Archbishop Dolan: If New York City is not a "Neo-Sodom and Gomorrah," what would you call it? A Neo-Nineveh?

"New York seems to have an innate interest and respect for religion and I'm going to bring that up because I don't like that caricature that New York is some neo-Sodom and Gomorrah" - Archbishop Timothy Dolan.  See here.

Greenwich Village is the birthplace of the American homosexual movement.  New York City is known far and wide for being a "gay" hotspot.  So much so that Michael Musto writes openly about "The Five Best Places To Have Gay Sex in New York."  See here.

In a press release dated July 7, 2011, Senator Ruben Diaz said that,  "I voted my conscience and opposed Governor Andrew Cuomo's key piece of social legislation in the New York State Senate that redefines our marriage laws away from the traditional definition of one man and one woman. I was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against this legislation, and I wear my vote as a badge of honor.

I have been congratulated by religious leaders and constituents not only from my district, but from districts all over New York State. I have received messages of encouragement and gratitude from people throughout the United States. Alberto Martinez tweeted: "Jesus said: 'Whoever is ashamed of Him and His words, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of such person at His coming.' Bravo Senator Diaz." All of these supporters know that I am unashamed to be a Christian. If we talk the talk, we must walk the walk.

Although Republican Senate Leader Dean Skelos ushered the gay marriage vote to the floor in order to make the 11:00PM news, and even though the vote passed, the hatred that has spewed in my direction before June 24th continues.

Yesterday I received a series of five emails in my Senate account from one person that read like homicidal rantings: "You eat s***. You are s***." "There is no worse person on Earth than you. God has told me so." "You worthless pile of human excrement!!!" "I hope you die! I hope you die soon! I'm waiting for you to die!" "Satan would sooner nail a stake through your heart than admit to knowing you. Your very own lover!!!"

To err on the side of caution and especially since one of the messages awaits my demise, those emails were properly reported to the FBI.

Those messages suggest that even though the gay marriage vote passed, that author did not get what he wanted which suggests to me that for some reason, I am the embodiment of his disappointment. He may also be upset because I am unashamed of my vote.

Last Tuesday, a website posted an article titled: "Sen. Ruben Douchebag: I Made History." The tag labels that follow that online piece are as vulgar as possible. I quote them here not to amplify their vulgarity, but to let people know the ever-growing hatred freely expressed by those who claim to promote tolerance: "assholery, batshittery, bigotry, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, douchenozzles, evil, and f***weasels".

I am amazed that the author of that site continues to fixate on me as he does. I was told that he even tweeted about me just one hour after the supposed May 21 rapture: "An hour past #Rapture in New York City and this town is still infested with Sen. Ruben Diaz and his filthy ilk. #Disappointed."

For all intents and purposes I am a stranger to this person, yet for some reason I have his full attention. As a religious leader I thank the Lord that he continues to pay attention to my efforts to spread the Word of God. I hope and pray that since he seems to be a grown man, he will try to no longer promote vulgarity, indecency and hatred online or elsewhere.

After the June 24 vote, so many people who disguise themselves as victims and decry bullies hide behind their computer screens and demonstrate what is called "keyboard courage" by posting hateful and vicious comments about me.

In the great spirit of interfaith unity I will continue to work to promote what the late Pope John Paul II called the Culture of Life and continue to highlight the actions of the opposition which is still not pleased even with their declared victory in New York against traditional marriage.

For my part, I will continue to be unashamed to be a Christian.

The homosexual lobby used threats and strong tactics to smash their same-sex depravity law through the New York Assembly and to Governor Cuomo’s pen. I guess one can call this the tactics of homosexual mafia." (See here).

Every year New York City celebrates "Gay Pride" and a satanic organization called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, cross-dressing "Sisters" who mock Jesus and His Church while celebrating sodomite debauchery, calls New York City home. 

Your Excellency, if New York City is not a Neo-Sodom, what would you call it?  A Neo-Nineveh?  The people of Nineveh repented of their sins and their city was spared from disaster. The spirit of penance which saved them from chastisement was expressed through the sackcloth and ashes. We are told in Sacred Scripture that, "The word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: Set out for the great city of Nineveh, and announce to it the message that I will tell you. So Jonah set out for Nineveh, in accord with the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an awesomely great city; it took three days to walk through it. Jonah began his journey through the city, and when he had gone only a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh: 'By decree of the king and his nobles, no man or beast, no cattle or sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water. Man and beast alike must be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; they all must turn from their evil way and from the violence of their hands. Who knows? God may again repent and turn from his blazing wrath, so that we will not perish.' When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out." (Jonah 3: 1-10).


Where is the fast in New York City? [not that there's not sin elsewhere but we're speaking of NYC here] Where is the penance? Saint Paul tells us that all men have the basic moral law before them, the Ten Commandments written in their hearts. All men are capable of knowing good from evil:

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse.." (Romans 1: 19-20).

But excuses are all we find today.  Not to mention a celebration of sin - even that sin which is most detestable - sodomy. As Father Albert J. Hebert, S.M. put it, "All great pagan judicial systems admitted the fact of wrong-doing and their legal systems prescribed punishment for it. It is only in our day that there is such a widespread denial of the existence of sin and moral laws. This makes God appear as the Creator of evil, and God hates this blasphemy, pride, and hypocrisy on the part of His creature man...Today, persons great and lowly commit sin, deny it and even blasphemously call it virtue. For example, active homosexuals and lesbians call their perverse practices 'love' and demand the legal status of normal married man and wife."

With all due respect Your Excellency, let's not forget the words Our Lord spoke 2,000 years ago to another generation but which nevertheless apply to our own sin-sick generation:

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here." (Matthew 12: 41).

New York City is not another Sodom?  I'm afraid I must disagree Archbishop. I believe in truth in advertising.  I believe a thing should be called what it is.  And I agree with St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, who reminded us in his Introduction to the Devout Life that, "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every way and place we may meet him."

Read More

The United States Senate and the National Defense Authorization Act: Repealing bans on the most grievous sins

In my last post, I noted how the U.S. Senate has repealed the bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military.  Article 125 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice was repealed by S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. See here.  Go to page 147.

Article 125 of the UCMJ read:

a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


The UCMJ has always viewed same-sex intercourse and bestiality as unnatural.  What has changed?  Other than the fact that certain U.S. Senators, due to moral cowardice, have decided to cater to radical homosexual activists who demand that their unnatural vice be granted societal approval?


Aquinas on Unnatural Sex





Thomas Aquinas (1224/25-75) is commonly regarded as the greatest Western philosopher of the thirteenth century. In a series of works he addressed all the current issues of theology and philosophy, and in particular the problem Christian thinkers had in dealing with the arrival of good editions of the works of Aristotle in the West.

Aquinas was both intensely productive and quite flexible in his approaches. [On occasion he reportedly was able to write, via dictation, two or more works at a time]. Because of the formidable extent of his works, it is often his two great summas to which we turn to find out what he thought. This is not always wise. The summas were consciously written as compendia, and Aquinas addressed a number of theoretical issues in smaller subject specific treatises. Moreover, many of the common questions in thirteenth centuiy academic discussion were based on questions from the basic Theologiael textbook, Peter Lombard's Four Books of Sentences, and it is to Aquinas' commentaries on these that one should turn for his discussion of issues such as women clergy, or the moment of consecration.

The summas [the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles] are, however, useful. Echoing the disputation methods of university teaching, the Summa Theologiae presents a summation of Aquinas' opinions on issues from the existence of God, to the sacremental system, to basic moral rules.

The selection here addresses Aquinas discussion of sex and sexuality. It shows both his typical methods - his willingness to face objections openly, his use of authorities, and his use of logic - as well as the effort to construct the intractable realities of human experience into a structured and analyzable form.


Extracts from Summa Theologiae II-II, question 154

The following issues are addressed by Aquinas in these selections:-

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11: Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 12: Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust? Aquinas' discussion of sexual morality in general [which includes fornication, incest, and rape], is available in a separate document, Aquinas on Sex

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11

Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species of lust. For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the enumeration given above (1, Objection 1). Therefore it is not a species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, lust is contrary to virtue; and so it is comprised under vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under vice, but under bestiality, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 5). Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

Objection 3. Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as stated above (153, 2): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

On the contrary, It is reckoned together with the other species of lust (2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust."

I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

Reply to Objection 1. There we enumerated the species of lust that are not contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was omitted.

Reply to Objection 2. Bestiality differs from vice, for the latter is opposed to human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the virtue, and therefore is reducible to the same genus.

Reply to Objection 3. The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 12

Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, sins committed against God would seem to be the most grievous. Now sacrilege is committed directly against God, since it is injurious to the Divine worship. Therefore sacrilege is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Objection 3. Further, seemingly, a sin is all the more grievous according as we owe a greater love to the person against whom that sin is committed. Now the order of charity requires that a man love more those persons who are united to him---and such are those whom he defiles by incest---than persons who are not connected with him, and whom in certain cases he defiles by the unnatural vice. Therefore incest is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Objection 4. Further, if the unnatural vice is most grievous, the more it is against nature the graver it would seem to be. Now the sin of uncleanness or effeminacy would seem to be most contrary to nature, since it would seem especially in accord with nature that agent and patient should be distinct from one another. Hence it would follow that uncleanness is the gravest of unnatural vices. But this is not true. Therefore unnatural vices are not the most grievous among sins of lust.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that "of all these," namely the sins belonging to lust, "that which is against nature is the worst."

I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (09), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (10, ad 2).

Reply to Objection 1. Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust."

Reply to Objection 2. Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

Reply to Objection 3. The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

Reply to Objection 4. Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Gn. 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime," says that "they copulated with cattle." After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the "vas" than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.


Paul Halsall
March 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu


Our Senators have voted to repeal bans on the most grievous sins.  They have opted to condone such evils.

Read More

U.S. Senate repeals bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military

I've been warning for years that the acceptance of sodomy would lead inevitably to the acceptance of bestiality as well.  For example, back in December of 2010, I noted that according to Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, "...there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.


These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

And I asserted that:

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality."

Was I wrong?  No. 

 
 
The Hour of Darkness has arrived for America and the rest of the world.  People are becoming increasingly desensitized to sin and hard of heart.  And they are turning to doctrines of demons.

Read More

Is it the position of the El Paso Texas Diocese that Pope Pius X's Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are wrong in calling sodomy a sin that cries to God for vengeance?

Rev. Michael Rodriguez, pastor of Saint Juan Bautista Church in Central El Paso, has written a series of advertisements published in four parts by the El Paso Times.  These advertisements, entitled "The truth about homosexuality," denounce homosexuality and any encouragement of homosexuality.  Sounds like something any serious Catholic would fall behind right?  Unfortunately, the Diocese of El Paso insists that the advertisements do not represent the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and that, "These paid advertisements are the personal views and opinions of Father Michael Rodriguez."  Readers of this Blog will recall that the Bishop of El Paso, Armando Ochoa, referred to Catholic teaching regarding same-sex "marriage" as "mere opinion."

In his 1910 Catechism, Pope Saint Pius X tells us that sodomy ranks second in gravity to voluntary homicide among the sins that "cry out to God for vengeance."  According to this Catechism, crafted by one of the greatest Popes of the modern era - the Pope of the Eucharist, raised to the altars of the Church - "These sins are said to cry out to God because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so grave and manifest that it provokes God to punish with more severe chastisements."

But officials of the El Paso Diocese apparently believe that the Holy Spirit is wrong and that Pope Pius X's Catechism is mistaken.  If this is the case, then the diocese must also reject this authoritative teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II: "The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are 'sins that cry to heaven': the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.'" (CCC, 1867).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, insisted that:

"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians....The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it.  To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." (No. 10).  The CDF also emphasizes in this important document that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11).

It would appear that the Diocese of El Paso needs to be investigated by Rome.

Read More