Here is the full text of Minnesota State Senator Dan Hall's speech on the Senate floor opposing Same Sex Marriage: 5-13-13

Here is the full text of Senator Dan Hall's speech on the Senate floor 5-13-13:

There’s a lot of celebrating going on today but there’s also a lot of grieving going on today. Grieving because there are many people in the state who do not believe this is the right thing to do. I sometimes call this the divine tension. Our constitution has protections for religious freedom—not to protect the government from religion.

I have six key points I’d like to state.

First off, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be the father and mother to any children their union produces.

Second, marriage is based on truth that men and women are complementary. The biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, the reality that children need both a father and a mother—which one would you not have wanted. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of assuring the well-being of children. Marital breakdown weakens civil society.

Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Government can treat people equally and with respect and respect their liberty without redefining marriage. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It weakens monogamy, exclusivity and permanency, the norms to which marriage in our society [inaudible] and it will threaten religious liberty.

I know that, Madam President, you do not allow us to pray in the name of Jesus or the holy spirit while we’re up there, but I ask that the holy spirit be with all of us today in this capitol around Minnesota during this vote. Today we may be changing the course of freedom for our children and our grandchildren in Minnesota. We may be forced to not just listen to someone else’s view—but to accept and then legislate and next, I believe, we will be forced to believe what we don’t.

I have been accused of attacking same-sex marriage because I disagree with the lifestyle. When has disagreeing become an attack? When has taking a stand against something you believe in become a personal attack? Freedom can only be free if we keep our moral compass. If we resolve to strengthen marriage instead of dismantling it. Without strong morals, that which we believe is right or wrong, we lose our freedoms.

Redefining marriage, which has many restrictions—you can’t get married if you’re under 18 without parents’ permission; only two people can get married, not three, not more—is opening that Pandora’s box. If you think marriage, the way it is now, is discriminating, why not add another group? That’s what we’ve done, we’re still discriminating, if that’s what you believe, unless we open it up to all.

But they’ll call me a bigot, they’ll call me a hater, they’ll spit in my face, like they did a friend of mine last Thursday. There are things in life, members, that are worth standing up for, even to be persecuted for.

Many have said to me, ‘Sen. Hall, you don’t understand. You’re married, live in a nice suburb, you’ve got kids, live in a nice house, two-car garage, you’re well educated.’

Most of you don’t know I grew up in the southeast projects, 71 Saint Marys [Avenue] by the U of M. Many of my relatives were addicts, criminals, two sent to prison, more than one child molester. Those that my mother tried to keep us away from were relatives. My mother raised four children in the projects but had an alcoholic husband that she divorced when I was six years old.

Two years later, she married another,  my stepfather who also was a drunk. When he was home, we tried not to be. When I was 12 my mother told him, “You either get on your knees and accept Jesus and have him take over your life and stop drinking or there’s the door, don’t ever come back.’ He did that that day, our life changed, that was a turning point in my history. My father did this 48 years ago today. He’s now in a nursing home, my mother still lives on Lake Nokomis.

But the change of history is like what we’re doing today.  It will forever change the fate of family.

I have family members on both sides of this issue. All of us are not perfect and all of us carry baggage from the past and our families. All have sinned, all have faults, I certainly do. I sin every day. This is not about that. It’s about what’s good for children. The children here in Minnesota. It’s about making the right choice for children’s future. The question is: Are homosexual marriages good for children? Are we as members in this chamber going to change the course of history? As to what the adults, we the caretakers, the public policy holders, leaders of Minnesota—what we think is right for children.

Back to marriage. Marriage is about giving, not taking. It’s about being willing to serve another, giving your affection to no other and, spiritually, marriage is about two becoming one in God’s eyes. A civil union is having a contract to protect yourself from the other that may take advantage of you and legally securing the government and civil benefits that have been reserved for marriage. There are consequences to everything. There will be unintended and, I believe, intended consequences.

Members, God has written his word on your hearts: Don’t legislate what you think personally is wrong. Choose life and life abundantly. Dismantling marriage will bring hurt, shame, confrontation and more indoctrination. Forcing others to give you your rights will never end well. It won’t give you the recognition you desire. That which is right can easily be seen by all. Let me say that again: That which is right can easily be seen by all.

Is this easy for you? Most people know this is not right. You asked for this job, members, when you ran for office. Leading is not easy. Are you still looking for an excuse to vote for it? I’m not giving you that today. I’m here to affirm true beliefs that come from your relationship to your creator.

Do you really want what Europe has? They’re on the verge of civil disaster. Some have said, ‘But don’t you want to be on the right side of history?’ The truth is I’m more concerned about being on the right side of eternity.

In conclusion, let me say this: My desire today is to bring more peace, more justice to all of Minnesota. I propose that we vote “No” on this bill and that we propose a more loving document that will more clearly and more distinctly allow the freedom that both communities would desire.

Don’t fool yourself today and think voting yes on this bill ends the conversation. The great people of Minnesota deserve better than this. This document will bring civil disobedience.

This document will split our schools, our churches, our towns, our counties, our state. It will hurt businesses and confuse children. More than any single issue has ever done since the civil war.

This bill needs to be crafted in such a way that it will not push civil rights back 50 years but bring our communities together. Please think about the devastating repercussions this vote will have on our communities. We must not pass this bill but, rather, we must take one more time to craft a truly bipartisan bill that respects the values of all Minnesotans and where no one feels they’re being shoved into an unwanted world, no one feels their religious liberties are being taken away.

Members, today you must choose who you will serve. May God help us.

The measure passed 37-30.  

Senator Hall represents parts of Bloomington and Burnsville in the Minnesota State Senate , District 63

Priest Under Fire An Interview of Father Michael Rodriguez

.

Priest Under Fire An Interview of Father Michael Rodriguez

by Michael J. Matt

Father Michael Rodriguez Michael J. Matt (MJM): First off, Father, I'd like to thank you for the stand you've taken in recent months in defense of the Church's moral teaching, especially with respect to so-called 'gay marriage'. Catholics all across the country have been following your case, and we're delighted to have a chance today to ask you a few questions. Before we get into the "controversy", however, I wonder if you'd mind telling us a little something about your personal background? Father Rodriguez (FR): Not at all. I was born in El Paso, Texas, on August 23, 1970, the middle child of five. Many years later my parents adopted a sixth child, my youngest sister. As I grew up in the early '70s, I was completely unaware of the disastrous post-Vatican II revolution that was sweeping throughout our beloved Catholic Church. Thanks be to God, I was raised by parents who were staunch Catholics with their childhood roots in the pre-Vatican II Catholicism of México. An example of the depth of these roots is that my maternal grandmother (born in 1906, in Aguascalientes, México) never accepted the Novus Ordo. She left this passing world in August 2002, always true to the Ancient Rite. Requiescat in pace. Even though my parents had accepted and adapted to Novus Ordo Catholicism during their post-collegiate years, they nevertheless raised us similar to how they had been raised: fidelity to Mass (albeit the Novus Ordo) and Confession, praying the Holy Rosary at home in the evenings, praying novenas and the Stations of the Cross, etc. As I reflect back on my childhood, it was a time of great grace and blessings. Even though my parents failed to hold fast to all the venerable traditions of our Faith and the Ancient Rite, they still did an excellent job of instilling the Faith in us. Interestingly enough, we four older children (born between '67 and '74) are now ardent supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass, even more so than our parents

Michael J. Matt (MJM): First off, Father, I'd like to thank you for the stand you've taken in recent months in defense of the Church's moral teaching, especially with respect to so-called 'gay marriage'. Catholics all across the country have been following your case, and we're delighted to have a chance today to ask you a few questions. Before we get into the "controversy", however, I wonder if you'd mind telling us a little something about your personal background?

Father Rodriguez (FR): Not at all. I was born in El Paso, Texas, on August 23, 1970, the middle child of five. Many years later my parents adopted a sixth child, my youngest sister. As I grew up in the early '70s, I was completely unaware of the disastrous post-Vatican II revolution that was sweeping throughout our beloved Catholic Church. Thanks be to God, I was raised by parents who were staunch Catholics with their childhood roots in the pre-Vatican II Catholicism of México. An example of the depth of these roots is that my maternal grandmother (born in 1906, in Aguascalientes, México) never accepted the Novus Ordo. She left this passing world in August 2002, always true to the Ancient Rite. Requiescat in pace. Even though my parents had accepted and adapted to Novus Ordo Catholicism during their post-collegiate years, they nevertheless raised us similar to how they had been raised: fidelity to Mass (albeit the Novus Ordo) and Confession, praying the Holy Rosary at home in the evenings, praying novenas and the Stations of the Cross, etc. As I reflect back on my childhood, it was a time of great grace and blessings. Even though my parents failed to hold fast to all the venerable traditions of our Faith and the Ancient Rite, they still did an excellent job of instilling the Faith in us. Interestingly enough, we four older children (born between '67 and '74) are now ardent supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass, even more so than our parents.

MJM: And are there one or two persons in your life that mentored you and helped you to remain open to God’s call?

FR: My parents, Ruben and Beatrice, were the ones who were most instrumental in my eventual discernment of a vocation to God's holy priesthood. Through my father, God blessed me with discipline, fortitude, perseverance, and a love for study. Through my mother, God graced me with the convictions of faith, awe for the Catholic priesthood, a tender devotion to our Blessed Mother, and a love of religion.

MJM: At what point in your life did you know you had a vocation?

FR: I was raised in El Paso, TX, but spent four years (1981-1984) living with my family in Augsburg, Germany. We returned to El Paso, and I began high school. Following my junior year, I spent the summer (1987) at M.I.T. University in Cambridge, MA. I was participating in a special program for gifted minority students from around the nation. The program was geared to recruiting us to study engineering and science at M.I.T. as undergraduates. Well, our good God had different plans for me! I left El Paso that summer thinking I'd study electrical engineering (like my father) upon graduating from high school, only to return from Boston six weeks later, announcing that I wanted to enter the seminary! My mother was overjoyed.

MJM: Clearly, someone was looking out for you. Do you have a favorite saint, by the way?

FR: My favorite saints are: St. Michael the Archangel, St. John the Baptist (largely due to my 9 1/2 years at this El Paso parish), St. Paul the Apostle, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and, to no surprise, the holy Curé of Ars. I have a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary under three of her specific titles: Immaculate Conception (I was ordained to the priesthood on Dec. 8, 1996), Mater Dolorosa, and Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe.

MJM: And, liturgically—where would you place yourself? I know you offer the traditional Latin Mass, but is it accurate to describe you as an outright “traditionalist”?

FR: Liturgically, I'm 100% behind the Traditional Latin Mass, which is without question the true Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. Theology, liturgy, Catholic spirituality and asceticism, and history itself all point to the obvious superiority of the Classical Roman Rite. Unfortunately, all of my seminary formation was in the Novus Ordo, and I only "discovered" the Latin Mass about six years ago, so I still have a lot to learn in terms of "real Catholicism," i.e. "traditional Catholicism."

MJM: What was it initially that led you to begin offering the old Mass?

FR: About six years ago, several members of the faithful began asking me if I would be interested in offering the Traditional Latin Mass. At the time, there was serious concern on the part "El Paso's remnant" of traditional Catholics that the Jesuit priest who was offering the Latin Mass twice a month (under the 1988 Ecclesia Dei "Indult") was going to be transferred. Thus, they were looking for another priest who would be willing to offer the Latin Mass. At first, I declined, not so much because I wasn't interested, but due to the immense workload which I was already carrying.

As the weeks passed, I began to study the prayers and theology of the Traditional Latin Mass. The more I studied, the more my awe and amazement grew. I was "discovering" not only the true Catholic theology of the Mass, but also the true Catholic theology of the priesthood, and so much more! Throughout my first nine years of priesthood, I had struggled to make sense of the very serious problems which exist in the Church. At this point, it was obvious that an extreme crisis pervaded the Church and her hierarchy, but why? I just couldn't quite understand how all of this "diabolical disorientation" had come to pass . . . until the brilliant light of the true Catholic Mass ("Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam . . .") began to penetrate my priestly soul. This "discovery" of the Traditional Latin Mass has been, by far, the greatest gift of God to my poor priesthood.

MJM: So this gives us an idea of how Pope Benedict's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum can and does impact priests who might otherwise never have had the opportunity to discover this great treasure. Given how it impacted you, how do you believe Summorum Pontificum will impact the Church long term?

FR: Unfortunately, both Summorum Pontificum and Universæ Ecclesiæ have plenty of weaknesses. Nevertheless, these documents do represent an initial step in what will probably still be a long and arduous "Calvary," i.e. the quest of traditional Catholics to restore the Cross, the Mass, the kingship of Jesus Christ, and true Catholic doctrine, outside of which there is no salvation. In Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI writes that "due honor must be given to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V for its venerable and ancient usage." This directive of our Holy Father is currently being disobeyed almost universally. In the accompanying letter to the world's bishops (July 7, 2007), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." These remarkable words of our Holy Father are also being disrespected and disobeyed almost universally, especially by many bishops. Finally, Universæ Ecclesiæ, No. 8, states very clearly that the Ancient Rite is a "precious treasure to be preserved" and is to be "offered to all the faithful." Where in the entire world of Catholicism is this directive actually being obeyed? The same number from Universæ Ecclesiæ emphasizes that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy "is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees." This is an astounding statement. This statement from Rome means that the use of the 1962 Missal doesn't depend on a particular bishop's liturgical views, preferences, or theology. It's not about the bishops! On the contrary, it's about the faithful! Where in the entire world of Catholicism is this directive actually being obeyed?

MJM: Are you now able to offer the old Mass exclusively?

FR: Since I began my new assignment (Sept. 24, 2011) out in the rural, isolated missions of the El Paso Diocese, I've offered the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. I consider this to be a marvelous and unexpected blessing from Providence in the midst of a very difficult trial. I hope to continue offering the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. If it were strictly up to me, I would never celebrate the Novus Ordo Missæ again. However, the sad reality of having to "obey" in the Novus Ordo Church that has largely lost the Faith, and the need to reach out patiently to Novus Ordo faithful who have been so misled, means that I will probably be "forced" to celebrate the Novus Ordo occasionally. In these instances, however, it will be the Novus Ordo ad orientem, with the Roman Canon, the use of Latin, and Holy Communion distributed according to traditional norms.

MJM: Up until last year, I believe, things were pretty quiet in your priestly life. What happened to change all that?

FR: The local, and even national, "controversy" that has engulfed me is due to the fact that I have been vocal in promoting what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in regard to the whole issue of homosexuality. It's a disgrace, but the City Council of El Paso has been adamant in trying to legitimize same-sex unions. This goes completely contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I've made it clear to the Catholics of El Paso (and beyond) that every single Catholic has a moral obligation before God Himself to oppose any government attempt to legalize homosexual unions. A Catholic who fails to oppose this homosexual agenda, is committing a grave sin by omission. Furthermore, if a Catholic doesn't assent to the infallible moral teaching of the Church that homosexual acts are mortally sinful, then such a Catholic is placing himself / herself outside of communion with the Church. These are the Catholics who are actually excommunicating themselves, not the Society of St. Pius X!

MJM: I can understand why the civil authorities and media might find this “controversial”; but why would your ecclesial superiors find it so?

FR: The dismal response of both civil and ecclesiastical authorities to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to homosexuality demonstrates how extreme the current crisis of faith actually is. It really can't get much worse. There's hardly any faith left to lose! Even a pagan, bereft of the light of faith, can arrive at the conclusion that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. Reason, natural law, and consideration of the male and female anatomy more than suffice to confirm this moral truth.

MJM: And yet you must go where the bishop tells you to go. Is this difficult for you?

FR: In my particular circumstances, obedience to my bishop has been incredibly difficult. Nevertheless, obedience is essential to the priesthood, and I intend to be obedient. One consoling aspect of "sacrificial," "death-to-self" obedience, is that the Holy Ghost will always come to one's assistance. I'm reminded that my poor sufferings are nothing compared to those of Mater Dolorosa and our Divine Redeemer. If I'm counted as one even slightly worthy to suffer for the Faith and the Traditional Latin Mass, I will consider myself profoundly blessed. God is so good.

MJM: As you are already living through a form of persecution, I assume you foresee more to come not only for you personally but for all Catholics who stand in defense of Church teaching. But what about the future? Any hope?

FR: Yes, I do foresee plenty of persecution still to come for all those who remain steadfast in the Faith and in their adherence to the Ancient Rite. However, the promise of our Savior cannot but fill our souls with hope, "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for My sake. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven." (Mt 5:10-12)

MJM: How can lay Catholics best survive this crisis of faith?

FR: In order to overcome this crisis of faith, we must (1) do everything in our power to recover the Catholic Faith: the Ancient Rite, traditional Catholic teaching in doctrine and morals, the theology and philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, traditional Catholic piety and devotions, and a traditional Catholic “code of living” or “rhythm of life.” (2) On a daily basis we must strive to pray, study, fast, do penance, and practice charity with the aforementioned goal in mind. Finally, I strongly urge all faithful Catholics to (3) pray the Holy Rosary daily and heed our Blessed Mother's Message at Fatima.

One of the hallmarks of the Traditional Latin Mass is its exquisite and concentrated focus on eternity. If we are to survive and overcome this terrible crisis of faith in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, we have to keep our intellect and will focused on eternity. We cannot lose hope when, from a worldly perspective, all seems lost. Jesus Christ promises “the kingdom of heaven” to those who endure persecution, and “a great reward in heaven” to those who suffer for His sake. (Mt 5:10-12) The final goal is heaven! Like St. Paul, we must press ahead towards the ultimate “prize” (Phil 3:14) and never cease to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.” (Col 3:1)

MJM: Like so many others, Father, I find myself deeply moved by your powerful witness not only to the Faith itself but also to the Catholic priesthood, which, as you know so well, is under diabolical attack. Thank you for this example of what it means to be a Catholic in an era of persecution. May all of us have the courage to follow your lead through the rough seas still ahead. The Remnant October 16, 2011

Homosexual Leaven in the Liturgical Lump [Narcissism on the Altar]

.
As debate surrounding the recently published John Jay Report (Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010) continues, more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality.

One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood — a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge.

Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.

I would submit that the impact of homosexual priests has perhaps been brought to bear in a particularly profound way in the liturgical life of the Church, and I would ask the reader to keep in mind as we proceed the warning issued by St. Paul: “Know you not that a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6)

Let’s begin by considering that the priest who celebrates Holy Mass does so in persona Christi – in the person of Christ – such that he “does nothing of his own power” when he carries out his liturgical duties; rather, it is the Lord Himself who is present and active in offering the Holy Sacrifice (cf St. John Chrysostom – Homily on the Holy Pentecost).

Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, is uniquely present and made visible to the faithful in the person of the ordained minister at Holy Mass (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium – 7) – a reality that compels the celebrating priest to personally surrender to Christ after the example of St. John the Baptist who said, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

The cleric who suffers with homosexuality, however, will necessarily find this liturgical submission-of-self a most challenging proposition.

Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating priests and others who suffer with Same Sex Attraction (SSA), said in a recent interview with regard to homosexuality in the priesthood, “Narcissism – a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior – is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality. This conflict results in a need to draw attention to his own personality in the liturgy rather than to surrender his personal identity in favor of Christ.”

While narcissistic behavior certainly isn’t the exclusive franchise of homosexuals, Dr. Fitzgibbons’ insights speak directly to the reason why homosexual men are ill-suited for the priesthood – a truth that comes into ever sharper focus when viewed through the lens of the sacred liturgy.

“The male who suffers with deep-seated homosexuality has difficulty in being Christ visible in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for a number of reasons,” Dr. Fitzgibbons continued. “For instance, a number of well-designed studies have documented that the homosexual man struggles with weaknesses in male confidence, which in turn makes it difficult for him to give of himself fully in the ministerial roles as a spouse to the Church and as a spiritual father to Her children as the priest is called to carry them out in persona Christi at Mass.”

The Council Fathers tell us that Christ is the ultimate expression of the human person; He reveals to mankind who he really is (cf Gaudium et Spes – 22).

This, of course, is true for both men and women, but we must not fail to recognize that Christ also reveals in a uniquely profound way what it means to be “male,” and the reality of Christ’s maleness is made expressly manifest in the Mass where the Sacrifice willingly offered by Jesus in love for His Bride and their beloved children is re-presented.

(The reader may also wish to consider how this factors into the Church’s inability to confer Holy Orders upon women.)

The priest at Holy Mass is called to visibly model, in willing cooperation with grace, the quintessential father and husband who protects, provides and sustains those who depend on him for their very survival. This presupposes in the ordained a healthy appreciation for his own God-given maleness, but whenever this requisite level of self-awareness is deficient, the priest is ill-prepared to render such service to his spiritual family.

According to Dr. Fitzgibbons, “The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself. Furthermore, the underlying anger and disdain for authority that is also endemic to homosexuality could lead to rebelliousness and a determination to ‘do his own thing’ with the liturgy.”

To view this from a more spiritual perspective, consider that when the ordained minister who is called to serve as “father” chooses instead to use the Mass (and by extension the assembly) as an occasion to meet his own needs (e.g., a need for approval and adulation), he is guilty not just of liturgical abuse, but in a certain sense of no less than spiritual child abuse.

A quest for self-fulfillment on the part of the priest is the antithesis of the spirit of the liturgy, but according to Dr. Fitzgibbons, homosexuals often tend “to see and to treat their own pleasure as the highest end.”

This being the case, a substantial degree of tension can exist between the homosexual cleric and the liturgy properly celebrated, one that is overcome only with resolute determination to engage in intensive therapy and prayer, and even then with great difficulty.

Setting aside “chicken and egg” arguments for the time being, it would seem that the apparent increase in homosexual orientation among the priestly population, coupled with the liturgical crisis that emerged in the decades after the Council, has created a perfect storm.

Prior to Vatican II, Holy Mass was commonly celebrated in Latin in the ad oreintem posture in which both priest and people faced east, even if only a “liturgical east.” As such, the personality (and underlying emotional health) of the priest was of little consequence in the celebration, and so “losing himself” in order to make room for Christ in the liturgy was far more easily accomplished by the priest than it is today.

In the Novus Ordo, however, the priest most commonly offers Holy Mass in the vernacular versus populum (facing the people) wherein his personality (and at times his emotional health) is unavoidably on display. Aware of the impact that his liturgical persona can have on the experience of the assembled faithful, the priest often feels tremendous pressure to draw upon his personal resources to “perform” his duties in a compelling way. Even in the best of circumstances, it is quite natural for the priest to feel moved to so meet the expectant eyes and ears of the faithful such as they are ever cast upon him in the newly configured rite.

For the priest who also struggles with an underlying inclination toward narcissism, the temptation to use the liturgy as a venue for seeking attention and personal gratification can be all but overwhelming.

Given the fact that the Council Fathers encouraged neither the dramatic change in the priest’s posture toward the people nor the construction of free-standing altars to accommodate the practice, it is reasonable to wonder what sorts of influences and pressures within the priestly population itself may have allowed for such a radical liturgical innovation to take hold so quickly.

Now, I don’t propose to offer an exhaustive treatment here, but I would suggest that at least one contributing factor among many may be suggested in the data found in the John Jay Report.

In a graph that plots “Incidents of Sexual Abuse by Year of Occurrence” (on pg. 8 ) one finds a steep increase in cases of abuse (which again, are overwhelmingly homosexual in nature) taking shape just as liturgical experimentation was gathering worldwide momentum in the mid-1950s.

From there we see cases of abuse spiking to unforeseen levels that are then roughly maintained over a 10+ year period beginning in the late 1960’s — the very point in time during which the push to create a liturgy celebrated versus populum reached critical mass and found favor in so many places.

Coincidence? Perhaps, but then again maybe not.

As the percentage of homosexuals within the ranks of the presbyterate rose, one may reasonably argue based upon Dr. Fitzgibbons’ clinical insights that so too did the group’s overall receptiveness to a versus populum liturgy featuring the priest-as-centerpiece.

In other words, it would seem naïve to discount the role that clerical homosexuality (like leaven) may have played in promoting a liturgical agenda that dovetails so comfortably with the emotional neediness that comes with the territory.

Let me be clear – I am not suggesting in any way that priests who favor the versus populum orientation today are necessarily struggling with narcissism, much less homosexuality. Many such priests, I presume, are simply caught up in the current liturgical “lump” as we know it, albeit some more willingly than others.

The John Jay Report also gives us reason for hope as it indicates a steep decrease in the incidence of homosexual abuse beginning in the early 1980s, continuing downwardly right up to this very day when the numbers are below that of 1950.

One might see in the current trend, along with the elevation of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the Chair of St. Peter, the makings of a potentially new perfect storm – one that will eventually usher in at long last the Council Fathers’ authentic vision of a liturgy renewed.

Perhaps this will one day include a large scale return to ad orientem worship at Holy Mass; a posture that Cardinal Ratzinger described as a “fundamental expression” of the liturgy’s true nature (Spirit of the Liturgy – Ignatius Press – 2000).

While certainly not an ecclesial cure-all, it could go a very long way toward curing much of what ails our perception and experience of the sacred liturgy, “The font from which all of the Church’s power flows” (SC 10).

It could also go a long way toward curing much of what ails the priesthood in our day by reaffirming its true nature – both for the benefit of the laity (some of whom are being called to a priestly vocation) and for the ordained minister himself – as the ad orientem posture gives bodily, visible expression to the sacramental reality of the priest as that Perfect Male who lays down His life on behalf of His family: Provider, Protector, Sustainer, and ultimately, Husband and Father.

It might even serve to strengthen those clerics who are currently struggling against homosexuality, aiding them in taking the difficult steps necessary in order to address their inner conflicts — to make room for the Divine Physician who alone can heal all wounds. Catholic Exchange

Author and speaker Louie Verrecchio has been a columnist for Catholic News Agency since April 2009. He recently launched Preparing the Way for the Roman Missal: Where the New Translation Meets the New EvangelizationTM. Learn more at MissalPrep.com. Verrecchio’s work, which includes the internationally acclaimed faith-formation program Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II, has been endorsed by, among others, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia; Bishop Emeritus Patrick O’Donoghue of Lancaster, England; and Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa. For information go to harvestingthefruit.com.

The liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood

.

As debate surrounding the recently published John Jay Report (Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010) continues, more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality.

One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood - a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge.

Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.

I would submit that the impact of homosexual priests has perhaps been brought to bear in a particularly profound way in the liturgical life of the Church, and I would ask the reader to keep in mind as we proceed the warning issued by St. Paul, “Know you not that a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6)

Let’s begin by considering that the priest who celebrates Holy Mass does so in persona Christi – in the person of Christ – such that he “does nothing of his own power” when he carries out his liturgical duties; rather, it is the Lord Himself who is present and active in offering the Holy Sacrifice (cf St. John Chrysostom – Homily on the Holy Pentecost).

Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, is uniquely present and made visible to the faithful in the person of the ordained minister at Holy Mass (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium - 7) – a reality that compels the celebrating priest to personally surrender to Christ after the example of St. John the Baptist who said, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

The cleric who suffers with homosexuality, however, will necessarily find this liturgical submission-of-self a most challenging proposition.

Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating priests and others who suffer with Same Sex Attraction (SSA), said in a recent interview with regard to homosexuality in the priesthood, “Narcissism – a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior – is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality. This conflict results in a need to draw attention to his own personality in the liturgy rather than to surrender his personal identity in favor of Christ.”

While narcissistic behavior certainly isn’t the exclusive franchise of homosexuals, Dr. Fitzgibbons’ insights speak directly to the reason why homosexual men are ill-suited for the priesthood – a truth that comes into ever sharper focus when viewed through the lens of the sacred liturgy.

“The male who suffers with deep-seated homosexuality has difficulty in being Christ visible in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for a number of reasons,” Dr. Fitzgibbons continued. “For instance, a number of well-designed studies have documented that the homosexual man struggles with weaknesses in male confidence, which in turn makes it difficult for him to give of himself fully in the ministerial roles as a spouse to the Church and as a spiritual father to Her children as the priest is called to carry them out in persona Christi at Mass.”

The Council Fathers tell us that Christ is the ultimate expression of the human person; He reveals to mankind who he really is (cf Gaudium et Spes - 22).

This, of course, is true for both men and women, but we must not fail to recognize that Christ also reveals in a uniquely profound way what it means to be “male,” and the reality of Christ’s maleness is made expressly manifest in the Mass where the Sacrifice willingly offered by Jesus in love for His Bride and their beloved children is re-presented. (The reader may also wish to consider how this factors into the Church’s inability to confer Holy Orders upon women.)

The priest at Holy Mass is called to visibly model, in willing cooperation with grace, the quintessential father and husband who protects, provides and sustains those who depend on him for their very survival. This presupposes in the ordained a healthy appreciation for his own God-given maleness, but whenever this requisite level of self-awareness is deficient, the priest is ill-prepared to render such service to his spiritual family.

According to Dr. Fitzgibbons, “The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself. Furthermore, the underlying anger and disdain for authority that is also endemic to homosexuality could lead to rebelliousness and a determination to ‘do his own thing’ with the liturgy.”

To view this from a more spiritual perspective, consider that when the ordained minister who is called to serve as “father” chooses instead to use the Mass (and by extension the assembly) as an occasion to meet his own needs (e.g., a need for approval and adulation), he is guilty not just of liturgical abuse, but in a certain sense of no less than spiritual child abuse.

A quest for self-fulfillment on the part of the priest is the antithesis of the spirit of the liturgy, but according to Dr. Fitzgibbons, homosexuals often tend “to see and to treat their own pleasure as the highest end.”

This being the case, a substantial degree of tension can exist between the homosexual cleric and the liturgy properly celebrated, one that is overcome only with resolute determination to engage in intensive therapy and prayer, and even then with great difficulty.

Setting aside “chicken and egg” arguments for the time being, it would seem that the apparent increase in homosexual orientation among the priestly population, coupled with the liturgical crisis that emerged in the decades after the Council, has created a perfect storm.

Prior to Vatican II, Holy Mass was commonly celebrated in Latin in the ad oreintem posture in which both priest and people faced east, even if only a “liturgical east.” As such, the personality (and underlying emotional health) of the priest was of little consequence in the celebration, and so “losing himself” in order to make room for Christ in the liturgy was far more easily accomplished by the priest than it is today.

In the Novus Ordo, however, the priest most commonly offers Holy Mass in the vernacular versus populum (facing the people) wherein his personality (and at times his emotional health) is unavoidably on display. Aware of the impact that his liturgical persona can have on the experience of the assembled faithful, the priest often feels tremendous pressure to draw upon his personal resources to “perform” his duties in a compelling way. Even in the best of circumstances, it is quite natural for the priest to feel moved to so meet the expectant eyes and ears of the faithful such as they are ever cast upon him in the newly configured rite.

For the priest who also struggles with an underlying inclination toward narcissism, the temptation to use the liturgy as a venue for seeking attention and personal gratification can be all but overwhelming.

Given the fact that the Council Fathers encouraged neither the dramatic change in the priest’s posture toward the people nor the construction of free-standing altars to accommodate the practice, it is reasonable to wonder what sorts of influences and pressures within the priestly population itself may have allowed for such a radical liturgical innovation to take hold so quickly.

Now, I don’t propose to offer an exhaustive treatment here, but I would suggest that at least one contributing factor among many may be suggested in the data found in the John Jay Report.

In a graph that plots “Incidents of Sexual Abuse by Year of Occurrence” (on pg. 8) one finds a steep increase in cases of abuse (which again, are overwhelmingly homosexual in nature) taking shape just as liturgical experimentation was gathering worldwide momentum in the mid-1950s. From there we see cases of abuse spiking to unforeseen levels that are then roughly maintained over a 10+ year period beginning in the late 1960s - the very point in time during which the push to create a liturgy celebrated versus populum reached critical mass and found favor in so many places.

Coincidence? Perhaps, but then again maybe not.

As the percentage of homosexuals within the ranks of the presbyterate rose, one may reasonably argue based upon Dr. Fitzgibbons clinical insights that so too did the group’s overall receptiveness to a versus populum liturgy featuring the priest-as-centerpiece.

In other words, it would seem naïve to discount the role that clerical homosexuality (like leaven) may have played in promoting a liturgical agenda that dovetails so comfortably with the emotional neediness that comes with the territory.

Let me be clear - I am not suggesting in any way that priests who favor the versus populum orientation today are necessarily struggling with narcissism, much less homosexuality. Many such priests, I presume, are simply caught up in the current liturgical “lump” as we know it, albeit some more willingly than others.

The John Jay Report also gives us reason for hope as it indicates a steep decrease in the incidence of homosexual abuse beginning in the early 1980s, continuing downwardly right up to this very day when the numbers are below that of 1950.

One might see in the current trend, along with the elevation of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the Chair of St. Peter, the makings of a potentially new perfect storm - one that will eventually usher in at long last the Council Fathers’ authentic vision of a liturgy renewed.

Perhaps this will one day include a large scale return to ad orientem worship at Holy Mass; a posture that Cardinal Ratzinger described as a “fundamental expression” of the liturgy’s true nature (Spirit of the Liturgy – Ignatius Press – 2000).

While certainly not an ecclesial cure-all, it could go a very long way toward curing much of what ails our perception and experience of the sacred liturgy, “The font from which all of the Church’s power flows” (SC 10).

It could also go a long way toward curing much of what ails the priesthood in our day by reaffirming its true nature - both for the benefit of the laity (some of whom are being called to a priestly vocation) and for the ordained minister himself - as the ad orientem posture gives bodily, visible expression to the sacramental reality of the priest as that Perfect Male who lays down His life on behalf of His family - Provider, Protector, Sustainer, and ultimately, Husband and Father.

It might even serve to strengthen those clerics who are currently struggling against homosexuality, aiding them in taking the difficult steps necessary in order to address their inner conflicts; to make room for the Divine Physician who alone can heal all wounds. Catholic News Agency

*

Author and speaker Louie Verrecchio has been a columnist for Catholic News Agency since April 2009. He recently launched “Preparing the Way for the Roman Missal – Where the New Translation meets the New EvangelizationTM” available at www.MissalPrep.com

Mr. Verrecchio’s work, which includes the internationally acclaimed Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II Faith Formation Series, has been endorsed by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia; Bishop Emeritus Patrick O’Donoghue of Lancaster, England, Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA, USA and others. For more information please visit: www.harvestingthefruit.com

Repeat after me 18 times: "The Church's clerical abuse crisis was a homosexual crisis"

.
Tim Drake of the National Catholic Register has an article today, documented by a secular university, that no secular media outlet will dare reprint. You'll have to read it yourself.

Notice that I said "was a homosexual crisis." Because after the revelation of how serious the situation was, and how bad the cover-up was, beginning with Boston revelations in 2002, the Church began to take measures to ensure that this would not happen again. Virtually every parish in the country has undergone special training and the regulations prohibiting homosexuals from becoming priests were strengthened.

As a result, the 2009 Annual Report of the USCCB reported that there were only 6 new cases of clerical abuse in the entire country that year. Right now, the Catholic Church is the safest place for children in the entire U.S. All those articles you keep seeing in the newspapers are old cases dating from the 1960s to the 199os, finally being brought to trial.

This week, our elected officials voted to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. By so doing, for the first time in this nation’s history, they’ve opened the U.S. military’s combat forces to practicing homosexuals. It would behoove the military to take a look at how such an open policy toward homosexuals worked in another male fraternity, that is, the Catholic priesthood. . . .

The connection between homosexuality and abuse was clearly demonstrated in 2004’s The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, otherwise known as the John Jay Report, which was conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice [part of the New York State College system] and commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. . . .

Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has said that the report shows that the Catholic abuse crisis was “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.”
Psychiatrist Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons has echoed that.

“The John Jay report has revealed clearly that the crisis in the Church is not one of pedophilia but of homosexuality. The primary victims have not been children but adolescent males. Fitzgibbons told Catholic News Agency that “every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships. . . .”

Following the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, and the results of the John Jay Report, the Church reaffirmed its policy in the 2005 statement, “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.”

That statement indicated that “the Church…cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’” Furthermore, the statement went on, “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. . . .”

Homosexual relationships caused a deep fracture in the priestly male fraternity. Pseudo-intimacy and intrigue replaced the outward looking evangelization of apostolic brotherhood. Bishops were unwilling to discipline the abusive priests under their charge. The Communio became divided. Religious leaders hid their own homosexual proclivities. The worst priests desacralized the liturgy and their vows and their priestly identity, while good priests often became isolated, fearful, and rigid. All priests were maimed. . . .

What will be the result once the military has been compromised by disordered love? What will happen when an 18-year-old recruit finds himself in an unequal power differential with a superior officer who wants something more than push-ups. . . ?

How ironic, that at the same time that Congress was voting to impose its morality on the American military, Pope Benedict XVI spoke with the Vatican Curia about the disastrous results of a corrupted priesthood.

In his Christmas message, Pope Benedict said that the Church’s garment has been torn by the sins of her priests. “We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen,” said the Pope, citing the reigning philosophy of the sexually derelict 1970s. “It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself…Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. . . .”

We have been promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church, instituted by Christ. The Armed Forces, however, carry no such divine promise. This radical disruption of the Armed Forces of the world’s most reliable Christian nation represents a desacralization of the male military bond. The center may not hold.

Read Tim's complete article here.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law repealed. President to sign it.

.
I wonder if narcissistic "pro-choice" homosexuals will treat their military oath to obey their superiors the same way that most homosexual 'Catholics' treat Roman Catholic Church dogma, precepts and teachings: that is, to choose only those which they like.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

When Does a Soldier Become Expendable?

.
How much is the life of an American soldier worth? When does a soldier become expendable? Those are the questions we need to ask in the coming days.

A wounded soldier in Afghanistan will find himself airlifted half way around the world for treatment within hours. In this, we see the admirable care and great value given to American lives.

However, such solicitude on the battleground is not shown off the battlefield. It seems there are times where the American solider becomes expendable.

Of course, we are referring to the raging debate over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy inside the military. Everything is centered on a December 1 report which the military will release analyzing the impact of the repeal on the Armed Forces.

The results of this “analysis” can be guessed. It seems almost senseless to go through the trouble to release it. Everything seems to indicate that it will discuss how to repeal, not if we should repeal, the ban on homosexuality in the military. It will conclude that inclusion of open homosexuals in the military will not have significant adverse effects. It will conclude that the soldier is expendable. He can be used for social experiments. He can be penalized for the religious values he holds. He can be deprived of the very freedom for which he fights.

The findings will be completely politically correct because a higher command than the Joint Chiefs of Staff has decreed that the American soldier is expendable.

Judges, liberal pundits and legislators are all clamoring for the repeal with an urgency that defies the imagination. A single judge assumes almost dictatorial powers. Advocates cannot even wait for the December 1 “study” to validate their opinions. They must have the repeal now even if it appears to be rammed down the throats of the American people…even if it means making the American solider expendable.

One might argue that it has not been proven that the entry of open homosexuals (which also includes bisexuals and the “transgendered”) into the military would make soldiers expendable. That is not the point right now. It is proven the advocates of repeal simply do not care to know one way or the other. They cannot even wait for a report to rubberstamp a decision that has already been made.

At the same time, there is no doubt that it will affect the military. That military profession that demands decisiveness in action must now open its doors to the ambiguous bisexual and “transgendered” soldier. There are reports that higher military authorities have already informed officers that they must accept the decision or be labeled bigots and face expulsion. Added to the stress of combat, our soldiers will soon be forced to take extreme care to avoid any act, gesture or comment that might be construed to be “discrimatory” toward the new privileged class of homosexuals who will enter the military ready to report any “bigotry.” Chaplains face major problems since they must deal with the sin of homosexual acts. The service generals have all expressed major reservations about the move and its effect on morale.

All of this to accommodate a tiny sliver of a minute minority that demands entry into the military. All of this treats honor, tradition, and distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil, so inherent to the military condition, as if they are irrelevant.

Even the more practical matter of the danger of introducing into the battlefield a major category of men who cannot donate blood because of the risks of disease does not move repeal advocates.

The mixture of bloods on the battlefield does endanger the lives of soldiers. That soldier, that is taken with so much care off the battleground in Afghanistan to our hospitals in Germany, now runs the danger of being infected by his own comrades in arms by judicial and legislative fiat.

No life is threatened by keeping the ban. As long as one soldier feels threatened by the climate created by repealing the ban, as long as one life might be at risk by tainted blood, as long as the soldier maintains a sense of honor, we should keep the ban.

Indeed we must ask: When does a soldier become expendable? TFP

Cardinal Burke emphasizes: Catholic teaching on condoms has not changed

.

Catholic teaching on the immorality of the use of condoms has not changed, Cardinal Raymond Burke said in an interview with the National Catholic Register. The prefect of the Apostolic Signatura stated:

I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What [Pope Benedict] is commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life.

He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening.

But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable.

The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant [unacceptable] so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed …

The text itself makes it very clear that he says the Church does not regard it as a real or moral solution. And when he says that it could be a first step in a movement toward a different, more human way of living sexuality, that doesn’t mean in any sense that he’s saying the use of condoms is a good thing.

Justice Scalia slams high court for inventing ‘living constitution,’ right to abortion

.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed the modern U.S. judiciary and the high court for using the idea of a “living constitution” to invent new rules and meanings that have led to a “right” to abortion and decriminalized homosexual conduct.

Scalia made his remarks last Friday during a University of Richmond luncheon lecture entitled “Do Words Matter?” The event was covered both by the Associated Press.

“The Constitution says what it says and it doesn’t say anything more,” said Scalia to an audience of 250 people, most of them legal professionals and academics.

The 74-year-old jurist, appointed to the high court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, warned that government by judges is inevitable when the original meaning of legal language in laws and constitutions is not respected. This attitude, he said, allows “five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”

“Under the guise of interpreting the Constitution and under the banner of a living Constitution, judges, especially those on the Supreme Court, now wield an enormous amount of political power,” continued Scalia, “because they don’t just apply the rules that have been written, they create new rules.”

Scalia pointed out that the high court distorted the meaning of “due process” (referring to legal procedure) in the 14th Amendment to invent new rights under a “made up” concept of “substantial due process.” That has allowed the 14th Amendment to become the gateway to legal abortion and other behaviors, which the constitutional authors never intended and viewed as criminal.

“The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word - liberty - nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.”

He also commented on the modern confirmation process of Supreme Court justices, saying it was akin to a “mini-constitutional convention” because Senators are fighting about how a justice will interpret words.

“The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.

The AP reports that after the lecture, Scalia signed copies of his new book, “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges,” and was going to lecture a class on the constitution’s separation of powers at UR’s law school.

Justice Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, are the high court’s two jurists that firmly embrace an “originalist” doctrine - abiding by the original intent and context of legal language - when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

Scalia has criticized the high court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as an “improper” ruling, saying the founding charter of the U.S. federal government had nothing to do either with abortion or even things like homosexual activity.

If the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its position on Roe, abortion would once again become a criminal matter for the states to decide how to regulate or prohibit. LifeSiteNews.com

Related Articles

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: ‘We Will Never Go Back’ to Outlawing Abortion

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through Abortion

U.S. Constitution Does Not Address Abortion, Suicide Rights, Says Justice Scalia

Scalia Says Roe vs. Wade Abortion Decision Was “improper” Action of Liberal Judges

Pope Benedict XVI discusses condoms and the spread of HIV

.

Catholic World Report: An excerpt from Light of the World, Peter Seewald’s book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119: Q- On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms. Pope Benedict- The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs. I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease. As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being. There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. Q- Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms? Pope Benedict- She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.