Rorate Caeli

In Dire Need of Clarification ...

The following comments are courtesy Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

While his meaning seems clear, out of charity, we kindly beg His Excellency for a clarification: is the archbishop speaking of celibate homosexuals, or practicing homosexuals - that is, plain sodomy, as still defined by statute in many jurisdictions? What, exactly, is he defending?

"While the church opposes recognizing gay unions as 'marriage,' he said, it affirms the full dignity of homosexual men and women. 'If a country outlawed homosexuality, I would work to overturn it,' he said, adding that he believed there are still '20 or 25 countries' that define homosexuality as a crime."


Malta said...

Marriage is overseen by a priest, but not presided by the priest. A man and woman can only marry themselves; the priest is a presider and spectator!

(Btw; and try to excommunicate me; but when my gay priest said I would have to wait three months to baptize my child, I said f**k you, and baptized my own baby with the right form.

I have a Lutheran friend with a Jewish wife, and his little daughter was going under the knife, and he asked me how to baptize her, and I told him!

Anonymous said...

New Yorker said,

This cleric is sick and morally corrupt...! The state has every right to outlaw outrageous violations of the natural law...homosexuality is a misnomer, as a state of being there is no such thing, as a vice, it is called sodomy, the expression of which has been outlawed since Moses...

Is this cleric declaring his opposition to Moses, and hence to God? ... seems so...

GQ Rep said...

This Bishop should be sacked. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

The pitfall that was missed here is with defining a person as a homosexual ... as opposed to a person with homosexual attractions. The sin of homosexuality is not an inherent part of the nature of the person that was created by God. Homosexuality is depraved and disordered misuse of the human sexual faculty.

Anonymous said...


His title is "President of the Pontifical Council for the Family."

This, to me, is unbelievable, for the comment, if "verbatim", certainly supports the destruction of the family.


Irene said...

The European Union is currently in a tizzy about Russia passing a law that will ban all homosexual propaganda Perhaps this is what has got the good bishop flustered.

There seems to be a deficient understanding amongst many Catholic bishop of what "human dignity" truly means and/or entails. Speaking of Russia, I offer the following as the correct understanding:

"In Orthodoxy the dignity and ultimate worth of every human person are derived from the image of God, while a dignified life is related to the notion of God’s likeness achieved through God’s grace by efforts to overcome sin and to seek moral purity and virtue. Therefore, the human being as bearing the image of God should not exult in this lofty dignity, for it is not his own achievement but a gift of God. Nor should he use it to justify his weaknesses or vices, but rather understand his responsibility for the direction and way of his life. Clearly, the idea of responsibility is integral to the very notion of dignity....the ideas of what is dignified and what is not are bound up with the moral or amoral actions of a person and with the inner state of his soul. Considering the state of human nature darkened by sin, it is important that things dignified and undignified should be clearly distinguished in the life of a person...According to the Orthodox tradition, a human being preserves his God-given dignity and grows in it only if he lives in accordance with moral norms because these norms express the primordial and therefore authentic human nature not darkened by sin. Thus there is a direct link between human dignity and morality. Moreover, the acknowledgement of personal dignity implies the assertion of personal responsibility."

Twaddle said...

Don't worry! He's in "full communion."

xavier said...

the fort is not only betrayed, it is overrun.

Matt said...

Here, here. Second on the dire need for clarification of this Cardinal's statement.

Matt said...

Malta, what's troubling you? While the anecdote you related is between you and your pastor, your tone sounds a bit self-righteous. The rest of us have to wait a certain amount of time to get a baptism done, but not you because you wanted it there and then? Interesting.

Peter said...

Where, where, Matt? I think you mean hear, hear!

Anonymous said...

This will empty out a few more pews in the Vatican II Church.

J.G.Ratkaj said...

And Rome laments "relativism?!?

Unreconstructed said...

Friends, watch this - The Enemy is Within - by the excellent Fr. Rodriguez. His words are directly on point:

Colin Harte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GE said...

Being 'homosexual', whatever that means, is not sinful, unless one chooses to cultivate such feelings, and it would be unjust to make it a crime - but are there really nations where this is a crime, and could that be what His Excellency is referring to? I don't know.

Anyone care to investigate before we lynch the shepherd?

I am not Spartacus said...

Dignity; it is not just the name of a "Catholic" society of sodomites, it is the modernist's universal solvent useful for dissolving Tradition.

And why speak only about the dignity of sodomites and shack-up fornicators while neglecting the dignity of masturbators, drug addicts, drunks, whores, atheists, goldbrickers, counterfeiters, and pornographers?

Are they not also loved by God?

New Catholic said...

Colin, in this case it is more than a personal view, he says, "I would work to overturn it," which is pretty impressive. Precisely because it is a position (the criminalization of acts against nature) that is freely held by Catholics, but that was nevertheless defended by the Church for a long time and long upheld in Catholic nations, the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family (the Family, no less) should refrain from saying he would work to overturn it.

Andrew said...

I disagree with every post here. I agree with Church teaching regarding homosexual acts, but do you really want to live in a society where people who may or not be homosexual are followed and subject to stings by the state to make arrests? Do you really want to see homosexuals in prison? And why is this sin any worse than other sexual sins like adultery, pre-marital sex, artifical contraception or self abuse? If you are going to be consistent then you should outlaw all those acts as well and have the state enforce those laws through punishment. I am sure many people here are fearful of "big government" yet you would like to empower the state to investigate people's private lives? The archbisop isn't going against Church teaching. He is just saying that he would not support punitive action against this group of people. There are other ways to preach the Gospel than using the arm of the state. Give your head a shake. Imagine what society would look like if every sin was punished by law. We would all be in jail.

Bill Phelan said...

One facet of being Catholic which I find very troubling is we always seem to be waiting for various bishops, cardinals (popes?) to DIE.
The Institution cannot seem to deal with mistaken appointments of some of Its leaders. When I hear, e.g., that bishop X is 68 so we only have to wait seven years for him to retire, I have to walk away from the conversation. Our lives are finite. "In the meantime" is the only time we have.

Lewis said...

Sodomy is one of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, so yes it is worse than most sins.

poeta said...


Many of those things were crimes at common law, but I am not aware that police ever conducted "stings" or covert operations to discover such crimes. The charges would be brought by an aggrieved spouse or parent.

Consensual sodomy has been prosecuted within recent memory, but typically it would be because a police officer observed some act occurring in a public place. The point is that the rhetoric about police "invading people's bedrooms" has never been a reflection of reality.

Long-Skirts said...

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family said:

" the archbishop speaking of celibate homosexuals, or practicing homosexuals" if the homosexuals needed his support right now! Same-sex marriage is being given the same "rights" almost everywhere and now Archbishop Paglia feels he needs to show his great "love" for them. We all know what Our Lord taught, "Love the sinner but HATE the sin" - where are the hierarchy's voices giving ANY support to the Catholic women keeping her marriages open to children and struggling, crying, praying for God's help to protect them and their families in a pagan world that beats us down DAILY for bringing another child into the world and leaving our "carbon footprints" which might despoil the pagan's pristine world


The beginning of Wisdom
Is Fear of the Lord
So Wisdom with age
I’ve seen no accord.

So you’ve lived many decades
Seen the world more than twice
But what have you learned
That sinners are nice?

That sinners eat
And sinners drink
And sinners read
And sinners think

And sinners have
Sincere desires
Like remodeling rooms
With art that inspires

And compels one to lift
His goblet of wine
To toast all we want
And make want what is mine

So all in modern
Shall acknowledge their versions
Of propriety

And when you die
They’ll bring goblets, blessed lockets --
But they’ll realize too late
Pagans' shrouds have no pockets!

FaithfultoGod said...

Andrew, your points actually support the opposite view that by recognizing same sex marriage, you may find the state arresting people for not supporting gay marriage. There will be teaching of gay lifestyle in schools without challenge. People that speak out will be identified as being bigots, similar to the "race card". Laws will be expanded to punish all that do not support this behavior, etc. Homosexual behavior will be mainstreamed into our culture unchallenged. The Church will be mute and muted. Game over.

I am not Spartacus said...

And why is this sin any worse than other sexual sins like adultery, pre-marital sex, artifical contraception or self abuse?

It is one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance and other sexual sins aren't; that is why.

Because homosexualism has has such success in the murder of the Sensus Catholicus we no longer hear that execrable perversion condemned; no, we hear it defended via a political praxis of a dignity completely severed from considerations of virtue and self-control aided by the sanctifying grace available in the Sacramental System.

Such a surrender to our enemy - the world - is to be lamented; and also expected, for as the great Dom Prosper Gueranger taught in, "The Liturgical Year," a relaxation of the practice of the ancient Lenten demands of fasting and abstinence ineluctably leads to an increase in effeminacy (homosexualism).

That is, make Tradition walk the plank off the Barque of Peter and you will have to open the gangplank to perversion and as you praise the dignity of the new passengers, all the while you will castigate the traddies for being so mean.

Valletta said...

Malta, It seems you have quite a temper. I suggest you try and restrain yourself. Such foul words. And to a priest no less!

JabbaPapa said...

The Archbishop's comments are simply a re-statement of the most Orthodox bog standard Catholic teachings --- this is a non-story.

Crimes and sins continue to be separate categories, *including* in Church doctrine and the Canon Law.

Not all sins are crimes ; conversely, not all crimes are sins.

Truth Seeker said...

"A man and woman can only marry themselves; the priest is a presider and spectator!"

Not in the theology of the Eastern Catholic Churches or Orthodox ones.

And just why did your priest say you'd have to wait three months to baptize your child? Were there preparation classes for you and the proposed sponsors to attend? Or is this a directive from the Bishop?

You never explained.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Clarified? No, corrected yes. I believe the archbishops comments are perfectly clear.

Fred said...

I dare say that there are only practicing homosexuals and formerly practicing homosexuals (not "celibate" homosexuals which is a misnomer for those formerly active homosexuals who are now chaste homosexuals). Formerly active homosexuals who are now chaste homosexuals used to be called repentant sinners. We should return to that terminology. I doubt that there are any virgin homosexuals, insofar as no man would apply that dreadful name to himself who had not already committed sodomy.

Spy Kid said...

Let us replace "gay" and "homosexual" with the sspx, just for a laugh...

"While the church opposes recognizing the sspx ministry" he said, it affirms the full dignity of all sspx men and women. 'If a Diocese outlawed tolerance for the sentiments of traditionalists, I would work to overturn it,' he said, adding that he believed there are still '1000 or 1500 Prelates' that define latin masses as a crime."

Spy Kid said...

The problem is not that the Archbishop said, "While the church opposes recognizing gay unions as marriage" but that he failed to say, "While the church opposes recognizing gay unions.(period)"

PEH said...

One wonders why homosexuality is getting so much attention in Catholic`circles these days, especially by high ranking clergy. Is it because these clergymen are homosexuals themselves and are trying to justify their lifestyle in the face of widespread opposition by everyday catholics? Let us be clear about this - homosexual tendencies in themselves are not sins but homosexual acts are sins and always have been.

We must pray for those with homosexual tendencies that with the grace of God they may be able to withstand any temptation to act out these tendencies. That said, it is necessary for us to remember what Bella Dodd said with respect to infiltration of the priesthood by the agents of Satan. IMO we should use extreme caution in trusting anyone these days who claims to be a priest for by their fruits, ye shall know them.

I am not Spartacus said...

Roman Catechism:

Elevation And Dignity Of Man

When the faithful have placed these things before their eyes, let them also reflect that God condescended to assume the lowliness and frailty of our flesh in order to exalt man to the highest degree of dignity. This single reflection, that He who is true and perfect God became man, supplies sufficient proof of the exalted dignity conferred on the human race by the divine bounty; since we may now glory that the Son of God is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, a privilege not given to Angels, for nowhere, says the Apostle, doth he take hold of the Angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.

Duty Of Spiritual Nativity

We must also take care lest to our great injury it should happen that just as there was no room for Him in the inn at Bethlehem, in which to be born, so likewise now, after He has been born in the flesh, He should find no room in our hearts in which to be born spiritually. For since He is most desirous of our salvation, this spiritual birth is the object of His most earnest solicitude.

As, then, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and in a manner superior to the order of nature, He was made man and was born, was holy and even holiness itself, so does it become our duty to be born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God; to walk as new creatures in newness of spirit, and to preserve that holiness and purity of soul which so much becomes men regenerated by the Spirit of God. Thus shall we reflect some faint image of the holy Conception and Nativity of the Son of God, which are the objects of our firm faith, and believing which we revere and adore the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden.

Well, which is it? Is it the dignity of man in Catholic Tradition; However, we can and must immediately reach and display to the world our unity in proclaiming the mystery of Christ, in revealing the divine dimension and also the human dimension of the Redemption, and in struggling with unwearying perseverance for the dignity that each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity, a truth which- if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such fundamental importance- for us is still clearer in the light of the reality that is Jesus Christ. (Redemptor Hominis) or is it the dignity of man according to the doctrines of the so-called enlightenment (the 18th century Dark Ages) which rejected Catholic Tradition?

John Fisher said...

Yes there is a need to deter and discourage homosexual activity. I am convinced it is social construct especialy after I read an anthropological study that pointed out in many cultures there is no word of concept of homosexuality. Rather like saying a sexual attraction to question marks was a lifestyle or just part of human behaviour. By defining and discussing something one gives it life. Like legends that Hollywood absurdly creates ie Lincoln Vampire Slayer.
People are attracted to all sorts of things. But attraction is nothing if it is ignored, not reinforced. The homosexual thing is like opium. It offers nothing except being trapped in a den of vice. Homosexuals kill themselves because those that are addicted lose everything incuding self respect.

poeta said...

There are three kinds of human dignity: ontological, moral, and social.

A human being's ontological dignity comes from his nature as a creature made in the image of God, and it remains constant from the moment of conception.

Moral dignity is diminished by sin, in proportion to the seriousness of the sin.

Social dignity results from the approbation of other people.

Therefore, when a society lauds sinful behavior, we see a person's social dignity increase as his moral dignity decreases. Our Lord, on the other hand, was accorded little social dignity but possessed infinite moral dignity.

We need to be clear as to what kind of dignity we mean by this nebulous term "human dignity."

xavier said...

Can anyone imagine such a statement being issued during Pius XII's pontificate? Only 50 some odd years ago.

Judith said...

In 1 Corinthians 6:10 it states that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. Of course a just God would not condemn anyone to hell for an inclination over which they had no choice or ability to control. Effiminacy and same sex relations are a choice, an evil choice. In a rational world, why would a disciple of Christ "work to overturn" a law which prohibits an action or attitude which has been clearly and repeatedly defined as evil in holy Scripture?
Is it really the place of the clergy to be spending their time and efforts working for secular causes, especially this particular cause which approves evil.

My personal pet peeve is that the clergy no longer behave as if they believe that God is in control of all things. More energy should be directed toward prayer and fasting for His intervention in matters that are evil, rather than the continual promotion of secular social action.
So many threatened evils were averted through prayer and penance in the past. This was revealed in Scripture and in history. This should be the message of the Church, not social work.

Wesley Winfield said...

Let’s not be naïve here. Yes, he probably does mean ‘practicing homosexuals’ but just like the deliberately ambiguous texts of VII, I’m sure he can change it to whatever suits him best.

Glenn in Madrid said...

As Mgr Ronald Knox wrote regarding
divorce, and it applies here, We must
not say ¨My Church forbids it¨- that is inaccurate. We must say ¨God forbids it, and my Church fortifies me in that belief¨

Francis said...

Why would these asinine and heretical statements made by modernist bishops surprise any of us by now? This garbage has been going on for nearly fifty years. Yes, its nauseating and makes me angry, but I'm not surprised, especially since the conciliar church is comprised with active homosexuals and their sympathizers.
Don't forget, most of these bishops would be against a Catholic confessional state also because it would violate "religious freedom".

Rick DeLano said...

The conciliar Fathers exercised their charism of prophecy to pronounce the American Revolution superior to the French in its reconcilability with the Catholic faith.

The fruits of this fateful decision speak for themselves.

The Second Vatican Council has been a disaster, an utter catastrophe, for the Church, and seems, plausibly, to be the historical manifestation of the warning issued by Paul and the Holy Ghost in Scripture, concerning the great falling away.

The truly chilling part is that no document of that Council formally propounds a single heresy.

Satan's masterstroke.

The Church does not defect from the Faith, but significant members of the hierarchy employ textual ambiguities in the documents to effectuate a revolution, which the Pope appears to either support, or lack the means to oppose effectively.

LeonG said...

Like a typical post-conciliar liberal modernist, there is almost always a need for clarification of statements concerning major moral and theological issues. Not one of them ever speaks or writes with simplicity of understanding. Ambiguity and equivocation are the hallmarks. This is why they were able to assume control of the post-conciliar church. Superficially Catholic, from the interior we can detect another philosophy alien to Catholicism. This is so flagrant nowadays they can no longer hide the real agenda.

PrayingForElijah said...

Imagine what a society would look like if [divorce], contraception, abortion and sodomy were criminalized. Note the continuum in this article on overturning laws against contraception due to “rights of privacy” – last development is Supreme Court overturning Texas laws criminalizing sodomy.
God’s word states that nothing that is hidden will not be made known. You cannot have hidden sin and it not become public or manifest itself in some way (covering up dehydrating people to death in hospice ”care” becomes manic craze of buying and carrying about plastic water bottles to “hydrate” ourselves). You seem not to care if your neighbor (or yourself) will go to hell (if you know you would go to jail, know you will go to hell—and which is worse) and not caring about your neighbor is grave sin.
You wonder what the society would look like: We did not have “f bombs” during the Super Bowl or half time shows where men stripped off women’s tops to reveal their nipples or women gave performances worthy of strip shows as half time entertainment. We did not have the president of the United States advocating homosexuals in the boy scouts or military or the Republican candidate for President bragging that he had been working for homosexuals in the boy scouts since 1994. We didn’t have senators and presidents not resigning from office even though they were frequenting under age prostitutes (or interns)– the younger the better – and when accused of rape or having a homosexual brothel run out of their home (BFrank). We didn’t have TV shows like Glee w/episodes entitled “Naked” and producers bragging that they have put on TV the first rear entry scene in three years. We did not have 56 million murdered babies, assisted suicide, death panels and the routine dehydrating and starving of the old, the sick and the disabled so the “Catholic” children (bound for heaven) can get on w/the important business of masturbation, sodomy, fornication, adultery and twittering while they wait. We did not have Sharia Law becoming the law of the U.S. and Europe. And there weren’t any Muslim women covering their heads 24-7 in our society.
As you worry about government intrusion, you say nothing of the Vatican & USCCB calling Catholics to lobby to criminalize guns, even while they teach pornography addicted Catholic men that abortion and homosexuality must be DE-criminalized. Both these sins cry out to heaven for VENGEANCE because they KILL innocent people in this life and send the perpetrators to hell for all eternity. What is at the heart is a sexually perverse and corrupt priesthood whose worship is an abomination to God:
“Bernardin, who said he had never met Cook, also left the dying man a costly chalice, which Bernardin had used to offer Mass in Cook’s Philadelphia apartment. In addition to Cook and Bernardin, Cook’s homosexual lover was also in attendance at the Mass. Cook made no secret of his homosexuality, and there is no indication that Cook would have hidden the identity of his male lover. Giving Holy Communion under such circumstances, according to traditional Catholic teaching, constitutes sacrilege. “
Mr. Cook DIED from being used as Bernardin’s chalice. Bernardin’s funeral mass was offered by Mahony – who claims not to KNOW that sodomy HURT children, even though he knew it was a CRIME and circumvented the law and protected criminals. According to the Vatican, these are “priests in good standing”.

NIANTIC said...

The Church is sick. She has been infiltrated since many,many decades by Satanic inspired modernism. Condemned by pre-conciliar Popes they laid low but continued germinating and refining their ideology. During Vatican ll they took the reigns because, eventhough they were a minority, they had the organization, and just like today's powerful homosexual minority, they forced their will onto the Church, supported by Cardinal Montini (Paul VI).

These people live by, and force obedience to, the modernist dictates. Is it then any wonder that most of their statements and pronouncements are filled with ambiguities? They want to be accepted by our "seperated brethren" and the world at large. As father Johnny or Dicky or Charlie they wish to be "one of the boys". They have no theological scholastic training, do not know latin, have no sense of Church history and absolutely no idea about the Priesthood and its function for the salvation of souls. They are purely "today's creatures".

As has been said often before, the biological solution has a lot of work to do.

Thanks be to God, we have Traditional societies/institutes and individual faithful priests and bishops and many good and hopefully solid Traditional seminarians to watch over, and guide, our Souls. Listen to them, and use a good amount of skepticism to anybody else.

Pax Christi.

LeonG said...

P for Elijah

I have been watching these unnatural developments and the liberal modernist wreckers ball of post-conciliar politics since my youth. The Church is to blame for allowing itself to become secularised and in encouraging society to find that the church appears to approve of its own worldly openness to the extent of mimicking these unnatural and criminal behaviours. Sexual perversions; financial scandals and money-laundering are noxoius enough but when it comes to abominations through countless acts of liturgical sacrilege then we are rendered desolate in the very ecclesiastical sense of the word.

The symbol of that secular humanistic process within the church is to be raised to the altars once an easy miracle can be found. What think ye of this? fr :Lugi Villa (RIP) has spoken "Paul VI: Beatified?"

God help us all in such a preposterous and vile mess.

Matt said...

Peter said, "Where, where, Matt? I think you mean hear, hear!"

LOL. Did I write that? On the mark, Peter.

JB said...

I can only compare the current situation of the Church to that of the Allies during the Siege of Bastone. What we need is some highly placed cardinal, or perhaps the next pope, to stand up and say "nuts!" to the constant demands that we surrender all that we hold dear, all that is true, our Faith.

Common Sense said...

Dear JabbaPapa,

I don't quite understand what you mean, but let it be understood that this issue of homosexuality is not, and cannot be, just like a one-off bad dinner that your spouse happened to cook. As a matter of fact, I had a personal encounter with a sodomite when I was nineteen back in the 70s in Communist Czechoslovakia. In those days they were quite a rare species. That guy attempted to molest me on the midnight express. Fortunately I had my wits about me and quickly put a stop to it. I still remember how charming and friendly his behaviour was, only to show his filthy advances as the express train rumbled deeper into the night.

If the homosexuals had their way, that would be an era of the greatest tyranny mankind ever experienced. I would imagine that you don't advocate that 1% of the population should have fun at the expense of the remaining 99%, right?