Rorate Caeli

In Dire Need of Clarification - II
Abp. President of Family Council calls for recognition of same-sex civil unions and adulterous unions

The article published by Italian daily La Repubblica, from which the several translations were made available, includes the following declarations by the President of the Pontifical Council of the Family, Abp. Vincenzo Paglia, a bishop closely linked to the Community of  Sant'Egidio (original in Italian):

Vatican City - "No to gay marriage, but yes to the recognition of the rights for de facto and homossexual couples, according to the Civil Code ...". In the Catholic Church, revolution is sensed in the air in family and gay rights issues. The spokesman of this has surprisingly been Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, new president of the Pontifical Council for the family, at the presentation of the acts of the International Meeting on the Family, that took place in Milan last May. ... [Rorate note: Paglia's declarations to La Repubblica, and other media sources, were made following this media event held in the Vatican yesterday]

The "no" of the Church to gay marriage - Paglia says - is not a religious fact: "The Italian Constitution speaks very clearly, but even before it was Roman law that established what marriage was." ... But this does not mean - the prelate admits - that the rights of de facto couples, even gay ones, should not be recognized. In fact, "it is time that legislators concern themselves with it."

Paglia recognizes, moreover, that "non-familial gatherings" are "varied", and he assures the the Church is favorable "that, in this perspective, solutions of private law and patrimonial perspectives within the current Civil Code be found". ... It is also important to keep watch - Paglia warns - on the discrimination of homossexual persons throughout thw world: "Homossexuality is still prosecuted as a crime in over twenty countries".

...
The president of [Italian advocacy group] Gaynet, Franco Grillini, declares... that "for the first time a high prelate recognizes that the rights of homosexual couples also exist, and that there are many countries in the world where homosexuality is criminalized".


Paglia's words are pretty amazing - and an amazing contradiction of the words of the Pope himself, as recently as his December 2012 Christmas address. Pope Benedict XVI, in continuity with all Catholic Tradition, has always been opposed to granting rights that are proper to married couples to other unions - also because, as it is well-known throughout the West, this is always just a first step in the legal destruction of any meaning of marriage. Quite early in his pontificate he made it as clear as he could:

It is a serious error to obscure the value and roles of the legitimate family founded on marriage by attributing legal recognition to other improper forms of union for which there is really no effective social need. (Address, January 12, 2006)

The division in the very top of the Catholic hierarchy, the clear disobedience in the heart of the Roman Curia, is becoming untenable... And certain bishops have the gall of calling a relatively small group of Traditional priests in irregular canonical situation divisive!

32 comments:

poeta said...

It's entirely believable that the present Pope made the statement, "My authority ends at that door."

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear New Catholic. Well said. Amen

J.G.Ratkaj said...

The liberal modernist smuta in the church ravages the said without ceasing since the coucils. As an octogenarian who served in the church since the 1940s and witnessed from close the conciliar and postcociliar turmoils I do not see any trend reversal. On the contrary the self-perpetuating auto-demolition seems to be the only constant in the modern church.

Long-Skirts said...

Paglia said:

"...but yes to the recognition of the rights for de facto and homossexual couples, according to the Civil Code, and to the admission of remarried divorced persons to Communion"

SOONER
OR
LATER

You can run on
For a long time
Run on for a
Long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later
God’ll cut
‘em down
Sooner or later
God’ll cut
‘em down

These rotten wicked
Heinous men
Found foul and guilty
Again and again
All are depraved
Like nuns on the bus
Approve their boils
Then suck their pus

Sent a Prelate
Dressed in white
To warn that the dark
Will be brought to the light
His cassocked clergy
Teaching Faith truthfully
But scourged like the
Man from Galilee

Defilement diseased
Septicity
Carbuncled-consented
Catholicity
The man in the dome
Dialogues to delay
Optimistic his fruits of decay
We’ll obey

You can run on
For a long time
Run on for a
Long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later
God’ll cut
You down
Sooner or later
God’ll cut
You down!

I am not Spartacus said...

ON THE ORIGIN OF CIVIL POWER
DIUTURNUM


Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on June 29, 1881.


... Wherefore, being, by the favor of God, entrusted with the government of the Catholic Church, and made guardian and interpreter of the doctrines of Christ, We judge that it belongs to Our jurisdiction, venerable brethren, publicly to set forth what Catholic truth demands of everyone in this sphere of duty; thus making clear also by what way and by what means measures may be taken for the public safety in so critical a state of affairs.

6. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.

7. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.[3]

8. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples

We have made our peace with the principles of the French Revolution and we have reaped a harvest of woe.

We have sown laxity and reaped perversity.

We are, collectively, a sick moral joke; from the Pope talking about the putatively positive results that might be expected from the use of condoms by homosexuals to this Prelate promoting positive law which succors perversion which is directly in opposition to that which was taught by Pope Leo XIII.

And for Lent, we can expect the same old same old that Fast and Abstinence means almost anything but fasting and abstaining.

The definition of continuity is so elastic that it, presumably, can be stretched to cover this action which means that continuity is an actual miracle that defies all natural explanations for its existence.

Indeed, we are living in miraculous times.

Francis said...

As I commented in the other clarification article here on RC, this modernist and heretical garbage shouldn't surprise anyone. Yes, its scandalous, nauseating and heretical, yet why would any trad be surprised or shocked that post-conciliar, modernist and liberal bishops support unnatural, unbiblical and unCatholic ideology in a conciliar church filled with homosexuals, modernists and relativists??!! This is the "spirit" of Vatican II. These "bishops" are men of the world and could care less about upholding natural law, Catholic dogma or listening to the Pope. Yes, we must pray for them and for their conversion back to the true Catholic faith, but these are bad shepherds, and as Our Lord said "Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them".

Jason C. said...

...[Italian advocacy group] Gaynet...

The only thing worse than SkyNet is GayNet.

OutsideObserver said...

If this statement stands unchallenged from the CDF, I predict that before long, the "conservatives" will develop amnesia about Catholic opposition to gay civil unions, and will insist that Catholicism is really supportive of gay civil unions, just don't call them marriage! It won't be the first or the last time that amnesia has overwhelmed the Vatican rah-rah crowd.

Jason C. said...

If this statement stands unchallenged from the CDF, I predict that before long, the "conservatives" will develop amnesia about Catholic opposition to gay civil unions, and will insist that Catholicism is really supportive of gay civil unions, just don't call them marriage! It won't be the first or the last time that amnesia has overwhelmed the Vatican rah-rah crowd.

Aside from the pettiness of your us-versus-them terminology and suggesting that the teaching of our faith on marriage is about to change, you're right in that you're already seeing some conservatives look to negotiate the terms of our surrender to a post-gay-marriage world rather than fighting battles politically and socially.

Anil Wang said...

Something doesn't quite add up.

This link in English seems to give a bit more information:
http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201302/defend-traditional-family-rights-others-archbishop-says-26850
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/13/vatican-criticizes-court-ruling-gays-children/

I suspect that he's trying to articulate the concept of Legal recognition of Concubinage, which the Church has tolerated (only permanent concubines) while it was the minority but quickly abolished when it had the power to bring sanity and sanctity to society:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04207a.htm

Yet he somehow believes that this will not cause "Mother/Father" to be replaced by "Parent A/Parent B" and it will not automatically cause the distinction between marriage and concubinage to be extinguished. This is blind lunacy. All one needs to do is look at today's newspaper and see cases where this just doesn't play out (such as a man being sued for not making a same-sex union cake, or Catholic Adoption Agencies being forced to close down because it won't give children to same-sex unions). The world has deteriorated to the point where it no longer values the true meaning of marriage and considers it a cure (since it increases population).

No ground must be ceded and ground has to be taken back. The Church has to stop referring to "divorced Catholics", "Catholics married outside the Church" or "divorced and remarried Catholics" and return to the old terminology of "legally separated married Catholics" and "living in concubinage Catholics". Without such clarification, our whole thinking about what marriage is will become as muddled Protestant thinking on contraception.

Father Ted Martin said...

Before you go after the CDF or "the Church", see the following from the CDF

http://www.doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I hate to hear these words too but just because a Bishop or a Cardinal says something heterodox doesn't mean that "the Church" is capitulating. I am with you all that these are terrible times and we really, really, really need to pray and do penance for the conversion of priests and bishops; I'm a priest, so I mean what I say.

Damask Rose said...

It's as Randy Engel (author of "The Rite of Sodomy") said, that homosexualism is "fixed in" the Catholic Church now.

The Church seems to take the view of homosexuality that a person can divorce their acts of homosexuality from their homosexual personhood or psyche. Well, I thought Jesus said we can sin through thought, word and deed. If a person thinks he's gay, surely he is sinning. Surely a true conversion would be from gay to straight. I really believe that Catholics and priests seriously don't believe that grace flowing from Jesus, and by the homosexual/lesbian co-operating with that grace, they can totally become straight. They've lost the faith.

As for Abp Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council of the Family no less, releasing such a statement is totally awful. He should be dismissed.

The homosexual instructions in the modern Catechism don't help much either. All about tendencies and acts. "(2358) ...difficulties they may encounter from their condition." Well, surely it's not a condition, it's a sin. some medical conditions you never recover from.

Pious Cathoics who uphold the perennial teaching of the Church regarding homosexuality will start to have the Catechetical statement...
"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." ...endlessly thrown in their faces by gays (Catholic or not) prelates and parish priests.

When "Paglia warns - on the discrimination of homossexual persons throughout the world...", it's a pity he didn't advocate for Catholics who consider homosexuality a sin not to be discriminated against too.

The old catechetical teaching "wicked sin crying out to heaven for vengeance" was clear cut. You (1) new it was real bad (wicked), and (2) a sin. But gloriously, as per the Catholic faith you can repent and convert from it as with all sins.

I don't know how the Church will overcome its priestly homosexual network.

Just wait for gay priests to come out and backed by state law, will subvert Church teaching openly. And parishioners will just clap them along because, if the priest sins, they and their children can sin too:

Fr Bob Pierson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NXB8eACUwjM

Michael Voris take on Fr Pierson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4HHpt4aH44I

We have got this way because priests embraced contraception. When priests rejected Humanae Vitae they gayed themselves. It's sterility. So few priests have practising Catholic spiritual children today because they ceased teaching the faith. Same thing.

New Catholic said...

Anil, as it often happens in press conferences, different media caught and/or highlighted different portions of what was said. These Vatican press conferences often end up being this messy because speakers do not limit themselves simply to their prepared remarks, but find wonderful to share with the journalists who are present their opinion about anything that is asked of them. One of the many reasons why the Vatican media operation often runs out of control.

Father Ted Martin said...

Damask Rose,

The Council of Trent teaches dogmatically in its decree on Original Sin that God left the consequences of sin - one of which is disordered passions - so that fighting them manfully we might confound the devil and with the grace of Christ merit salvation.

It is an error to say that someone must no longer be tempted by a sin to have overcome it; in this case attributed moral fault to someone who is tempted by homosexuality but nevertheless rejects the temptations. There are recovering alcoholics and substance abusers who face terrible temptations but nevertheless, they reject these temptations and so have no moral fault but to the contrary merit.

Lastly, the Church clearly teaches that impure thoughts, willfully dwelt upon, are sinful and contrary to chastity. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the 9th Commandment.

Don Wright said...

Thank you "New Catholic" for your insight regarding the Vatican media.
I was hopeful that with the appointment of Greg Burke that this media message confusion would come under control. Apparently it has not. Is this all part of the Curia trying to make each other look bad to gain some advantage? Possibly the ear of the Holy Father?

Claudius said...

Excellent. Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.

Tom said...

"The only thing worse than SkyNet is GayNet."

And for a tightrope walker, the only thing worse than SkyNet and GayNet is NoNet.

A bit of humor, Rorate-permitting.

Tom

IamnotSaintAugustine said...

Not to worry folks, notwithstanding his direct contradiction of the Pope's Christmas 2012 addresss, Archbp Paglia remains in "full communion" with the Pope, and therefore is not suspended a divinis.

If only the SSPX would simply state that Vatican 2 does not contain errors - if only they could just say that one small thing - they would be able to get away with all other doctrinal disagreements with the Holy Father as significant as Archbp Paglia's without so much of a raised eyebrow. What's a little sodomy here and there? We just all need to be civil about the whole thing.

Alas, though, denying the immaculate-ness of Vatican 2, is the unforgivable crime of the current ecclesial hierarchy.

Lynda said...

Homosexual relationships as inherently wrong may not be recognised or given status by any society. Human beings have "rights", not couples. All individual persons have the same natural rights by dint of their human nature - whether those persons experience sexual attraction to someone of their own sex is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a"right" to what is inherently wrong, e.g., to engage in sexual relations with another person of the same sex. Marriage is a natural, public, family (and society) building institution. One can only be married by entering a permanent, exclusive, sexual union with another person (competent, unrelated, adult) of the opposite sex. The sexual union is determined by nature - by the natural marital act which tends towards the conception of children. Sexual union is only possible between a man and a woman.

Common Sense said...

Many years ago, while sitting in the beer garden in Bratislava, Slovakia, someone pointed out to me that from the old Soviet-built bridge some kind of creatures were being dumped into the Blue Danube by the cops. Upon further inquiry I quickly figured out that they were gays. So rare were those people that until the late 70s I hadn't seen a written version of the word 'gay' in Slovak.

Back in the 90s I and my two partners were doing a tiling job almost in the heart of Melbourne, Australia, and guess what? The "couple" we were working for were gay. I have to say, they were manly-looking guys, cultured, well-mannered and had a good sense of hospitality. For some reason, on that day, they were constantly talking on the phone. Not once did I hear any crude words or obscenities, and of course they paid for the work done immediately. They were good people to do business with. But unfortunately, what a waste of a life, what a frustrated purpose and useless existence. Did it occur to them what it means to be deprived of the charm of a woman, the tenderness of a mother and love and care of a wife?

I had one other less savoury encounter with someone who was gay. All I can say is that gays are people who are hurting deeply and in need of help. The favourite defence mechanism of gays against others who dare to care brands them 'homophobes'. This is one of the most atrociously insulting libels because it implies that a so-called homophobe is inherently a twisted-minded and disgusting form of evil which must be eradicated.

HSE said...

One perversion leads to another. It is only a matter of time before pedophilia is also normalized! The (literal) meaning of "all hell broke loose" is more clear than ever.

May God have mercy on our souls!

Anonymous said...

Very true. Using incorrect terms in the name of what our Holy Father hss brilliantly shined his light on as "false charity" is allowing the plague to spread.

Start calling the "remarriages" what our Blessed Lord did... "adultery" or what St. Augus
tine did, "adulterous remarriages."

Stop using the terms "ex-husband," "ex-wife," "former spouse" or "single again."

Bryan

Tom said...

IamnotSaintAugustine said..."
"If only the SSPX would simply state that Vatican 2 does not contain errors - if only they could just say that one small thing - they would be able to get away with all other doctrinal disagreements with the Holy Father as significant as Archbp Paglia's without so much of a raised eyebrow.
---------------------------

I understand that.

In 1988 A.D., Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) declared that folowing Vatican II, a great many priests had "desacralized" and "despoiled" the Mass and our churches. Full-communion priests did so freely.

Or considering the following:

The Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese

http://www.la-archdiocese.org/SitePages/News%20Item.aspx?ItemID=390

St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo (California):

“Ecumenism and Engagement with World Religions”

"On Thursday, February 7, at 7:00 p.m., a panel discussion entitled “Ecumenism and Engagement with World Religions” will be chaired by the Rt. Rev. Alexei R. Smith, with the panel to include Rabbi Michael Lotker, Mr. Shakeel Syed, and Bp. Maryann Swenson.

"The panelists will reflect on how the Catholic Church and world are different today because of the declarations of Vatican II on Ecumenism and on Judaism and other world religions."
----------------------

"Bp. Maryann Swenson" is priestess/"Bishop" Mary Ann Swenson of the United Methodist Church.

"Bishop" Mary Ann Swenson supports homosexual marriage.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072519&ct=5661893

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week313/feature.html

Rabbi Michael Lotker is Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Ner Ami in Camarillo, California, where the Catholic seminary in question is located.

http://www.templenerami.org/clergy.php

"Temple Ner Ami is a Reform congregation located in Camarillo, California, affiliated with the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)," according to the Temple's Web site.

http://www.templenerami.org/aboutus.php

In 2003 A.D., the Rabbi's seminary condemned President Bush's ban on partial-birth abortion.

http://huc.edu/newspubs/pressroom/2003/forward.shtml

Visit the following Web site

http://urj.org/ask/questions/abortion/

to read what the Union for Reform Judaism teaches in regard to abortion.

Here is an excerpt:

Abortion

"Q: What is the Reform perspective on abortion?

"A: Reform Judaism understands the original position of the Talmud wherein is described the notion that an abortion should be performed only for the sake of the life of the mother, and even as late as the moment before the head of a baby emerges from the birth canal.

"However, Reform goes beyond this narrowly defined period and gives sanction to its members (and all others for that matter) to elect to terminate a pregnancy when confronting other circumstances..."

However, the bottom line is that the Apostolic See teaches that the SSPX promotes such serious errors as "the New Mass is evil...Vatican II contains errors."

Should they satisify The Apostolic See's conditions for regularization, then the SSPX would be able to take on "full-communion" folks who desacralize and despoil Holy Mother Church.

The Society could do so without shipwreckers having the upperhand over the Society via the following dismissal:

"The Society is suspended a divinis. Their bishops and priests do not exercise valid ministries. Do not pay attention to their error-ridden Society."

Fair or not. Like it or not. The Society can be waved off and denounced as practicioners of illegitimate ministries.

The SSPX must obtain regularization from the Apostolic See. From there, the Society can speak against the crisis of faith without being waved off for practicing illegitimate ministries.

Tom

AntiSodomite said...

There are no "gays." To use this language is no accede to the sodomite campaign to create morally neutral language which sanitizes their depravity. There are sodomites. They may also be called homosexuals, though this isn't as good as this word doesn't have as much of a stigma as sodomite.

And this is mandatory reading on the tactics of the sodomite movement:

http://www.cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

Barbara said...

What about not using the word "gay"? It impossible now to read poetry with the children and students without their tittering.

Active homosexuals are in a minority and are shaking up the foundations of our society! Francis, I instead continue to be shocked that a Catholic prelate should allude to homosexual rights in such an ambiguous manner. I continue to be shocked when bad shepherds beat the Mystical Body of Christ like this. It is evil.

I am also amazed at God's patience with so many of these rotten leaders - they sicken me - and I'm tired of them. Obedience to men like these? Not on your life!

Barbara said...

I would also like to say thank God for the Catholic blogs like Rorate - as scattered as we all are, traditional Catholics can find some solace and comfort with each other here - as often the reality of our parish lives (as mine is) leaves a lot to be desired in the way of militancy and true Catholic identity, so here, at least, we can gain strength and counter, in a correct manner, these "shepherds" who are leading us into error.

Prayers for all.

John said...

I'd like to say something about the CCC and homosexuals rather than the statement from the Archbishop, which is indeed shocking and directly in contradiction to Tradition and the expressed position of the Holy Father. I think the term "homosexual", which originated certainly as a clinical term, is fine, and more importantly I think that there is a very great difference between a homosexual (and I mean nothing more than one who regularly experiences sexual attraction to the same sex) who is living in full accordance with Church teaching and striving to bear this particular cross he (or she) has been given, and a "proud" homosexual, someone who would call himself "gay". I think it can hardly be right to denounce the former just because of this inclination to sin, this same-sex attraction, provided he or she is genuinely striving to live in accordance with Church teaching. For this reason, I think the CCC sections on homosexuals are not wholly to be despised. Of course, they also should not be twisted into providing some sort of license for homosexual behavior, which I confess freely they have been and can be--but that is a distortion of what the Catechism says, and not a consequence of what it says.

sam said...

The Church, in the post-world war II mindset, changed her approach to the world. She abandoned her role of converting the world to Christ, and instead chose to engage the world in dialogue. In doing so, she went from being a source of authority, to being just another partner in the dialogue of engagement. Often, the post-Vatican II Church, speaks about going back to the early Church. One thing that we learn from the early Church, is that although they lived in the world, they chose to convert it rather than engage it, by following the command of Christ to convert everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Katsumoto said...

Just out of curiosity... Have any Catholic priests of the SSPX advocated gay marriage?

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

Ok, for every man who sees this, write a letter to His Holiness. Though we may say "He never gets to see them", if we flood His Holiness with letters of scandal hereover, I am sure something can come around. As said in 2 Timothy (6-10) : "For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God, Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world. But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the gospel"

Come on brethren and sisters, let us write, believing as we do in the received faith of our forefathers, stemming right back to God who gave himself in his son Jesus Christ.

I am not Spartacus said...

I hate to hear these words too but just because a Bishop or a Cardinal says something heterodox doesn't mean that "the Church" is capitulating..

Because I am the same age as Israel and because I have never heard a Prelate publicly say such things until after the bestest council ever, I have to think the Church is capitulating to its enemies.

Any claim otherwise seems fanciful.

One can not imagine a Prelate saying such things after V1 or Trent or - just name any prior Council.

No we are in the virgin territory of victorious vice.

Damask Rose said...

Fr Martin at 23:23

Thank you for your reply.

"The Council of Trent teaches dogmatically in its decree on Original Sin that God left the consequences of sin - one of which is disordered passions - so that fighting them manfully we might confound the devil and with the grace of Christ merit salvation."

*Of course. Absolutely.

"It is an error to say that someone must no longer be tempted by a sin to have overcome it;..."

*I never said that.

"...in this case attributed moral fault to someone who is tempted by homosexuality but nevertheless rejects the temptations."

*I never said that. Please re-read what I said. I stand by what I said.

But to continue...

(1) "...someone who is tempted by homosexuality but nevertheless rejects the temptations."

(2) "There are recovering alcoholics and substance abusers who face terrible temptations[*] but nevertheless, they reject these temptations and so have no moral fault but to the contrary merit."

*Yes, I agree.

*If one considers the examples as phrased in (1) and (2) above, it can be said that these people can no longer be identified by that sin with which they suffer the temptation from. Meaning, having rejected the temptation, the one-time homosexual man is now straight, with certain sexual temptations. The alcoholic and substance abuser, by rejecting the temptation of consuming these substances, is now a whole person with temptations. For instance, perhaps better to phrase it, "the person who was an alcoholic".

(*) Perhaps if these alcoholics and substance abusers who face terrible temptations, if they are Catholic, could be encouraged to engage in very regular Confession. Perhaps as their temptations arise, two or three times a week until they feel a healing. Essentially, how much healing do they need to eradicate the abuse of self? Or healing to facilitate the re-awakening of logos? Jesus will heal them in the Confessional.

Yes, I said eradicated. Some deep wounds need to be healed. Gone. Some wounds will twist away the person's nature, sense of being, what they should be.

But as we all know, the soul is never free from temptation.

"Lastly, the Church clearly teaches that impure thoughts, willfully dwelt upon, are sinful and contrary to chastity. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the 9th Commandment."

Yes. I've always known this one. But I did read it as you suggested.