Rorate Caeli

The crisis of the church is a crisis of Bishops:
Sì, è vero, the bishop defends homosexual partnerships

A reader read this in another blog and asked us if it was true.

Yes, it is true! Is it not wonderful?
Favorable to homosexual couples, but with the appropriate distinctions. It is what the Bishop of Ragusa, Bp. Paolo Urso, confirms after his declarations appeared on the internet following an interview given to Quotidiano Nazionale and mentioned by the website [three-letter-word].it and by several online blogs. Urso explained that the Government must recognize this de facto situation, even if the union of [three-letter-word] couples should be called by a different name than "matrimony", because, he explains, "otherwise we will not understand each other".

He then adds, "A secular State, as ours, cannot ignore the phenomenon of partnerships, it must move forward and define rights and duties for the partners. The moral evaluation belongs to others." [Source: Ragusa News - Jan. 14 - in Italian; in the image, Bp. Urso in an ecumenical meeting.]

The matter has been so tiresomely explained by the Church... - for instance, in the 2003 Considerations regarding Proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, of the Congregation for the Doctrinal of the Faith. Just last week, by the way, in his yearly address to the ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, the Holy Father recalled that, "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself." It is a matter that is thus not merely "moral" (as "morality" is understood by the Bishop, that is, as having no relevance to the State and to the Law), but that is not-negotiable even to politicians - much less to Bishops!

The crisis of leadership must end: it humiliates the faithful, it destroys morale, and it devastates the Church from the inside out and from the top down. 

[Note: Paolo Urso was named bishop of Ragusa, Sicily, by Pope John Paul II in 2002.]


Long-Skirts said...

"Urso explained that the Government must recognize this de facto situation, even if the union of [three-letter-word] couples should be called by a different name than "matrimony"

...let's call it:


There are some couples
O, so nice
As nice as nice
Can be.

They have their weddings
Roses and rice
And plan forever
Just "we".

No more.

They know the latest
Things to do
That pleasure their skins
And each pore.

"What need for seeds
And eggs take space
We desire to be
In lust -

Our lives are erotic
And our blood does race
In cholesterol-free
We trust."

Some of these couples
Are Bob and Rick,
Some are Michael
And Sue,

No matter their genders
Each has his trick --
Of blending secretions
Like stew.

Much money they'll save
On themselves, these few
From their vows 'til their graves
They'll live well...

But because their intent
Was a-party-of-two...
Alone they'll be seated
In Hell!

Miles Dei said...

This act only fits in a bigger game. Its not a fool bishop lokking for a time of mediatic glory, but part of a bigger game. Sure.

Robert said...

And the SSPX are the bad guys. Yeah Right!!. I would rather receive communion from any SSPX priest vs this back stabber any day!!!.

Vingt Trois said...

The Archb Vincent Nichols of Westminster has been saying similar things very publicly. It's apparently one of the reasons why he won't receive the red hat next month, while the Archb Dolan of New York will (both are in the same position, in that their predecessors are both cardinals and still under eighty for the next few months). You can be sure that Mgr Nichols and this man from Ragusa are being assured by someone in Rome that this is the line to take on same sex partnerships. Nichols, for instance, has been known to quote Cardinal Cottier (papal theologian) in favour of his liberal positions in the past.

Tradfly said...

I'll wager that your young sons couldn't wait to hear mom's bedtime stories!

Matt said...

As discussed elsewhere on this blog, does anyone think anything is going to happen to this bishop? Does anyone think Obama will become a conservative before the Election? Well, odds are better on the latter than the former.


RE "A party of two..." ew.


Gratias said...

The gays are the frontline for the old enemies of the Church and Western Civilization. Freemasons, Anarchists, Marxists, Communists and Homosexuals are birds of a feather that flock together.

Barona said...

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops continues to keep on their website completely unnecessary information with regards to the convicted criminal, the homosexual ex-Bishop Raymond Lahey. I urge all Catholics - especially those in Canada to contact the Nuncio regarding this matter. My - respectful - letters dated January 5th and 9th, to the Secretariat General and President have gone unanswered.It should be noted that his former Diocese of Antigonish has removed all information - why not the CCCB?

One wonders how they can take such an attitude? I leave that up to the dear readers...

The following is a link to an intervention given by this man to then Pope John Paul II. The courts confirmed that he was living a criminal lifestyle during this time period. Let us pray for this man whose soul is in great, great danger of damnation.

P.K.T.P. said...

Most of theee sexual inverts must be either lawyers or businessmen, because they all seem to have "partners".


Enoch said...


"Note: Paolo Urso was named bishop of Ragasa, Sicily, by Pope John Paul ll in 2002."

May I ask what the point is of making note of the above statement? In 2002, Pope John Paul ll also appointed the Rev. Mario Conti as Archbishop of Glasgow, Scotland. You can read the Archbishop's sound defense of marriage according to proper Church teaching here:

I encourage everyone to read this excellent letter, which the Archbishop sent ot legislators in Scotland in Oct., 2011.

Upstart said...

Google "Mario Conti" and "Summorum Pontificum" and you will discover an example of this haughty cleric's public opposition to the Pope's liberation of the Latin Mass. One swallow doesn't make a spring, just as once instance of standing up for the Church's teaching doesn't make a faithful bishop. Conti and this creature in Ragusa were both most unfortunate appointments of John Paul II.

Dan said...

I'm not convinced that merely withholding the red hat from an Archbishop who says these outrageous things is enough anymore. Swift, decisive and punitive action is going to be more effective in my view. Rome is still playing the "Mister Nice Guy" game - not wanting to embarrass their brother Bishops no matter what rubbish they say - and as along as they continue that policy of weakness nothing substantial will change.

How long do you imagine would a Vice President of Pepsi keep his job after publicly endorsing Coca-Cola over Pepsi? About four minutes?

Jim Paton said...


I can assure you that Archbishop Conti talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the issue of marriage.

One Glasgow priest (Just recently) told his flock that they should fill out the postcards which the Catholic Church in Scotland had provided for them, and by doing so would show their disagreement against the governments decision to allow homosexual marriage.
The priest told his flock that if any of them didn't want to fill out the postcard because they didn't believe in the Church's teachings on the matter, then they should NOT come up to recieve Holy Communion.

Some of the parishioners had the nerve to go to Conti and tell him what the priest had said. What did Conti do? He told them that there was a parish near by were the priest would entertain them and they need not listen to the advice of their now former parish priest.

Archbishop Conti, as Native Americans in black and white movies would say, speaks with fork tongue.

Enoch said...

Upstart wrote:

"Google "Mario Conti" and "Summorum Pontificum" and you will discover an example of this haughty cleric's public opposition to the Pope's liberation of the Latin Mass."

I am well aware of the situation in Scotland. And yet, the FSSP are slowly but surely being allowed to increase the number of Mass locations there - the latest being added at St. Andrews, isn't that correct?

And besides, the discussion is about the support of one bishop of same sex unions, not SP. I've been sending emails to my local legislators in defense of marriage of one man and one woman, since there's a bill in our state senate for the legalization of same sex marriage. I would encourage all here to strongly voice opposition to your legislators if your state (or European county) is trying to legalize same sex unions.

Loyolakiper said...

Can anyone tell me why we cannot restore the Inquisition, with all of it's glory to deal with clerics? I say clerics and not people because it is to these who claim loudest to possess the faith and do the most harm... To whom much is given, much SHOULD be required. Let them be a martyr and bleed for what they believe!

Woody said...

Burger, CJ, concurring in "Bowers v Hardwick":

June 30, 1986


I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that, in constitutional terms, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.

As the Court notes, ante at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Woody said...

Unfortunately, Bowers was overruled by the Court in Lawrence v. Texas. One can only weep for our country, to whose bishops today the Holy Father addressed these words:

"As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole."

Clinton R. said...

The image of Bp. Urso at an "ecumenical" gathering speaks volumes. This shows how false ecumenism is an abject failure. True ecumenism is an unity of those who believe in all Christ taught and all that His Church has taught throughout the ages. We must let God steer the ship and not think that each of us knows better than God. To do so is of utter arrogance and puts us at the level of the rebellious Lucifer.

J.G. Ratkaj said...

It would be interesting to learn the concrete roman requirements specification for becoming a prelate in today's church. Msgr. Urso is by no means a solitary exception in the episcopate, neither in this ecumenical excesses nor in the continuous negation of nstural law. on the contrary.