"Queering" the Church - part III

I've been reflecting lately on how successfully homosexual activists have infiltrated the Church using a "gay" mythology to present their disordered inclination as normal, and, in fact, a civil right. (I've blogged about it here andhere.) Interestingly enough, homosexuals are the ones introducing terms like "queering the Church."  If you Google it, the first thing that comes up is the blog of a self-described Catholic with a smorgasbord of pro-homosexual offerings including a list of "queer saints and martyrs." He names both canonized saints and others, like homosexual priests flaunting their "gayness." What exactly gives this man the authority put his personal spin on the lives of the saints or to canonize his favorite gay priests is unclear. But a brief perusal of his site indicates that, while he claims to be Catholic, his "faith" has nothing to do with adhering to the teachings of Christ articulated through the Church. He, like any other protest-ant, is his own pope.  Read more here...

"Queering" of the Church Part II

An associate from the other side of the country who asked to be anonymous has also noticed the destruction of the Church from within. Imagine how this betrayal wounded the heart of Christ when he suffered in the garden. He saw the duplicity of the false shepherds and it must have pierced through more heart-rendingly than the spear thrust in his side. Do you live in a diocese like the one my friend describes?

Your post today on the acceptance of homosexuality within the Church resonated. When I first came to [a western] Diocese in 1995, I found it to be very weird -- and I hailed from Mahony Country! The boot of modernist liberalsim has certainly been on the neck of this diocese for decades, but I believe the Diocese is also a homosexualist playground. You wouldn't expect it in a "red" state, but there it is. We don't have "gay Masses" (or at least I've never heard of such), but it seems like every time I turn around, I see a homosexual or fellow traveler or feminist in a position of prominence in either the diocese or parishes. Usually they prefer to work quietly, low-key and behind the scenes, undermining the Faith. But then there was a priest here who, a few years ago, published an article in the [local paper] decrying the Church's teaching on same-sex "marriage." The bishop issued a response announcing his disagreement and basically treating it like a free speech issue. Seems to me yanking this priest from ministry would have been the appropriate response! The same priest followed it up a couple of years later with another article calling for the resignation of Pope Benedict on the grounds that he failed adequately to deal with the sex abuse scandal. Same response from the bishop. I even heard another priest commend this article from the pulpit.

Some attention has got to be paid to backwater dioceses like this one where much damage is being done and nobody notices it.  

The faith is being systematically lost by those who primarily receive their instruction in their parishes and in dioceses led by either bad or weak bishops. Fr. John Hardon warned that entire dioceses in the U.S. would disappear and we are seeing it happen. Oh...they may still call themselves Catholic, but they are filled with dissent. Only faithful voices can pass on the faith. Flee those who get up and speak against the teachings of the Church. Pray for them, but don't listen to their false teachings. Have the discernment to know the true shepherds from the false. That's the only way to escape the wolves and the prowling lions seeking the ruin of souls.

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!)