Are We All "Kakure Kirishitans" Now, or What Exactly Is the Catholic Church?

Happy New Year, Friends,

After all the recent controversy in the Church (and the general world mess), it is time to truly raise the question we now find ourselves in a position to ask:

• What is the Catholic Church, exactly, and has it self-destructed? Or are those of us who follow the Faith as it was taught pre-Vatican II all now "Kakure Kirishitans"? 

Are we Traditional Catholics not hiding out from the Shogun Bergoglio and his murderous pagan sodomite samurai? "Kakure Kirishitans" is the term for Japanese Catholics who went into hiding when the pagan Japanese government tried to wipe them out in the early 1600s.

Something odd is going on.

Look at old news reels of any Church event pre-Vatican II. Old Masses, processions, you name it. Not hard to find. Check out this British Pathé Newsreel of a minute or so. An excerpt:

(0:36)...Honoring of this centenary the apostolic delegate Archbishop Gregory as celebrant sings the Mass in the presence of seven
visiting Cardinals, eleven Archbishops and forty-six bishops at Wimbly celebrations, climax with a pageant of catholic history in Britain followed by Pontifical Mass and a hundred thousand Catholics applaud...(1:08)

Wow. Just wow. Atlantis. A totally lost world. All that, then! Now? I suppose you might find some carnal deviants getting "blessed" by a "priest" sporting a meretricious rainbow alb – maybe. Or a tourist taking photos of a particular structure that hasn't been gutted via "Wreckovation". It's like we've gone through the Protestant Reformation all over again: i.e., churches gutted, vernacular worship services not mentioning Christ's sacrifice (or Christ), a "presider" facing the assembled, in short, a very horizontal "Humanism" replacing the old vertical "Divine Liturgy". One wants to ask, "When did the Anglican Church replace the Catholic Church?" Or really, maybe we're the Methodist Church now?

Before and After Vatican II photos, news reels, whatever. These have been played before because the contrast is so staggering. Where has all that CATHOLICISM gone? Don't you want to know? I know, I do. It seems to have to hide, to become hidden, like the Japanese Catholics had to hide.

Roots of the Disaster

I read a revealing article about Josef Ratzinger giving a speech back in 1964. It has extracts from Ratzinger's December 1964 sermons to students at the Cathedral of Műnster, apparently found in the book What It Means To Be A Christian, which is to be published soon. These talks reveal Ratzinger to have been a Modernist non-Catholic from the git-go. The author of the piece wants to laud him: instead, the author unintentionally reveals a heretic. An excerpt; Ratzinger himself:

“God cannot be found except by going to meet him as the One who is coming, who is waiting for us to make a start and demanding that we do so. We cannot find God except in this exodus, in going out from the coziness of our present situation into what is hidden: the brightness of God that is coming.”

Er...what? Ancient Egypt wasn't "cozy". And what's this: "The One who is coming"? Didn't He come? Didn't He establish a Church? What the tarnation is all this about, exactly? The author of the piece writes:

And yet many “traditional” Catholics also found and still find Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI hard to swallow, because his leadership and vision did not square with the picture of the Church that they have made for themselves: he refused to accept the idea of a Church whose essence was the preservation of the status quo. Instead, Ratzinger relentlessly called the faithful to undertake a pilgrimage – an exodus – whose essential prerequisite is a readiness to make ourselves uncomfortable in order to go forth and meet the Lord.

This is, in a word, idiocy. Look folks, we didn't "make the picture ourselves"! Absolute lie. The Catholic laity only believed what the Church taught, and taught assiduously for 2,000 years: that Jesus Christ IS the answer to everything, that he founded His Church on the Rock of Faith (and St. Peter, apostolic succession, etc.). Be secure and grounded in this belief! The Church taught us THAT THAT IS EXACTLY the "STATUS QUO". Forever. We are not on an Exodus except from confusion and sin, because we've entered the Promised Land of the Faith and Christ's Church. 

1. We're not the blind leading the blind, as Ratzinger clearly suggests. 
2. We don't "find God" by wandering around dazed in a new directionless "Exodus", looking for Christ Who is somehow "Hidden". What sort of guano is that? Age of Aquarius claptrap. New Age "walkabout" fantasy. 
3. A medieval pilgrimage was to a KNOWN place, an established House of God, a font of miracles that had been proven over time via tons of witness, as had Canterbury or Walsingham or Santiago de Compostela. 
4. Medieval pilgrimages were NOT "off into the blue" to "find I know not what is true". 
5. The Post-Vatican II theologian hotshot Josef Ratzinger had it exactly backward, and so do all the Modernists who so infest the Vatican II Church.

No wonder we have what we have now.

Right now, the biggest Church news is that creepy homosexual Cardinal "Tucho" "Kissy" Fernandez backpedaling and even name-calling over his disgusting magisterial document "Fiducia supplicans" about blessing "irregular unions" and the false "pope", whom I just call "Bergoglio" (when I'm being very polite) grunting out his displeasure at that document's reception, when he's not snorting out his hatred of just about everything else that's Catholic. 

• This is the great shock of the Vatican II Church, that its episcopacy would tolerate such an obviously anti-Catholic ogre as "pope" at all, simultaneously with supporting homosexuals – going to great lengths to support and coddle homosexuals – a group have collectively cost the Church literally billions of dollars (many times over) and who have lashed the Church with the whips of lechery, extracting from it an incalculable amount of respect, honor, and credibility. Not to mention, sanctity.

Honestly, Bergoglio and his regime in control of the Church have reduced the One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to utter humiliation. It's a laughingstock. Orthodox and Protestants howl with glee as it stumbles and wallows, indeed, crawls, like an amnesia-afflicted hobo through a swamp it cannot find its way out of.

Too harsh? I check a number of conservative political blogs that run a pretty tight reign on Comments, and the contempt is palatable even there. On blogs not so tightly controlled, Protestants delight in disparaging all things Catholic. And of course "mainstream" blogs and "liberal" Leftist blogs are worse. 

• I can honestly tell you that after nearly 70 years of trying so desperately to be "liked", to be "a popular girl in school", the Catholic Church is reviled and hated far worse that it ever was before Vatican II.

On the Traditional Catholic side, unfortunately, we've got those who insist, against every iota of common sense and observation, that Bergoglio is an actual pope, but one who must be "resisted" and that the powers of the papacy have to be highly curtailed hereafter. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski typifies such. In contrast, you have the "Hard Sedevacantists" (as at Novus Ordo Watch or AKA Catholic) who insist that not only is Bergoglio not a Catholic, but that this entire Church isn't Catholic; i.e. that the entire Vatican II Church is a fraud. 

• Delving into their position, which they're thorough to explain in detail – though it's far more difficult to find what solutions they propose – they argue that the only "true" Catholic Church is to be found where a priest who was not ordained by a Vatican II-consecrated bishop runs an outfit of some sort that offers Mass. And you just have to ferret him out. (Novus Ordo Watch helpfully provides lists.)
  

Considering how bad Ratzinger was, or John Paul II with his plaintive calls for a "New Pentecost" – the Polish pope apparently had NO IDEA of how blasphemous that was (What? God didn't do it good enough the first time?) – one is strongly tempted to agree with them. Though, of course, that would make us all Kakure Kirishitans.

• I've written here where I think that tempting though it is, the "Hard Sede" position is impractical, to say the least. It essentially entails going out into the Wild to find a Kakure kirishitan bishop or priest. Since I wrote that earlier post, I'd say now that once people, i.e. general Catholics, got the Hard Sede critique of the Vatican II Church fully absorbed, they wouldn't go on "walkabout" to try to find those rare "Churches" that fit the Sedevacantist bill; oh, no. No, no. No. They're not going out into the hills and hollers to find a Kakure Kirishitan church: they'd just walk away entirely.

Bottom Line

What solution do I propose? What equation do I formulate? I'll write about that in my next, what I call Our Jonah Reality. But for now, consider this:

1. Remember how the Vatican II Church has always, ALWAYS been against what they call "Triumphalism"? Look at the Pathé newsreel again for a minute. Pure Catholic Triumphalism. 
2. THAT was the Church pre-Vatican II (except for the Modernist Underground waiting in the wings to destroy it). We were all Traditionalists then, and all Triumphalists. 
3. We were full participants in The Seventh Covenant, the Most Holy Eucharist. We were full participants in Christ's Salvic Offering of Himself on Calvary. 
4. We were certain sure we were right, and not lost (while avoiding the "I'm Saved!" presumption of certain Protestants). 
5. The Protestants loathed us for it, and importantly, so did the Jews. (Islam just hates, pure and simple; nothing new there.) The Jews never ceased their work to get the Good Friday liturgy changed, which they accomplished in 1955 (during the reign of "the last pope" Pius XII, ahem). 
6. But we WERE Triumphalist. we belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord Himself founded. 
7. We were NOT the blind wandering around following blind shepherds and falling into the Pit of Modernism, as Josef Ratzinger would have us do. No. Not at all. 

And so "The Powers That Be" stole it from us, using a flashy stage show called The Second Vatican Council to bemuse and befuddle even stalwart Catholic leaders, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (for a short time). They drowned us in a torrent of words, more words in Vatican II than in all the previous Councils put together! They mixed their poison in with orthodoxy so carefully that they stole our inheritance. They stole our spiritual and religious inheritance, and they stole our cultural and philosophical inheritance, and replaced it all with what? Meretricious navel gazing. By degrees, not all at once, but steadily, till Bergoglio has essentially "made it official" they threw us out into the highways and byways, the hills and hollers, to make us Kakure Kirishitans.

Enough! We want it back. Let that be our New Year's Resolution: We want it all back, and since they're so fond of wandering around on endless "walkabout", they can get out of our way, and take their anti-pope Ogre and his Sodomites with 'em.

An Préachán

Lists of Catholics Suffering Because of Bergoglio

Amici,

I've put together a "short list" of people harmed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. See it below. The compilation is to give just an idea of the scope of Bergoglio's murderous harm to the Catholic Church. To put what Bergoglio did to Bishop Joseph Strickland into perspective is to acknowledge the need for a Crusade. It is that simple. And not a Crusade against Muslims or whoever, but against Bergoglio and his brand of "Catholics".

As all my readers know (all three or four of you!:), I don't think "Pope Francis" is actually a pope at all. But even if he were a pope, validly elected and so on, he should still be removed for the harm he's done to the Church. It is that dire a situation.

The Overall Victims

Bishop Joseph Strickland serves just as one of many papal sacrificial lambs carved up by this fraud-pope, and it is time to "take up the Cross" as the old Crusader saying had it. The entire Catholic Faithful in the world, or I should clarify: those who are not homosexual, constitute the first, most wide-spread and all-encompassing victim of Bergoglio. We've had the homosexual menace since Vatican II, especially since the 1970s when I've seen it said that the seminaries were opened to homosexuals. Be that as it may, the problem that exists now stands as all-encompassing. A good article to get a fuller picture of how bad this problem is this article at Crisis (a site I don't normally recommend). This article I highly recommend. An excerpt: "As long as this evil persists, the Church will continue to fracture and split, where eventually it will all but collapse and disappear." It is filled with shocking revelations, and is truly a "must read".

• How utterly pathetic this is. I mean, think about this. Homosexuality is a perversion found in certain cultures, like Classical Greece (but not so much in Homeric Greece) and through the traditional culture of the "Muslim Arab World", from ancient times to today (as English adventurer and oriental scholar Richard Francis Burton discovered in the 19th century, despite whatever the Koran says about this deviancy). But what Bergoglio has done is taken a modern Western debauchery common among spoiled, shallow, over-indulged narcissists (nothing is more narcissistic than homosexuality) and perverted two millennia of Catholic teaching into a formal coddling of these nitwits. And he's imposed this coddling of carnal nitwits upon the entire world! 

The Chinese Church Victims

Aside from all of us plagued by the dominance of Sodom, the biggest sacrificial lamb of all to Bergoglio's anti-Catholic lusts remains the Church in China. See Nina Shea here for details. It is beyond reprehensible and should result in his immediate removal from the papal office – if only we had "men-with-chests" in the episcopacy and cardinalate. 

He Gets Away with Murder

As for individuals, Bergoglio has picked many off so many such lambs, shooting them one-at-a-time like lambs cornered in a corral. Millions of laity are leaving the Church during his "reign", called The Bergoglio Effect. See this article on Belgium: i.e. Mass attendance down 40% from 2017. And I'm sure this has been replicated throughout the Catholic world. 

Regarding bishops/priests, yes, there do exist a few who were caught in carnal or financial depravity; however, many more such wolves-in-sheep's-clothing have risen to the heights in the Bergoglian Church, protected by papal favor. That's one of Bergoglio's trademarks. Yet Bishop Strickland stands beyond all such mud-slinging. Please take a moment to consider how Bergoglio is a serial offender, a repeated "sacker of holy men":

1. Bishop Strickland stands in the spotlight now, yet before him stood Puerto Rico's Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres, relieved in early March 2022. Bishop Torres was too orthodox and resisted the Bergoglian church's insane Covid demands and restrictions.
   
2. Then there's Bishop Dominique Rey, 71, of Fréjus-Toulon Diocese, France. Bergoglio has been harassing him for years because Rey was the bishop who has been supporting Tradition, and encouraged Dom Alcuin Reid to be the founding Prior of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon; Reid is a liturgical scholar of international renown, but his monastery had to go separatist – remove itself from Rome's jurisdiction – to escape Bergoglio's closing it down. So, Bergoglio increased punishing Bishop Rey in various ways – such as refusing to allow Rey's seminarians to be ordained – and now has sidelined him with a coadjutor bishop.
3. Bergoglio did the same to Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin in Providence. Tobin hadn't quite reached 75, when he had to retire, but the Bergoglian regime gave him a coadjutor months before retirement because this Tobin (not to be confused with Cardinal Joseph "Nighty-night-baby-I-love-you" Tobin in New Jersey, a homosexual who lived with an Italian body builder for some time) served as a very vocal social media critic of the Vatican regime. Thomas Tobin suffered Bergoglio's vendetta, even on the cusp of his retirement. (Just to scare the other bishops; it worked.)
   
4. And in effect, for all practicable purposes, so were Cardinals Müller and Burke, too, "cancelled" whom Bergoglio sacked from their high offices and then, giving them only crumbs, or nothing, essentially letting them sell apples on the street corner, you know, à la Cardinal Sarah.
5. Bergoglio's first Trad bishop to axe was a South American Paraguayan Bishop, Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, removed back in 2014, an Opus Dei bishop "who had clashed with his fellow bishops on ideological grounds and promoted a priest accused of inappropriate sexual behavior." Right. If they can squeeze in a sex rap on a "conservative" bishop they will, while letting progressive bishops do what they want carnally: remember the complicated case of very orthodox (also Opus Dei-related and also TLM promoting) Bishop Robert Finn? One has to wonder were Finn as "gay" as Nighty-night" Tobin, if Finn wouldn't have been a cardinal by now. Finn resigned in 2015, two years after Bergoglio came in.
   
6. I'm sure there are others. Let's not forget Georg Gänswein! I think this former secretary to Benedict XVI is now literally selling apples.
   
7. And moving beyond bishops, early in 2017 what about the head of the Order of Malta! Bergoglio forced out the Order's Grand Master Fra' Matthew Festing. Festing was far too "conservative", you see? Bergoglio compromised the entire Order for his pet peeves.
   
8. And what about those poor Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate? It was a vibrant Trad order that Bergoglio had his henchmen in the Congregation for Religious ravage and wreck. Or for that matter, Bergoglio's war against the women's contemplative orders? This has been odious for years, but the Ogre who protects a nun rapist (Marko Rubnik) gets away with it. 
9. And lastly, let us return to China. Liz Yore discusses Bergoglio's evil abominations here with Steve Bannon. 

Basic Reality

"Damn Bergoglio and the horse he rode in on." That's actually not too harsh because this "pope" is hell and death to the Catholic Church. As I wrote the other day, if you insist he is actually pope you will be rewarded by watching him burn the Church down. After reviewing a list like this, we can say even were he lawfully pope, he's still hell-bent on burning the Church down.

This guy is a disaster for the Church. In the Old Mass (and I remember something of it in the New), at the Prayers before the Consecration, it says, "...Vouchsafe to preserve and govern her (the Church) in peace and union throughout the world, together with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and all who follow and foster the Catholic and Apostolic Faith." (I think the new rite says "hold and teach", but whatever.)

Yet how in anyone's imagination – no matter how untethered from reality – can it be said Bergoglio follows and fosters, or holds and teaches, the Catholic and Apostolic Faith? He even makes light of and dismisses the Deposit of Faith! Or how can it be said he governs the Church in peace and unity?

If he does, then I'm the Aga Khan. 

 An Préachán

Part 1 A world without the Traditional Latin Mass: our culture's violence and hatred exemplified

Friends,

First, of course, all thanksgiving and praise to the Lord God Who provided this pro-life victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. All good things come from God; we're just instruments of His will. And of course we should thank President Donald Trump, the true U.S. President, exiled for now, and I do not doubt the the "powers-that-be" will stop at nothing to keep him out of power. However, he did what Reagan could not, and we need to appreciate his work in this.

But...

Why is it that today, in 2022, we have such outrageous, freak-show level deviants rioting in the streets, demanding, DEMANDING, the right to murder babies and promoting deviant sexual carnality that always preceded a civilization's collapse? Truly, is it not as though God replaced their living hearts with hearts of stone, and exactly, EXACTLY fulfilling St. Paul's famous observations in Romans 1:21-32. It is as though a divine hand has appeared and is writing on our civilization's wall.

How far we've come – how far we've fallen – since 1973. No riots of marauding sexual deviants filled the streets then, when Roe v. Wade was decided. And had the Supreme Court decided against Roe, there would have been no riots of marauding sexual deviants, ether. Now, though, look at how many people are today simply too degenerate to be imagined. Note the Roe date, 1973. The Novus Order Liturgy was foisted upon us by ecclesiastical fiat in late 1970. I think these dates are significant, as I'll explain below.

1973 to 2022

Hieronymus Bosch was a prophet. Since the the Dobbs Supreme Court decision last Friday, it seems like Hell has vomited its most disgusting Boschian entrails upon us. Have we seen anything like this since the Emperor Nero's prancing about? He's the patron saint of the homosexual movement and one of the first to "marry" a, well, non-woman. (A castrated boy.) Throughout this June, though, if one can stomach recalling it, throughout what they call "Pride" month, we've been inundated with the pukey, the vomity, the infantile and continual upchuck of the just simply Boschian-bizarre, insane cockroaches of modern sexual deviancy. (Haha, sounds like I'm referring to the Biden family or certain Catholic bishops and priests!)

Sodom and Gomorrah come again, indeed. One can easily imagine, were God to send a couple of angels to a "pride event" like the one in Chicago were people were just shot up (in that heavily gun-controlled city) – that the carnal zombies would, indeed, try raping them. It has to do with a lot more than the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, doesn't it? The reaction is too extreme, bizarre. The lizard 'ruler of the world' churns and wreathes in his hellish Pit.

Sure, Satan himself has take a blow to the head, Dobbs being a sort of upward palm to his crooked nose. He's reminded that even in what seems his hour of triumph, he's always and ever going to lose. So, of course, he lashes out. (It has to be frustrating, to always lose, and never lose with class.)

But part of it also goes back to that cadet academy of Satan, the infamous Frankfurter Schule in 1920s Germany, the group of Communists (many of them sexual deviants themselves) who promulgated the idea that the way to bring about their unholy and ultimately asinine and eternally exquisitely boring revolution was to destroy the Western family and Churches through sex stuff. Just spread lustful deviancy, make people morally and physically debilitated through carnal decadence and abasement, to simply dissolute the society to the point it collapsed. Roe v. Wade in 1973 was a "great leap forward" for that, actually. It in essence mandated worshiping Moloch nation-wide. It is extremely ironic that the sexually perverse are so proud of their perversions, when in fact they're just tools of long-dead Communist theorists. If you're going to throw away your soul, that's a poor reason for doing it

The Dobbs decision, however, is like taking a two-by-four (more like a four-by-four) and slamming it battery-ram style right to the face of all those years of effort. That's because Dobbs allows the people themselves, democracy-style, to debate these issues and actually decide on them through voting, as opposed to having all of it vomited on us by judicial fiat. Hence the brilliance of Clarence Thomas in saying the Dobbs opens the opportunity to reconsider a host of other imperial judicial fatwas, such as the idiotic Obergefell. (And of course of the rage of the Left at his comment is very enjoyable.)

Just as with the World Economic Forum and the Covid lockdowns, all of this has to be imposed on people from above. The people themselves would never vote for it. And of course it was the same for the Church's liturgical changes in the 1960s and '70s. We are constantly being imposed upon. Why do we let them?

One reason is that the Church has failed to stand up for us. I'll have more of that in Part 2.

   An Préachán

In defense of a good priest: an email I sent to Bishop Robert J. Brennan of Columbus, Ohio

An email I sent to the Bishop of Columbus, Ohio:

June 30, 2020

Dear Bishop Brennan, I am a former resident in the Columbus diocese, and am a retired writer and editor currently residing in Hungary. I have met Fr. Klee a number of times and hold him in high esteem. His anti-abortion work is very commendable. In castigating this good and holy priest, Fr. Klee, you write that, "The Catholic Church proposes a beautiful, life-giving and liberating vision to the world based on the truths about the human person, human sexuality, marriage and the family. We proclaim with one breath the Splendor of Truth and the Joy of the Gospel. The fundamental truth is that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and as such, must be treated with dignity and respect."

If that is so, dear Bishop Brennan, then why does Our Lord give such a carefully graded explanation of how to remonstrate with persistent sinners in St. Matthew 18, ending with if they will not listen even to the Church, then to treat them “as Gentiles or tax collectors” (this is the same chapter has the famous explanation of how the angels in Heaven rejoiced at the one lost sheep that has been found, and the dire warning against anyone who causes “a little one to sin” and also the “better to enter Heaven maimed than go to Hell whole” verses)? Persistent sinners are not to be accepted into the body of the Faithful, even though they were made in God’s image. Our Faith demands a very moral behavior on our part, and thus I wonder why so often many in the Church deny this "liberating vision" to souls in mortal sin regarding carnal sins such homosexuality? (But hardly limited to homosexuality.) First Corinthians 6, in the latest New American Bible version, says plainly, starting with verse 9, “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

As a life-long Biblical scholar, I would insist a number of points are relevant in this passage. Yes, homosexuality is certainly and clearly condemned, but so are other grievous behaviors. St. Paul takes that as a given; he lists them all in order to stress that to be baptized, confirmed, and to receive the Most Holy Eucharist, and then afterwards to engage in sodomy (or these other sins), is one of the most heinous acts a Christian can do, as it makes the Incarnated God indwelling in the Christian to be personally partaking Himself in the sins. St. Paul is very clear on this, as in verse 15 in the same First Corinthian chapter above, he writes, “15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not!” Also, in the larger Biblical context, homosexuality is one of the sins that "cried out from the ground", as Genesis says of the sins of Sodom (and Jewish rabbinical tradition commonly holds that homosexuality was prevalent in the days before the Flood). No Vatican II pastoral document reversed all that, and that Council declared itself not to be a dogmatic council, so no dogma was changed, either.

Homosexuality also refutes Our Lord's grace, as well, destroying the "New Creation in Christ" that a Christian is supposed to be. This is, of course, the “Divinization” dogma, what the Eastern Christians famously call Theosis. The teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament, particularly in St. Paul and St. John. Examples: John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation) 2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 8:15 (the famous “Abba! Father!” verse) 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12. And of course, 3 John 3:1 “See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.”

God’s Incarnation didn’t lower God so much than elevate human nature up to God. Theosis is achieved through grace – not by nature – and is our incorporation into Christ, raising us up to participate in His Divinity (as St. Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1.4). Usually described in the Western Church as an Infusion of Grace, the dogma insists our natures are changed. (This teaching is denied in Protestantism, which teaches Imputation of Grace: God assigns grace to us but doesn’t actually divinize or change our nature.) Yet because our nature is changed via the sacraments, we cannot intentionally engage in a sin we refuse to see is a sin. Rather, we are “to be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (St. Matthew 5:48) The stakes are very high. As St. Athanasius wrote: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460] Or as St. Thomas Aquinas put it: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]

As a professional writer, I find the Biblical writings, and the Holy Church’s clear pronouncements over the past two millennia, to be obfuscated in all the modern-day pompous and pretentious verbiage of the currently in-fashion (and very cliché) way of speaking about the Church’s mission, such as you example in your writing about Fr. Klee that I quote above. We must never betray the Holy Gospel, even if we believe it is too difficult for modern people. In the case under discussion, about which Fr. Klee’s Gospel witness is being discussed, active homosexuals who do not repent of their sin – need I remind you that "repent" means turn away? – are in serious danger of Hell? Do you deny that truth to them? That at least is the plain meaning of St. Paul I quoted above, and the Church has understood it that way for two millennia. Have we somehow "evolved" beyond the Gospel? Are we now too nuanced, too sophisticated, too chic to “preach Christ, and Him Crucified”?

In sum, are we to mirror the irreligious zeitgeist around us? The Supreme Court ruled in Roe (1973) that unborn people weren't people, and they ruled later ruled two men could marry each other (Obergefell), or two women (but why not two men and three women, or some other combo?) and thus ruling there's no legal difference between a vagina and an anus, and in this very month, in Bostock, these supreme legal mavens ruled that women weren't women – that any man who wanted to claim he was a woman could do so and BE a woman according to law, thus, legally, removing legal recognition of the female sex from actual biological women. Maybe next they'll rule that shoes are ships and cabbages are kings. It's all a farce.

Dear Bishop Brennan, such are the famous “signs of the times” (St. Matthew 16:3) today. In such an environment, where “plain speech” is rare, I quite understand it might make a bishop unpopular to affirm Our Lord Christ’s traditional moral teaching today, but then, bishops wear purple to remind them that they may well need to be martyrs. Throughout history, the "Splendor of Truth" has been witnessed in blood, martyrs' blood, because “the world” rejects it. As St. John wrote (quoted above) “The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.” Bishop Brennan, are you willing to be a martyr to your "Joy of the Gospel" that has led to Our Lord's Crucifixion, the death by martyrdom of all His Apostles, except for St. John, who died in exile? To be a Christian is not to enter Public Service Club, still less is it what the Anglicans like to call themselves, “a Church for all peoples” (thus becoming a Church of very few people at all). Your martyrdom would be to garner the hatred of the sinful culture in which we live. Is that too much for you? Today in the world, according to opendoorusa site, between 8 and 11 Christians are killed every day. Against this reality, is it too little to ask good priests like Fr. Klee be supported, and indeed, honored, and that the all too common smarmy cant that covers up the unconfessed, uncorrected sins of the flesh, eschewed? After all, not fully preaching the Gospel is a direct affront to Our Lord and a mockery of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of St. Paul's writings.

In closing, while neither you nor I know whether any specific, individual homosexual, or fornicator, idolater (this age worships sex, self, and pride), or adulterer will go to Hell (unless you so bind one formally in your full ecclesiastical capacity) but we are charged with witnessing the Gospel, you far more than I, a simple layman. And you are supposed to see the sacraments refused to an unrepentant sinner. In the spirit of Christian charity and in the umbra of Canon 212, I have witnessed to you today, and on Judgment Day you can witness to God that I did.

In Christ,

Ronald Blackstone Crow

Homosexuality and the Rebellion Against Nature

Some considerations.

Homosexuals rebel. They seek, for reasons of having to live with themselves, to redefine what is "natural". That's what they do. If humans were animals, we'd do whatever they'd want and not have to ratinoalize it. But we're the Rational Animals, so we have to justify ourelves -- to ourselves and to everyone else.

And also, concurrent to all that, and no doubt because of all that, the larger modern society intensely dislikes any discusson of "Nature."

All the sexual deviancy stuff that is throttling our civilization keeps forcing us, as it were, to reinvent the moral wheel. To try to explain how human morality is so intrinsically tied to our nature. We have to explain to adulterers, homosexuals, and whoever else stands for Rebellion against Nature, what is human society for. What human life is about. Is it for "doing our own thing" or are we responsible for one another? Especially our children? Are we "trapped" by our biological nature -- being male, being female -- and having to get on with life on that basis, or are we somehow free to do whatever we want? Is life all about living the life we are biologically dealt, or tossing the cards and rebelling against what we are? As in what that old Devil Aleister Crowley used to say, "Do whatever you want is the whole of the law". 



Taking God out out the question for a moment (can't really be taken out, but for the sake of the argument): human life consists of being conceived, gestated, born, being hopelessly helpless for YEARS, desperately needing both parents, raised only slowly, time consumingly, and at serious financial expense, finally reaching adulthood physically in the later teen years. That cannot be escaped from. And that's just the physical side to it. To raise a sane, functioning, self-reliant adult takes massive effort -- of both parents and the larger society backing them up! This is what life is about. That is, if we want a future for the human race at all. "The future belongs to those who show up."



On the other hand, Homosexuals -- just as much as easy divorce advocates, "open marriage" proponents, etc. are, (whether seemingly mild or aggressive) continually calling all that -- the basics -- in question. They need it explained over and over again and they're just not buying it. It's like trying to play a game of baseball with an opposing team that forgets how to play the game by the beginning of every inning: We have to take time to explain and re-explain and re-re-explain the rules of life -- even to the basic points of what our body parts are for! -- ALL THE TIME, and they keeping asking, "Why these rules? Let us play it the way we want." 



If we give in and let them go play the game they way they want, it won't work because WE ARE WHAT WE ARE. We are == in our nature -- humans, and our morality has to reflect that. No matter how "traditional" or "conservative" specific individuals might be, overall, the Rebels Against Nature just create moral chaos that mirrors their physical chaos, and it engenders social collapse. History shows that again and again.

An Préachán

"There will be Civil War in the Catholic Church"

Indeed. A "Civil War" has been silently waged, what we call a "War of Position" as opposed to a "War of Maneuver" since the rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968. (Similar to the Communist "Long March" through the Western institutions, of which, of course, this is a part; see the story of Bella Dodd.) In a sense, the Gays and Bergoglio have done us a favor, in effect, as it were, by finally coming out of their dugouts and trenches into the open field. We can all see now what they're up to, and it "stinks to high Heaven", to "coin a phrase".

We don't know the details of how this will turn out, and so much depends on how Bergoglio resists the growing pressure, and how long he holds on to the papacy, and whether the homosexual "Lavender Mafia" can be expunged. If that doesn't happen, it is clear that a Schism (which de facto exists now) must occur. The "official" Church, sort of like the "Official IRA", will wither on the vine, and end up joining the Anglican Communion or the mainstream German Lutherans. How long it will take to get the Vatican itself back, we'll have to see. But surely, God is letting this occur so we can clean the Augean Stables, though admittedly without Heracles. (With God on our side, we don't actually need ol' Herc, of course. :) But one thing is certain sure, once the majority of the laity understand that the "Lavender Mafia" in effect call all the shots, they won't tolerate it. The Church is made up of families, and few fathers and mothers want to be in a Church of the Gays, run by the Gays, and all for the Gays. (If I may conjure up that old atheist, Abe Lincoln.:)

Excellent essay below, one full of history that I didn't know.

(Paul A. Rahe holds The Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College, where he is professor of history. )

An excerpt:

This past weekend, the chickens finally came home to roost. We had already learned of the predatory conduct of Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl’s predecessor as cardinal-archbishop of Washington. The evidence showed that he had buggered altar boys and seminarians while auxiliary bishop in New York, bishop of Metuchen in New Jersey, and Archbishop of Newark. Formal complaints had been lodged against him as the 1990s and continued to be lodged in later years, but they were ignored, and he was nonetheless promoted.

On Saturday night, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who was the papal nuncio in Washington from 2011 to 2016, released an 11-page testament, revealing that Pope Benedict had learned of McCarrick’s conduct, had acted against the man in 2009 or 2010 by silencing him, prohibiting him from travel, and forbidding him to say mass in public; that in 2013 he had himself personally warned Pope Francis against McCarrick, spelling out in detail the man’s misdeeds; that Francis had reversed the restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Benedict, taken him as his chief American advisor, and ignored the advice of the Papal Nuncio and accepted that of McCarrick in choosing archbishops and bishops for the United States. This includes Blaise Cupich, the cardinal-archbishop of Chicago, and Joseph Tobin, the cardinal-archbishop of Newark.

Viganò also did something on Saturday night that, as far as I know, no high-ranking prelate has done in more than six hundred years. He called on the pope to resign.

In the meantime, Monsignor Jean-Francois Lantheaume, former first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C. has emerged to confirm that Viganò‘s predecessor had been instructed to confine McCarrick by Pope Benedict, that he had witnessed the confrontation with McCarrick, and that everything else that Viganò had said was true. To this, we must add that Viganò named names in the Vatican, specifying which high officials had obstructed the investigation into McCarrick’s conduct.

As all of this suggests, we are now at a turning point. The Lavender Mafia controls the papacy and the Vatican overall, and Pope Francis is packing the College of Cardinals, who will elect the next pope, with sympathizers. Pope Francis and his minions have now been exposed, named, and shamed; and there will be a civil war within the Roman Catholic Church.

Either Francis leaves and his supporters and clients are purged, or the church is conceded to those who for decades have sheltered and promoted the pederasts and those who regard their abuse of minors as an indifferent matter. It is time that those bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who are innocent of such conduct stand up and force a house-cleaning. In the meantime, the laity should speak up loud and clear.

How bad are things in the U.S. Church? Check this out:

Cardinal Wuerl on the run? Using the Vatican to escape justice?

And this from Archbishop Charles Chaput:

An excerpt:

 Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia told a conference that had met to discuss the “young people” of the Church that in light of the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church he had written to Pope Francis asking him to cancel the upcoming Youth Synod set to take place in Rome.

“The bishops would have absolutely no credibility” in the upcoming Youth Synod, Chaput told the Cardinal’s Forum, an annual gathering to provide academic formation of seminarians and continuing education for lay people, yesterday. The synod's planned dates are set for October 3-28, 2018.

And then there's this by Rod Dreher, which overviews and links to this: 

Francis and the Journalists, by John Waters

(Clearly, the entire Irish episcopate should resign; what few good men are left haven't "stood up and been counted", so they should go, too.)

An excerpt:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/francis-and-the-journalists

Three questions to begin:

1. Why did the World Meeting of Families, which took place in Ireland last week, all but exclude from its panels and speakers people who had been active in recent Irish referenda relating to family and children?

 2. Why did virtually every panel of commentators covering the World Meeting of Families and papal visit on Ireland’s national radio and television station comprise at least 50 percent LGBT activists?

 3. Why did the Irish media play down the explosive intervention of the former Vatican diplomat Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò until Pope Francis was preparing to leave Ireland on Sunday afternoon?

The answer to the first question has two parts. One is that the Irish Church hierarchy, having more or less avoided involvement in three referenda—on (so-called) children’s rights (2012), same-sex marriage (2015), and abortion (2018)—seek to ensure that those who tried to do the job they abandoned become non-persons within the Irish Catholic world. More and more, the Irish bishops appear to wish to curry favor with those who despise the Church, and to dismiss and disparage those who defend Christ’s proposals for humanity.

I was one of just three people who fought prominently in all three referenda on the side that the Catholic Church might have been expected to lead. Though I had gained a reputation as an arch-apologist for the Catholic Church, I was not invited to speak at the World Meeting of Families or even to attend it, and so I watched and listened from a distance.

To the second question: Media panels are stuffed with LGBT activists in order to protect the dominant narrative concerning clerical sex abuse in the Church. That narrative insists that sex abuse was perpetrated by pedophiles; that the main cause was clerical celibacy; and that the coverups were conducted by Church leaders to protect the Church from bad publicity. 

We have known since the John Jay Report published by the US bishops in 2004 that the overwhelming majority of abuse in the Church was carried out against teenage boys. The levels of pedophilia in the Church are shown by this report to be below those of the general population—whereas the levels of homosexual abuse were many multiples of the general situation. 

In Ireland, anyone who tries to state this case is immediately attacked by both journalists and LGBT activists. For this reason, the truth has never been fully reported, nor has its significance been absorbed even by the Church at the official level. Most Irish people have no sense of the true meaning of the child abuse scandals, and both the media and much of the Church’s priests and leadership seem anxious to retain the narrative that implies the victims were all “little ones.” 

See also: Thousands of Catholic Women Sign a Letter Pleasing with the Pope.

This is a "pathetic" piece in the sense that these people "don't get it" about Bergoglio, but at least they'll "get it" soon when he brings on a full-scale "civil war". In essence, it is a sort of last gasp of the Vat2 laity, the leftovers from JP2's days, the "conservatives" who are bewildered by the people running the Church off a cliff. 

An Préachán

What the Pennsylvania indictments say about the Church, and two withering articles

Withering article here by Michael Walsh. Maybe not as good as this one by Michael Brendan Dougherty, but Walsh's piece has a lot of great points about abandoning the Latin, the Trad Latin Mass, and so on. Both articles are great; both these guys are Irish-Americans and they know how to eviscerate.

There's always been rats in the Church, of course. Remember Judas Iscariot? The Emperor Justinian, a man who never raised his voice, and who could order the death of thousands, had a bishop of his burned alive because that bishop was a homosexual. Or check out the life and times of St Peter Damian: (just one of many articles pointing out the similarities) and so on down to "Franny Spellman", cardinal archbishop of New York.

But always before, we had the Traditional Mass, and the dignity of it -- the supreme dignity of the Rite of St. Gregory the Great in its missa cantata / missa solemnis forms -- and both Sacred Tradition/Holy Writ and the Theology of divine insight that got us past bad priests, bishops, and popes. Also, at the nadir of papacy, in the 900s, we had a very strong Monastic movement. There was always a balance, in other words, one way or another. This is true even with the Reformation, which produced the Counter-Reformation Church (from 1540 to 1648). But aside from a few new Athanasiuses (I'm thinking of old Archbishop Lefebvre and our current Athanasius, Athanasius Schneider, we have very, very few bishops willing to "take the heat" and "stand up and be counted". (And when they do, like the Dubia Four, they're ignored and not supported by the others.)

These revelations from Pennsylvania will be the breaking point, however; they're just too awful, too outrageous, too widespread: they're the straw that breaks the camel's back. Look to some high prelate, a Cardinal for example, to resign his position in the Vatican (or wherever) and announce he's joining the SSPX.

That'll be the "shot heard 'round the world". 

Otherwise, it looks like the secular law enforcement is going to have to simply start treating the Catholic Church as a Criminal Organization. Does that sound outrageous? Look at the facts, the cover-ups, the truth. What else can law enforcement do? And what can we, the laity, do?

In the meantime, we've got nothing in the mainstream Church at least (I refer to the hierarchy mainly. and many lower-level clergy) except a cacophonous misdirection, uncertainty, and dissimulation. Thanks to none other than John Paul II, the mainstream Church marginalized the SSPX, but it and the Trad groups still in Communion with Rome ARE the Catholic Church, at least as far as I'm concerned. And for many. Pope Francis is the poster boy for the "disinformation" campaign that is today so strongly in control of the mainstream Church as he works like a devil to undo, redo, and eviscerate Traditional Church teaching, and all done through his by now obvious and characteristic M.O. of slight of hand, innuendo, and insinuation. (And that is "Modernism" as it was from its Lutheran beginnings in Germany: it used "scholarship" as a cover to take any meaning out of the Bible, and then Church history; we have a situation that has Modernism's fingerprints all over it.)

Sure, in part, all this mess is because the "Gay Mafia" is so entrenched in the Church, and its members' ceaseless quest to keep from being exposed. They're like demons in possession of someone, hiding "in plain sight" from the exorcist and trying not to be cast out. But as Fr. Ripperger says, anytime you misuse a thing, you open it up to diabolical interest, infestation, or possession. "Being Gay is not OK", in a spiritual sense (not to mention in every other sense), in other words. Neither is adultery, fornication, or a host of other sins. So far, the Gay Mafia has succeeded but now, these revelations from Pennsylvania are so out-and-out obscene, and coming after all the official bishops-based efforts to "clean up" the Church, that they can no longer maintain the illusion that "all is well" or is something "getting better" or that the bishops are in control. That last one is laughable. The bishops are in control of nothing now, not even "spin".

But in larger part, all this mess is because of the total Modernist confusion Vatican II introduced. What does the Vat2 Church really believe? Can any of you tell me? No? Think you can? Try to. That's Modernism. It's a type of "deconstruction" of both the institution and the teachings of the Church. I can't tell you, after six decades of being in the American Catholic Church, what it believes, or even what it is, exactly. The Body of Christ? As Saint Paul said, can Christ be united to adulterers and murders through us? (1 Corinthians 6:15 & following) "God Forbid!" Paul 6's Humanae Vitae for example, which merely reiterated traditional teaching, 2,000 years of Revelation, was rejected by probably a majority of theologians. Did those theologians know what they believed? I think not.

It's time to stop this. The bishops obviously can't. If they swore an oath to the Devil himself to destroy the Church, what more could they have done? They stripped it of it beauty, its mystery, its timelessness, its holiness, its morality, and even its mission (JP2 kissed the Koran, for example; how confusing is that? Just one example.) One thing we can do: don't give the "AmChurch" any money, not unless it is a religious order or house or individual priest/monk/nun you know and can personally vouch for. But remember that the "AmChurch" gets tens (if not more) of millions from the Federal government to help take care of "refugees", and that's why they're so over-the-top demanding about illegals being let in. As long as they get that, they're laughing at us, the laity.

An Préachán

Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and Catholicism Part III

Islam, Protestantism, and Homosexuality are Heresies.

Part III

Homosexuality a heresy?

That may seem odd, as Protestantism is certainly a heresy (maybe not to them), but Islam is a separate religion (definitely to Muslims) and Homosexuality is something different again – and whatever it might be, a heresy it would not be it.

But it is. Read this from Rod Dreher's column of July 25, 2018, here. A pull quote from "James", who was a child abuse victim of the evil yes, evil, Theodore McCarrick: "They believe that they are more important than the religion itself,” James says. “They believe that man is better than God. That’s not possible. McCarrick believed that he was my direct contact with God. He told me that hundreds and hundreds of times: God will only listen to you when you are with me.”

Clearly, the evil McCarrick had left the True Faith years ago, decades ago (and maybe never had it), and had been living a lie, a lost soul in a made-up religion (if he were not a total atheist). 

So, if Corporate Homosexuality isn't a heresy in itself, it certainly fosters unbelief and lies and, yes, heresy in others.

Yet, in actuality, all three are Christian heresies, and they're heresies about the Incarnation. Most Protestants would say, and probably now most Catholics, following as they do since Vatican II the Protestant lead, that Christ's death on the Cross is the main point of Christianity: "Jesus died for your sins!" But the real point – the essential idea – of Christianity is the Incarnation: that God became a human being in the first place. (The Crucifixion is a part of that, rather than the Incarnation being a part of the Crucifixion.) Therein lies a tale, alright. God became a human being to alter and uplift our nature, to change us into New Creations in Christ.

·   This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation)

·   2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

·   Two Old Testament examples: Isaiah 65:17; Ezekiel 36:25-26

The Greeks call this theosis. Here are two great saints on it, one Eastern and one Western:

·   St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]

·   St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]

Protestantism formally disagrees with the Historical Church's* teaching on all this, the why of the necessity of the Incarnation, and Islam denies the Incarnation took place at all (because there are is only one "Person" in God, Allah, and "Allah's hand is not chained", i.e., He is required to do nothing, including save us. Whether we end up in Hell or the Garden of Allah is immaterial to Him, and he makes no promises, no covenants, because that would "chain His hand." (The most ardent Mujahideen Jihadi, no matter how many infidels he murders, has no guaranteed promised of anything in the Afterlife; certainly no virgins, all because Allah's hand is not chained; i.e. Allah makes no covenants. Sura 5.64)

Meanwhile, Homosexuality is a heresy in part because it denies Divine Revelation. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is, just as is Jesus in the New Testament, extremely concerned with our moral behavior. We simply MUST be moral, and give it our absolute best try -- there's no middle ground. "Be perfect," Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, "as your Heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) 

This ability to be righteous, to be "perfect" is denied by Protestants, from Luther on. They insist we are saved judicially, by Divine Fiat, but that our nature is not changed: Simul Justus et Peccator, as Luther phrased it: Simultaneously (both) justified and a sinner. We go to Heaven, as Luther put it, as manure piles covered with snow. Our nature is fallen, and putrid, but if we make an act of faith, God will declare us saved by virtue of His Son's sacrifice, and allow us into Heaven – even though spiritually, we're a stinking, rotten putrescence. We're declared righteous, but we're NOT righteous, no "new creation" in Christ.

All Catholics and all Protestants need to understand this cyclopean gulf between to two versions of Christianity.

Thus Luther famously wrote his assistant Philipp Melanchthon that he, Luther, could sin many times a day and it not affect his salvation and that Melanchthon should sin greatly, engage in big sins, for "Christ did not die for small sins."

But as Deuteronomy, in the Offer of Life or Death, puts it: 

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) 

This implies the Holy Spirit enables one to keep the Law, the very breath, the Word, in one's mouth.

To prove this, the "Righteous" are found throughout Holy Writ. For example, from Luke 1:5-6

⁵ In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. ⁶ Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 

How did they manage that? No one is supposed to be righteous. Did not St. Paul say in Romans 3, and did not Luther start the Reformation on this, that no one is worthy? Not one? 

In Romans 3, St Paul had written, beginning with verse 10:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one."


This begins St. Paul's quoting of six citations from the Old Testament, all of them from Psalms (except one from Isaiah: Romans 3:15-17 is from Is 59:7-8) The sequence opens with verses from Psalm 14 (Romans 3:19-12), then lines from Psalms 5, 140, 10 and 36. Let's look at Psalm 14 in its entirety. 
Psalm 14

Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”

    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;

    there is no one who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind

    to see if there are any who are wise,

    who seek after God.

3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;

    there is no one who does good,

    no, not one.

4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers

    who eat up my people as they eat bread,

    and do not call upon the Lord?

5 There they shall be in great terror,

    for God is with the company of the righteous.

6 You would confound the plans of the poor,

    but the Lord is their refuge.

7 O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion!

    When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,

    Jacob will rejoice; Israel will be glad.

Psalm 14 goes along with clear denunciations of just about everyone, then suddenly, at verse 4, it begins to change. "My people" are mentioned, and then in 5, "God is with the company of the righteous."

Wait! Who the heck are these Righteous? No one is supposed to be righteous, right?

No, Luther got it wrong. All the Psalms quoted mention the Righteous, and compare/contrasts them with the wicked. (The Isaiah passages in that chapter don't have that, but the righteous are mentioned in nearby chapters.)

In other words, St Paul could not in any way have meant NO ONE, period, is righteous. When he quoted an OT verse, there were no chapter numbers or verses, and his audience was to immediately think of the section quoted, what the section overall was about. Psalm 14 is not long and was well-known, so clearly every Roman Christian reading Romans 3 – all of them trained in turn by Jewish Christians – would have understood what Paul was about. Luther, writing 1500 years later, was clueless.

So the Reformation was started by a German professor who didn't really understand his source material. Pretty pathetic, really.

But you see the importance of this related to Homosexuality, a thing Divine Revelation has always condemned, something directly contrary to God's intentions and also something that necessarily brings doom on those involved in it, as Romans 1 famously details. Today, wherein most male homosexuals have quite numerous intimate partners and are involved in drug and alcohol abuse – a doleful state homosexuals blame not on themselves, but on the large society not accepting them – and wherein most "Gay Marriages" are contracted without the partners intending to be monogamous. 

Men (most men, through a great part of their lives) have a tendency to be profligate, if possible. (Hence one aspect of the importance of Jesus' admonition about looking with lust.) Women, traditionally, wholly reject that because they need steady, permanent males to help protect them and their (and his) children. A tremendous amount of traditional Christian culture involves trying to encourage men to be Men, to fulfill their masculine duties to their females and children. 

Unless its adherents adopt, Homosexuality by its nature cannot give them any of this. It is one of the reasons Homosexuality tends to be unstable in relationships, and often violent. (Lesbians may have long-term relationships, for which they are famous, but they are hyper-intense connections and often violent.) And of course if they do adopt, they automatically deprive the child they adopted of the right to have a father and a mother. 

Therefore, Homosexual Inc, Corporate Homosexuality, denies traditional Christian doctrine, for as St. Paul wrote in First Corinthians 6:9-20

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Glorify God in Body and Spirit

12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,”[e] and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” 17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple[f] of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.

That is about as far from the lifestyles of most Homosexuals today as one can get, and still be talking about the same species.

An Préachán
Notes
* By "Historical Church" I mean the Orthodoxies: the Western Orthodox, i.e., Catholicism, whether the "Latin Rite" or its many Eastern Liturgy Churches who recognize the Pope; the Eastern Orthodox "in-communion-with-each-other" Churches who barely speak to each other – and can't anyway even if they wanted to because they're all hopelessly divided by their various national languages; and the Oriental Orthodox, which consist of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Copts and Ethiopes. ("Oriental" means Eastern, of course, but these are the original "Eastern" Churches, as what we in the West call "Eastern Orthodox" are breakaways from the Universal ("Catholic") Church. All of these Churches have Apostolic Succession and the Seven Sacramental System.