Tag Archives: homosexuality

Fraud + Charles Scicluna: God’s love is homosexual

It’s now late February 2019, during the “Abuse Synod.” We see that Scicluna is promoting the legitimacy of homosexuality as not being a disorder. Scicluna has been repeating this for years and years. On July 21, 2013, on the soon to be forcibly closed Holy Souls Hermitage blog, I published the following interlinear commentary on an LGBTQ themed interview of the then new Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Malta, the Most Rev. Charles Scicluna, who has spearheaded now for decades the entire Church’s response to the abuse crisis by letting the most far reaching cause of the crisis – homosexual bullying – get a pass.

Scicluna is one of the masterminds of the “Abuse Synod” of February 2019. He insists that God’s love is the origin of homosexually occasioned “love.” Immediately after I published what you’ll read below, I was ecclesiastically silenced, being forced not only to take down the commentary on that interview I now re-publish below, but I was thrown into a dumpster as I had no way to support myself. This was known.

That didn’t surprise me. It was the tradition-al-ism-ists who took me off-guard. I was attacked as a traitor since Scicluna’s take down of Marcial Maciel had given him the same kind of street cred that was enjoyed by, say, [now laicized Cardinal] McCarrick, who thrived on being “tough on abusers,” gaining street cred for himself in this way. Get it?

For the sycophants of Scicluna, the “tougher” one is, the more of a god one is, the higher on the pedestal one goes. Scicluna instantly became an untouchable hero who could do no wrong. Scicluna’s wild promotion of divinely inspired homosexual “love” was rationalized in the attacks made upon yours truly. Whistleblowers are always attacked by the cowardly, by those who politically correct, those who are entitled to heroes of their choice whether those “heroes” are monsters or not. We see the emergence of the old code of silence, the old omertà, the old cover-up giving one’s heroes a licence to kill, keeping the ever desired cycle of abuse going. This is what the cowardly want.

The YouTube video of this interview has since been taken down. Those attacking me said that it was “highly edited” what with different camera angles and all. Yet, there are long sections of non-interrupted frothing by Scicluna. Moreover – and please note this – the final version of the video was officially sanctioned by both the University LGBT group and the Archdiocese of Malta. That means, for those wanting to silence me in the bottom of a dumpster yet again, that Scicluna absolutely agreed to the presentation of his statements.

These are not just sound bites; there is also lengthy non-interrupted rationale.

Before the video was taken down, I had transcribed every last word of the entire video. The entire text [with my comments] is presented below.

In brief, Scicluna favors legalizing, sanctioning, the relationships of non-heterosexual couples. After all, he insists, homosexual “love” comes from God. How sick.

scicluna 1

Pete Farrugia (typed question pictured):

Is my best friend still eternally damned for loving men instead of women as the priests in our old school told him – Matthias & Marthese [This clearly asks about the grave [im]morality of homosexual acts. Note the relativization of God’s judgment to modern opinion of men: “still eternally…”]

Bishop Scicluna:

I think love is never a sin. God is love. I think that there is a love between males that is the love of friendship, and that is blessed from God. I would distinguish between love between males and sex between males. [Great. But, since he’s answering such a question as this, would it not behoove him to indicate that it is of immediate interest to distinguish between the friendship of two heterosexual males, which is indeed a love of friendship blessed from God, a friendship not sourced through the lens of homosexual attraction, over against a “love” between two homosexuals, a “love” sourced through the lens homosexual attraction, which is not love, but rather inversion? Not making this distinction in the face of such a question misleads one into thinking that homosexually sourced love of friendship (prescinding from sexual acts) has a dignity that comes from God Himself. This is not to say that those who are burdened with same sex attraction cannot be great saints, and truly love God and neighbor of whatever sex most heroically, but one must carry such a cross with a rejection of any “love” that is sourced through homosexual attraction. But he doesn’t say that. Of course, a failure to make distinctions during an interview may be just because he didn’t have any coffee that day. But we’ll see if this lack of distinction comes up again, and what the dire consequences are.] And a question about damnation is not a question I can define, define on, because this is something that is exclusively reserved to God who respects the freedom of an individual. [Chapeau to Bishop Scicluna. What he means here, it is to be guessed, is not that one is free to do what one wants and can get away with it, but that God will, indeed, supply us with the freely chosen consequences of our freely chosen actions, if we do not turn to His mercy. Saint Paul reminds us that the consequences can, in fact, be eternal damnation.] But what the psalm says is that there is mercy of God which is eternal, and my hope for myself and for this friend is that we rely on God’s mercy and His forgiveness. [He’s saying that homosexual acts are objectively sinful, and may very well be subjectively sinful for any given individual, who risks eternal damnation if repentance is not made. Great! And, yes, we have all of us, without exception, me, you, everyone, crucified the Son of the Living God with our sins. With repentance and reliance on God’s mercy and forgiveness, we can indeed have hope. Great! Indeed, I would say this, the Mystical Body of Christ is also supported by those who carry their cross well, including those who are burdened with same sex attraction. But I’m still wondering about that lack of distinction about homosexually sourced “love of friendship.” Let’s continue…]

scicluna 2

Pete Farrugia (typed question pictured):

Recently in France there has been protests both in favour and against gay marriage. What is your opinion about the situation in France? – Sophia

Bishop Scicluna:

Well [He’s laughing here.], my opinion as a Roman Catholic Bishop should be very, very clear, but, I think, and, um, one of the interesting thing that I was noting recently, because we’re talking about something which is very, very recent, and there are people from all walks of life, from all persuasions, who are saying we should be faithful to our definitions. We [By “we” he means all cultures of any nation of any age, and he is, of course, correct on this.] have always defined marriage — even in ancient Greece, where male friendship was also sexual or in pagan Rome, where you had all sorts of behaviors very, very, almost very déjà vu certain things that we see today — but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and it is the important, stable community that is the building block of society, because it gives a stable environment and a loving environment which is heterosexual for the birth and upbringing of children, that may be males or females. [Excellent!] And it is, it is the community that assures the preservation of the species and also the continuation of society. [Here’s he’s stating civil regulation promoting the kind of heterosexual marriage he has described is necessary. Great! But he’s talking about marriage, here, and he’s talking to someone who is interested in his views on non-heterosexual marriage. So, let’s see what he does for non-heterosexual (such as LGBT) couples:] So I think that there is no need to change the definition of marriage to defend the dignity and give legal recognition to relationships between people who are not heterosexual couples [Catastrophically, his very protection of marriage being reserved to heterosexual couples does not at all forbid him, in his perspective, to promote what he calls the dignity of non-heterosexual couples. He guides and directs that such “dignity” be recognized by way of civil legislation legalizing unions of non-heterosexual couples. In context of what he says above, he intends that such couples in such unions not commit sexual acts. One immediately wonders if he also thinks that such homosexually sourced (or LGBT sourced) “love of friendship”, which he says comes from God, can be blessed by appropriate ceremonies in a Catholic church, such as Saint Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, by a Catholic priest, or bishop for that matter. If one thinks that this is shocking, we only have to remember the many Bishops and Archbishops and, indeed, Cardinals, who have stated time and again that they think that as long as a seminarian is “comfortable” with chaste but deeply rooted homosexuality, that they can and ought to be ordained. This bit about non-heterosexual — but in his view — chaste and legalized unions is simply a logical conclusion of the blessing of a homosexualized number of clergy by many other ecclesiastics. And, mind you, there are those who say that it may be that the entire interview was not presented. I would answer that no matter what other editing took place, there is no possible scenario in which the Bishop could have said what he said legitimately. What he said above was not edited at all. And, again, this presentation was sanctioned by the Archdiocese of Malta. So, now look at what happens:].

scicluna 3

Pete Farrugia:

Do you think that the Church using terms like disorder to refer to homosexual inclination is a stumbling block in furthering dialogue?

Bishop Scicluna:

It doesn’t really help, doesn’t it? I think that the word we should avoid is evil. Because evil is already going in to the moral, you know, judgment of a single act, really. [This is an excellent way to lift an inclination out of the ambit of the morality of an acting upon that inclination. Good. Inclination and acts are different. Just because one has an inclination does not mean that someone is evil. Right. But let’s see how he does an end run around the word disorder so as to inescapably imply that homosexually sourced “love of friendship” is not at all a disorder, but is instead ordered and “blessed from God”:] Now disorder is different because determining it is also relative [!]. It depends on what you say, what you mean when you say ordered [Get ready for a new definition of what ordered is all about after he speaks to the biological aspect only of what is properly ordered according to Judeo-Catholic revelation and teaching…], and I think that there is a reference to the book of creation here. If we open the book of creation which is the book of Genesis for example in the Bible, but the book of creation is our bodies, looking at our bodies, and the way human beings not only relate but also come together. A man and woman come together to be one body. That is the book of creation. Now I’m going, I’m not going to go into the details of the sexual act, but when we’re talking about order, we’re talking about how the male body and the female body are created, and saying they are created to become one body, whereas where we look at two men, and the book of creation doesn’t tell us that they should be one body. And that is where the disorder comes. The order is to us by the book of creation. [He’s definitely ruling out homosexual acts, and inescapably implies that homosexual acts are disordered and indeed, from what he said further above, at least objectively evil, at least on the level of what he thinks the plumbing should work in his imagination. However, you will notice that he is not answering the question about inclination, and, unlike the teaching of the Catholic Church, limits the discussion to that which is biological. Obviously, active homosexuals will have a different opinion about how the possibility of diversely appreciating of the “book of creation”. Active homosexuals will surely insist that the plumbing is effervescently fabulous for themselves. Holy Mother Church, instead, holds that the inclination is itself disordered. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” That Scicluna is purposely limiting the discussion to that which is biological to the end of recognizing what he calls the dignity of non-heterosexual unions is evident by, in fact, his promotion of legislation promoting the legalizing of unions of non-heterosexual couples, unions which he seems to think will be entirely chaste as a love of friendship blessed by God. But this is already a sin against chastity: holding specifically homosexually sourced “love” to have its origin in God is blasphemous. The Catechism does say that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” However, forbidding the legalization of unions of non-heterosexual couples is not a sign of unjust discrimination.]

scicluna 4

Pete Farrugia:

And finally, Father, do you have a message for the students from part of the LGBT community at the university?

Bishop Scicluna:

They are welcome in the Church and there is a place for them in the Church, and I would suggest that whatever they do in life they cherish good friendships, good, safe, chaste friendships. I know it’s a tall order from a short bishop, bishop, but it comes with great respect and also fraternal love. [Non-heterosexual couples who live in legalized or non-legalized unions by that very lifestyle proclaim that their non-heterosexually sourced “love of friendship” is not disordered. They reject a most basic teaching of the Church. This is not blessed by God. This is not chaste, even if there are no sex acts. Those who are in such unions gravely scandalize the faithful. Grave scandal is, objectively, grave sin. Scicluna’s  niceness doesn’t make it all better.]

Pete Farrugia:

Thank you very much.

Bishop Scicluna:

Most welcome.

[Saying such things as did Bishop Charles J. Scicluna presents a world-view which radically — I would say militantly — promotes the homosexualist agenda. What truly Catholic bishop could possibly promote the legalization of a sealing of a relationship of two deeply rooted homosexuals who think, with his help, that such a disorientation is actually good and wholesome, and who, strongly homosexually attracted to each other, will be living under the same roof? Who could possibly pretend that they will easily remain chaste? It’s absurd. All of it. Still today, in February 2019, Scicluna insists that there is no added weakness for homosexuals, and therefore, no disorder. These are all steps to the normalization of homosexual acts as being completely moral and sanctioned by God. That’s not good. Whether I end up in a dumpster again or not, I cannot remain silent in the face of Scicluna’s homosexualization of the Church.]

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse, homosexuality, Missionaries of Mercy

Fraud + Charles Scicluna always protecting same sex shacking up

malta homosexuality

From GloriaTV on + Charles Scicluna smashing down suffering Catholics in Malta, describing their gentle promotion of the faith “propaganda”:

Archbishop Charles Scicluna distanced himself on May 23rd on “thechurchinmalta.org” from the advert: “The Archdiocese of Malta categorically states that, while respecting the right of freedom of expression of every person or any other entity, it is not in any way involved with the propaganda by the ‘Maltese Catholics United for the Faith’.”

1 Comment

Filed under homosexuality

Fraud + Charles Scicluna: same sex attraction isn’t a predisposition to sin

screenshot_20190221-1729025706503731281747200.png

Sure, we’re all weak because of original sin, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual. That general weakness tends to drag one into sin.

However, homosexuality is an added disorder, an added weakness that all the more tends to drag one into sin.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, homosexuality

Questions for + Charles Scicluna

scicluna

Your Grace: Why did the Malta Times take down their article about you? Were they wrong? Did they misrepresent you? Really? Since you invite dialogue, as a Missionary of Mercy I will put some questions before you for the sake of, you know, promoting justice, for the good of the Church, pro bono ecclesiae. So…

  • Your Grace: You say that the teaching of the Church — let’s just call it by the name of the encyclical Humanae vitae — is only for married couples which you say can be constituted only of one man and one woman, but that you don’t judge other couples, though you insist that extramarital sex is sinful but at the same time insist that adulterous couples can receive Holy Communion if they are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Jesus’ teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: does this mean that you are making a sacrament of sinful behavior?
  • Your Grace: Lest anyone think that is a sarcastic question, let’s provide an analogous question regarding your longstanding promotion of the civil celebrations of homosexual love in civilly recognized homosexual unions, as long as there is no sexy hanky panky going on, though all love including homosexual love, you say, is given by God and is good and holy: are you saying with your recent statements about peaceful consciences for adulterous couples that homosexual acts are also a kind of sacrament, objectively sinful as they may be, as long as the homosexuals involved are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Saint Paul’s teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church?
  • Your Grace: You seem to be throwing a tantrum that the Malta Times got it wrong, but would you say that — you know, in being honest here — that they had a good instinct about your utter hypocrisy regarding sexual morality, so that anything whatsoever is just fine, including contraception also in marriage as long as those involved are at peace with their consciences?
  • Your Grace: Do you put condom dispensers in your Catholic parochial school bathrooms for those who judge their consciences to be at peace? Or do you put those dispensers out, say, in the lunchroom along with free copies of the Qur’an which you let be taught in your parochial schools?
  • Your Grace: Jesus warned those who teach people to break the commandments, so are you going to spit on Jesus while you continue to teach people to break the commandments?
  • Your Grace: You slit the throats of those seminarians who wish to follow the teaching of Jesus and Paul, that is, those seminarians who do not reject Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: so do you think that Jesus, who is calling them to His priesthood, is happy with your violence against them?
  • Your Grace: Your close friend (Monsignor) Edward Arsenault, at the epicenter in so many ways of the abuse crisis, just got out of prison and is in home confinement, where he just received the news that he has been dismissed from the clerical state (laicized): is what you are doing with your not so ambiguous and inconsistent but really very clear statements related somehow to demands of his, you know, because he could spill the beans about how things have actually gone in these USA, over in Europe, and at the Holy See?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Eucharist, Holy See, homosexuality, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

“I’m not a chicken. I’m a duck.” Riight. Solving the astronomical suicide rate among the LGBTQ. Hint: Not pandering

chicken-duck

Seen near the neighbors near the hermitage the other day…

She’s just missing a parasol. Otherwise, if this chicken walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, poses like a duck, it’s a duck, right? Well, no, not always. This one is still a chicken. A clever chicken, but a chicken nonetheless. The thing about chickens is that, even with their literally pea-sized pea-brain, they know that they are chickens and not ducks even if they should pretend in chameleon-like fashion to be a duck. It’s not about identity, it’s about the perception of others like foxes and panthers and such.

Meanwhile, there are those for whom such an admittedly make-pretend world is forced in 24/7/365 fashion into the make-pretend it’s not a make-pretend world, so that it is about an “identity” which attempts to force the perception of others to fit their own, the ideology of a bully: “You’re going to think like I think, or else!”

They fail, of course, also with the themselves. The suicide rate is so astronomically high among these unfortunate pretenders because they realize their non-identity is pervasive. Meanwhile, society panders to them pushing them headlong to suicide. If you want cruel, that’s what’s cruel. No one but no one in this forlorn world loves the LGBTQ et alii crowd more than the Catholic Church, for we tell the truth about gender, but with charity, compassion, with understanding, and with an introduction to what identity is all about in a friendship with Christ Jesus, apart from whom all of us are nothing, but with whom we find out who we really are.

2 Comments

Filed under homosexuality

Pope Francis’ “apology” to gays: CCC!

pope francis armenia return

Sul rispetto verso gli omosessuali – sul quale viene sollecitato a partire da una recente affermazione del cardinale Marx – Francesco ribadisce che nessuno può ergersi a giudice di queste persone e ricorda il Catechismo che invita ad accompagnarne il cammino verso Dio. Quindi soggiunge:

“Io credo che la Chiesa non solo debba chiedere scusa – come ha detto quel cardinale ‘marxista’… (ride) – a questa persona che è gay, che ha offeso, ma deve chiedere scusa ai poveri anche, alle donne e ai bambini sfruttati nel lavoro; deve chiedere scusa di aver benedetto tante armi. La Chiesa deve chiedere scusa di non essersi comportata tante, tante volte – e quando dico ‘Chiesa’ intendo i cristiani: la Chiesa è santa, i peccatori siamo noi – i cristiani devono chiedere scusa di non aver accompagnato tante scelte, tante famiglie”.

Thus: The Holy Father said that some individuals in the Church have offended gays. He said nothing more than this. It’s ambiguous. If we skip for a moment the mention of the Catechism, his comment could mean accompanying gays in their active sex lives and saying that sin isn’t sin if it’s accompanied and surely not sin if not accompanied because of not being, after all, accompanied. Just to say it, one can be unjustly offensive to gays, such as by telling them that they are hopelessly on their way to hell as they are forever excluded from repentance and forgiveness and heaven, and in doing that one is also offensive to our Lord who hung on the cross also for their conversion and offensive to our Blessed Mother who stood under the cross also for their conversion. But, having said that, I don’t know of anyone who says that all gays will always go to hell because our Lord purposely hardens their hearts so that it is impossible for them to convert. Who are these idiots? Where are they? At any rate, I received this comment on another post which I’m putting here:

Fr. Byers, I am praying for Pope Francis during the time you recommend [[An Hour for Pope Francis – Help!]]. While I will always respect the office of Peter, I cannot in all good conscience say that I love Pope Francis… Let alone to pieces. I am stunned by his latest… That the Catholic Church has to apologize to gays. This pope apparently does not think sin is relevant. In other words Our Lord whom we do love to pieces had no need to suffer such horrendous torture and death. And He made His mother suffer for nothing. I can and do pray for this pope but cannot love him.

From what I gather from this comment, the writer does love Pope Francis to pieces as our Lord commanded, but disagrees with what he says and really wants him to see the the light of truth. I especially like the comment: “And He made His mother suffer for nothing.” Yes, that would be the correct analysis if the Pope was correct about and did intend to insist upon an extremely low opinion of fallen human nature, so low that it seems there is pretty much zero moral capacity, even with grace. This low opinion of fallen human nature even aided by grace would seem to spit in our Lord’s face.

But that’s not what Pope Francis said. He mentioned the Catechism. To wit:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Just to say, this mention of the Catechism and its statement about homosexual acts that “under no circumstances can they be approved” is very wonderful indeed. I rejoice.

I also rejoice that the Holy Father chose to say that the level of martyrdom in Armenia rose to the level of genocide. Had he not done so, I would certainly have reminded him of Esther’s story. But he did acknowledge that martyrdom and suffering genocide can certainly coincide with each other.

So, let us continue: An Hour for Pope Francis – Help!

9 Comments

Filed under homosexuality, Pope Francis

The news is out: I too was once a male trapped in a female body

chuck norris

Sent in by a reader. Ha ha ha.

But, it’s not so funny in the wake of the Orlando shooting.

There are even bishops who say that the blame for the Orlando shooting is to be put squarely on the faith of Catholics, discounting those who truly are homophobes mind you (those afraid that they might be homosexual and so lash out at homosexuals). Those bashing the Catholic faith say that the faith itself is at fault, for they say that the faith sets up structures in society by which such terrorism can play out.

But, no. That’s not the way it is. Those who truly have the faith, and are not homophobic, want to share with people the greatest love of their own lives, Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception. They do this while also talking about the immorality of homosexual acts because they want to help people participate in a much fuller life.

I remember saying this to a homosexualist activist back in the 1980s when I was a seminarian returning home from Rome for Summer vacation. We were on the shuttle van from the Twin Cities Airport to Collegeville, MN. He had been invited to teach a course at the Benedictine University about, I guess, all things homosexual.

I was sitting way in the back of the van, still in my cassock, and he was sitting in the seat just ahead of me, well, not sitting; he suddenly flipped himself about on the seat, on his haunches, facing me. I could see the driver’s face in the rear view mirror. He was scared at this unprovoked – what else to call it? – attack. The homosexualist guy was extremely agitated with me before he even introduced himself to me. I guess it was the cassock. He was raising his voice and waving his hands about, explaining with much frustration and anger just how happy he and his fellow gays are to be gay.

But, here’s the deal: the stats are that gays are astronomically more likely to attempt suicide, even multiple times, and then also be successful in committing suicide, than heterosexuals. That speaks to great sadness and frustration when non-stop distracting oneself just doesn’t work anymore, meaning the great sadness and frustration were there the whole time.

And, so, what? We Catholics, whether having homosexual tendencies or not, are supposed to keep the truth of the love of our Lord hidden from those in an active homosexual lifestyle, thus content to keep them locked in discontent? Just to say, the stats for gay on gay murder are also astronomical. Back to Orlando…

Was the terrorist guy gay? I doubt it. No one ever spoke of any date, at least on which something happened. He got his face known on dating apps. He sat alone, but was getting his face known. He was playing the game so that he could spend as much time as possible there to get to know when most people would be there, be wasted on drugs and alcohol, where the exits were, if any emergency exists were chained (as even high schools stupidly do for their dances, against the fire code), if there was security, bouncers, and who and where they were, if there were occasionally used metal detectors, etc., etc., etc. Do you think that that is, like – 00000000hhh! – lying? That would be taqiyyah, wouldn’t it?

The trouble is, Westerners are so wrapped up in their rejection of religion being reasonable that they cannot wrap their minds around something being wrong with a religion which rejects the utility of reason, as Islam does with its denial of an analogy between our reasoning and God’s reason. And then they can’t see when anything is wrong.

4 Comments

Filed under homosexuality, Terrorism