Bishop DiMarzio on EWTN

For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
 – Titus 1:7-9

Bishop DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, NY was interviewed on EWTN's "World Over Live" news program on Thursday, July 7. Host Raymond Arroyo focused the interview on the recent passage of the "homosexual marriage" bill which was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo who is a Catholic. Below is the video of the interview which lasts about 20 minutes.



Here are some comments I left over at the Cleansing Fire website regarding this interview.

Comment 1:

I was kind of baffled by Archbishop Dolan's statement [Some Afterthoughts] when I first read it. I just watched the interview of Bishop DiMarzio on Raymond Arroyo's "World Over Live" news program on EWTN. Now I think I understand what is going on.

I think Dolan realized that he couldn't remain silent while DiMarzio was speaking out. So he rushed out a statement to indicate that he is still engaged in "dialogue" on the issue of "homosexual marriage". That explains why his statement is so rambling, pointless and basically incoherent.

Don't you think that EWTN's Arroyo would have extended an invitation to Archbishop Dolan before inviting Bishop DiMarzio? The implication is that Dolan refused to go on EWTN to discuss the topic of "homosexual marriage". It may seem like I am conjecturing, but it's just plain logic.

And don't you think that if Archbishop Dolan would initiate a request to go on EWTN, that the network would oblige him? Ergo Dolan has not reached out to EWTN.

Arroyo continually pressed Bishop DiMarzio to respond to the statement by Canon lawyer Ed Peters that Gov. Cuomo should be denied communion. The Bishop did not totally reject the idea, but suggested that the situation was "complicated".

I haven't always been a fan of Arroyo. But I admire the work he has done to raise the issue of the scandal caused by Gov. Cuomo's rejection of Church teachings.

The bishops of New York are hoping that this storm will just blow over. We shouldn't allow that to happen.

No amount of "catechesis" can undo the message that Catholics get when they see Governor Cuomo openly defy the Church without retribution. He must suffer the consequences of his actions. Our God is a god of mercy and justice. The Church does not demonstrate true mercy when it forsakes justice.

Here was the response from Gretchen:

I listened to Raymond Arroyo’s interview also and was dismayed by Bishop DiMarzio’s comments regarding a proper response to the public scandal of our NY politicians in general, and Gov. Cuomo in particular. He went on for a bit about how one could never judge what is going on in a person’s conscience. It seemed as if he was saying that the bishops and priests should not refuse anyone communion, ever, based on the idea that if a person’s conscience is impelling them to support SSM then one should not judge them. If that is what he was implying, I assume the same could be said for abortion, and all other public and private sins.

I will say that Bishop DiMarzio seems genuinely upset that SSM passed in NY. He also seemed very uncomfortable during the interview, as if he was being constrained from speaking his heart on the matter.

He also spoke about not having the hearts and minds of the laity, particularly those who do not attend Mass or are ‘nominally Catholic.’ He said that the Church needs to do a better job of teaching the faithful what is right and wrong, but that withholding communion would not necessarily accomplish that goal.

I have heard statistics that state up to 50% of priests may be homosexual. I wonder if this, along with admittedly poor catechesis, is presenting a Gordian Knot to the bishops.

Comment 2 in response to the repy from Gretchen:

Gretchen. I echo your sentiments. I am cutting Bishop DiMarzio considerable slack, because I think he is "constrained", as you say.

I have the impression that the Bishop is instinctively a fighter, but that he has his hands tied. He's the only one of the New York bishops that has taken any action, and that should tell you something. I interpret his action as saying he is pushing the issue as far as he can and that he can't go any further at this time. He says he "got the attention" of others and that was his goal. His diocese of Brooklyn is home to over 1.5 million Catholics so I think that gives him more freedom to speak out than other bishops.

I wrote an article on Bishop DiMarzio immediately after he released his statement condemning the vote on "homosexual marriage". I embedded video of an interview that DiMarzio did where he speaks more openly about his feelings regarding this. I think its worth watching:
Bishop DiMarzio speaks out against homosexual "marriage"

Comment 3 was posted after I re-watched the interview I mentioned at the end of comment 2. I reposted the video below and have cued it up to the interview with Michael Long of the New York Conservative Party.



Comment 3:

Gretchen. If you have a chance to watch that video, let it continue playing after the Bishop DiMarzio segment. At around the 11 minute mark there is an interview with Michael Long who is Catholic and the Chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State.

Q: What do you think happened in the last week or two?

LONG: I may get in trouble for saying this, but if there were more voices like Bishop DiMarzio… I think we could have turned this thing around and stopped this vote. He was a very steadfast, clear voice in opposition to this.

Translation: Archbishop Dolan was not a “steadfast, clear voice in opposition” to “homosexual marriage”.

Bishop DiMarzio indicated in the EWTN interview that the answer was not denying politicians communion, but denying politicians a victory at the polls. That dovetails very well with what Long is advocating.

One last thought. It may be that the Catholic Church is being threatened with the charge of violating the Constitutional separation between Church and State if they refuse Communion to Gov. Cuomo. Maybe that’s what the Bishop was referring to when he said it was “complicated”.

I don't expect to see Archbishop Dolan on EWTN anytime soon. He seems to be waiting for the "homosexual marriage" storm to blow over.

Over at the National Organization for Marriage there is a decidedly different approach. They are organizing a rally to "Let the People Vote!" on the issue of "homosexual marriage" for Sunday, July 24.

When death comes suddenly

"What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, `Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.' Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."
 – Luke 15:4-7

Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face

I just recently learned of two deaths. A young child died in the family swimming pool. A man in good health fell off a roof to his death.

We call these accidents.

How can we explain this? What is God's plan?

Where are the souls of these people now? And what can we do?

Imagine the pain of their loved ones. One day they were sitting at dinner, laughing. And in an instant, they were gone.

That night as I prayed the sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary in memory of these unfortunate souls, I found myself entering into deep meditation on the Crucifixion. I could imagine Jesus at the moment of His death, His head falling forward and to his right; then the order from the captain of the guard to pierce Him with a lance to confirm He was dead; and the blood and water emerging from His side.

The sorrowful mysteries end on this sad note. We are forced to confront the death of Our Lord.

We know He will rise again, but at the moment the world becomes a dark place. Death seems to have conquered all; as Our Lord descends into the dead to recover the lost souls of the Old Testament patriarchs.

Darkness falls as the Sabbath begins.

On the night of the 4th of July I went out in the dark and watched as the light from the distant fireworks illuminated the back of my house. I heard the explosions echoing in the distance. The brief flash of the fireworks can seem like the extent of our life here on earth.

It burns intensely for a short while and then disappears in the darkness. Ceasing to exist.

But Jesus has told us that He knows each of us. We are His sheep. He calls our name. And those of us who have chosen to be part of His flock follow Him. (John 10:27)

Tomorrow, if you should meet your death, will you be prepared to go before God for His judgement? Have you confessed your sins?

Do you know what you will say to Him?

Sometimes death comes suddenly and unexpectedly. Other times we slip slowly into death.

We should not fear death, but we should be concerned enough that this leads us to make preparations for our soul.

"Holy Mary, mother of God. Pray for us sinners. Now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

The man that died was a homosexual living with the same partner for a number of years. As I pray for him, I wonder what is the state of his soul?

I imagined him falling through the air.

One time I had an experience where I was visiting a friend's home on a dark night and took a step back and fell off a porch. I had no idea how high up I was. It seemed like I was in the air for an eternity. I wondered if I was going to die.

When I landed, it was on my back in some bushes. I jumped up and saw I was unhurt and realized at that moment how blessed I was. I thanked the stars, or God or the Creator for saving me. (At the time I wasn't a practicing Christian.) As it turned out I had only fallen a short distant of three or four feet. But it seemed almost like time stood still for that brief moment.

I wondered if the man as he fell off the roof realized that he was going to die. Did he have time to confess his sins and ask for forgiveness? This is my prayer.

I have faith that God is merciful and He will do everything possible to save every soul. He just asks us to  trust in Him.

Did the man have some Christian formation growing up that came to his mind? Was there someone who has been praying for him that helped to intercede on his behalf?

With God all things are possible.

St. Thérèse once prayed for a man that was a condemned criminal. At the last moment before his execution he repented.

St. Thérèse, little flower and Doctor of the Church, you promised to pray for our lost souls even more fervently once you were in the company of the angels in heaven. Send us a shower of roses. Pray for us, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Public Pedophiles

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for thou art with me.
 – Psalm 23:4

Kinsey and Kenneth Anger in the house of Aleister Crowley

We are all victims of child abuse. It started with sexual pervert Alfred Kinsey.

All of us that have grown up since the 1950s when the deliberately falsified Kinsey reports on sexual behavior (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) were released have been victims of ritual child abuse.

We grew up exposed to pornography. We were "fondled" by magazine covers and movies which portrayed sexually suggestive images.

We were "led on" by the liberal media that cooed it's alright, it's alright. Just do what feels good.

We were "seduced" by the music industry that planted hidden messages deep into our minds using  throbbing beats enhanced by flashing strobe lights, alcohol and mind altering drugs.

We were "molested" by Planned Parenthood that pushed on us easy access to "birth control" pills and other contraceptive paraphernalia that fueled our growing sexual addiction.

We woke up from our state of shock decades later and realized we had been "robbed" of our innocence.

It was too late to complain, and who would listen anyway? How do you file charges against a corrupt culture and a seductive society?

We thought we were casting off the old chains. Instead we found our selves imprisoned in a subterranean dungeon where we were forced to cater to the desires of our new masters in exchange for our basic necessities. But if we submitted freely, then the rewards could be quite generous.

And the abuse continues. A new generation is being "groomed" to take our place.

There is a man that personifies this "public pedophilia". You may recognize his name -- Paul Shanley. Father Paul Shanley, the infamous pedophile priest.

Shanley preyed on young vulnerable boys. That side of the story has been told very well by the media. But, how did he get away with it for so many years?

What the liberal media doesn't usually tell you is that Shanley was a celebrity in Boston. He was a darling of the liberal crowd. They bought hook, line and sinker his carefully crafted image as a savior of homeless children.

No one was more taken with the fiery, witty priest than the media.... Ordained in 1960, he quickly cropped up in the news pages. Boston Globe accounts from the time describe him as ''prodding the conscience of the Priests' Senate'' and preparing Thanksgiving dinners for homeless youths. In one 1970 story, Shanley predicted a massive summer flood of runaway teens. ''In Boston, it's a race between me and the predatory adults - the pushers, the pimps, the prostitutes, the hustlers, the addicts.''

Here was a priest that they could idolize. He was the embodiment of liberal ideals. The liberal media loved to contrast him to the stuffy old Catholic hierarchy.

In one stinging letter to Cardinal Medeiros, he wrote, ''That I am a Pied Piper leading youth astray has been an oft-alleged and mean-minded judging of my motives which deserves no reply.'' And in a letter to Monsignor Francis J. Sexton rebutting a 1967 accusation that he had molested three boys, Shanley declared, ''I am ... filled with rage and determined to fight and to make an example of this type of behavior to which we priests are subject, in a civil court case.''

He fit perfectly their pre-prepared script of the hip crafty "street priest" vs. the stodgy old Bishop.

Though it is difficult to recall in the face of headlines that now proclaim him a ''predator'' and ''pedophile,'' Shanley, as he rose to prominence in the 1970s, was not just a legendary ''street priest'' in blue jeans, but a vaunted crusader for the down and out, a man widely admired in Boston.

And when he went on to be the voice for homosexuals against the Church, that just heightened the plot tension. The liberal crowd couldn't get enough of it. He was their hero.

Representative Barney Frank, then a state legislator active in gay-rights issues, attended legislative meetings with him. One of only a handful of priests in the country assigned to work full time with homosexuals, Shanley charmed not only the media and city leaders, but clerical and youth workers throughout New England.

You could say that Shanley was ahead of his time. He was pushing for all the things that the homosexual movement is pushing for now. End priestly celibacy. Women "priests". Let the laity run the Church through a "democratic" process.

Not only did he preach that being a homosexual or bisexual was OK, he advocated fervently for gay rights from the lectern and in the media. He chided the Catholic Church for what he considered homophobia and testified at the State House on behalf of antidiscrimination legislation.

When Bishop Medeiros tried to challenge him in the 1970s, he ran to the liberal media of Boston. They were his ultimate protectors.

[Elaine Noble] said she was suspicious of his activities and complained to a host of city leaders, including the police and mayor's office. That nothing came of her reports she attributes in part to Shanley's popularity and potent connections.... Noble, who was also a highly visible gay figure in the 1970s, said that not only was it '' common knowledge in the community that Paul liked young men,'' but a number of young boys she knew told her about it in detail.... Noble says she took her concerns about Shanley to the Boston police; to Katharine Kane, then a deputy mayor; and to several priests who are now dead.... And when leaders in the gay community heard what Noble had done, she said, ''I got holy hell. People in my own community just didn't want to believe it. The truth is that people were afraid of Shanley. ... No one could shut down Paul Shanley.''

The "funny" part is that the liberal media wanted no part of him once he was exposed as a pedophile priest. Now they found a new role for him to play in the same old story about the evil Catholic Church. Now he was the perverted priest who could not find a release for his sexual drives within his celibate life and was forced to turn to preying on young boys. And all of this was due to the medieval practices of the out-of-touch Catholic Church.

As his media image went through a metamorphoses some very strange transformations occurred. No longer was he a champion of the homosexual cause. In fact the word homosexual was completely struck from the script. The new word was pedophile.

The horror of Shanley's monstrous preying on young boys and the repulsiveness of the sexual acts in which he engaged was further magnified by the breach of the faith placed in him as a Catholic priest. And yet somehow the homosexual nature of these degrading sexual relationships was denied by the liberal media.

The Catholic Church will never outlive the shame of the coverup of Shanley's crimes perpetrated by some priests and bishops of the Archdiocese of Boston. But I don't see how anyone can say that Bishop Medeiros was one of those that participated in this coverup. He reported Shanley to his superiors, but each time he attempted to reprimand Shanley the priest spilled the story to the Boston media and they rushed to the defense of the "street priest" by attacking Medeiros and the rest of the Catholic heirarchy.

Didn't anyone in the liberal press realize what Shanley was up to in the 1970s? It's not as if he kept it hidden. He spoke openly about homosexuality and pedophilia on radio shows and in public talks. There were complaints from faithful Catholics about his perversion of Church teachings, but no one in the liberal media seemed to care.

So daunting was Shanley's celebrity that some of those who followed his career and had suspicions about him didn't know where to go with their concerns.... The gay community [was not] particularly eager to have one of its most vocal champions linked to sexual abuse.

Shanley attacked the Church using the exact same arguments that homosexual activists use today. He used the same tactic of calling the Church bigoted, homophobic and out-of-touch. In this irreverent reply to Archbishop Medeiros written in 1973, he audaciously claims the moral high ground by comparing himself with the Good Samaritan while casting the Church in the role of hypocrite.

"Who can tell us why the Priest passed by the man lying by the roadside between Jerusalem and Jericho? Perhaps the victim was a homosexual, but the Samaritan cared not."

This was all part of the "grooming" process of society-at-large in preparation of forcing the homosexual agenda onto us.

In this way the victims defenses are lowered. Then the victim is lured into a compromised position. And finally the brutal act of homosexual rape occurs.

He met Shanley when he was 13 and had run from his South Shore home to the Boston ''scene.'' He recalls Shanley telling him that he was a psychologist who specialized in teen issues. And when the priest offered the boy a place to stay, he says he agreed, and Shanley took him to his third-floor bedroom at Warwick House. He says Shanley had the maid take his dirty clothes and offered him a robe. When it came time for bed, he recalled, ''Shanley said, `You can sleep with me.' I was thinking this is not a good idea. And then all of a sudden he is naked and touching me, and I am petrified ... I was completely freaked out.''

This was the technique that Shanley used on his victims, and it is the same technique that the homosexual movement uses to attack the Church and society.

What occurs next to the victim is a mystery. The intense shame of the act seems to cause an immediate state of shock. The victim is placed into a vulnerable mental and spiritual state where he becomes dependent on the man that just defiled him. The poor tortured soul loses its freedom.

''Shanley said, `It is better for you to come to me for this than it is to be down on your knees in some dirty alley for a stranger.' And I was so grateful. I was going to be  saved. Saved by a priest.'' He was molested by Shanley time and again.

The imposition on society of "homosexual marriage" is an act of rape. It is a violent sexual assault on our consciences.

Some people do not want to admit the shame that this causes to all of us. We have been disgraced. This is a scandal that was unthinkable in the 1970s when Shanley was sexually assaulting his victims. Even his deviant mind could not have conceived of what has just transpired in New York state.

Are we going to become helpless victims?

No! We will fight back as a people that trust in the mercy and justice of God.

Prayer of the Angel of Peace of Fatima

"Do not fear. I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me."

The Angel knelt on the ground. He bent forward until his forehead touched the dirt.

My God,
I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love you!
I beg forgiveness for those who do not believe,
do not adore, do not hope and do not love You.

My God,
I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love you!
I beg forgiveness for those who do not believe,
do not adore, do not hope and do not love You.

My God,
I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love you!
I beg forgiveness for those who do not believe,
do not adore, do not hope and do not love You.

The dazed, kneeling children repeated the words after him. From that moment on the children could never forget these words. Nor would they ever wish to.

The Angel rose and said, "Pray thus. The hearts of Jesus and Mary are attentive to the voice of your supplications."

After he said this he dissolved into the sunlight of the early afternoon.

----

Source: Excerpt from Peter B. Kelly's "Cleansing Fire" with minor modifications. The book can be ordered from the author at his website.

"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy." -- Fatima Prayer

A humanist Independence Day

"As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man."
 – Matthew 24:37-39

Google's 4th of July doodle

Homosexual activists complained that Google did not dedicate a doodle to them during "gay pride" month. Even though Google did sneak in the six color rainbow symbol of the LGBT movement in select search results.

But now Google has made up for that by inserting the rainbow symbol into their 4th of July doodle. Instead of an American flag hovering in the background there is... a six color rainbow. Anyone that wants to deny this direct connection has to come up with a convincing argument that the rainbow is a traditional symbol of Independence Day. It isn't. It doesn't belong in this picture anymore than snowflakes do.

As for the rest of the symbolism, I suspect that there is quite a bit of it that is relevant to the homosexual community. I may be reading too much into this, but I seem to detect quite a bit of sexual symbolism. For instance the highway that splits the center of the map of the United States.

The cities that are symbolized also seem to have significance to the homosexual community:
New York – Statue of Liberty
San Francisco – Golden Gate Bridge
Honolulu – palm tree
Washington, D.C.? – bald eagle
Key West? – guitar and orange
Austin, TX? – horse with cowboy hat
Chicago – Sears/Willis Tower

Is there any significance to the fact that the American eagle is looking to its left, instead of to its right as it does on the Great Seal of the United States?

Where are the colors "red, white and blue"? Instead we have lavender hues.

What is the symbolism of a barn and a silo, a picket fence, a corvette? Do these have any special significance to homosexuals? Of course I understand that they are symbols of the midwest and middle America, but I'm wondering if there is another hidden meaning.

Excuse me, but a horse with a cowboy hat seems sort of.... "gay". And I'm not saying that in any sort of derogatory way. I'm just pointing it out.

The godless folks at Google were only outdone by a group of atheists that chose this day of national celebration to fly banners with anti-God slogans. And the American Humanist Association thought this would be a good time to encourage "non-theist Americans to ‘come out of the closet’ and openly identify as such."

In the Bible, the rainbow is a symbol of hope; but it only appeared after God had destroyed the world because "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)

Father Michael Rodriguez defends marriage

Father Michael Rodriguez

"You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
 – Psalm 110:4

Father Michael Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas defending marriage.



Father Rodriguez saying Mass.



At the webpage of San Juan Bautista (St. John the Baptist) Catholic Church in El Paso, Texas there are links to homilies by Father Michael in both English and Spanish.

There are also more videos of Father Michael at the JmjhfProductions YouTube channel. Here is a short video of San Juan Buatista Church.



God has given us some good priests. Let's be thankful for that. It is up to the Church to elevate men with the same devotion to Christ as Father Michael Rodriguez to become the bishops that lead the flock.

St. John the Baptist, you leapt in the womb at the presence of our Lord. You were his first witness. You made the path straight for him. You paid the ultimate sacrifice with your life in defense of marriage. Pray for us. Ora pro nobis.

Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester and the issue of "homosexual marriage"

Sacred Heart Cathedral – Rochester, NY (built in 1927)

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
 – John 8:32

As I struggle to educate myself on what exactly happened in New York with regards to the Catholic Church's lack of effective opposition to "homosexual marriage", I have come across some rather disturbing Church history.

The trail starts with an article in Sunday's New York Times titled "After Backing Gay Marriage, 4 in G.O.P. Face Voters’ Verdict". I'll skip over the part about how Senator Mark J. Grisanti went to Mass just days after the vote. There is no mention in the article as to whether he received communion. I assume he did, because otherwise it would be big news. And no one in the New York Catholic Church has ever said that he should be denied communion anyway.

Where it gets interesting is with the case of James S. Alesi, "the first Republican senator to say he would support same-sex marriage this year". I wondered whether Alesi was a Catholic. The rather confusing answer came later in the article. It said "Mr. Alesi [worships at] Spiritus Christi Church, a Catholic congregation that broke with Rome in order to support gay men and lesbians, as well as women in the clergy."

As they say, "you can't make this stuff up".

Spritus Christi Church calls itself "an inclusive Catholic church where all are welcome". The "priest" of this church is a woman, Rev. Mary Ramerman. She is a former Methodist "who wished to become a [Catholic] priest" and "was encouraged by [former Catholic priest] Rev. James Callan". So she moved from California to New York to join Father Callan at Corpus Christi parish.

This happened sometime around 1983 as best as I can tell and Ramerman would have been around 28 years old at the time. With the support of Father Callan she became an associate pastor at the church where she "regularly preached, offered blessings, and stood behind the altar to raise the chalice during the consecration".

Fifteen years later, in 1998 the Bishop of Rochester, Matthew H. Clark, finally decided to take some action. Most likely he was forced into taking action by his superiors in Rome, because as we will see the Bishop had expressed some divergent views of his own in the past.

I'll let the Spiritus Christi Church tell this part of the story themselves in their own self-incriminating way:

On August 13, 1998, Bishop Matthew Clark, under pressure from Rome, removed Fr. Jim Callan as administrator after 22 years at Corpus Christi Church. The Vatican had trouble with three practices dear to the heart of Corpus Christi parishioners: the prominent role of women on the altar, the blessing of gay unions, and the offering of communion to those who were not Catholic.

Actually, Callan was just "reassigned to another parish in western New York". And Callan didn't just "bless gay unions", he "conducted same-sex weddings".

Soon afterward, associate pastor Mary Ramerman was terminated. Ramerman, who was 43 at the time and the mother of three children, said "My heart's broken. I also feel angry with the Church that it can't stand up for what it believes in."

I think we can all agree that this was a tragic situation, but not for the reasons cited by Mary Ramerman. This eventualy led to the formation of the Spiritus Christi Church which is not Roman Catholic, but still likes to call itself "catholic". Mary Ramerman was "ordained" in 2001 and is now the "priest" of the church. Jim Callan is now the associate pastor. He still refers to himself as "Father" Jim Callan although he was excommunicated in 1999.

It isn't easy to get excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church these days, but at least the Church hasn't totally given up on the practice. Actually the official statement is that he ''excommunicated himself'', for "starting his own church". Now we know what it takes to get automatically excommunicated.

Which made me begin to wonder about Rochester Bishop Matthew Clark and why he had allowed this to go on for 15 years without taking any action. I quickly learned that Clark "has been criticized for being overly tolerant of homosexuality and even challenging the Vatican's position of not allowing homosexual priests".

In March of this year in response to a statement from the Vatican banning individuals with “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies from entering the priesthood, Bishop Clark commented: "I know some magnificent gay priests.... I have always tried to be open to such candidates."

In 1997, a little over a year before the removal of the schismatic Father Callan, Bishop Clark invited the Rochester homosexual community to a Mass at Sacred Heart Cathedral. The homily he delivered was welcoming to the extreme and gave no indication whatsoever that Bishop Clark considers homosexual acts to be a sin, or that homosexuality itself is a "disorder". Here is an excerpt so that you can get a sense of his words that day:

God always calls us to become fully who God wants us to be. And to trust us enough that we will respond to that precious gift with everything that's good and noble and wonderful about us. And who at the same time, recognizing that we can be selfish and prone to sin, is always ready to reach out and to restore and to heal and to send us off again to become the wonderful person we're meant to be. I'd simply like to say this afternoon to you, dear sisters and brothers who gather here, that I hope we have a deep sense of solidarity one with the other. And that we reverence, respect and honor the freedom of one another, just as God honors those precious, God-given gifts in us.

To my brothers and sisters, gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, you have told me over years of conversations with you and you have relayed to me through friends with whom I have spoken, that far more often than not, our faith community seems forbidding; that in it you feel unwelcome; that your own struggles, issues, questions, joys, sorrows, talents, needs, gifts, are not respected as they should be. I hope I can say with confidence that this gathering this afternoon symbolizes a widespread sentiment among the people of our diocese, that we'd like to do a better job on that. And we would like to convey to you in a much more rewarding and genuine way, the respect that we have for your integrity, your goodness and your gifts. And at the same time, I hope that we could say to you with equal honesty that we are the weaker to the degree that we do not enjoy the wonderful gifts God gives you for the sake of the community.

I could certainly understand if someone sitting in one of the pews that day who was engaged in a homosexual life, could listen to the soothing words of the Bishop's homily and go home thinking that the Bishop had just endorsed their choice of sexual orientation. And that the Bishop had even gone as far as to give them his blessing in the name of the Holy Catholic Church. How confusing this must be, when we know that a homosexual life can never be in "solidarity" with the teachings of the Church.

In 1986 Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, issued a letter that addressed the "pastoral care of homosexual persons". In it he specifically condemns the type of language and ideas expressed in Bishop Clark's homily of 1997.

In the discussion which followed the publication of the [1975] Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. 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.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
[...]
Increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it.
[...]
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
[...]
Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
[...]
The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.

With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. 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.

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

There seems to be a pattern of Bishop Clark deliberately ignoring Church teachings that do not fit his view; specifically on the subject of homosexuality.

Another example occurred in 1997, when Bishop Clark attended a New Ways Ministry conference. This is a group that advocates for changing Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Bishop Clark should have been aware that the group's activities had been denounced in 1984 by the Archbishop of Washington James Hickey for their "lack of adherence to Church teaching on the morality of homosexual acts". Later, in 1999 they were further condemned by the Vatican.

As recently as 2010, Bishop Clark wrote an article titled "All are beloved children of God" which was reprinted with permission in the newsletter of a group called "Fortunate Families". In it he refuses to explicitly condemn homosexual acts and speaks rather ambiguously about the Church's teachings.

I will not dwell here on the well known teaching of the Catholic Church opposing same-sex marriage. It is a teaching the church has made clear, and one I understand theologically and uphold faithfully as bishop. At the same time, I lament that the "don’ts" of our teaching too often drown out the "do’s." I lament that the full teaching of the church as it concerns gay and lesbian people is either too little known, too often left unspoken or, in some cases, deliberately ignored.

Fortunate Families is a Rochester, NY based group that "serves as a resource and networking ministry with Catholic parents of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children." This is a laudable mission as long as it does not engage in activities which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. At first glance the group seems to be faithfully Catholic. But I noticed that in their document "What the Church Teaches" they chose to attack the letter which I quoted from above which was written by Cardinal Ratzinger:

It proved to be quite controversial, perceived by many lay people and clergy as harsh in tone and less than pastorally sensitive.... The purpose is not pastoral, but to state the inclination of the homosexual person is an “objective disorder.” This, he said, is “like telling someone that he or she is carrying a moral time bomb.”

They failed to mention that the author of this "harsh" and "not pastoral" letter is the current head pastor of the Catholic Church – the former Cardinal Ratzinger and the current Pope Benedict XVI.

Fortunate Families has also been allied with New Ways Ministry, the "catholic" homosexual advocacy group that I mentioned above. When the group was recently condemned again by Cardinal George in 2010, Fortunate Families came rushing to their defense:

Most of you know that New Ways has been striving for many years in its mission to be a bridge building ministry between lesbian/gay Catholics and their families and friends, and the institutional church. Yet, it's authenticity as a Catholic group has recently been challenged by Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that Fortunate Families is not just a support group for Catholic parents of homosexual children, it is also an advocate for "homosexual marriage". In 2010 they joined in a coalition with three other "catholic" homosexual groups – New Ways Ministry, DignityUSA, and Call To Action – to promote "homosexual marriage". The coalition has been dubbed "Equally Blessed".

"Equally Blessed unites Catholic Voices for Marriage Equality, Justice" -- Four longstanding Catholic organizations announced today that they have formed Equally Blessed, a coalition of faithful Catholics who support full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people both in the church and in civil society. “As Catholics, we believe that all human beings are beloved children of God,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an Equally Blessed member. “We are called to do our part in bringing about justice in the church and the world, and Equally Blessed will allow us to do that together.” The coalition also includes Call To Action, DignityUSA and Fortunate Families.

Why hasn't Bishop Clark condemned these efforts by Fortunate Families since they form part of his diocese and claim to be "faithful Catholics"?

Lest you think that Bishop Clark is just a "hands off" manager, there is at least one instance that I could find of him getting involved and condemning the activity of a group in his diocese with regards to the issue of homosexuality. This happened in 1997:

Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester (NY) has imposed severe restrictions on the Catholic Physicians Guild and the Catholic Lawyers Guild in his diocese, after both groups issued statements critical of homosexuality. Bishop Clark, who has been forthright in his support of homosexuals, participated in a recent national conference sponsored by the militant pro-homosexual New Ways Ministry. Bishop Clark told the two professional groups that henceforth they cannot hold meetings or disseminate literature without his permission and accused them of undermining his authority.

There is some speculation as to what exactly caused the Bishop to accuse these groups of "undermining his authority". In the case of the "Catholic Lawyers Guild" it seems to be a notice that they published critical of the “Mass for Gay and Lesbian Catholics” which I mentioned above. The lawyers guild which is officially known as the "St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild" issued a statement which begins as follows:

On March 1, 1997, Bishop Matthew H. Clark of the Diocese of Rochester, New York presided at a “Mass for Gay and Lesbian Catholics” at Sacred Heart Cathedral. Prior to the celebration of the Mass, Bishop Clark stated that he was “going to disappoint” those Catholics who had expressed the concern that he should remind those attending the Mass that homosexual activity is sinful. According to Bishop Clark, it would have been “oppressive and manipulative” to “pound on” the sinfulness of homosexual activity. (Catholic Courier, February 27, 1997, p. 3.) The media reported that “[Bishop] Clark avoided any discussion of the official teachings of the Catholic Church” on the homosexuality issue. (Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, March 2, 1997, p. 1A.)

Because of his failure to convey the full teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality, his words and actions caused much confusion among the faithful, especially our youth.

I am beginning to suspect that Bishop Clark was not fully in agreement with the public stance of the New York Bishops which was against the "homosexual marriage" bill. A search for his comments on the bill during the past few weeks comes up with only one result, when he was cornered by reporters at the blessing of a cemetery. He made a pro forma statement in support of the Catholic view on marriage, but still managed to throw in enough ambiguity that one reporter wrote that the "Bishop does believe the Catholic Church will continue to evolve in various way".

"Reaching out in more effective pastoral ways, embracing however you want to put it, people who are of homosexual orientation or life practice. We don't approve of that practice but that's not to say we don't see good, loving people who go that way of life,” Bishop Clark explained. “We don't say that there is no love there at all, there is no sign of God's presence because indeed they remain God's children beloved of us all. It is more a question of how you reach that wonderful end of equality for all people and we're just arguing in this case that you don't effectively, long-term do it by redefining an institution that has served us so beautifully.”

Another reporter highlighted the Bishop's initial response when asked about the issue.

The Bishop appeared surprised to be asked about the issue.... "Oh, my heavens," Bishop Clark laughed when the topic of gay marriage first came up.

Either he was "surprised", or he was hoping that he wouldn't have to address the question directly.

Wouldn't you have expected the Bishop to make a strong statement in writing with regards to the question of "homosexual marriage" while the debate was raging in his home state? Especially given his past history with regards to the teachings of the Church on homosexuality. In this case silence is not golden. Senator Alesi, who lives in the Diocese of Rochester, is probably counting on Bishop Clark's continued silence when he comes up for reelection.

You remember Senator Alesi. He attends the schismatic "catholic" church that was formed in the Diocese of Rochester largely due to Bishop Clark's neglect of the heretical practices that went on there for so many years.

And now we see the dire consequences of the systematic denial of Church teachings regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, these consequence could affect not just the city of Rochester or the state of New York, but could spread throughout the United States and even beyond.

Finally, I would like to say that I didn't write this article in order to attack Bishop Clark. My intention is to spread the truth of the Church's teachings about homosexuality. I hope that Bishop Clark and other bishops in New York and around the country will begin anew to dedicate themselves to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church – and not just on homosexuality.

My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will open the hearts of Bishop Clark and the other bishops in New York and around the country so that they can guide their flocks back along the one true path that Christ has revealed to us. There are many lost sheep and lambs out there that desperately need their guidance.

St. Joseph, father of Jesus in this valley of tears, give us your guidance. Lift us up in your arms as you lifted the Child Jesus and protect us from those that would harm us. Teach us the ways of the Lord. Amen.