Blog Song

Monday, August 20, 2018

Radical Liberalism

This line "for the good of the Church" has been the excuse used by many bishops to cover up crimes or unfair practices.  Innocents were sacrificed by some bishops because they thought they were protecting the Church when in reality they were following the wiles of Satan who influenced them to do it "for the good of the Church."  A bishop who sacrifices an individual "for the good of the Church" is not following Jesus Christ because Christ never sacrificed anyone for the "good of the Church."  Rather, he sacrificed HIMSELF and only HIMSELF for the good of the Church. The bishop would have done better had he stood up for the truth and turned in the priest to the civil authorities for committing a crime.  Likewise, a bishop who sacrificed an innocent priest to appease a hateful mob "for the good of the Church" is no better.  He would have done better had he stood up for the truth and taught the mob to oppose hatred, which is a sin offensive to God. 

Some priests have now come out to tell their stories anonymously.  According to Catholic News Agency:
Seminarians and priests from ordination classes spanning 30 years, during the terms of McCarrick and Myers, reported to CNA that they had observed an active homosexual subculture of priest and seminarians within Newark’s Immaculate Conception Seminary.  
One priest ordained in the early years of McCarrick’s term in Newark said that “a lot of people lost their innocence in the seminary.”
He told CNA that there were two distinct groups of students. “You had the men who were there because they had a deep love of the Lord and a vocation to serve his Church,” he said, adding that those men were the majority of seminarians.
“But there was a subculture, with its own group of men, that was openly homosexual and petty and vindictive with everyone else,” he explained.
In his book entitled Goodbye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into The Catholic Church, published in 2015, investigative reporter Michael S. Ross uncovered how radical liberalism had infiltrated the Catholic Church, attenpting to overthrow traditional beliefs and doctrines, especially the Church teachings on human sexuality.  This book went on to become a bestseller.  By the way, I read the book.  

Radical liberalism and the gay activists have not only infiltrated our Church, but also our government and schools.  In fact, the Guam Legislature has already introduced a bill to allow transgenders to change the gender in their birth certificate despite the fact that they never went through a sex change.  According to KUAM news (the bold is mine):
Legislation has been introduced that would allow individuals who identify as transgender to change their birth certificates without having to undergo a sex change operation. Supporters say similar laws have now been passed in 19 states and 200 cities across the country.  
Bill sponsor Senator Fernando Esteves explained, saying, "It allows them to do this and make the amendment to their birth certificate without having to undergo the surgical procedure. And so with that, it allows them to live and be recognized as the gender that they identify with, which I believe is inherent in their ability to live freely, and live happily with who they are."
Senatorial candidate Lasia Casil, who identifies as transgender herself, says it's a tool for empowerment that can help lift them up in the face of discrimination. "It is a means for gaining employment, health care, housing and safety. I was fired from a job in 1993 because of these ID problems. Not being able to get a job put me out homeless and working on the street. As many, many people, transyouth are subject to cause they can't get the right ID," she said.
But one woman testified against the bill citing concerns about individuals who have not undergone a sex change who might use the same public restroom as their child. Esteves says the bill requires name change applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation, and a criminal record check.
These are my comments regarding what I placed in bold.  Ms. Casil who identifies as transgender claimed she was fired from a job in 1993 because of these ID problems.  Was the ID really the issue or was it because she checked marked herself on the application and document forms as "male" instead of female?  Guam's ID only specifies "male" and "female" on the form.  As long as your physical gender is female, it should be marked "female" regardless of whether you THINK you are male, Superman, or Santa Claus.  Senatorial candidate Lasia Casil is physically a female and should enter the women's restroom.  After she gets a physical sex change, then he can enter the men's restroom.       

One woman testified against the bill citing concerns about individuals who have not undergone a sex change who might use the same public restroom as their child.  Her concerns are legitimate.  Once the bill is passed, a person can change their ID, passport, and other forms of identification to the gender they identify with despite the fact that they have not had a sex change.  This certainly means that a male person can enter a female restroom.  And to prove it, he has a ID labeling his gender as "female" despite that his physical gender is still a male.  

Are our senators thinking ahead?  Are they aware of the consequences of this bill if they choose to pass it into law?  Don't you think it would be wiser to first install a "transgender" restroom before even considering that bill into law?  After all, how is a psychological exam going to be helpful in a society that is starting to accept homosexuals and transgenders as "normal" rather than as an "intrinsic disorder."  

We are seeing the consequences of accepting homosexual seminarians into a Catholic seminary today.  It caused a depravity in our Church.  Do we want to see depravity in the rest of our society starting with the restrooms of men and women?  Are our senators thinking ahead?  Are they thinking of the consequences of this bill if passed into law? If passed into law, law enforcement will be unable to stop a male who holds a "female" ID from using the women's restroom. When the Guam Legislature introduced a same-sex union bill, Archbishop Apuron vehemently opposed the bill.  Now that a bill has been introduced, allowing transgenders to change the gender in their birth  certificate despite that they have not gone through a sex change, where is Archbishop Byrnes on this issue?  And where is CCOG?  Are they not concern of a man being in a woman's restroom with their mothers and daughters and vice versa?                   

12 comments:

  1. CCOG is only concern with money. Anything that has to do with church money gets their attention. That's why they target Kamalen Karidot and even the NCW.

    ReplyDelete
  2. McCarrick was well-known to be gay. It's also well-known that there was sexual misconduct between him and other gay seminarians. That's what the bishop covered up about McCarrick.

    However, he was probably telling the truth that he didn't sexually molest a teenager. His sexual exploits were always with adults. But McCarrick resigned because of his past sexual misconduct with adult priests and seminarians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Jane Doe,

      I agree. The sexual misconduct of Cardinal McCarrick was well-known, but it cannot be called "child sexual abuse" because all his collaborators were adult males, past the age of consent. I also think that Cardinal McCarrick claimed his innocence because in his lifetime, it was only adult males he had sex with, not minors. So, it must have been surprising for him to learn that someone accused him of sexual abuse when he was a minor.

      His case reminds me of Father Ray Cepeda, who was defrocked by Archbishop Apuron after investigation showed that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. Deacon Jeff Barcinas stated in news report that he knew of only one reported abuse case against Father Ray Cepeda and the victim was not a minor. See the weblink below:

      https://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-accuser-of-father-ray-cepeda.html

      Nevertheless, the case against McCarrick brought to light his past sexual misconduct that some priests, seminarians, and bishops were already aware of. As the Archbishop of Denver stated, this is a spiritual battle. It is a battle against Satan who wished to destroy our church and our society. Satan uses the family to do his battle against God and man. He has enticed some of our bishops to do immoral conducts and make unfair decisions all in the name of "for the good of our church." Satan makes the same enticement through our government and society.

      Matthew 4:8-9 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

      How sad that many of our bishops and politicians have given in to the devil. It is indeed a spiritual battle.

      Delete
    2. If the law is passed, does this mean that a girl can enroll in FD cuz her birth certificate says she was born male? And will a lawsuit be launched against the Archdiocese if the girl is refused enrollment into FD? Can a woman enter a seminary and become a priest cuz she carries an ID identifying her as male?

      Delete
  3. Changing the gender in the birth certificate without having a sex change operation is also deceptive and causes confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Diana, a gay person should never be consecrated to priest. They pose danger to the flock, especially the most vulnerable, our kids. All homosexuals live according to their sexual orientation and allow themselves to practice their lifestyle. There are no non-practicing gay people, only those who disguise themselves incognito. But they are ready to jump on their false instinct at any time. A bishop has the grave responsibility to recognize the risk and not to allow them to enter them priestly order!

    I have to admit I hate them. I am truly sorry but this is the fact. I am a weak Christian, I have to grow in faith to be worthy of coming to the Lord. I am way far behind on my path, because I cannot resist the emotion that is coming from my heart when I see and read about the innocent being abused. I blame a culture of sexual liberalism among clergy including high ranking bishops and cardinals! They think of our kids as some kind of trophies for them, as objects and targets of their pervert desires.

    If someone engages in gay lifestyle ever in his life, that person remains a threat to decency. This person is not only tempted by Satan, but recruited into his army! Gay priests are soldiers of the devil! I pray that I could erase my hatred for these depraved lowly creatures from my heart. I acknowledge my weakness that I am sinner because I am unable to love like Christ. I beg my Savior for forgiveness of my sin of hatred. Perhaps, one day my Lord will hear me and lighten up this burden of emotion from my heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Faithfully yours, 

      I am not against gay people. In fact, one of my colleagues is a lesbian. However, we are able to get along well during work. 

      There is also someone I know who is gay and celibate. However, like all of us he struggles with sin. He is no different than the heterosexual man who also struggles with his own lust. 

      I do agree with Pope Francis when he said that gay men should not be allowed in the seminary. Putting a gay man in a place full of only men is the same as putting a heterosexual man in a place full of only women. Both would be facing the same temptations.

      Delete
    2. Dear Diana, yes and no! I am also not against gay people in general, outside of the church. I was talking about gay seminarians, priests and bishops inside the Catholic clergy! These people haven't chosen their profession for the right reason. They have no business to do inside the Holy Mother Church. The same can be said about lesbian nuns. They are surrounded by people of the same gender, so they are tempted and fail their vow of chastity. Sexual activity outside of church sanctioned marriage is a grave sin for Catholics. You deliberately break the commandment without repentance, then God will consider you a sexual offender.

      I also know gay people, among them sexually exchanged, who call themselves transgender "tranny". I don't hate them, but I know these people are not chaste. They live in sin. They can be gay as non-Christians, but cannot be inside the church as followers of the faith. A sexually exchanged person will lose his/her original gender while won't gain a new one. A gender is more than just a sexual organ and hormones. They have the exchange surgery and take hormone pills, so they think they gained a true gender. But gender is so much more! It is coded in your whole biological system. You cannot truly gain a new one with surgery and hormone pills.

      The church has a mission among the gay. What is this mission, Diana? Is it to give them a feel-good life of secretly tolerated sinful behavior? It is to help them to gratify both their sick desires and their longing for God? Well, this is simply impossible! You cannot have it both ways. Gay people are taking the steps already on the same road that is walked by pedophiles. It is the road of depravity. Is it truly the mission of the church to approve them in their state of lowly existence and hide their sin from the faithful? I emphatically say, no!

      Delete
    3. Dear Faithfully yours,

      The book I mentioned in my post indicated that the radical liberals planted these gay seminarians in an attempt to change the Church's doctrines on human sexuality. They wanted the Catholic Church to accept homosexuality as "normal." The gay activists and transgender are also gaining access into our public schools and teaching little children that they can CHOOSE their own gender. They are also teaching them that a family also includes two married women or two married men.

      The mission for the Church for the gays are the same as those of single heterosexual men and women. They are to abstain from fornication. There is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals other than their sexual orientation. Both of them can commit lust. Homosexuality can be a cross to those attracted to the same sex while an addiction to sex can be a cross to the heterosexuals.

      I agree with you that gender is much more than a sexual organ. Tomboys are women who act more like men, but still they realize they are not men. My mother was a tomboy, but she had no problems identifying herself as female. Nerds are men who are not into sports as most men are, but still they realize they are men. Society tend to define men as being more into sports, but not all men are like that. Just because a man is more of a bookworm does not make him less of a man. The same is true with women who do not know how to cook. After all, there are men who are better chefs than women.

      Delete
    4. Diana, I am disappointed in your latest stereotyping and sexist remarks. You could have phrased your words better. Anyway, I have friends who are gay and lesbian. I do not refer to them as my gay friend George. I say this is my friend George. My friends are my friends for being the wonderful persons they are.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 10:43 am,

      In no way is it a sexist remark when comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals. Read my comment. "Gay" and "homosexual" are not dirty words. Even those who are gay identify themselves as "gay" or "homosexual".

      Delete
  5. Dear anon @ 10:43

    I'm gay myself and I in no way saw any form of stereotyping or sexist remarks.It seems you're just looking for reasons to criticize.

    ReplyDelete