PMS 9: Hope Springs Eternal

According to the National Catholic Reporter, gay Romanists are hoping that the Church will take advantage of the upcoming papal election to benedictthrow over 2000 years of biblical teaching and tradition. Good luck with that:

In the wake of Pope Benedict’s resignation announcement Feb. 11, gay and lesbian Catholics reacted with relief and cautious optimism for a pope willing to engage in dialogue.

With the departure of Benedict, DignityUSA, the nation’s largest gay and lesbian Catholic organization, called for an end to church statements that “inflict harm on already marginalized people” and depict gay people “as less than fully human.”

Since the referenced statements do not, in fact, “depict gay people ‘as less than fully human,’” what they must actually mean is, “statements that don’t approve of anything we want to do.”

In a collective statement, leaders of Equally Blessed, a coalition of Catholics that works for equality for gay people, called upon the cardinals to select a pontiff who will realize that “in promoting discrimination against LGBT people, the church inflicts pain on marginalized people, alienates the faithful and lends moral credibility to reactionary political movements across the globe.”

Since the Church does not, in fact, promote “discrimination against LGBT people,” but instead upholds standards of sexual behavior and marriage definition that have prevailed across Christendom for well over a millenium, this must actually mean, “we want the Church to put its stamp of approval on, and work to change laws against, pretty much anything we want to do.”

For at least the last five decades, Catholic pronouncements on gay Catholic issues have been at least ambivalent and even sometimes contradictory. They have included exhortations on pastoral care and inclusivity and at the same time admonitions against gay lifestyles and warnings to gay Catholic organizations.

That’s NCR’s take on things. Out here in the real world, there is no contradiction whatsoever being treating people with love and care and at the same time seeking for them to mend sinful ways. We do it with adulterers, liars, racists, murderers, and in fact virtually all Christians all the time. Why it can’t be done with those violating Christian teaching on homosexuality without contradicting oneself is a mystery.

This ambivalence has resulted from church torn between the pastoral nature of the Gospels and sexual code based on centuries-old understandings of natural law. Official Catholic sexual morality forbids all “unnatural” acts under penalty of grave sin. It also rests in teachings that sexual acts are to be open to biological procreation. By extension, church prelates have fought hard politically against gay rights and gay marriage.

What is really going on here is what the head-shrinkers call “projection.” Among many religious liberals of both Catholic and Protestant stripes, there is unbounded dislike, disdain, and even hate for those who disagree with them, or do stuff they don’t approve of (voting Republican, for instance, or contacting politicians to ask for lower taxes). Given that they feel that way, they can’t conceive of it being possible for orthodox Christians to be able to both love the homosexual and at the same time disapprove of what they do. Hence, the “ambivalence” or “contradiction,” which is only either if you come from the perspective that says you can’t hate the sin and love the sinner at the same time. Personally, I’ve never had a hard time with that. Most people who have ever raised a child haven’t, either.

To be sure, no official Catholic pronouncement has ever argued for the church’s acceptance of homosexual expressions. Yet there have been distinct differences in the way theologians, pastors and educators approach the issue of homosexuality, often calling for more understanding and less judgment.

In other words, some of us out here would rather be Episcopalians, but the perks aren’t as good.

In the years that followed the Second Vatican Council, church documents on gay and lesbian Catholic issues exhibited more tolerance. Some theologians called for the church to abandon its focus on specific acts as the basis of Catholic morality and instead consider contexts, attitudes and the fidelity of relationships.

In other words, some Catholic theologians started talking like Episcopalians. Some, like Charles Curran, are no longer Catholic theologians. Some, like Matthew Fox, are no longer Catholics (or even Christians, at least in what they teach).

Church utterances have real consequences as they become translated into ministerial practices. Gay acceptance or rejection often varies from diocese to diocese and even parish to parish. Gay Catholic organizations respond by listing on their websites “gay friendly” parishes, communities in which they can feel accepted without prejudice.

In other words, in some places church discipline has broken down to one extent or another. Big surprise, given the general revolt against ecclesiastical authority in the West over the last fifty years.

Gay Catholics widely view Pope Benedict as the chief architect of what they see as the official church’s unwavering anti-gay teachings and attitudes.

Right. Made them up out of whole cloth. Probably a leftover of that Nazism he imbibed as a youth. Had nothing to do with historic Catholic teaching, which has always been, “if it doesn’t harm anyone, do what you want.”

New Ways Ministry’s executive director, Francis DeBernardo, said he is cautiously hopeful looking into the future. He said he hopes the next pope will be listener.

Gramick said she wants the papal war on gay people to end.

“The church,” she said, “requires a future pope with a pastoral heart who is willing to listen and engage in dialogue.”

Which, as anyone who has ever dealt with gay advocacy groups (or the Episcopal hierarchy–but I repeat myself) knows, means they want someone who won’t object when they start the “dialogue” with, “sit down, shut up, and we’ll tell you what to think and do.” Yeah, if I were a cardinal, that’s exactly the kind of person I’d want as the next pope.

Thank God GAFCON Primates are Defying English ‘POSH & AWE’

by Julian Mann, VOL

The English ecclesiastical establishment can still play the ‘posh and awe’ game. Even though the United Kingdom is heading for a cataclysmic social disaster due to rapid de-Christianisation, a ceremonial event such as the enthronement of a new Archbishop of Canterbury is an opportunity to impress overseas visitors with the aura of an ancient cathedral, the ermine sheen of the House of Lords, and the musty whiff of an Oxbridge high table.

That is why orthodox Anglicans the world over should be enormously thankful for the gospel-motivated spiritual discernment of the GAFCON leaders. By God’s grace, they are not dazzled by ‘posh & awe’.

The GAFCON Primates know what God thinks of religiosity without righteousness: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs. I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5v21-24 – NIV).

The GAFCON leaders will be doing a great service to orthodox Anglicans in the liberal-dominated Western provinces by continuing to refuse to attend primatial meetings if Mrs Jefferts Schori is present. The theological stand GAFCON is taking is hugely helpful in making crystal clear that lines of biblical conviction have been crossed and that indaba with false teachers cannot be given spiritual legitimacy.

Read here

Message from Bishop David Anderson

Unfortunately, when Dr. Williams left he didn’t take Indaba with him………

From AAC

As we prepare for the second Sunday in Lent, I am reminded of the disarray of the world in the secular realm and within the major churches, and that our hope finally isn’t with human leadership no matter how godly they may seem. It is with the Lord Jesus Christ who is both all-knowing and completely trustworthy.

As the world waits for the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals to meet and choose the next pope, articles are beginning to appear speculating about why Pope Benedict decided to step down. Some of them point to deep divisions and tension in the Vatican between factions in the Curia. Others suggest it is the Curia in tension with other parts of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Curia is best defined by Vatican documents: “In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors” (Decree concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Christus Dominus.) Unless someone on the inside decides to write a tell-all book in the future, we may well never know all of the ins and outs of this decision, but then there are enough ins and outs in the Anglican world to keep us busy in our own yard. Nevertheless, many Anglicans felt that Pope Benedict was supportive of our orthodox realignment and we can only hope that the next Pope is similarly inclined.

It is being suggested that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, will try to deal with the deep divisions in Anglicanism at his upcoming Enthronement. The previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, used a Hegelian approach, putting thesis against the anti-thesis, and letting the two come to resolution through pushing and pulling. This would suppose that both the thesis and the anti-thesis are acceptable and that essentially some middle point would be acceptable as well. Sometimes this could work. In other cases this doesn’t work, such as when precious faith and belief are on one side and renunciation of historic faith is on the other. In that case, a midpoint is still unacceptable, yet that was the only trick that Dr. Williams seemed to know. If all you have is a hammer, then I guess everything looks like a nail. In the case of Dr. Williams, that meant more and more Indaba and less ability to find a middle ground that anyone was willing to buy into. Unfortunately, when Dr. Williams left he didn’t take Indaba with him.

Read here

Catholic clerical “Gay Mafia” finally being exposed in media?

by Steve Jalsevac, LifeSite News

The resignation of Pope Benedict is causing a series of large explosions along the way to the new conclave to replace the burnt-out reformer Pope. Some of us have been desperately waiting for many years for the power and influence of an extremely damaging homosexual mafia within the Catholic clergy to be exposed and dealt with. It appears this might finally be happening in a very dramatic fashion thanks to Benedict in the last few days of his pontificate.
Italian media reports on the details of a Benedict ordered internal investigation on the Vatileaks scandal, if true, are astounding. The reports appear to confirm what LifeSiteNew and many others have been incessantly warning about for years only to be constantly dismissed as being overly negative, divisive and sensationalist.
Deny, deny, deny has been the standard response and many good priests and laity and even bishops have been subjected to ridicule and ruthless treatment for daring to try to expose the scandals and criminal or otherwise highly immoral actions of homosexuals in parishes, orders, chanceries and even the Vatican itself.
At the same time as this Vatican controversy is raging, the English translation of another report, this time by a Polish priest, on the wide extent and influence of homosexual clergy has just been released. With the Pope against the homoheresy by Fr. Dariusz Oko, reveals the global phenomena of a “huge homosexual underground in the Church”.
LifeSiteNews has been aware of this for many years, although not its full extent. We have been convinced, from our own experiences, that it is a vastly larger cancer within the Church than most realize. Trying to get the good bishops and cardinals to do something about it has been very difficult because of fear of the powerful network of influence of the gay clergy and their ruthless bullying of anyone, including bishops and cardinals, who causes them trouble. They tend to gain a lot of control over Church agencies, clergy and staff appointments and Church media, making it difficult to expose and expel them.

Catholic schools will be forced to teach about gay marriage

Maria MillerFrom The Tablet

Read correspondence between bishops and Equalities Minister

This week the bishops’ conference of England and Wales published its correspondence with Maria Miller, Minister for Women and Equalities, on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

The Government rejected proposed amendments by the Church to its gay marriage Bill, and said the new definition of marriage will have to be taught in Catholic schools.
The Church suggested a number of amendments to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill during a meeting with Culture Minister Maria Miller in January.
In a letter to Archbishop Smith that was released yesterday, Ms Miller said teachers in Catholic schools will need to reflect the fact that ‘marriage is open to both opposite and same sex couples.’ She said, however that ‘the discussion or criticism of same sex marriage [in schools] would not be ‘of itself’ discrimination under the current law,’ and that this would only be the case if this took place ‘in an inappropriate manner or context’ which resulted in discrimination.
You can read a letter to Archbishop Peter Smith from Ms Miller dated 3 February 2013, and Archbishop Peter Smith’s response.
This is in the form of a detailed memorandum prepared with expert legal advice from Professor Christopher McCrudden. Also attached is a summary of the memorandum.