Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The "Queering" of the Church

Many, including myself, hoped that the priest sex abuse scandals would put a halt to the "queering of the Church" a homosexual goal. But such does not seem to be the case. Here's one example from a friend in Charlotte via e-mail:
Once again, St. Peter’s Catholic Church in the Diocese of Charlotte will host an annual “Mass of Fellowship and Diversity” tonight, July 25, at 7 PM.
Oh, but it’s OK because they have changed the wording, you see. It is only referred to as a “Mass of Celebration” on their website (which continues)....was established in 1996 by Bishop Emeritus William Curlin, Father Gene McCreesh and Msgr. Richard Allen as part of the Diocese of Charlotte’s outreach to the gay/lesbian community. This year’s Mass will be presided over by Rev. David Brzoska and concelebrated by participating Diocesan priests.
Semantics, my friends. Sin is still sin and last I heard we sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation for sin. We do not “celebrate” sin.
Why is this allowed to continue in our diocese? 
A quote from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded . . . In the face of this broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance.
How dare we give lip service to GOD while continuing to be silent in the face of evil?! 
The Church calls homosexuality a "disordered" attraction, in this case an attraction to the sin of same-sex lust. Like the inclination to any sin, it does not appear to be something to "celebrate." What would you think about a Mass to "celebrate" those inclined to greed with, for example, a Mass for embezzlers? How about celebrating the inclination to "man-boy love" (aka homosexual pedophilia)? Does anyone really think most of those attending the Mass are members of Courage the support group for those with same-sex attraction trying to live chaste lives? Think again. St. Peter's is listed on the website for "gay friendly" churches. This website is clearly talking about church's that welcome the gay lifestyle.

So exactly what is going on in Charlotte with this Mass? Simple: it is all about normalizing homosexuality in the Church. And the goal is far advanced! How many Catholics do you know who support gay "marriage" which is an impossibility and a contradiction? Many Catholics are so poorly catechized in the faith they don't have a clue about what the Church teaches and why which offers a perfect opportunity for the homosexual collective. 

Fr. Enrique Rueda warned about what was happening back in the 80s with his book The Homosexual Network. In the section on homosexuality and religion (Chapter VI) he wrote:
There is no question that the main stumbling block in the theoretical and practical acceptance of homosexuality by American society has been traditional religion. This has been perfectly understood by the leadership of the homosexual movement. For many years systematic efforts to utilize religion in support of homosexuality have been implemented not only by the founding of religious organizations which cater almost exclusively to homosexuals while purporting to justify their sexual propensities and activities, but also by the establishment of organziations whithin other religious insstitutions for the purpose of using them for the promotion of homosexual ideology. The importance of gaining the support of the churches, or at least neutralizing them, is widely acknowledged by homosexual leaders....Churches, once they have been infiltrated by the homosexual movement, constitute one of its most important allies.
Few listened to Fr. Rueda, any more than the bishops listened to other voices warning about homosexual abusers in the priesthood who were moved around and enabled in their vicious assaults on children. In fact, Fr. Rueda, like many prophets, was ostracized and persecuted. Shortly after The Homosexual Network was published he was suspended by Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester, well known for his promotion of homosexualilty.  Clark remains the bishop in Rochester where he continues to advance the homosexual network in the Church. The infiltration of parishes goes on enabled by many false shepherds in sheep's clothing. God forgive the Jesuits committing this scandal and Bishop Jugis for allowing it. (My friend has been fighting this in her parish and diocese for several years, but it's allowed to continue. I decided not to sign her e-mail because retaliation is the most likely result!)


Terry Nelson said...

Rueda's book is an incredible historical work - it is amazing how it has been ignored. It exposes the frame work for every thing that is happening today. No one in authority has done anything to halt it - instead they've covered it up and denied the problem.

Anonymous said...

The minute they put up the homosexual rainbow flag, I am out the door, and they get none of my business or money. One bookstore that was successful before, closed down when it got too New Agey and pro-homosexual acts -- and that is what the majority of this is all about, homosexual and lesbian acts. Once I saw the GLBT newspaper in the store, I never went back, and evidently a lot of other people did not either, even though they used to sell good children's books. Most of these kinds of bookstores have closed down, even in California. Only the trashy areas (yes, I said trashy with no apologies) where there is a lot pornography sold puts up with such stores.

Anonymous said...

I am catholic and support gay marriage. And I've been a happily married heterosexual for decades. You say gay marriage is impossible, but I guess your definition of marriage is different than mine. My definition is that of two people who choose to live together as a unit, legally and socially. As most old married couples know, sex becomes secondary to the reality of shared companionship on the journey of life. Just because you think homosexual love is weird doesn't mean that you can dictate what the rest of us think. I'm sure that you had opinions about black people marrying white people back in the day, too. Your true colors come out (pun intended) when you show your hate toward those who you think are wrong. Kudos for the church in Charlotte.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Anonymous 8:59, your definition is arbitrary. Why two? Why not three or four or however many "choose to live together as a unit?" How about lowering the age of consent so an adult and his consenting adolescent can "choose to live together as a unit?" How about a brother and sister or sister and sister? How about a father and son or a mother and daughter? How can you possibly say any of these arrangements are wrong considering your definition?

Same-sex love is fine when it's filial as in "friends." It is absolutely "weird" when it turns sexual and starts using body parts in perverted and disgusting ways, ways that are not acceptable for heterosexuals either.

As for your hypothetical attack on me, actually I never opposed mixed couples. Back in the 60s I was out with guy and we saw a black man holding hands with a white girl walking down the street. His comment was, "That makes me sick!" My response was, "Why? Do you think you're better than they are?" There was actually a black student from Georgetown I liked a lot, but he was dating someone else.

Now...Since turnabout is fair play, it's my turn. You outed yourself as a liberal, dissenting Catholic who thinks you can make judgments and name-call anyone YOU DISAGREE WITH. So you accuse me of being full of "hate" and of being a racist...oops a homophobic racist. But you show yourself to be a hater of those who express traditional and conservative values. I'm putting you on my rosary prayer list in response to Jesus' admonition to "Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you."

Anonymous said...

I have always believed in loving the sinner, but hating the sin. I have gay friends and relatives, but I do not believe in gay marriage. One man and one woman, the way it has been for centuries and I don't consider myself a "hater" because I don't bend my standards to society's level. Still, our culture wants to silence us by badgering, name-calling, etc. It is truly a different world that we live in.
(The other Anonymous)

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

You are absolutely right, TOA. Silencing us was described as a tactic in After the Ball. Kirk and Marsden, the authors, advocated "jamming" your opponents which means demonizing them, calling them names, etc. until they are too scared to lift their heads. Some of us refuse to be intimidated so they will do whatever they can to destroy us. People have lost their jobs because they refused to kowtow to the homosexual collective. The homosexual response to Proposition 8 in California showed exactly how ruthless they are.

Anonymous said...

1. I didn't call anyone any names.
2. I agree - who cares if two or more people choose to live together in marriage?
3. As long as they are consenting adults. I think we can all agree that sex is not for children
4. That applies to your incest comments as well - hands off the kiddos.
5. You are the one saying things like perverted and disgusting.
6. I can't believe that you think there aren't nice heterosexual couples of your acquaintance who have oral sex, etc. Really?! Why on earth is that not acceptable? Or do you think that sex is just for procreation? Really?!
7. I'm glad to hear you aren't a racist. Most people of my knowledge who oppose gay marriage are the same who also oppose mixing races in marriage. Good for you there.
8. I don't hate your values, I just don't think you can push them on other people. I even support the catholic church or other churches refusing to marry homosexuals, as long as they recognize that they can have a civil ceremony that is legal in every way.
8. I thought my response was pretty civil as you have been very vitriolic on the subject in many posts, but apparently you are quite defensive. I will withdrawal my comment that you show your hate and say that you show your complete intolerance of anything that you believe disregards your neo-conservative, outdated by my standard, values.

Sincerely, you liberal dissenting catholic church going anon.

PS - you are a hoot, that's for sure!

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Certain behaviors ARE disgusting and perverted. I think we'd all agree that what the movie theater murderer did applies. How about homosexual Jeffrey Dahmer who dismembered his victims after he had sex with them and murdered them?

The values I hold are not MY values, they are the teachings of the Catholic Church which means they are the values of Jesus Christ who made us and established the Church. Since he made us, he is the one with the users' manual which says that sex is only for marriage and that sex acts that separate the unitive and procreative nature of the act are sinful.

You say you are a Catholic, but apparently either don't know what the Church teaches or don't care.

As for my being vitriolic, that may be true although, since you can't read anyone's tone in a written comment, that is really an opinion.

Anonymous said...

from Bill Foley

May I suggest a natural argument vs same-sex acts and so-called “marriage” between two persons of the same sex.
The basis is THE PARTS DO NOT FIT.
This applies to the psychological, emotional, and spiritual aspects—three areas in which a man and a woman do fit. This is why a child needs a father and a mother so that he/she can experience complete, normal development under the fullness of masculine and feminine characteristics.
The other facet is the physical dimension. The sexual/generative parts of the male and female bodies do fit, THEY ARE MEANT FOR EACH OTHER LIKE A LOCK AND A KEY, and this fit is IN ACCORD WITH NATURE. This natural fit also follows a natural purpose, namely, the generation of a human life. The sexual/generative parts of two males or of two females DO NOT FIT and do not fulfill the natural purpose of generating human life.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann, isn't it just amazing how some people naturally assume that if a person does not like the behavior of some person of color that they are racist. I am the same woman who wrote the previous posts about the bookstore closing and about Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Prince being too traxhy in their dancing. I am sure that some of your posters naturally assumed I am a racist, but what these highly judgmental people, and it they who are the ones who are so judgmental, do not know is that my husband is partially of Mexican and Asian descent along with some Spanish. He is far from being Nordic white. Yet he would not want his daughter's going to indecent concerts, whatever race the performers.

Mike B. said...

Mary Ann,
Keep up the good fight.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Fl

Catechist Kevin said...

A little clarification for our "liberal dissenting catholic church going anon".

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of *all moral deviations*.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to *reject everything that is opposed to it*. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or *refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief*. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to *spiritual blindness*.

2089 Incredulity is the *neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it*. "Heresy is the *obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith*, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

(stars added)

Catechist Kevin

Catechist Kevin said...


Sorry, Mary Ann. My previous post cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Mea Culpa,

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I remember Prince. My young son (11 or 12) once signed up for Columbia record club and ordered Purple Rain. When I saw it and read the lyrics on the back, I broke the record in half, sent it back to Columbia and told them never to send anything to my home again. Indecent is too kind a word to describe that album.

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. If He condemned it that is good enough for me.

To derail the homosexual propaganda machine when they claim He never said anything about homosexuality, Jesus Christ stated "Whoever hears you hears me; whoever rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16)

This means that He approved of the entire New Testament.

pml said...

Curious, Mary Ann, what meaning did you arrive at from reading/hearing the lyrics of Purple Rain?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Purple Rain was the name of the album. On the back were the lyrics of all the songs. I don't remember now (gosh that was in mid 80s) which songs were so awful. Darling Nikki was probably one of them.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann, Tipper Gore, Al Gore's decease wife, was against one tape of Prince because it was about a person named Nicky masturbating in a hotel lobby. That was how filthy his records were back then. That is definitely not something any decent person would want their child or children to emulate.

Anonymous said...

.... not for nothing, but Al Gore's wife, Tipper, is still alive. They are either separated or divorced.