SC



Home

Articles

News Archive



St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...



Seattle Catholic is not affiliated with the Archdiocese of Seattle
Seattle Catholic
A Journal of Catholic News and Views
25 May 2004

The Sodomite Offensive in the Catholic Church

by Erven E. Park

Orazio Gentileschi, 'Lot and his Daughters' (1621), Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Madrid

The unfolding of the tragic dissolution of the Catholic Church in America today is truly frightening in its scope and depth. The scope encompassing both the spiritual (faith) and the temporal (morals) with the depth revealing real corruption and mendaciousness of certain bishops entrenched at the top. To date, no less than eight American bishops have resigned or retired under circumstances connected to sexual abuse accusations. Furthermore, investigations (still far from complete) now reveal that while four percent of the priesthood were involved in incidents of sexual abuse, two thirds of all the U.S. Bishops actively participated in covering up these criminal acts.1 Compounding this travesty, many of these bishops reassigned these criminals, thus proliferating the assaults on innocent victims. Who comes to being the greater responsible — the degenerate or those in authority who loosed them to prey even further upon the innocent? To ask the question is to answer it.

All the media and public discourse of recent months regarding the U.S. Catholic church has pretty much focused on the scandals associated with the sexual abuse committed by the ordained who have forsaken their sacred vows to answer the calls of lust. Under the public radar, however, has been a parallel spiritual crisis ever more mounting involving the desacralizing of the Church's liturgies (Sacraments) to favor priorities directing attention to man (anthropocentricism) — the sociological kingdom of God on earth assigned precedence over the transcendent God whose kingdom is not of this world. All this is driven by a condemned ideology known as "Modernism," which has progressively emptied the churches and the ranks of the Catholic faithful since it's loosing at Vatican II.

The center of this upheaval, of course, is the Mass — the core and heart of the Catholic faith. Whereas the Mass, with the Eucharist at its center, has always been the rock to which the Church and it's Faith is anchored, the decades since Vatican II have seen it undergo unremitting changes imposed in matters of discipline and rubrics. This relentless flux (a hallmark of Modernism) in itself identifies it as not being of God, Who is truth and thus is immutable in all things as is His Church. This subject has undergone considerable discussion and it is not my purpose here to elaborate further. I point to it as a particular disordering that carries gravity every bit as consequential as that of the more sensational sexual depravities dominating the public airwaves and media.

By the above title, you will note I chose to use the designation "sodomite" which is the ancient and Biblical designation given for those indulging in the depravities of "unnatural sexual relations." "Sodomy," or "sodomite," is the more proper wording in that it has no ideologically intentioned subtleties that have become attached to such as the expressions/adjectives: "homosexual, gay, lesbian, transsexual, etc." In our day, we all too often witness the examples of inexact language employed and put to the service of deception. Utilizing the Standard College Dictionary we see: "Sodomy: Unnatural sexual relations, especially between male persons or between a human being and an animal." "Sodomite: One guilty of sodomy." Moreover, those who have same-sex inclinations but lead chaste lives are not sodomites by the very fact that they do not indulge in sodomy. Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" unjustly paints the chaste "homosexual" with the same brush as that of the pervert.

What we have seen developing in our Church and society vis--vis the sodomites is really not a mystery. Holy Scripture gives explanations of not only the sodomite persona, but also the aftermath to be assured of any civilization permitting his ascent in society. It is quite safe to say that we are now at the point in our history where it can be absolutely assured that the inalterable choice before the people in our time is the same as those required of the citizens of the cities of Nineveh, as contrasted to those of Sodom and Gomorrah in their day. Today's scenario points to the sodomites carrying the day, and if that time comes to being, do not be persuaded otherwise, it carries with it the inevitable consequence of God's wrathful intervention.

When I state that sodomites are "carrying the day," one cannot but ponder how this could have come about, as their moral precepts and practice plainly defy right reason and elementary hygienic reality. How is it that this "disordered" sub-culture numbering two percent or less of the population can provide the impetus so effectual as to sway a multitude to accept evil as a good? Mind you, they do not just seek tolerance for this evil, but insist that its practice be accepted as a benefit. Such accomplishment would seem to defy human reason, in that rationalizing the consequences of overturning nature's laws have no other witness in history other than that of devastation and death. Yet history gives testimony to just such demonic ventures, beginning with Sodom and Gomorrah of early history to Nazi Germany2 of our times.

Study of such phenomena establishes the life-force of a nation or people's overall well-being as lying in the singular entity of its national moral repository. This moral repository; call it soul if you wish, ought to always be directed to the common good. The people's morals are the repository's only currency. This repository, composed of the collective morals of its people (good or bad) will determine the path and fate of that people.

Unfortunately, it is an acknowledged truth that persons with evil as their message and endeavor, generate much more time and energy aggressively furthering their immorality than the good do to upholding morality. There is a logical explanation for this — that the good enjoy the peace allotted by God to those who do and live good lives, whereas the existence of the evildoer consists of chaos and turmoil brought about by the iniquity he relishes too much to depart from. A consequence of this rebellious pride most often takes the form of obsessive effort directed toward the justifications of his/her disordered practice or habit.

You couple the above reality concerning the dynamism of evil with a national moral repository weakened by a substantial deposit of permissive morals, and you have the deadly scenario whereby the lethargic multitude can be led to succumb to a small but zealous few. It might be well to keep in mind that the more severe punishments meted out by God to His rebellious claimants is not to deny the evil license for which they clamor but rather to grant it to them — in spades! The lukewarm and indifferent become the subjects of the evil ones they enabled by their silence, and the chastisement which will befall every person, brought on by these omissions, shall be dreadful indeed.

Knowing the Adversary

It is wisely observed that you cannot effectually combat an enemy without having knowledge of him. Moreover, this particular adversary (the sodomite) very cunningly set the stage for disarming the unknowing by boldly asserting their members as being victims rather than assailants. After all, it is not seen as proper that the good should muster themselves against victims.

That stealth tactic in itself forewarns you of the very capable intellect of the average sodomite. That the intellectual acumen of the sodomite subculture is in the upper percentile of society is a matter of historical record. As a result of the sodomites' bent toward education for greater attainment, one finds them populating the higher offices and professions, especially those contributing to or having effect on cultural mores. There are two other inherent characteristics of the "confirmed sodomite" 3 persona which, coupled with their astuteness, render them as quite dangerous when collectively organized against the "straight" society which sustains them:

1). As is pointed out by St. Paul, the sodomite disorder carries with it perversions of temperament beyond their sexual travesties to include such as malice, lying, deceit, envy, etc. (Cf. Romans 1: 29-31)

2). The sodomite malady generates fires within them which facilitate compulsive drives directed to the attainment of their gratifications (lust) and hence, to the social justifications thereof. (Cf. Romans 1: 27)

Our whole society today, both secular and churched, is fully engaged in this battle for the souls of the citizenry and faithful. I pray you are not deluding yourself with phantasm; it is factually the open and likely final combat between good and evil, with eternal consequences applying to each and every person in our world today.

As to the secular realm, I shall be brief. You cannot be other than aware of how the very small sodomite minority, since it has marshaled itself in the open during the last two decades, has literally caused to be ruptured and deformed any sane discourse directed to the common good of the people and society as it relates to sexual morality — even to the extent where sexual depravities have become the common fare expressed in the public forums of today. How did this come about? They accomplished this not by persuasion or convincing the populace. No, they accomplished it by employing the subversive tactic of inserting their kind in the offices and professions who influence, litigate and govern public morality, e.g., media, government, courts, etc. What emerged from those pestilent assembles took the form of authorizations for "rights" that have never existed. Creation from nothing, Ex Nihilo. The sodomite infiltration of the psychiatry/psychology organizations, for example, has significantly reduced the credibility of those professions. For any bishop to reveal that he has based his moral decisions & policy regarding sexuality on the demonstrably expedient mindset of the modern psychology is to admit to reckless disregard as it relates to his sacred oath to lead the faithful to Christ, according to the teachings of His Church.

In the Church

It likely will come as no surprise to many of the faithful that the Catholic Church is just as infected with the militant sodomite element, as is society as a whole. Indeed, the per capita percentage of sodomite individuals within the Church will prove to be much greater than that existing without. This has already been borne out by the statistics emanating from the recent national clergy sex scandal reports. This presence is also to mean that just as in the secular realm, they have gravitated toward the offices and positions that have influence on morals, both in teaching and legislating. This includes the Episcopate itself, which houses a majority sympathetic to the sodomite agenda.

The visibility of the sodomite within the Church is much more muted and subtle for the very good reason that the Church officially and publicly condemns the evils of sodomy. That fact, however, has not deterred in the least their determination to overthrow or subvert those teachings, and their diligence in these efforts is not without its fetid fruits, now emerging to the light. It must be remembered that the inordinate compulsion of the committed sodomite to realize his/her unnatural sexual gratifications is paralleled with the equivalent drive to necessitate that their decadent activities be accepted as a societal norm.

Many will tend to view the sodomite essentially as a person afflicted with a chemistry gone awry who is merely a victim of his stimuli, if you will. That is wrong. As pointed out by St. Paul, he is first a cause of his condition (Cf. Romans 1: 26-31) and, as pointed out earlier, the average sodomite will have a higher intellect and is quite analytical. They are narrowed in their perspectives, however, brought about by their two powerful fixations, which are those of unnatural sex and societal acceptance.

Now we are all aware of the publicized upheaval caused by the revealing of sodomite sexual abuses in the episcopate and clergy. We have come to be aware of the scandal of sodomites having predominant numbers in certain seminaries, as well as within the ordained. We hear the rather foolish conjecture on whether those with known sexual "disorders" should be recruited, trained and ordained for the priesthood, thereby assuring their exposure to the near occasion of sin.

The sodomite sees and experiences the Church and priesthood as a highly desirable position and lifestyle that serves their particular persona in many ways, the least of which is holiness. The one impediment, of course, is the Church's rejection of sodomy and the risk of denunciation or expulsion if exposed. It is now seen that over a period of years, sodomites have been successful through stealth and diligence in inserting their ranks even to the highest of consecrated offices, thereby establishing a protective hierarchy assuring cover and employment longevity. Intimidation, networking and even blackmail, have been and still are significant part and substance of this unholy alliance. The monstrous scandal that has commanded the news over the last two years was never brought to the light in the least by the governing episcopate or their media. It was the secular press who broke it to the people and it was the outraged Catholic in the pew that was the force that demanded action. The real Achilles Heel of the sodomites in the Church has been the people, and the people are precisely the entity where the sodomites have been actively engaged in their efforts of affecting change.

Being quite intelligent and analytical, the sodomites recognize that aberrant changes of faith and morals can be attained stealthily through the means of the people's medium of worship, which of course is the Mass. The Church itself acknowledges the decisive powers of the Mass in forming belief as expressed in the Latin "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi," (the law of prayer will establish the law of belief). Ritual and acts employed during the Mass can and have been put to the service of the unscrupulous in molding or changing faith, and it is most often accomplished entirely unbeknownst to the person attending, and certainly without their analysis or discussion.

With this said, I am sure it is registering with some that what I am here discussing, with regards to controlling liturgical discipline surely could not have been accomplished without some direct complicity of the bishops. Those holding such an assumption would be entirely correct. Yes, the bishops are directly and formally involved with these seditious machinations through no less than the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB).

In truth, every bishop is individually held responsible before God in assuring the validity and integrity of worship within his own diocese as being that specified by the Church (Rome). In reality, however, as a result of certain authorizations allowed by Vatican II, a pseudo authority was established in the form of regional or national "bishops conferences." Although proposed as being a cooperative and collegial support for the bishop, many of these conferences became a functioning peer authority set between the bishop and Rome. Lawfully, the conferences do not have this authority, but the vast majority of bishops have collectively yielded their sacred responsibilities to these episcopal institutions, and it is that bureaucracy that has ended up wagging the dog. If you doubt this for a moment, you have but to follow the documented proceedings of their semi-annual national conferences.

As just one vivid example of this wholesale capitulation of their sacred offices (Teaching, Sanctifying and Governing), we have the televised public spectacle of the U.S. bishops at their last national meeting (Nov. 10, 2003) listening in slack-jawed stupefaction as they received an in-depth report, informing them that their own Catholic High Schools were employing material and courses that were counter to the teachings of the Church. The report given by Archbishop Alfred Hughes (New Orleans) revealed that of the over 25 High School courses examined in a 2½ year period, not one of them could be certified by the bishop's committee assigned to this study as conforming to the Church's Catechism, and that two thirds of those were so bad that they could not even be amended to be made acceptable. What a disaster! What was truly illuminating, if not horrifying about this, was the public revelation that all those bishops were totally unaware of what was being taught in their own schools when their sacred office before God establishes them as solely accountable for this responsibility. That duty is decidedly not the province of the USCCB, but it serves to demonstrate that the bishops have relinquished their teaching office on matters of which this episcopal peer group has no juridical legitimacy before God or His Church. This is not to say that the USCCB has discouraged this capitulation in any way; as a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true. The USCCB also serves as a handy mechanism for those bishops who very much like having in place an entity which to "pass the buck."

There was/is one area that Vatican II did open the door for conference meddling effecting an emasculation of the bishops' autonomous authority, and that was on the subject of the liturgy, of which the Mass is the center. Because the newly-formulated Mass was to be installed, it was mandated that every diocese form a "Liturgy Commission" whose purpose it would be to advise and assist the parishes in implementing the changes. The Bishops' Conferences assumed the position of coordinating and instructing the diocesan commissions. The USCCB then went on to put in place more entities, each of which withdrew the individual bishop further from his sacred entrustment. There was established the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), and from there came the Federation of Diocesan Liturgy Commissions (FDLC) which, although technically independent of the BCL, does in fact act as their "hands on" facilitators with each diocesan Liturgy Commission. You thus have a three-tiered bureaucracy (USCCB, BCL and FDLC) established between the bishop and Rome, and yet the bishop is the only one personally responsible for the liturgy in his diocese. Because of its highly diffused structure with the final authority (the bishop) made impotent, this particular bureaucracy then had all the potentials for injecting falsehood at will and, if it wasn't established for that purpose in mind to begin with, it was very soon taken over by the sodomites who understood this immediately.

Why the sodomite priority given to liturgical formation and governance? Keep in mind, as pointed out earlier, the Mass is the most effectual tool the Church possesses in the teaching and molding of the faithful in the matters of faith and morals. Recall that Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), Archbishop of Canterbury, was able to alter the faith of most of England over a relatively short period by stealthily dismantling the Catholic Mass to construct a Protestant service that came to be known as the "Book of Common Prayer." Those controlling the Mass in our day have every reason to believe they can accomplish similar results.

Has there been a significant sodomite presence in the USCCB liturgy establishment? Yes, and the empirical record points to overwhelmingly so. I do not have space here to give a complete report but I can point to highlights that leave no room for doubt.

The exposed sodomite, Archbishop Rembert Weakland chaired the BCL from 1978 to 1981.

Fr. Michael J. Spillane was the director of the FDLC for sixteen years when he announced his resignation when it was revealed that he had been defrocked in 1991 by the Archdiocese of Baltimore for molesting six youths in parishes from 1969 to 1986. The FDLC was formally notified of Spillane's defrocking and the reasons for it by the Baltimore Archdiocese, and then denied later of having any knowledge about it. Spillane continued wearing his clericals and collar at official events even though restricted from doing so. The announcement of Spillane's resignation appeared in the FDLC Newsletter (Dec. 2001 — March 2002), along with notice that he would receive the organizations 2002 Frederick McManus Award for his "services to pastoral liturgy." What testimony does that give of the allegiance of the FDLC? Spillane oversaw the rewriting of the official prayers for a now widely-used "Children's Mass" and had active involvement with groups such as the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministers (NFCYM), and the activist sodomite organization New Ways Ministry, with which he cooperated with in formulating the scandalous pro-sodomite text "Always Our Children" released by a committee of the USCCB in 1997.

Fr. Kenneth Martin was the FDLC board chairman when he resigned to become Associate Director of the BCL Liturgy Secretariat. Martin was forced to resign from his BCL post six months later following his arrest for molesting a male student at a high school in Maryland.

Fr. John Huels, one of the bishop's nationally publicized experts in matters of liturgy and canon law and highly quoted and referenced in liturgical texts as an advocate of unauthorized liturgy innovations, is now answering allegations of sexual molestation.

This is but the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, where you see this sodomite proliferation at the episcopal level (USCCB - BCL) continuing through the FDLC, it would be utter folly not to expect the local diocesan "Liturgy Commissions" to reflect the very same dominance.

Just how toxic has this blight within the American liturgy hierarchy been? Remember that most of the debilitating abuses allowed at Mass today (removal of altar rails, Communion in the hand, standing for Communion, altar girls, etc.) were never even suggested by Vatican II, let alone mandated by Rome. Every one of these acts came into modern practice by the disobedient sanctions allowed by the dissident powers ensconced in the USCCB, BCL and FDLC, which were then enacted through the diocesan Liturgy Commissions. Rome would eventually capitulate in allowing these novelties in order to preserve unity, but they remain abuses both from the fact of their genesis in insubordination4 and their desacralizing effect.

I mentioned earlier that the sodomite ideology utilizes the philosophy behind the new Mass in that it serves as a tool in their cause. You see the obvious reason for this in the above. It spells out why the sodomite will resist the use of the Mass of Tradition with everything in their powers. This has nothing to do with the use of Latin, kneeling for Communion on the tongue, banning altar girls, or any similar things. There is one decisive reason that renders it unacceptable and that is this: The Tridentine missal is not amenable to significant alteration or change. As is true of the Head of His Church: "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever." (Heb. 13:8), the Mass of the ages has no need of change as it is known to be pleasing to God as is testified to by countless canonized Saints. The Novus Ordo Mass, on the other hand, has change as a principle in its formulation, alluded to as being required in meeting the demands of the modern world. 5 Without change allowed, the sodomite march is stopped in its tracks. It's as simple as that.

But even with this predominant presence of the disordered sodomite element, there exists a much more threatening reality which is no less than that of the overt culpability of the bishops themselves as being the first responsible for this reprehensible state of the American church today.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church, with Jesus Christ at its head, is not to be thought at all responsible for her lamentable disorder existing today. Rather, it is the insubordination of bishops to Christ and His Church where abominations abound. Where the Church is led astray is always where the bishops have departed from Church teaching in favor of the wisdom of the world. Those many bishops who have persistently discarded the immutable moral instruction of Holy Scripture to give preference to the recorded moral vicissitudes of licensed "shrinks," have amply demonstrated a deadly example of this. Any regional Catholic church where there is found debauchery in faith or morals, you will see its Bishop as taken up with the world. This fact is inescapable, no matter their posturing or denials, for the Church's teachings do not lead or allow for the paths of depravity.

"Not Only They That Do Them..."

There is one more very sobering and crucial message that needs repetition and absorption by all (especially the bishops) with regards to those who give succor or tolerance to this depravity that "calls to heaven for vengeance." We go to Holy Scripture for this counsel and any who would reject its unerring teaching are well along the path of damnation. St. Paul informs us of the sodomite:

"Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." (Romans 1: 32 DRV) 6

They are also condemned to death, those that "consent to them that do them." In other words, it is a mortal sin to consent to evil actions, even if one does not perform them. I am sure that this very grave warning is possibly unknown or overlooked by many, especially our bishops, based upon their public acts and statements offering false compassion toward and acceptance of a sodomite clergy. The much-revered Angelic Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, wrote a comprehensive commentary on Romans 1 and the following is what he had to say on this particular part of verse 32:

And "not only they that do them but they also that consent to them that do them." And this in two ways. In one way, directly, either by praising the sin, according to Psalm 9: 24, "For the sinner boasts of his covetousness, and the spoiler curses, scorns the Lord." Or even by offering counsel and favor, 2 Chronicles 19:2, "Thou helpest the ungodly." In another way, indirectly, when one does not in any way possible to him condemn or impede, especially if it is one's office to do so, just as the sins of his sons are imputed to Hell, as is clear in 1 Samuel 3:13, "For I have foretold unto him, that I will judge his house forever for iniquity, because he knew that his sons did wickedly, and did not chastise them." The Apostle intends this especially for those wise men among the gentiles who, though they did not worship idols, nonetheless did not oppose those who did.

As death is the destiny of the unrepentant sodomite and his supporters, so will death be that of any who allow for their leadership or counsel. The matter is now in what has become the bishops' Augean stables, for it is only they who can effect its cleaning. For this, our bishops can be assured of our prayers and assistance. For anything less, may God have mercy on their souls.

***

NOTES:
1 111 of 178 bishops leading dioceses (40 states) with 8 of the 111 being cardinals. The Dallas Morning News, Report 6/12/02
2 The organized sodomite subculture under the leadership of the notorious sodomite Ernst Rohm and his army of perverts and thugs known as the "Brown Shirts," made it possible for Hitler to come to power in Germany in 1934. Ernst Rohm .was later arrested and executed by order of Hitler when he attained too much power and was seen to pose a threat. Hitler has a police record in Austria as participating in sodomite activity as a young man.
3 "Confirmed sodomite" meaning one who believes, accepts and stridently upholds the sodomite lifestyle.
4 "Acts born of disobedience will never bear good fruit." St. Thomas Aquinas
5 A basic precept of the heresy of Modernism.
6 Douay Rheims Version
© Copyright 2001-2006 Seattle Catholic. All rights reserved.