March 9, 2004
vol 15, no. 69

Is the Closet Now Empty?

Commentary by

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
President, Catholic Apologetics International

How Ambiguous Loopholes have allowed the Sirens of Sodomy to Drive Right In!
National Catholic Reporter endorses Homosexual Marriages; EWTN reveals USCCB still deliberating whether to ordain homosexuals; a second look at Cardinal Esteves' Vatican statement about ordaining homosexuals

    Editor's Note: We are delighted to present the succinct commentary of Robert A. Sungenis who has so graciously given permission to republish it in The Daily Catholic for our readers. Along with Gerry Matatics, Bob Sungenis is undoubtedly one of the leading Catholic Apologists in Traditional circles today; one who can go toe to toe with anyone in upholding the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. We encourage you to check out his site and his books and tapes which will help you in better knowing the Faith and expressing it clearly and decisively to others. Hey, souls are at stake. Leave no stone unturned. Below is his commentary which first appeared a few days ago on his site, and which we now share with our readers for his findings are indeed shocking and we would do well to realize sodomy is slithering in everywhere. Beware and bar the door!

   Well, if you haven’t heard it by now, you will. In one of the most audacious and unbelievable moves within a Catholic organization, the National Catholic Reporter has come out of the closet and endorsed homosexual marriage. Let me say it again in case you didn’t believe your eyes the first time: the National Catholic Reporter has come out of the closet and endorsed homosexual marriage. We knew from past positions that they were as liberal as Ted Kennedy, but I guess we didn’t realize the depths to which that sorry excuse for a newspaper would actually sink. This is a paper that is financially supported by the subscriptions it sells through Catholic dioceses, religious orders and major Catholic publishers, and which won a General Excellence Award from the Catholic Press Association at one time. They have now used the homosexual issue to, once and for all, reveal their true demonic colors. In a statement the NCR released they said:

    The ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts allowing same-sex civil marriage is a beneficial step along the path of human understanding and human rights.

   Now you can see why St. Paul says: "Now the Spirit manifestly says that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their conscience seared" 1 Timothy 4:1.

   We are very near the end, folks. The rampant spread of homosexuality is one of the surest signs of God’s ensuing judgment. There is no turning back. It will only get worse and worse until, like Lot, they will be banging at your door wanting to have sex with your children. It is that bad.

   Where is the Vatican and the USCCB on this? Well, after having gone through the homosexual/pedophile scandal of 2002, which had been brewing for the previous 30 years since the end of Vatican II, the USCCB is, get this, “considering” whether or not to ordain homosexuals! On a recent Eternal Word Television Network’s Town Meeting featuring the National Review Board’s report, the spokesman told Raymond Arroyo that the they were still debating whether to ordain homosexuals. Can you believe this? Talk about bold and in your face. (Unfortunately, EWTN and Raymond Arroyo have already decided to bow to anything the bishops say, and thus hardly an eyebrow was raised at the network).

   The recent moves by the NCR and USCCB go hand-in-hand with homosexuality. It is the most insidious sin known to man. Once they are out of the closet, they are as bold as they can be. And they will not stop until they see homosexuality permeate every part of our lives. You can depend upon it.

   And why might the USCCB and its National Review Board think that they might have the prerogative to decide whether or not to ordain homosexuals? Well, let’s go a little deeper into this arena. Back on May 16, 2002, Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez issued the Vatican’s official statement on homosexual ordination. While most people praised this statement, I saw a giant loop hole in it. Here is what the cardinal said (note the clauses I have underlined):

      The Congregation for Clergy has sent this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments your Excellency's letter, asking us to clarify the possibility that men with homosexual tendencies be able to receive priestly ordination. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, conscious of the experience resulting from many instructed causes for the purpose of obtaining dispensation from the obligations that derive from Holy Ordination, and after due consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, expresses its judgment as follows:

      Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. I take the opportunity to send you my most cordial greetings.

    Yours sincerely in Domino Your Most Reverend Excellency,
    Jorge A. Cardinal. Medina Estévez, Prefect

You can read the statement at www.adoremus.org/Notitiae-Ordination.html.

   First, notice that the cardinal did not forbid, by a clear and concise Vatican edict, the ordaining of a homosexual. He merely said that such a person is “not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.” Now, unless something got lost in the Italian translation, why did the cardinal choose to give his statement in the form of the subjective condition of the homosexual (i.e., “not fit”) rather than just say:

    “Homosexual persons are forbidden to be ordained at any time or for any reason.

    Further, homosexuality is a sin of the highest order, and it is incumbent upon the person to renounce his sin, for until one does, one cannot partake in any sacrament, let alone ordination.” That would have been a short, clear, dogmatic, pastoral and unequivocal statement. No loop holes, no excuses.

   Second, and probably more important, observe how the cardinal introduced his reasoning. In the sentence prior he says that ordination to the diaconate or priesthood is “absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky.” Now wait a second here. Is the Vatican in control of this situation or not? Are they the authorities here or not? By the looks of the statement, the cardinal is merely dispensing advice (i.e., “absolutely inadvisable”). But ordaining homosexuals is not a matter of “advice,” no matter how strong the advice may be; rather, homosexuality is a serious breach of God’s laws that must be eradicated by a strong hand stating that it is a heinous sin and in no way is it ever possible for a homosexual person to be ordained, and that the Vatican will not allow it, under pain of excommunication.

   That the cardinal is continuing the “advice” approach is confirmed by his next choice of words, saying that ordaining homosexuals would be “imprudent.” Here we have one of the worst sins ever to infest mankind, but all the cardinal can say is that ordaining a homosexual person would be “imprudent”?! Driving my car 15 miles per hour over the speed limit is imprudent. Not paying my mortgage on time is imprudent. But thinking of ordaining a homosexual to the priesthood is not “imprudent,” it is an absolute outrage, an abominable sin that cries to high heaven for judgment, a perversion so disgusting we fail to find the proper words to describe it.

   As if that’s not enough, then the cardinal concludes his statement that ordaining a homosexual is “very risky.” This choice of words confirms his intention. His intention is not to condemn, outrightly, the ordaining of homosexuals, but to craft his language in such a way that it appears he is disallowing homosexual ordination, but to those who want it, he is keeping the door open. If something is “very risky” that doesn’t mean that it is being forbidden. Playing Black Jack in Las Vegas is “very risky,” but no one is telling the gambler he can’t do it. Playing the stock market is often “very risky,” but there is no law against it. When someone says that something is “risky” as opposed to just outrightly condemning it, he is allowing the person to think that, even though the behavior might cause problems, it still might be allowed.

   Now, if you were an editor of the NCR, or a member of the USCCB and had a bent toward homosexuality, and you had seminaries in your diocese that housed homosexuals (statistics reveal that upwards of 50% of priests are homosexual, and they graduated from these very seminaries), and you were trying to look for loopholes in the cardinal’s statement, yes, you would see a gapping hole, one large enough to drive a truck through. You would see that the Vatican is not outrightly condemning the ordaining of homosexuals, but merely giving pastoral advice that it is “inadvisable, imprudent and very risky,” but leaving the final decision up to the bishops.

   This is what the so-called “collegiality” interpretation of Vatican II has given us -- a Vatican who is either too timid to make a firm decision or simply no longer in a position to lay down an unequivocal and uncompromising edict against ordaining homosexuals. No wonder the spokesman on EWTN for the National Review Board could say, with an unconcerned smile, that the USCCB was still “considering” whether to ordain homosexuals or not. The reason is that the USCCB, of which some statistics say about 30% have homosexual orientations, is in control, since they have received no firm command from the Vatican to the contrary.

   Apart from a little wrist-slapping, the Vatican has done absolutely nothing about the world-wide homosexual problem in the priesthood. One cardinal said that if the Vatican were to crack down, it would topple the Church, since so many bishops are homosexual. Perhaps that is the reason we have such weak and ineffective statements like those given by Cardinal Estevez. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the Vatican will have nothing to say about the National Catholic Reporter’s recent endorsement of homosexual marriage. The fact is, folks, our Catholic Church has been overrun by homosexuals, and it is they who are setting many of the policies in the Church, especially those pertaining to homosexuals. God help us all. As John says in the Apocalypse in a metaphor about the Church: "the great city which mystically is called Sodom...where also their Lord was crucified." We are seeing "Sodom" in the Church today. And with John we say: "Come, Lord Jesus."

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
President, Catholic Apologetics International

    March 9, 2004
    vol 15, no. 69
    Concise, hard-hitting editorials on HOT ISSUES