Bishops betraying the Catholic Church

Let me tell you a story. It is a story of wickedness and betrayal. It is a demonic plan I have witnessed personally. It is a story you won't hear from the 700 media personnel who have converged on Dallas for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' June 13-15 meeting. Their task is to report on how the bishops of the United States address the clerical sex-abuse scandals. Not one in a hundred, however, will report what is really happening in Dallas because they simply don't know which dots to connect. When the set of concealed dots is connected, the picture within the picture is harrowing.

An invisible war is being fought for the life of the Catholic Church in the United States – and it is a fight to the death. The war is more than a century old now, and this is a key engagement. The war is not about pedophilia or homosexuality, as repugnant as those two symptoms are. It is about an attempted coup d'état within the Catholic Church – one of only two global institutions on this planet. Whoever gets the Keys of St. Peter walks off with the power to change the world – or so the betrayers think. I'll tell you why.

At the turn of the 20th century the popes had spoken out forcefully against socialism and communism. Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum novarum (1891) that acknowledged workers' rights but upheld the right to private property, a foundation of freedom.

The Christian worldview was under attack. A new worldview, Rationalism, was menacing all of Western Civilization. Rationalism had cut deep gorges in Christendom. Many no longer believed in Christian Revelation, that is, the scripture. If man could not prove a premise, man need not be bound by any given premise. The created order as given in the Bible could be re-ordered according to man's design; communism, utopia – fill in the blank. With the aid of science and technology, man did not need God or His musty old laws. A new order was coming of age.

In 1899, the pope also sent a weighty letter to the bishops of the United States, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, that warned against the dangers of "Americanism." Essentially, he warned the U.S. bishops that their primary identification had to be as Catholic shepherds. He cautioned against "new opinions" that some American bishops held that believed the gospel and doctrine should be accommodated to American culture: The Church must not "shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions …" or "to tone down the meaning. …"

Yet for a hundred years, many American bishops and theologians have believed that the American culture, dominant in the world, has something to teach the Church. They subordinated the command to evangelize the culture to their vision of an Americanized Catholic Church. For the first 50 years, these men were a small underground cadre of dissidents. By the close of the Second Vatican Council, the second generation of "modernists" had spread their Americanized vision of church in seminaries and universities.

Meanwhile, the American culture was growing ever more secular, and the sexual revolution, feminism and liberalism had a death grip on the foundational principles of the Christian worldview. Campus radicals and professors rebelled against authority – not parental or school authority, but the very idea of any authority with moral absolutes.

Catholic dissidents were swept up into the rebellion. They confidently talk of "structural change," meaning to shove over the Catholic Church and build a "democratic" church where "power is shared" and doctrine is determined by "consensus" rather than by scripture and Jesus' teachings.

These misguided "experts" would have us believe that if only the Church had been controlled by liberals, women priests and laity, this crisis would not have happened. Rubbish – they created the problem in the first place in an attempt to force changes in Church doctrine and discipline. If the U.S. bishops and theologians had been faithful to the teachings of the Church and their own vows, this crisis would be a footnote rather than a chapter in Church history.

It became fashionable for some American prelates to flaunt one's independence from the Church – to prove that they were not stodgy old time Catholics, but the sophisticated "American Catholics." Many of the bishops in Dallas today came of age in the '60s era of rebellion. They resent, as free Americans, being told what to do by the Vatican. As early as 1961, the Vatican issued an instruction, The Careful Selection And Training of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, prohibiting the admission of homosexuals to the seminaries. It was simply ignored by those bent on "changing the structure" of the Church to conform to the liberal American culture.

Others were weak and allowed the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to push them into acquiescence. Soon, the internal committees of the NCCB were composed of homosexuals and modernists, feminists and even New Age devotees. They have a death grip on the levers of power within the Conference. An example is the pastoral letter from the U.S. bishops on homosexuality, Always Our Children. This flawed "gay positive" document was drafted by a committee – not by the bishops – and issued before the majority of U.S. bishops had even read the document. They did not vote on its contents (so much for "consensus"). The Vatican finally forced a revision of this squishy "pastoral" instruction. Even now, in Dallas, a similar committee set the agenda for the deliberations.

By the mid 1960s, the Rockefeller family had formed an alliance with Fr. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame University and sought an audience with Pope Paul VI in order to "advise" the pope to permit birth control. The Rockefeller interests were promoting population control. Hesburgh and others at Notre Dame, including Fr. Richard McBrien seen on "The O'Reilly Factor," worked feverishly to change the Church's teaching – if not in doctrine, at least in the practices adopted in millions of Catholic bedrooms. McBrien's book, "Catholicism" was so flawed it was – finally – censored by the U.S. bishops. But it is still on the shelf at Notre Dame University, infecting a new generation of graduates.

The modernists were in lock step with American culture. Worse, they adopted Marxist strategies to achieve their goals. Msgr. Jack Egan, Chicago icon of liberalism in the '60s and '70s, befriended Marxist Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals," a manifesto for tearing down a community or institution and rebuilding it in the communist image. The Marxist vision of androgynous masses, where the State is Father and families are those who share a domicile portioned out by the State-Father, appealed to those who cry for "justice." This "justice" is enforced by an all-powerful state that would erase any distinction between groups of people; they call it "power-sharing." These rules were promoted as "liberation" and applied to major issues in the Church, such as "liberating" women from "patriarchy" or "liberating" homosexuality from homophobic old men in the Vatican.

They no longer believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, but like communist moles, they burrow in to make changes from within. They are instructed to "defect in place" as feminist nun Miriam Therese Winter advises. Prominent theologians have taught that those who control religion control the culture. Defrocked theologian Hans Kung promotes a "Global Ethic" (not the gospel) that mirrors the agenda of world ideologues. He and American Catholic dissident organizations want a "Vatican III" where new structures will include a constitution for the Church and a lay co-pope. Those who have grand visions for a re-ordered world based on Rationalism rather than Revelation seek a means of global governance to enforce their vision of "peace and justice."

These and others, pernicious men and women, promote abortion as a "choice" and applaud population control as a religious duty that preserves the environment (they love the Earth Charter). They accept euthanasia as "merciful" and do not object that nations like Sweden have moved to make it a crime to preach or teach against homosexuality.

The liberal media in the U.S. understand this point. They also defend homosexuality in the culture. They do not want to use this crisis in the Church to advocate against homosexual activity but to promote changes in the Catholic Church: married priests, women priests and acceptance of homosexuals.

That's why CNN trots out folks like Anthony Padavano to advocate for married priests. But Padavano is also keynote speaker for the dissident organization Call to Action that promotes homosexuality in the Church. Or CNN's guest "expert," Sr. Bridget Mary Meehan, who calls for "structural changes" that allow laity greater say. Meehan and others of her ilk expect that once the laity is given control of the Church, it will relax sexual morality and resemble the Democratic Party, that is, liberal American culture. Because the American bishops have worried more about their independence from Rome than allegiance to the gospel, they have become more easily controlled by the liberal agenda – often without realizing it. The media has hushed up past foibles, but the price now is high – a lesson learned too late. The American bishops are a means to an end: The titanic battle is for the Keys of St. Peter – to control the structure and doctrine of the Church. The issue isn't homosexuality, it is to empty the Church from within of the truth of Revelation. But why?

To silence the lone international voice for morality, that's why. Hate the Catholic Church or love it, it must be admitted that it publicly teaches and preaches against the totalitarian, utilitarian worldview. The Catholic Church insists on the dignity and value of every person, born and unborn. The world ideologues howl when the Church stands up for life as sacrosanct. At Cairo, at Beijing, at the World Summit for Children and behind the scenes in nation after nation, the Church parries those who would impose a utilitarian global vision on us all.

The moral voice of the Catholic Church stands between modernists and their New World Order vision that is opposed to the old order of Revelation. What the ideologues need is to put a cork in the mouth of the Church and control the Keys of St. Peter in the near future. To use the Church and her universities and schools and hospitals the world over – to use them for their diabolical agenda.

Notice the timing of the Boston Globe's "breaking" story. The Globe and others have known for over a decade about the growing gay sub-culture in the Church, but the Globe and others simply winked – they are no less guilty of a cover up than Cardinal Law. It did not seem worthy of print. Until, that is, Pope John Paul II, the disliked "reactionary" pope faltered during Christmas masses and seemed so frail that new teams of correspondents were dispatched to Rome in anticipation of a papal conclave.

The goal among modernists, clerical and secular, is to use this crisis to create chaos so large that a new pope will have to deal with the crisis as his first order of business. If a momentum is built that insists that the old order is the problem, perhaps the cardinals can be stampeded into electing an unusual pope: a candidate approved by the New York Times and the United Nations.

Mary Jo Anderson is a contributing reporter to WorldNetDaily and a contributing editor to many Catholic publications, including Crisis magazine.

Great. Please update us.
You will not believe the details concerning "Always Our Children" in the following 1998 article by Michael S. Rose (pardon the length, but it's worth the read):

Always Our Children: Reasons for Suspicion
from the January-February 1998 issue

Much controversy has surfaced over the recent release of a bishop’s pastoral letter concerning homosexuality, "Always Our Children." Fr. Kenneth Overberg, S.J., professor of theology at Xavier University and newspaper columnist, has fueled the controversy in the Cincinnati-Covington area. Herein we provide an analysis of the profound inadequacies of both Fr. Overberg’s theology and "Always Our Children."

Last year, Covington’s diocesan newspaper, the Messenger, discontinued the bi-weekly appearance of Fr. Richard McBrien’s syndicated "theology" column. Fr. McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, denied even the basic truths of the Catholic faith in his frequent rantings against "conservatives bishops," the Holy Father, Church traditions, and most concepts uniquely Catholic (e.g., purgatory).

In the name of equity—so as not to incense the McBrien sycophants—the Messenger also discontinued the bi-weekly James Hitchcock column, which was characteristically faithful to Church doctrine and sensitive to traditional disciplines and Catholic culture. Whereas the former version of the Messenger presented local Catholics with food to chew on both sides of the mouth, the new editorial policy appears to promote what might be labeled "stealth dissent." This is clearly in evidence with the addition of the "Catholic Moment" column written by Fr. Kenneth Overberg, et al.

Collarless Jesuit and professor of theology at Cincinnati’s Xavier University, Fr. Overberg has the uncanny ability to masquerade dissident ambiguities as mainline orthodoxy. While it was always indubitably clear that Fr. McBrien was displeased with the magisterial teaching of the Church, Fr. Overberg’s modus operandi is less forthright. Instead of overtly calling Church teaching into question, Fr. Overberg creates confusion regarding the Church’s position on a given matter (e.g., contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality) and then uses that confusion to suggest the illegitimacy of the magisterial position. He will usually present the teaching of the magisterium (the official teaching arm of the Church), but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one’s conscience in moral matters.

True to his template, Fr. Overberg’s December column, which appeared in both Covington’s Messenger and Cincinnati’s The Catholic Telegraph, subtly questioned the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Using the document "Always Our Children" (AOC)—recently released by the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family—as his authoritative springboard, he presents "the Catholic tradition" as stated by AOC: "Genital expression is to be unitive and procreative, love-giving and life-giving." The column concludes, however, by calling the traditional teaching of the Church into question. He poses several questions for Catholics to ponder. "One thoughtful position," writes Fr. Overberg, "asks whether it is right to require celibacy of all homosexuals? Could not these relationships be considered love-giving and life giving [and therefore blessed by the Church]? Are the Church’s laws too biologically focused, instead of considering the whole person? Do the passages in the Bible concerning homosexuality [sic] reflect cultural fear and prejudice more than divine revelation?" Although the questions posed are hackneyed at best, Fr. Overberg is able to call into question the natural law, Church teaching, and biblical authority all in one paragraph. No need for a heretical McBrien.

Fr. Overberg challenged
To the credit of Covington’s Messenger, Fr. William Hinds, pastor of St. Patrick Church in Maysville, Kentucky, was allowed a generous guest commentary to respond to Fr. Overberg’s homosexuality article. Fr. Hinds asks, "on what possible grounds can a sin gain moral standing because it is habitual? The opposite is true; the more inveterate and long-term, the more insidious the evil. The sin is not now one of passion and maladaptive sexual patterns, but rather a series of conscious choices and reinforcements made repeatedly in the cold light of day… [Overberg’s] implication being that there might be theological reasonableness to acceptance of long-term homosexual relationships; such an answer is far from the truth of our faith."

Most importantly, perhaps, Fr. Hinds recognizes that Fr. Overberg is writing on the "authority" of the Committee on Marriage and Family document, "Always Our Children." From a careful reading of AOC—which is filled with half-truths, misinformation, and fallacies of logic—it is a natural conclusion to ponder the questions that Fr. Overberg provides for his readers. In short, Fr. Overberg grounds his "hetero-"doxy in this committee statement from the U.S. bishops.

The following week, fourteen "concerned" priests from the Diocese of Covington issued a joint-letter to the editor criticizing their brother priest’s article for his "inaccuracies in several statements." All of Fr. Hinds’ statements, however, are easily proved true when one looks beyond the errant committee document. Ironically, the fourteen Covington priests made not one accurate statement themselves in their letter to the editor which was published on Dec. 19. They err on six major points in their criticism of Fr. Hinds’ article. They wrote that:

1. "Always Our Children" was seen by all U.S. bishops and it received their approval through the ordinary process followed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

False: Contrary to protocol, the document was publicly released a month before the bishop’s national meeting. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln wondered: "Why should there be such urgency in releasing it before our entire body has a chance to discuss it? I can only conclude that the Administrative Committee was frightened by the idea of discussing this in the open, and so they pushed it out the door."

The normal procedure for releasing an official bishops’ document, according to NCCB procedure, would have been to submit a draft of the proposed pastoral letter to the body of bishops for debate at the national bishops’ meeting. A vote would then be taken, requiring a 2/3 majority for acceptance of the document. Only then would it be released as an official statement of the NCCB. The procedure for ratifying the AOC document involved only a fraction of the U.S. bishops.

Given the controversial nature of AOC, the Bishops Committee on Marriage and Family decided against releasing the document for debate amongst the bishops. In all likelihood, given the chance for open and honest debate, the bishops would have dismissed the document. In order to thwart a certain demise, the committee asked approval of the NCCB Administrative Committee to release the document in the name of the Committee alone, not on behalf of the NCCB, the body of American bishops. The Administrative Committee, which included Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, voted to approve the document as such. Not all bishops on the Administrative Committee, however, voted in favor of approving its release.

Although the AOC document arrived on each bishop’s desk a few days before its release date, the majority of the nation’s bishops did not, in fact, read the document before its September 30 release date. Even if they had, it would have made no difference.

2. There was nothing secretive or underhanded in the process behind the publication of AOC.

False: There was plenty that was secretive or underhanded in the process of its publication. The most important points to consider are AOC's authorship, its real purposes (vs. the stated purpose), and the misinformation incorporated in the document.

The authors
Although it is standard policy to withhold the names of those on the drafting committee of any proposed NCCB document, one of the authors of AOC suffers from loose lips. Fr. Robert Nugent, founder of New Ways Ministry, a group which has been militantly critical of Catholic teaching on homosexuality (and is currently under investigation by the Vatican) revealed to a pro-homosexualist seminar audience in Orange, California, that he and two other homosexual activist priests drafted the document. Fr. Peter Liuzzi, director of Gay and Lesbian Ministries for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Fr. Jim Shexnayder, head of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries were his co-authors on the project.

Fr. Nugent is the U.S. Church’s most well-known homosexual propagandist. Because of his advocacy of embracing the "gay lifestyle" and his aggressive dissent from Church teaching, he was stripped of his faculties to preach and hear confessions in the Archdiocese of Washington. In 1979 the Vatican initiated an investigation into his homosexual advocacy. The investigation resulted in Cardinal James Hickey’s letter to all American bishops stating that the organization he founded, New Ways Ministry, is "ambiguous" on the morality of homosexual acts. Fr. Nugent is also barred from speaking on Church property by Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of Newark, and Bishop James Hoffman of Toledo. He now lives in the Archdiocese of Baltimore in a private home with Fr. Paul Thomas, an archdiocesan priest who is Cardinal Keeler’s archivist.

Fr. Shexnayder is president of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, director of the Diocese of Oakland’s HIV/AIDS services, and coordinator of the diocese’s Task Force for Outreach to Gay and Lesbian Communities. He owns a private home in Oakland with the former chairman of Dignity San Francisco, a gay-rights group which agitates for Church acceptance of homosexual relationships, sometimes even resorting to sacrilegious pranks. In June, 1994, following the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered Parade in San Francisco, Fr. Shexnayder celebrated a Mass for the Catholic participants in the event, giving Communion to all. In his homily that day he stated: "We must not let our homophobic society confine our homosexuality to the bedroom… Our homosexuality must burst forth from the bedroom and leaven all of society."

Fr. Liuzzi, who calls himself "the gay priest," serves as the head of Gay and Lesbian Ministries for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. At a 1997 pro-homosexualist conference in Los Angeles, Fr. Liuzzi called for a "new and different gay revolution." He stressed his belief that homosexuality is morally neutral and that gays have a right to participate in the Church community without having to hide their homosexuality. At that gathering Fr. Liuzzi pretended to bless those in attendance with puppy urine.

AOC’s purpose?
Considering that the authors of this document are all militant gay activists, each agitating for Church acceptance of homosexual acts (sins) and the gay lifestyle (near occasions of sin), none accepting the Church’s authoritative teaching on human sexuality, Catholics are more than justified to voice their suspicions about the true purpose behind the AOC document.

The stated purpose of the document is to provide support for parents of homosexuals. But there is ample evidence to suggest that the true purpose is to move one step closer to the Church’s acceptance of homosexuality and to advance the gay-rights movement in civil society by offering the Catholic bishops’ "acceptance" of homosexuality. One clear motivation for the document is to type "homophobes" (those who object to homosexuality and the gay lifestyle) as those who are engaging in neurotic behavior rather than the homosexuals. News media have, in usual style, made out all opposition to AOC to be "homophobic," insensitive, and discriminatory towards gays.

Responses to the document also shed light on the purpose of AOC. Casey Lopata, director of the Diocese of Rochester’s Catholic and Gay Family Ministry praised the new document in Rochester’s The Democrat & Chronicle. He is quoted as saying: AOC "helps move along the homosexual agenda. The first step is to break the silence, to talk about gay and lesbian people not as "they" but as "we." There is no mention of helping parents come to terms with the homosexuality of their son or daughter. Rather, Mr. Lopata emphasizes accepting homosexuality as normative.

Liz Tracey, a spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination, told ABC News she was delighted the bishops released AOC: "This is a tremendous step forward for the Church in terms of making clear that homosexuality is not a choice. The message is ‘choose your child before the Church.’" Miss Tracey interprets the bishops’ letter just as AOC’s authors had hoped. It is indeed a great step forward for the gay agenda. Likewise, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit commented on the true message of the document. He stated, "I think parents will be open to what we’re saying—that homosexuality is not something that your child chooses or is afflicted with. It’s something that develops them as part of the providence of God." The gay agenda rests on the assumption that homosexuality is a given and unchangeable; AOC supports that assumption, suggesting ultimately that homosexual tendencies are a god-given gift.

In an ABC News interview, the Reverend Patricia Lefler of the Metropolitan Community Church, which exists to serve homosexuals, predicted that the significance of the pastoral is that it will bring churches into the "homosexual rights" movement. "Other churches will certainly take notice of this [Catholic] leadership.

AOC’s misleading statements
For all its brilliance as an effective instrument of propaganda to advance the gay agenda, AOC is a clumsy document which can easily be criticized for several blatantly misleading statements. Most easily assailable is the document’s misleading quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

In his critique of AOC, Fr. John Harvey OSFS, director of Courage (a truly Catholic homosexual support group), points out that the document "says that ‘sexuality is a gift from God’ and then goes on to quote from the CCC, no. 2333… The idea conveyed is that homosexuality is also a gift from God, and should be accepted as one’s fixed and permanent identity; however, the actual quote from the Catechism, ‘Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity,’ is part of a paragraph describing the complementarily of man and woman in married life."

The catechism misquote, one would think, is not just an error, but a distortion and lie. This misquote is angled to support the general, and erroneous, thesis of the AOC document, that there is such a thing as "homosexual identity" and that it is unchangeable.

4. There is no authoritative research to support the conclusion that "homosexual orientation" is freely chosen, that it is not inherent in an individual from birth.

False: In truth, there is no solid evidence of an inborn factor nor an inherited predisposition to homosexuality. Author William James once wrote that "there is nothing so foolish that, if stated often enough, will not come to be accepted as truth." If there is one thing that homosexual activists want to hide from the average person, it is the growing body of authoritative research that proves, beyond a doubt, that "homosexual orientation" is a myth. So the homosexual propagandists keep repeating the lie that homosexuality is experienced as a given condition, possibly innate, certainly unchangeable. Those who keep repeating this, however, are not the same people who conduct the psychological research, or those who have been engaged in systematic therapy with many homosexuals over a course of decades. Instead, they manipulate public opinion and repress all scientific news that does not support their thesis.

A recently published book, The Battle for Normality, written by Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, a clinical psychologist, provides ample authoritative evidence that homosexual "orientation" is a myth. Based on his 30 years of practice in therapy with homosexuals, he shows that those with homosexual inclinations can change this condition and live fulfilling heterosexual lives, provided they are willing to do so. He notes, however, that part of the continuing problem is that many homosexuals do not want to be rid of homosexual inclinations and practices. Instead they cling to their sexual pleasure addiction and infantile personality. "The case with homosexuality," writes Dr. van den Aardweg, "is, in short, as with other neuroses: phobias, obsessions, depression, or other sexual anomalies."

In a recent article in Catholic World Report (Nov. 1997), Dr. van den Aardweg writes: "there is now a strong and growing consensus [among psychologists, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts] that homosexuality is: 1) chiefly a psychological disturbance; 2) an arrest of psychological development; 3) a deficient identification with masculinity/femininity; and 4) catalyzed by certain more or less specific parental attitudes, especially problems in the relationship with the same-sex parent." Other notable psychiatrists such as Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and Dr. Joseph Nicolosi have written similar articles echoing Dr. van den Aardweg’s conclusions that homosexuality is a psychological disturbance that can be effectively treated with proper therapy.

The growing "ex-gay" movement, consisting of many loosely organized groups of those with homosexual inclinations, can point to an increasing number of profoundly improved or cured persons. Most notably in the American Catholic community, Fr. John Harvey’s homosexual support group, Courage, has been largely successful in helping homosexuals lead chaste lives and loosing them from their homosexual inclinations.

Approved by the Pontifical Council for the Family, Courage has been the object of derision by many homosexual groups, inside and outside the Church. They mainly object to Courage’s faithful adherence to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality—that it is an objective disorder—and its emphasis on not indulging in dangerous sexual activities. "Gays rights" groups on the other hand glorify the homosexual lifestyle not only as an acceptable one, but a fulfilling and meaningful one.

Although Fr. Harvey has continually met with success in providing to homosexuals authentic pastoral care, grounded in faithfulness to Church teaching, he was not as much as consulted during the draft committee’s preparation of the AOC document. Not coincidentally, Fr. Robert Nugent has been vocally critical of both Fr. Harvey and Courage. Fr. Harvey released a critique of the AOC document on October 3, recommending that AOC be substantively revised in light of its gross inadequacies.

Likewise, the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH), an organization of therapists assisting homosexuals to repair childhood wounds and build a healthy sexual identity, released their own critique pointing out deficiencies in the AOC document. The NARTH critique begins: "It is clear from press coverage that the AOC message is being misinterpreted. We are particularly concerned about the following comment made by Fr. Robert Nugent of New Ways Ministries in an article in the Washington Blade (Oct. 3, 1997): ‘In the face of reparative therapists and some Catholic ministers in the Church who deny there is homosexual orientation, the bishops are affirming this reality and asking to accept that reality in their children.’

"NARTH-associated therapists and counselors are convinced by their experience that reparative therapy offers their patients a way to achieve personal recovery goals and to maintain a unity between their faith, emotions, and behavior. We are concerned that patients will be harmed if public support for therapy is undermined." NARTH recommends to the American bishops that they turn to the psychodynamically informed physician and therapist rather than to gay activists in amending the document.

Finally, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1986 letter, "The Pastoral Care of Homosexuals," specifically asks the bishops to support "the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include assistance of psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teachings of the Church."

5. Fr. Hinds’ article ignores the clear teaching of the Church that "homosexual orientation" is neither right nor wrong. The only pastoral response is one of compassion since the homosexual’s condition is a given.

False: In early September 1997, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) announced a significant correction in its presentation on homosexuality in the new Catechism, which changed the wording "homosexual condition" to "homosexual inclination—intrinsically disordered." This change in the translation was intended to close what many considered a huge opening for homosexual activists to distort Church teaching, which is what the authors of AOC have indeed done.

Another catechism revision eliminates the word "innate" (because of its connotation of "inherent" or "inborn") from the paragraph on homosexuality. As explained by Cardinal Ratzinger: "One objection was that we made people think homosexual tendency was innate, that it was already present at the moment of birth or conception of the person. Many competent experts said that this has not been proven."

The CDF’s "The Pastoral Care of Homosexuals," (PCH) clarifies the Church’s stance on homosexual inclination and homosexual acts: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

No clear teaching of the Church lends credence to the notion of a "homosexual orientation" or "homosexual identity." Further, Church teaching does not suggest that the only pastoral response is one of "compassion." PCH states: "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve." Thus, the only pastoral response is one of truth.

6. AOC is a much needed and long-awaited pastoral response to the situation of parents with homosexual children.

False: Suffice it to say, with gay-rights activists authoring a document based on malificent pseudo-science, it would be an entirely difficult task to provide sound and healthy advice to anyone concerning homosexuality. AOC does not defy the gravity of logic by raising up to proffer anything but scandal.

Bad Advice
AOC advises parents who suspect their adolescent is engaging in homosexual activity to "wait and see." At a Roman Catholic Faithful press conference held October 7, outside the NCCB offices in Washington, attorney James Bendell, who has represented victims of clergy pedophilia asked, "Wait and see until what? Until they get AIDS? Until they become totally engulfed in the homosexual lifestyle? A comment like that can only be made by someone who does not see any moral disorder in homosexual behavior."

AOC also employs "values-clarification" techniques often used in sex-education classes to break down the barriers of modesty and promote discussion on a variety of perversions. Sex educators use this method frequently to indoctrinate children into acceptance of contraception, abortion and sexual deviancy. AOC recommends that pastors give permission to their people to talk freely about homosexuality, to indulge their curiosity and so forth.

The pastoral encourages parents to join so-called "support groups" which often promote acceptance of the gay lifestyle and are hostile to Church teaching. These groups indoctrinate parents using the same sex-talk "values-clarification" techniques used by sex educators. All these recommendations support the thesis that AOC was written to promote the gay agenda in the Church: homosexuality is to be seen as a "gift from God," inborn, natural, and unchanging.

AOC is simply bad pastoral advice grounded in homosexual folklore and bad science. When homosexual activity is condoned, in the words of the CDF’s "Pastoral Care of Homosexuals," "neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase." — Michael S. Rose

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.