able to be discerned clearly.
Did you wear a helmet?
Sorry, I thought you knew the husband as a fellow recreational biker!
Dear In Hoc,
Sorry, Correction. That was another footnote of the same number from a different chapter.
The Correct one–referring to the quotation about the miracle is as follows:
Footnote for the citation on page 235 is found on page 253:
#50: “The account of the 4th memoir p169-171, and the Ferreira interrogation, (documentos, p500-501), nicely complete each other. The dialogue which we quote is borrowed entirely from these two sources.”
and #51: (refers to the imprisonment at Vila Nova de Ourem)
==========
Since he used two sources, it may be that it was not in the memoirs, but only in answering the interrogation questions, that Sister Lucia gave the information about Our Lady saying that the miracle would have been greater had the children not been kidnapped.
Dear Ever mindful,
Huh?
Dear In Hoc,
Please see our correction to the footnote (Below)
Apparently it was Sister Lucia’s own additional words said in the interrogation about her memoirs, that were also quoted by the author.
I.F.,
–
Thanks for the info about the two different sources for the words of Our Lady in the August apparition. However, it is clear that both versions cannot be correct.
–
It seems highly unlikely that Sr Lucia would have given an incomplete account of the apparition in her memoirs. That would be tantamount to saying that she’s not a reliable witness, and is obviously unacceptable.
–
Besides, how many times were words/letters ascribed to Sr Lucia, which she never uttered or wrote?
PS Here is a link to the full version of Sr Lucia’s memoirs.
http://www.proecclesia.com/third_secret_of_fatima_MemoriasI_en.pdf
Wow! I.F. and I.H.S.V. ———–
Your comments are ever so enlightening. Thank you for posting this discussion. I love this story of Fatima and want to know the TRUTH of it. The discussion of whether or not the miracle would be lessened because of the Masonic mayor’s evil actions has often intrigued me. I have pondered it often.
IHSV’s words above, however, make so much CATHOLIC sense. You said,
“It’s like Our Lord saying: “The act of redemption will not be so great because of the sinful Pharisees…”
God is not limited in the greatness of his works due to the actions of sinful men.
On the contrary – He allows evil in order to bring about a greater good.”
________
Why do you suppose such an “addition” would have been added? What may have been the motive?
It is a mystery to me why anyone would add those words, and I do not have a satisfactory answer. It would be interesting to hear other people’s opinion on this matter, it is an interesting thing as you mention.
–
I do know, however, that the words of Our Lady’s messenger (Sr Lucia) have often been tampered with and misinterpreted (the most recent/infamous case being the Sodano/Bertone/Ratzinger demotion of the message of Our Lady of Fatima to a private call to penance and prayer) in order to fit in with the thinking/desires of men and not that of God.
Dear In Hoc and Servant,
We too, have given this a lot of thought over the years, and ended up likening it to Our Lord’s saying He could not work many miracles in Nazareth because of their lack of Faith. After all, the miracle was “proof” that the apparitions were really from God. We got that. Perhaps a “greater ” miracle would have been to the benefit of the doubters, like the communists who kidnapped the children, and thus their actions lost them that extra help. (Just a thought)
__
Two other things:
1. The fact that an studied expert like Frere Michel believed the source, is a weighty one, despite the fact that everyone is capable of error in such matters.
2. Sister Lucia could have given a full account of all the important facts and words that were said, without writing down every detail. Her descriptions of how she felt interiorly inspired by God when answering questions early on, say that this inspiration calmed her fears that she would reveal parts of the secrets by accident. The words came to her in such a way that the secrets were not told.
–We also remember something St. John wrote in his Gospel Ch 21:24 “–this disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
–You may be right that Lucy omitted nothing, or there may be things that happened that God deemed less necessary to the memoirs, in the same way as Scripture was inspired to record what God wanted recorded.
Not that we are certifying Lucy’s memoirs as Divinely inspired just like the Bible, but -in the one sense that you mention–it’s seems reasonable to expect that God would direct her accuracy and to write what He wanted written down.
___
The bottom line for us is that it’s an interesting concept, but a superfluous one which may or may not have occurred. If it did, then it implies God withdraws favors from those who sin, –no new revelation there, which may be why it was only mentioned and recorded during a questioning session.
–We aren’t arguing for or against it, just continuing to consider the possibilities.
🙂 🙂
I. F.,
–
Thanks for your thoughts and comments.
I still would like to think that Sr Lucia’s memoirs are the most reliable source we have for Our Lady’s words. As far as I’m concerned, anything attributed to Sr Lucia that she didn’t directly pen down, is suspect if it doesn’t conform to what she did previously write down.
–
Regarding your (reasonable) claim that the masons/evil doers might have been converted through a greater miracle, I would give a citation from the parable of Lazareth and the rich man:
–
“And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren,
That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.”
Luke 16:27-31
–
The conclusion being that, whoever was not converted by the stupendous miracle of the sun would not have been converted through a greater wonder.
Wish I didn’t suspect that you were being “charitable” to the bishop so that he would be “charitable” to you w/the speaking engagements etc. “Gay” activism as you call it (advocating sodomy and mortal sin is what I call it) is going on in the Archdiocese of Baltimore BECAUSE of Catholics like you and many others who (should) know better. I hope you will at least immediately re-post the item you took down for chance that it could save someone’s immortal soul. This parish has a school and it is preparing again to march in the sodomite “pride” parade in Bazltimore.
http://www.leadlgbtministry.org/our-events.php
https://www.facebook.com/LEAD.LGBTEducatingAffirmingDiversity/timeline
“April 10 Post: Looks like St. Matthew’s has some competition for being the gayest Catholic parish…”
Charity means saving souls — including the “bishop’s”
TWN,
–
While I do not agree with Louie pulling down the video criticising the gay activism going on in the diocese (I suspect he probably did that out of a misplaced sense of charity – God knows), saying that promotion of sodomy is going in Baltimore BECAUSE of faithful (even if imperfect – as we all are) catholics like Louie is definitely going too far.
“I love my child, right or wrong.”
These people have no idea what love actually is. Love is not a feeling. It’s not unconditional acceptance of their behavior. My goodness if your child were a toddler playing in traffic what would you do? If anything, this points to the parents of these children struggling with perverted attractions having the major issues. No surprise that the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree in some cases.
Hatred of evil is fear of the Lord says Scripture. The people who made this film and support it are devoid of reason, logic and wisdom. Love WILLS the good of the person, it does not cooperate or promote evil for them. And sodomy is EVIL. Love protects, rejoices in the Truth, and does not rejoice in wrong doing.
These people have drank the lie by the perverts that sodomy is normal, another kind of “love”. When in reality it is utterly sick and perverted. Men become sex addicts with their colons falling out…sperm, lube, blood and feces are what they produce in their act of “lurv”….all the while facing the back of their “beloved’s” head. It is utterly sick and evil. The women don’t even last 7 years sexually…lesbian bed death. Then it’s just obsession over breasts. That is if they are beating the crap out of each other.
In the end, we have an emo, stupid and narcissistic society that will destroy itself all the while insisting that they “lurv” each other. *shakes head* Idiots. Pay for them. They need it.
God bless~
Whoops! Meant to say “Pray for them” not pay:+) And also “That is if they are not beating the crap out of each other.” Lesbians are rife with physical abuse/violence. God bless~
@Indignus Famulus
I cant imagine telling my child, who is so dear to me, “enjoy your pleasures and dont worry about offending Our Lord.” Can any parent really feel that this is how to love one’s child?