Saturday, February 9, 2013
ARCHBISHOP MULLER: A VERY REASONABLE MAN
Here is the reference, from William Oddie's column in the Catholic Herald:
It is comforting to know that the Archbishop wishes to be reasonable on this matter. After all, the Church must find common ground with pederasts - not, Heaven knows, to try to wean them away from a sin that will bring them possible physical death and certain spiritual death, but to engage in sweet sounding dialog with them, to hear their needs and their wants, to make certain their feelings are never hurt, that their rights are protected by the jackboots of government, to, dare I say it, be allowed to live in married peace.
Tolerance. Tolerance above all.
I believe it is reasonable to assume that if Archbishop Nichols reassures his homosexual acquaintance that Archbishop Muller at the CDF is "a reasonable man" that he has spoken at length with him and has concluded that there will be no trouble coming from Rome over the continuing scandal of the homosexual "Masses" in London. He may have also consulted with his fellow Churchman Timothy Dolan in New York who has shown no inclination to end the homosexual "Masses" in his own diocese. Timothy Dolan, too, is a reasonable man.
Rome, I fear, has no idea how exasperated and disheartened the faithful are over the spectacle of a Church showing nothing but a rather excessive tolerance towards homosexually-disturbed people. As a case in point the Church cannot seem even to bring itself to mention the words "mortal sin" when it discusses them. Indeed it can hardly choke out the word "sodomy" when speaking on this subject. It can on the other hand muster up the courage to speak in cliches easily enough, or speak of dubious ideas as "sexual orientation", a concept utterly foreign to the greatest minds in the Church for over 2,000 years, and a concept strangely absent from the words and ideas of Christ. I have heard priests say that we must not be hard on those with a homosexual "orientation", insinuating, one supposes, that such souls were born that way. [Oddly enough we never hear from these priests any admonitions against those with murderous orientations, or felonious orientations, or wife-beating orientations.] They will speak of something called "same sex attraction" in a clinical, antiseptic manner as if it were something akin to the mumps: serious but not deadly. Some good and holy priests will speak of those who live with this SSA (it even has an acronym now) and how valiantly they struggle against it. They do not say, rather, that they are struggling with mortal sin but some sort of medical or mental condition. Some good priests will, perhaps understandably, castigate those who point out that one can sin in thought, word and/or deed, even though there are different degrees of culpability in that formula. But in being annoyed with those who point out these three degrees of sin, or who quote Christ's famous line about those who"have already committed adultery in their hearts", are not these same good priests falling into a rather dangerous fallacy? We all struggle with various sins, and mortal sins, and we need the help and graces of holy Church to get us out of these sinful states. But we don't go around saying, "I have a car theft attraction and I am struggling to live good Catholic life despite that attraction". Car thievery is not a mental disorder, at least the last time I checked; it is sinning against the 7th Commandment. We do not need special Masses for car thieves any more than we need them for those who bugger adolescent boys.
Perhaps our dearly beloved Reverend Fathers might start thinking more in terms of sin and less in terms of medical terms. One cannot elevate that most unspeakable of vices, sodomy, to some kind of unique status requiring a whole new way of Church thinking.
A perfect illustration of what happens in the Church if our priests and Bishops start accepting the veracity of concepts like "same sex attraction" is that it leads in very short order to homosexual "Masses", acceptance of sodomy (or at least tolerating it, as if it were some sort of complaint our poor, old Uncle Fred might have), actions like those of Cardinal Wuerl last March (and sundry other persecutions of Catholic priests who try to act like priests should), a homosexual underworld, or mafia, in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. The poster boy for this entire mess might be the ubiquitous Rembert Weakland.
And more strange words from prelates keep coming. This latest one from a Roman discastery has the whole world abuzz. The Vatican has no idea, apparently, of the despair of her people who read, as they read the other day, of this Bishop in Rome suggesting that the Church needs to fight to see that those countries which still outlaw sodomy will need to change such laws! I wonder which one of us has entered Cloud Cuckoo Land, the Bishop or me.
From the Washington Post:
"Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the church should do more to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal."
What are we to make of this? Will Paglia clarify? Will Benedict say something - anything - that will put a lid on such a stupid utterance? Can someone explain to me why it is wrong to keep sodomy criminalized, to keep its contagion away from people? Is the Vatican responding, by Paglia's statement, to the courageous moves being taken by Russia to try to slow down the homosexual madness? Is this the kind of statement that will endear Catholics to those nations and cultures that still believe sodomy to be the heinous crime that it is? Finally, who in Rome is pushing such ideas?
Archbishop Muller, if we take Vincent Nichols' statement as truthful, has basically told his London brother not to worry, that there will be no thundering from Rome if he allows the homosexual liturgical jamborees to continue. And why? The answer, you see, is that Archbishop Muller is a very reasonable man.