Rorate Caeli

“Catholic Pride” – from the mouth of a Bishop

Statement by Bishop Aillet about "Gay Pride" in Biarritz

The organization of the "Gay Pride 2009” in Biarritz for Saturday 20 June only arouses my indignation, as it arouses the disapproval of many families and other people whatever their religious beliefs may be.
Indeed, the participation in this event by "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence", an association known for its provocative anti-Catholicism and blasphemous provocations, shows a genuine contempt for the Catholic faith and religious life which so strongly characterizes the soul, culture, and traditions of the Basque region.

It is the Churches intends to defend and promote in all circumstances, the family founded on marriage between persons of different sexes and the right of every child to be raised by a father and a mother.

It therefore rejects claims that "Gay Pride" echoes in the name of a tiny minority of our citizens, but it eminently respects homosexual persons with care and compassion for the suffering and difficulties that are so often theirs.

It proclaims that every person is a child of God and that everyone is called to conversion and holiness.

+ Marc Aillet
Bishop of Bayonne, Lescar and Oloron, June 18 2009.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Biarritz is a very small in the south of France, so it sounds as if this group of transvestites was attacking the bishop himself.

In that case, since it was such as direct attack, the bishops should consider suing the organization. Even in secular France, I am fairly sure that this kind of provocation could be worthy of at least a public fine or something.

Remember, when ACT UP made a riot in Notre Dame cathedral, they were forced to pay a symbolic fee because it was a private act of Church desecration. It serves them well, ah humbug !

Anonymous said...

I note that Bayonne is one of the most populous dioceses in France which does NOT have an approved every-Sunday Traditional Latin Mass. Perhaps now would be a good time to allow one, Your Excellency.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Although the word "blasphemous" was used, still the root of his excelency's protest is the liberal "we don't want this", "you are insulting us" instead of "God does not want this", "you are insulting God", which is far more important.

Anonymous said...

If I my the Archbishop of San Francisco could say something like this.


Phillip C. in S.F.

Martin said...

There is one in nearby Biarritz, but unfortunately only on first Sundays:

BIARRITZ - 64200 -
Chapelle du Braou
avenue du Braou
Messes : 1er dimanche du mois 11h30
Célébrants : prêtres diocésains
05 59 43 11 00

Otherwise, as always in France, one can trust the good men of the FSSPX in Domezain:

DOMEZAIN (64120)
École Saint-Michel-Garicoïtz
Messe à 8 H 45 tous les dimanches
Fêtes : 8 H 45 (se renseigner)
Semaine : 7 H 15 (se renseigner)
05 59 65 70 05

Anonymous said...

The Sisters do not mock Catholic nuns by any means. They ARE nuns. They take vows to help the community.

Why is the Catholic Church is so paranoid and takes such strides to comdem the sisters who are worldwide. They obviously reach out to a community that the Catholic Church does not.

They teach people to use condoms, they support gay, straight groups of any religion or no religion. They make hospice visits and do outreach in communities the Cathlics simply regard as waste.

If God really made man, he made all of us, and we are all godlike. But Cathlolics seem to think they own rights to "nuns" and rights to condemn others.

It is actions like this that made me leave the church because of all the guilt and shame that was imposed by them.

Yet Catholics feel that what they belief is the total truth, the only way to treat a community which is just plain arrogrant.

When my sister was dying from Breast Cancer none of you came to visit her or offer ministry, yet the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence reached out and gave funds via Breast Cancer Emergency Fund which helped my sister. They came and brought food, they visited her and did her nails.

So what would Jesus do - he would do what these sisters did, he wouldn't sit back and judge.

Shame on you Catholics, perhaps you need to take a lesson on ministry in the 21 century.

Anonymous said...

"It therefore rejects claims that "Gay Pride" echoes in the name of a tiny minority of our citizens, but it eminently respects homosexual persons with care and compassion for the suffering and difficulties that are so often theirs."

Sodomy is a vice.

It is a blasphemy and insult to God the Creator to use the term "homosexual person" as if a vice could be the definition of a human person.

We need to get back to Catholic metaphysics, and dump the term "homosexual" and say that the Church does not respect "homosexuality" or admit the existence of "homosexual persons". Those who use these terms insult the creator, promote a fundamentally erroneous anthropology, promote dispair and sin.

Rather the Church has a profound love for the conversion of sinners, and men or women with this abominable vice are called to repentence, because with Christ's grace they can leave this filth of heart and mind and body, and become reborn anew, pure in heart and mind a body.

It is inconsistent and illogical to say that one can respect those with such vice, because they have such a vice, or use the terms that the pro-sodomy crowd has invented out of whole cloth to cover their sin.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

I can think of no greater multiplication of apostasy than the supposed notion of "gay pride."

Two of the most grievous sins against God, compounded, whereby the Sin of Sodom (a Sin Crying out to Heaven for Vengeance), is magnified by the Sin of Pride (referred to as the "Queen of all vices" by Saint Thomas Aquinas), which is one of the Seven Capital Sins.

It should exposed as it truly is. ... vainglorious sodomy.

Jordanes said...

It is a blasphemy and insult to God the Creator to use the term "homosexual person" as if a vice could be the definition of a human person. ***

But that is not the sense in which the bishop used that term, which is no more objectionable than terms such as "sodomite," "drunkard," "adulterer," "liar," and "murderer."

Those who use these terms insult the creator, promote a fundamentally erroneous anthropology, promote dispair and sin. ***

Not all who use those terms do those things.

Jordanes said...

Some anonymous poor lost soul said: The Sisters do not mock Catholic nuns by any means. They ARE nuns. They take vows to help the community. ***

You are gravely, monstrously mistaken. Men cannot be nuns any more than they can bear children.

Why is the Catholic Church is so paranoid and takes such strides to comdem the sisters who are worldwide. They obviously reach out to a community that the Catholic Church does not. ***

The Church is not paranoid, and her mission is to all human communities.

They teach people to use condoms, they support gay, straight groups of any religion or no religion. ***

All the more reason why this group of sexual perverts must be stopped. They are leading people into sin and endangering the souls of countless people.

They make hospice visits and do outreach in communities the Cathlics simply regard as waste. ***

There is no community that we Catholics simply regard as waste, and the Church's ministry to sick and suffering homosexuals is known the world over. Anyway, doing kindness and performing acts of mercy does not justify sexual misconduct and disordered passions and lusts.

If God really made man, he made all of us, and we are all godlike. ***

True, which is why it is so serious an offense to defile and destroy the divine image in man through unspeakable acts of sexual perversity.

But Cathlolics seem to think they own rights to "nuns" and rights to condemn others. ***

God alone has the right to condemn, but yes, Catholics obviously and inarguably own the rights to 'nuns.' You can't even be a nun unless you're Catholic . . . and, it should not be necessary to say, FEMALE.

It is actions like this that made me leave the church because of all the guilt and shame that was imposed by them. ***

Those who are sinners and who do shameful things should feel guilty and ashamed, and that guilt and shame should lead sinners to repentance, for God is rich in mercy to those who seek Him with a sincere heart.

Yet Catholics feel that what they belief is the total truth, the only way to treat a community which is just plain arrogrant. ***

Catholic doctrine is the truth, yes, and homosexuality is a disorder causing human misery and torments in this world as well as after death.

When my sister was dying from Breast Cancer none of you came to visit her or offer ministry, yet the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence reached out and gave funds via Breast Cancer Emergency Fund which helped my sister. ***

Sorry. I never knew you had a sister, or that you even existed, or whether or not you live near me. If no Catholics visited your sister, that is a shame . . . but again, there is no merit in an unrepentant sinner doing an act of kindness, nor does it justify his sin.

So what would Jesus do - he would do what these sisters did, he wouldn't sit back and judge. ***

There were no sisters who did anything, just some men who need to turn aside from the evil paths on which they are walking.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would condemn your sister for having cancer. Cancer is a physical disease, not a sin.

Shame on you Catholics, perhaps you need to take a lesson on ministry in the 21 century. ***

The only thing we have to learn from unrepentant homosexuals are cautionary lessons on the deadliness of sin (while we learn the magnitude of Christ's mercy when they repent). In this case, the shame is all on those like you, who glory in the shame of sodomitic life. I will pray for you, and for the soul of your sister, but no further comments in support or defense of homosexuality, and attacking our Holy Mother Church, will be welcome or permitted here.

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes, good response to that poor lost soul. I'm glad that you posted the comment and gave the defense of the Faith that was demanded.

Isn't it amazing how those who abandon Our Lord Jesus Christ are so quick to lecture the rest of us on what He would supposedly do?

Jordanes said...

Yes, and it can be especially galling to be told "what Jesus would do" by persons who couldn't care less what Jesus not only "would" want, but in fact demands.

Brian said...

Excellent comments Jorndanes. It is sad to see how disordered sexuality is justified by such delusional thinking.

Anonymous said...

Note: science does not support the 'gay gene' idea any longer - due to lack of evidence. Homosexuality is a disordered sexuality not an inborn condition.

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

May the Archbishop of SF borrow and use this to full capacity.

Peter said...

Jordanes: But that is not the sense in which the bishop used that term, which is no more objectionable than terms such as "sodomite," "drunkard," "adulterer," "liar," and "murderer."

"Sodomy" is the name of that vice, while "homosexuality" is a term invented to separate the deed from its moral aspect. A thief is a thief, when you call him a "person with progressive attitude towards private property" it's a technique to influence your perception of evil.

The usage of the term "homosexual person" has the same purpose, to bound sodomy with the definition of the person, to make you think it's incurable and unbeatable. It's a language of deception, a lie. When you use it, you're in the land of your enemy.

Anonymous said...

I am from San Francisco originally, and had many sightings of the "Sisters" over the years. They are in a long line of "camp" performers who ridicule just about everything, even though yes, they so take on charitable activities on occasion. All I have ever had to do regarding my objection to a "gay pride" parade is ask them (and others involved), "How would you feel about a 'straight pride' parade?" They usually become quite silent and reflective.
As for Bishop Aillet, the former Vicar General of Frejus-Toulon, he is a member of the community of St. Martin and very much devoted to the usus antiquior. He will be a wonderful bishop of Bayonne and deserves all our support.

Anonymous said...

I want to share to your readers, the wounds that the Catholic Church suffered at the hands of his enemies from outside and within. In spite of this, the foundation is the Lord and Victory is ours

I hope that they will fully restore the original Latin Mass in its entirely.

New Age Catholicism

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

March 2002
Revised April 2007

The “New Age” is a mixture of old paganism and Eastern religions that have been “westernized” by dressing them up in modern vocabulary and images. It denies foundational Christian (and Catholic) doctrines. In spite of this, there are some Catholic priests and nuns who openly promote New Age beliefs and practices.

I will give documented information about this from Catholic authors. One of them is a Catholic reporter who spent over twelve years getting first-hand, eye witness information.

As we will see, there are priests and nuns who promote pagan rituals, Eastern religious practices, worship of “the goddess,” witchcraft, and “channeling” (having “spirits” speak through you). They deny foundational Christian doctrines, such as the Atonement (Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins).

If you have difficulty with the following information, I understand. So do I. But the facts won’t go away just because we don’t like them.

Look at how many items the Antichrist forces have accomplished. We must fight the changes in the Church with all our might for they are coming from Satan himself. The laity must save the Church.

LeonG said...

Interestingly, Niderauer and Levada have done excellent work in promoting the sodomite cause in San Francisco and elsewhere. It is difficult to recall any response from "The Vatican" on thesde two other than their promotoion to higher office. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that the courageous bishop mentioned here will receive any assistance from Rome in this matter.

As regards the growth of the New Age movement, the NO service or the liturgy of the neo-catholic church has provided a perfect medium for propagation of new ageism. Creativity and innovation sponsored by modernist philosophies afford all the support required for this to flourish. In the meantime, this is still the case and in the light of all the objective evidence available cannot be denied. the new Age movement has derived immense benefits from the NO liturgical form and it will continue to do so as long as it remains legitimised by its current official use.

Jordanes said...

"Sodomy" is the name of that vice, while "homosexuality" is a term invented to separate the deed from its moral aspect. ***

No, that is not why the clinical term for the disorder was coined -- it was coined when all agreed that it was a disorder, a perversion, by those who believed it can and should be treated. And yes, the disordered psychological and emotional condition of "homosexuality" is distinct, though not separate, from the moral aspect, just as alcoholism and drug addiction are.

The usage of the term "homosexual person" has the same purpose, to bound sodomy with the definition of the person, to make you think it's incurable and unbeatable. ***

Some may use it for that improper end, but it's not why it was originally coined. It was meant to be a neutral, non-condemnatory description of the afflicted persons who would desire and engage in perverted, immoral sexual acts and relationships.

Jordanes said...

I should add that while "homosexual" isn't necessarily an objectionable term, "heterosexual" is, because having both terms, one for abnormal and unnatural sexual affectations and one for normal and natural affectations, makes it seem as if the homosexual affliction isn't an affliction, but just a different kind of human sexuality that is neither good nor evil. It's "heterosexual" that I think ought to be eliminated.

Anonymous said...

Jordannes,

I respectfully submit you have not understood the philosophical criticism of the term, "homosexual person".

If you have some expertise on the matter, please cite us something to support your opinion that "homosexuality" is a disorder, and distinct from the vice of sodomy, or that the term "heterosexual" should be eliminated...

Jordanes said...

If you have some expertise on the matter, please cite us something to support your opinion that "homosexuality" is a disorder, and distinct from the vice of sodomy ***

Try the Catholic Church’s Catechism, Nos. 2357-2359, and Persona humana 8.

or that the term "heterosexual" should be eliminated. ***

Sorry, that’s just my opinion, but it seems pretty obvious to me that distinguishing between “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” carries with it an unspoken premise that human sexuality is variable or interchangeable, that either both are natural and normal, or that there’s no such thing as “normal.”

Anonymous said...

Jordannes,

I read those, they make no such distinction.

Also, neither of those documents are statements of the infallible Magisterium, infact, those very sections of the CCC have been previously changed, thus admitting that the new ones are also possibly faulty.

Why does the CCC not say we should show compassion to those who slandar, lie, steal, or rebell against the Pope? Are these sinners not equals to the sodomites? and more numerous?

Jordanes said...

I read those, they make no such distinction. ***

Then read them again. CCC 2357-2359 distinguishes between "homosexuality," "homosexual acts," and the "disordered" homosexual "inclination." I'm surprised you couldn't see those clear distinctions in the text.

Also, neither of those documents are statements of the infallible Magisterium ***

Maybe they aren't, but that doesn't mean they say anything that is false or erroneous. You are obliged to let yourself be taught by the Catechism, and not presume to teach the Catechism.

infact, those very sections of the CCC have been previously changed, thus admitting that the new ones are also possibly faulty. ***

That's a complete red herring. There is only ONE change in that passage. CCC 2358 was changed from the debatable, quite dubious statement, "They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial" (some at least of them do choose it), to the much improved, "This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial."

If you want to try and make hay with that single editorial change, be my guest, but I doubt you'll be feeding a lot of cattle.

Why does the CCC not say we should show compassion to those who slandar, lie, steal, or rebell against the Pope? Are these sinners not equals to the sodomites? and more numerous? ***

The CCC does indeed teach that Christians are obligated to show compassion to their fellow man, regardless of his condition or state of life, regardless of his holiness or wickedness. That's just Christianity 101, and I'm amazed you'd think the Catholic Church's Catechism wouldn't teach that we are to show compassion even to slanderers, liars, thieves, those in rebellion against the Pope.

But the reason the Catechism reminds us to be compassionate to those who suffer under the affliction and depravity of homosexuality is because this particular sin is so naturally disturbing and revolting that many people have found it very difficult to obey Christ's commandment to show them compassion -- on the contrary, many deliberately increase their suffering through violence, harassment, and mockery.

Anonymous said...

"But the reason the Catechism reminds us to be compassionate to those who suffer under the affliction and depravity of homosexuality is because this particular sin is so naturally disturbing and revolting that many people have found it very difficult to obey Christ's commandment to show them compassion -- on the contrary, many deliberately increase their suffering through violence, harassment, and mockery."

Jordannes, since when does someone "suffer" under the consequences of his own vice in such a way as to urge us to show them compassion of toleration and respect?

On the contrary, true Christian charity never tolerates sin or its consequences, it hates these and never respects a person because he imposes these things upon himself.

Please, be frank, Jordannes, you argue as do those whom I meet in my ministry who have a sodomite in your family....


Your quip about doing away with the term "heterosexual" is just the kind of warped logic family members use to keep their relative-sodomite in his sin and make excuses for it....

Your arguments against the previous anonymous are straw men, sin you have no text of the Magisterium of any kind to support your silly assertion that there is a distinction between the objective disorder and the sin.

Jordanes said...

Anonnymuss asked: since when does someone "suffer" under the consequences of his own vice in such a way as to urge us to show them compassion of toleration and respect? ***

Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

I wasn't referring to suffering "under the consequences of his own vice," but also suffering under the disordered inclination and tendency of homosexuality.

On the contrary, true Christian charity never tolerates sin or its consequences, it hates these and never respects a person because he imposes these things upon himself. ***

You're mostly right there. True Christian charity never respects a person because he imposes sin and its consequences upon himself, but true Christian charity ALWAYS shows sinners respect and treats them with basic human dignity. If you disagree, it's Jesus and the Church you've got a problem with, not me.

Please, be frank, Jordannes, you argue as do those whom I meet in my ministry who have a sodomite in your family. ***

Ha! I hope you're not a betting man, Anonnymuss, as you're not a lucky guesser. There are no sodomites in my family.

Your quip about doing away with the term "heterosexual" is just the kind of warped logic family members use to keep their relative-sodomite in his sin and make excuses for it. ***

And your argument is just the kind of warped logic that people use who are incapable of proving their assertions. Deal with my argument substantively or else concede the point, but don't waste everyone's time with the laughable diversionary tactic of alleging that there's a homosexual in my family that I'm making excuses for. My only intention here is to agree with what the Church says about homosexuality and its attendant sins.

you have no text of the Magisterium of any kind to support your silly assertion that there is a distinction between the objective disorder and the sin. ***

No text, that is, except for the abovecited magisterial texts found in the Catechism and Persona humana. Not that we need a magisterial text for us to able to notice that there is a distinction between sin and a disordered tendency to sin -- and really, recognising that distinction is basic to Catholic moral theology. One of Luther's heresies was to confuse concupiscence with sin. It would appear you suffer under a like delusion.