Priest’s Open Letter To UK Bishops…editor
Father David Marsden SCJ has kindly granted permission for us to publish his powerful Open Letter to the Bishops of the UK on the subject of seminary formation…
Father was forced to resign from St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth and, two years on, he has now been fired from St. Mary’s College, Oscott (Birmingham, England). Read on to find out why…
Like countless faithful Catholics around the world, I am sure many of you have been shocked and sickened by the recent scandals committed by the former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Further suffering is being inflicted by the silence of other cardinals and bishops who knew about his behavior and said nothing — and indeed continue to say nothing. In light of the explosive report by Archbishop Viganò, it becomes even more apparent that the homosexual cabal operating in the Catholic Church exists at the very highest level and even incriminates Pope Francis himself.
I hope and pray that the action of the Holy Spirit is now beginning to purify the hierarchy by exposing the evil committed by homosexual clergy around the world. I feel it is my duty to now inform you and faithful Catholics that the homosexual collective within the hierarchy which enabled McCarrick to function in an unobstructed manner is still alive and well today in the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
Towards the end of May 2018, I was dismissed from my post as formation tutor at St. Mary’s College, Oscott by the rector, Canon David Oakley. The reason for this was that I recommended that an openly gay seminarian discontinue the program of formation. Clearly, as an openly gay man, there was no hope of him being ordained. David Oakely informed me that his bishop was “adamant” that his student was staying in formation and that this was not how he and a number of bishops interpreted the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.
In light of the McCarrick scandal and the Viganò report, it has become very clear that cardinals, bishops and senior clergy from around the world are still openly dissenting against the Church’s teaching that prohibits the entrance into seminary formation of men with a homosexual orientation. This is the root cause of the most pressing scandal of our times. In fact, it is destroying the priesthood from within.
Apparently, the policy in Oscott appears to be if a candidate is not “acting out” his homosexual tendencies at the moment or behaving in an inappropriately “camp” way, then he is free to follow the formation program and move towards holy orders. The rector will not dismiss a candidate from the seminary who admits to being “gay” out of fear that his bishop will not agree with his decision. The problem, therefore, quietly continues.
This approach is clearly ignoring the Church’s teaching on this vital issue, yet for some strange reason, bishops are still not being made accountable for disregarding this important instruction. Whilst the teaching is clear, the practice in so many dioceses is deeply compromised. Can I make a huge plea that something be done about this widespread abuse?
I can also state that two of the spiritual directors in the seminary are very compromised on the issue of homosexuality — one individual admitting to me his own gender identity is very confused and the other openly stated that homosexual priests are a good idea as they are better able to minister effectively to homosexual Catholics! Neither would adhere to Church’s teaching and acknowledge that a key part of their role as spiritual contained the “duty to dissuade (a homosexual person) in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.”
I am writing to you all with a petition to act and take the necessary steps to reform the three remaining seminaries in England. The orthodox and heterosexual seminarians deserve a seminary free from a gay subculture and free from academic and formation staff who are homosexual themselves.
For the sake of brevity, I will summarise my findings from the year I spent working in the seminary:
1. The problem begins at St. Luke’s Institute in Manchester where a number of seminarians are asked to undergo a psychological assessment as part of the selection policy. The director of the institute, Fr. Gerard Fieldhouse-Byrne, has some very strange views on homosexuality himself and seems happy to admit homosexual men into the formation program. This is a problem that the bishop of Salford needs to address.
2. Canon David Oakley is prepared to admit homosexual men into his seminary and will not dismiss them unless their public conduct becomes unsavory. He is a compromised and cowardly man who is not prepared to make a stand and disagree with the bishops on the issue of homosexuality.
3. A number of bishops from England and Wales are happy to admit seminarians who are openly gay into the formation program and proceed towards ordination. The bishop of Menevia is one such example.
4. One of the spiritual directors at Oscott Seminary has admitted to being sexually attracted to young men. It is highly inappropriate that such an individual hold such a post. The rector is aware of this fact but seems unable to confront this individual. He even noted that the friends who accompany this individual for holidays each year are also homosexual. Another of the spiritual directors in the seminary thinks that homosexual priests are a great idea as they can minister to the gay Catholic community.
5. The archbishop of Birmingham and the archbishop of Westminster have both been informed of these issues and seem to prefer to ignore them. Why do we continue to have such passive and feeble-hearted clerics in such high places of leadership in the Church? Why are they afraid to speak out on topics such as homosexuality in the clergy and the toxic gender ideology sweeping through our schools?
These are not only facts but shocking allegations against the present life of the seminary in Birmingham. Action needs to be taken to address the homosexual culture in the Church’s hierarchy. Scandals like those of Theodore McCarrick and Cardinal Keith O’Brien are just waiting to happen. The normal, heterosexual students in Oscott demand that the homosexual clique in the seminary be dismissed and that the homosexual or bisexual staff members be dismissed also.
I was fired from the college for striving to uphold the Church’s teaching on homosexuality which is a grave injustice to me personally. It is extraordinary to think that I was asked by the rector to make a public oath of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church at the beginning of the academic year. It is my fidelity to that oath that has cost me my job and deprived the seminarians of the only qualified formator in the seminary.
In the summer of 2016, I was forced to resign from St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth because they were ordaining openly homosexual men to the priesthood, and two years later I have been fired from St. Mary’s College, Oscott for stating that homosexual men are not to be admitted to seminary formation and priesthood.
We are surely living through dark times for the Catholic Church. Are there any good bishops left who are brave enough to begin the wholesale reform of the priesthood that is so badly needed?
With every blessing in Christ,
Father David Marsden, S.C.J.
Former Formation Tutor
Catholic Truth warmly commends Father Marsden for his excellent letter to the Bishops. We pray that some, at least, actively respond to it.
What do you think… will any Bishops (even one) – pay heed?
What a fantastic letter! Congratulations to that brave priest for writing it and putting it into the public domain.
I think it’s very clear from Fr Marsden’s letter that we are in the position of facing scandals, just like they did in the USA, where we are reading about English, Welsh and Scots bishops being “outed” as homosexuals. I, for one, won’t be surprised.
As for the question – yes, actually, I can think of a couple of bishops who might act on Father’s letter. Bishop Egan in the south of England and Bishop Robson of Dunkeld, who is the closest we’ve got in Scotland to a traditional bishop because I hear that he allows the traditional Mass and even offered one himself, although I’m not 100% sure on that last point.
It is absolutely disgraceful that a priest should be fired from a seminary for teaching the Catholic faith and fidelity to morals. It’s truly disgraceful. With the letters after his name, I’m presuming he is a member of a religious order so he won’t be destitute, but it is still unconscionable to deprive student priests of a sound formator like Fr Marsden.
I’ll add Father into my daily rosary.
Let’s hope you are correct about the two bishops you name. That would be great.
I was at one of the five English and Welsh seminaries and left in part because the Rector said he dreamt about me and described me as a very loveable person!
And were you? ARE you? 😀
That’s not funny if you consider that I am not a Priest and so not giving the Sacraments to the Faithful to bring them closer to God.
Unfortunately, the entirety of the contemporary population appears to be so sex-obsessed that they cannot imagine any other type of love or loveable-ness. Pity is, that obsession has also infected Catholics. I do not get the connection between “I am not a priest…” blah blah. If you’d taken my words at face value, as an innocent joke, it would not matter whether you were a priest or not.
You just don’t get the pain and suffering this scandal has caused people and myself in particular. It is anything but amusing.
You gave NO indication of any such “pain and suffering”. Just as I laugh at daft women who object to men wolf-whistling in the street – which used to be taken as a compliment – so I tend to dismiss the extremes where people read something sinister into what may be an innocent remark or a joke.
I suggest that when you write about this subject you spell out, not necessarily gory details, but the FACT that you were abused.
I am having my entire life taken up with writing about the scandals in the Church, this one and many others, and this week has already been dominated by preparing letters to seminary rectors and other senior staff about allegations, so I don’t take kindly to some newcomer lecturing me about how little I know about the suffering and suggesting that I find it amusing.
There is a lot of humour on this blog, one way or another. We laugh because otherwise we would cry. That was our rationale when we decided to use satire in our newsletter reports.
If you don’t feel comfortable with that, I suggest you don’t read this blog.
Er, I didn’t even get as far as mentioning the inappropriate touching. This is anything but amusing to me and to anyone else caused pain and suffering by this scandal. And yes I am familiar with Deus Caritas Est.
Yes, exactly, you didn’t even get as far as saying ANYTHING that indicated physical abuse so take care in future to spell out what you mean, if it’s sympathy you want or if you do not wish your meaning to be missed or misinterpreted. None of us can read minds and I lost my crystal ball last time I did a “big” house clean.
To be blunt, when I saw your first post in moderation, I actually wondered if YOU were being a tad sarcastic. It was not a very clear comment, so please don’t come on here and insult us when we mean no harm.
Most of us, as young women, have experienced unwelcome and inappropriate touching. We didn’t make a career out of it. We got on with life and, as one friend once remarked, we knew that any humble barmaid in any pub in the land knew how to deal with such – without having to see a therapist.
Editor, I am going to come out here somewhat in defence of Sed libera etc. If as I am guessing, he was touched inappropriately or abused in some other way while he was a seminarian, then in that context it is a lot more serious than the sort of casual disrespect most women encounter at some point. Just imagine being a young seminarian, what on earth would you think if the rector acted in such a way to you? Confusion, shame, horror would be the most likely response I imagine. And also not knowing what on earth to do about it. Except in the end to leave the seminary.
I agree he did not make it clear what had happened to him, too painful maybe? But I don’t think he intended to be insulting.
I’m sorry but I disagree completely. I’m with editor on this. I detected a bit of sarcasm and nonsense from SLNAM straight away. If he wanted to post a serious comment about abuse he would have. His comments smack of someone looking for a bit of sport.
Get Outlook for Android
Petrus, do you disagree with me then that abuse in a seminary is far more serious than casual touching of a woman? If so I am Surprised. Or is it just that you think SLNAM is not genuine?
My initial impression was that he was not genuine.
Regarding your question about abuse in seminary being more serious than casual touching of a woman, I don’t know. Isn’t casual touching of a woman technically “abuse”?
Get Outlook for Android
Can’t seem to find the correct reply place, but in answer to Petrus, yes of course touching of a woman is abuse but what I am saying is that the context, the place, of being abused in a seminary surely makes it much worse because it is, or should be, a holy place. So it is a form of desecration. Shouting and swearing in a church is worse than in the street for example.
My problem with a lot of these allegations from adults, and I said exactly the same (and still say the same) about Cardinal O’Brien’s accusers is this: what is WRONG with these people that they do not act immediately to (a) tell off the person inappropriately touching them and/or (b) report the incident to the relevant authorities. And if all else fails, leave. To wait around and allow such abuse, begs certain questions, I’m afraid. Big time.
Frankly, I struggle to believe half of it. I’ve worked with priests and religious, lived under the same roof from time to time, and if I had even ONCE experienced sexual contact as seems to be commonplace in these seminaries, you, Elizabeth, along with the rest of the world, would have heard about it. Within seconds.
The key thing here, anyway, is that there was no hint from this new blogger that he had been abused. I actually didn’t know what to make of his ambiguous post which is why I interpreted the word “loveable” in its innocent meaning. If he’d said “desirable” that would have been a very different kettle of language.
But look – he’s not going to hijack this thread. I’ve explained my position clearly and, by the way, I wasn’t unfavourably comparing the sort of things that women experience with a seminary experience of actual sexual abuse; quite the reverse, I was explaining that I get fed up listening to daft women and their ridiculous complaints. Flirtatious behaviour from men is now interpreted as sexual harassment. Gimme a break. Attention-seeking females like those complainants don’t get any sympathy from me. My message to them is, grow up.
However, those who do experience actual sexual abuse, such as seminarians, young adults, ought to have sufficient character to deal with it on the spot, and not wait umpteen years or until the offender is deceased, to mention it.
To be clear; this conversation isn’t about the abuse itself. Obviously, you are, of course right to say it is MUCH worse to discover such sexual activity in a seminary or church. IN the very nature of things, that is, as you say a form of desecration. But that’s not what we are discussing here. We take that as read. What we are talking about is a new person coming on here, posting an ambiguous comment (which I almost deleted on reading, now wish I had) and then concluding, because I interpreted his comment innocently and replied with humour, that somehow I am condoning abuse. Not on.
Yes I agree with you about not understanding why adults allow themselves to remain in abusive situations. Not talking here about marriages where it is more about coming under power and mental and physical cruelty. For some reason some women continue to choose and even return to abusive men. But I am digressing.
Most seminarians these days are, I believe, already graduates or at least more mature than in older times when children went first to junior seminaries etc. So it is indeed hard to understand why if the gay culture is as rampant as we are led to believe, the normal students don’t kick up an al mighty fuss and band together to do something about it. Why not? If they are really the sort of red blooded men we want as priests why do they let themselves be so intimidated? Do they just turn a blind eye to the goings on in the hope that they can just stay the course to ordination? Not good enough in my opinion. It is the old story of the fate of the whistleblowers but surely they must not be happy to see so many unsuitable candidates go onto ordination!
Streuth, I don’t care frankly what you believe. The point is that there is a gay problem in the seminaries. Seminary life is like a boarding school – can you imagine what it is like where the headmaster fancies you and everybody knows? It is not like that you get to go home in the evenings and forget about it! That said, we all have to endure suffering in our lives and I for one am glad I left when I did as it put him out of his misery. It is a shame though if it was my vocation to be a Priest, as there don’t seem to be many these days and the Church is in self-destruct mode.
We know perfectly well that there’s a “gay” problem in seminaries. With all due respect, we were discussing that problem long before you came on the scene. And even before we knew about the homosexual infestation in seminaries, we spoke and wrote about the fact that the seminaries were not turning out sound priests, that they were not teaching the Faith. As a result, we’ve NO seminaries left on Scottish soil.
I have to say, though, that in your place, I’d be thinking twice about publishing anonymous claims that none of us can check out.
If you really were in seminary, and the seminary rector behaved as you claim, you’d be wiser to make that fact known to your bishop and insist that he do something about it. If that fails, and always assuming that you are speaking the truth, then you would be justified in making your experiences public – by that I mean naming and shaming.
It might do more harm than good, however, to blog insinuations. There’s no point at all in doing that. An understandable self-indulgence, perhaps, but not fixing the problem.
All you have done is criticise my commenting on here. What a ridiculous blog this is!
If you only want praise and everyone agreeing with you, THAT is ridiculous. You’ve been rude ever since your first comment, so it is a tad ridiculous to expect us all to think you’re some kind of victim-saint. Speaking for myself – I don’t.
Try engaging with us pleasantly. You will see that it makes a huge difference on any blog, even this “ridiculous” blog.
If only there were more priests as courageous as Father Marsden. We’d soon see change coming.
It really is a disgrace that he has been got rid of, for the “crime” of wanting to enforce Catholic teaching on the refusal of homosexual men for the priesthood.
The laity are going to have to keep a close eye on priests coming through – I will not hesitate to speak my mind if I find my PP is homosexual.
Is it not possible to get up a petition to reinstate Father Marsden? It’s exactly priests like him that we need forming future priests.
[Like Lily], I will also keep Father Marsden in my daily prayers.
I doubt if Father would want a petition to reinstate him – if he’s not free to teach the Faith and insist on good morals, and if the same homosexually active staff and students remain, his life would be intolerable.
We need to pray that his excellent letter hits home and that some bishops, at least, realise that they must now step up to the plate and do their episcopal duty to see that priests are soundly and properly formed in seminaries, in a serious attempt to thwart the pernicious spread of the immorality, deviant sexual behaviour and decadence currently destroying seminary training.
Dear Madame Editor,
Speaking of petitions, I beg every member of the CT family to sign this one:
Click where it says “HERE” and sign. Tobin must NOT be appointed archbishop of Washington, D.C.!!!
Some might say “Well, that’s the Americans’ problem.” but it’s not. We need all hands on deck!
Thank you in advance!
In Christ the King,
I’ve signed it but cannot see my name listed.
I can’t see the Archbishop of Birmingham, Longley, responding well to the priest’s open letter. He’s on record attacking the group that used to pray outside the Soho Masses in London, when he was a London bishop – I found this report from 2010
No wonder the seminary in Birmingham is so tolerant of homosexuals in their midst, with a bishop like him at the helm.
I do agree that we will probably see bishops exposed as actively homosexual just as is happening in America. Frankly, I think that will be a good thing as we need to get the poison out, no matter how painful.
I also agree that Father Marsden’s letter is excellent, and he is a very brave priest to have written it. When the tide turns, it will be priests like him that the new traditional pope will be looking to make bishops. I pray we don’t have too long to wait.
You beat me to it – Archbishop Longley is part of the problem, not remotely part of the solution.
We really do need to pray for the conversion of the bishops – if they really and truly believed the truths of the Faith, you see, there would be no question about their morality. They go together – theology, liturgy and morality. When the Faith goes, as I’ve said countless times, the morals quickly follow.
I’m afraid that in a majority of cases – perhaps even in a vast majority – the bishops are part of the homosexual network themselves, which would not only perfectly explain their cover-up behavior, but also predictably prevent them from being “converted.” I read not too long ago that many years ago an American priest opened a clinic to treat priests with sexual and drug/alcohol problems. This priest (I think his name was Fr. Fitzgerald) wrote from experience that it was not likely that homosexual priests could be converted.
No, they should all be removed from ministry – an action which will not take place until we get a faithful Pope.
Meanwhile, I hope Fr. Marsden’s excellent letter inspires other priests and seminarians to come forward.
Yours, plus other posts from Deacon Augustine and Westminster Fly, are causing me conscience problems. I’ll explain why down below, in response to Westminster Fly because he has included the links to the key Vatican documents on the subject of ordaining (or more accurately NOT ordaining) men with the homosexual inclination.
More shortly, she said mysteriously…
I’m not sure that we can say a homosexual can’t change – that’s what they say about paedophiles, as well.
However, and I know I’ve read this on this blog in the past, I agree with whoever it was who said here that God’s grace is not limited to particular sins.
Any sinner who repents can and will be forgiven and absolved in the Confessional and with effort can surely overcome their tendencies.
I do agree that not permitting the ordination of a homosexual is perfectly legitimate, but once ordained, assuming there is no evidence of scandal, I think they must surely be given the benefit of any doubt.
I was referring in that comment to Fr. Fitzgerald (+1969), who founded the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete to treat priests dealing with challenges such as alcoholism, substance abuse and sexual misconduct:
“In 2009 his papers were unsealed. He had asked American bishops and the Vatican in the 1950s and 1960s to not reassign priests who sexually assaulted parishioners. He said that they were effectively untreatable and at risk of committing additional sex crimes and tarnishing the church’s reputation. Fitzgerald argued so forcefully for the defrocking (i.e. forced dismissal from the priesthood) of sexually abusive priests that it has been argued that the Catholic hierarchy would have been made aware of the dangers of allowing such priests to return to parish work where they would have contact with minors.”
I think there is a clear difference between a priest who has suffered from same sex attraction in the past and has always remained chaste, and the priests in that article who have sexually assaulted others. Such priests can never again minister in the Church.
Get Outlook for Android
Yes, good point, but I wonder how many homosexually-oriented priests have actually remained celibate? I’ve always thought “homosexual” and “promiscuous” were pretty much synonymous.
Here are a couple of interesting articles about the celibacy requirement as applied to homosexual priests:
http://www.rcf.org/docs/celibacy.htm (speaking of the Roman Catholic Faithful, whom Editor just wrote about their name)
Here’s another one by a Protestant:
The Church is desperate for other priests like Fr Marsden; thank God for him. I think his brave letter should be printed in all of the “Catholic” papers – but no doubt such an outcome is too fantastic to be realised.
Agreed – if only we had more priests like Fr Marsden – and if only his letter could be published across the print media, but not likely.
I note your absent avatar, again, if you get my drift.
If you go into your My Profile, and click where it says “click here to change photo” you can download your avatar from your file and it will automatically appear next time you post – and it will also appear on your previous posts.
Catholic Truth at your service 😀
Yeah that sounds simple, but guess what? I can’t find My Profile. Thick or what? No answer is necessary. I have clicked onto every blessed heading/icon on the screen, (and don’t get me started on WordPlus) but none of them contain My Profile, so I’m afraid that I must remain iconless. (I can only imagine your face at this moment, but that’s enough – no words required…)
I was the same. Then I realised you click on your avatar on the top right hand corner of this page, the drop down menu shows My Profile, I think it’s first on the list. That takes you through.
Thanks – but my avatar at the top of the corner has disappeared.
If you would like to email me your log in details, I will try to sort this out for you. You can change your password afterwards, if you wish – not that I would use your log in again, but if you have some secret stuff filed on your dashboard, there is always the chance that I would be tempted to sell it to the Russians! 😀
Over to thee!
No i don’t think they will take heed. I will pray for this good priest and all priests.
I do hope you’re wrong – as I’m sure you hope you’re wrong, as well!
For my part, I fear you are right!
I agree, the bishops won’t take heed.
Also, I, will pray for Father Marsden, too – what a very brave priest to write such a strong letter.
If a man is prepared to be celibate for all of his life, it matters little whether he be homo or hetro sexual. I think to many on this forum are of the opinion that sexuality is one of life’s choices, like deciding whether to live in a detached house ,a semi or a flat.
If someone is addicted to alcohol, it would be wise not to apply for a job in a brewery or a whisky bond. Common sense. Putting oneself in the way of temptation day in and day out, would be dangerous.
Similarly, men who are same-sex attracted ought to find a place to work where there are plenty of pretty girls around, good company and no temptation 😀 To apply to live and work surrounded by other men in a seminary, is clearly not going to help the homosexual to remain chaste. For that reason, the Church prohibits the acceptance of homosexuals into seminaries. It’s as much for their own protection as for any other reason. Only those who think that purity is unimportant, that God doesn’t mind if we engage in impure activity, oppose the Church’s teaching on marriage and same-sex behaviour.
As for the “choice” question – there’s no scientific evidence that anyone is “born that way” so, clearly, there is a choice to be made, as there is when confronted with any other temptation.
It’s a tad more important than deciding whether to live in a house or a flat, as you suggest. Our duty and ability to conform our lives to God’s will is unlikely to be dictated/affected by whether we live in a house, a caravan or under the stars in a tent 😀
However, whether we are married or single, there is an obligation to cultivate the virtue of purity in order to live a chaste life, within our personal circumstances. For those attracted to another person’s spouse, or a person of the same sex, the choice is clear; not allowed. End of discussion.
Any man who is so disordered in his sexual appetites is not fit to be a priest in the first place and neither is he a suitable candidate to live in a seminary.
Even if they are not acting out their desires, they create a sub-culture in seminary life which is destructive to discipline and which normal men find repellant. They are a deterrant to normal men entering and staying the course for the full 7 years.
Seminary life is an occasion of sin to a man who is sexually attracted to men, just as confining me to close quarters with a bunch of young women for 7 years would be an occasion of sin for me. It is not the right place for them for the sake of their own souls, never mind the souls of others which they may go on to corrupt.
Even the “celibate” ones seldom accept the Church’s moral teaching particularly relating to sexual matters, and consequently are unable to teach the faith convincingly to others. Consequently when they do proceed to ordination they often join the ranks of the dissenting homo-sympathizers, they lead the laity astray, and they act as a counter-witness to genuine vocations to the priesthood. God alone knows how many men have been put off the priesthood because they have only known effeminate, camp priests.
Not all homosexuals are pederasts, but the incidence of pederasty among homosexual priests is extremely high – they seem to attract one another by sharing their child-porn and inviting their partners in crime to join the club. Bishops who ordain them are enabling, facilitating and perpetuating the culture of abuse, perversion and cover-up which has destroyed thousands of young souls.
There are good reasons why the Church has rules against admitting such men to seminary life and the bishops who flout such rules should be called-out, named and shamed and dumped unceremoniously out of the episcopate.
The Church’s rationale, beautifully summarised. Many thanks for your insightful post.
As for your concluding paragraph – I couldn’t agree more. Well said.
I’ve just replied to RCA Victor who thinks they should all be removed from ministry if discovered after ordination.
I am not in agreement with that, unless there is evidence they are acting out or have caused scandal.
I’d be interested to know what you think.
The Church doesn’t teach that same-sex attraction is a choice, but that it is a disorder. Even if the person is prepared to remain celibate and accept Church teaching on this matter, the Church has declared on two separate occasions that even these men should not be ordained. See the following two links:-
Very briefly, and without going into details, your post above, with the key links to Vatican documents on the subject of the ordination of homosexuals, plus comments above from Deacon Augustine and RCA Victor, are causing me conscience problems because, a while back, I was sent evidence that a young man studying for the priesthood (for an English diocese, I’ll say no more than that) was homosexually inclined, with “gay” clubs and such like listed as his favourite places on his then Facebook page, now removed. I do, however, have the screen shots.
Anyway, very long story cut short, I emailed the young man to express my disquiet, asking him to affirm his unequivocal acceptance of the Church’s teaching, while, at the same time, encouraging him to withdraw, and not be ordained. I cited the above Church documents.
He replied that he was happy to confirm that he totally accepts the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and that he would not be involving himself in anything to do with the “gay” scene from now on (words to that effect, I am not quoting him verbatim).
I assured him that, given this fact, I would not take the matter further, and that was the end of that brief correspondence.
Since then, we’ve had the McCarrick and subsequent scandals with Archbishop Vigano’s revelations about the Pope himself, Father Marsden’s experiences at not one, but TWO seminaries, and – to make things worse, as if that is possible – we find today, the Pope wearing a rainbow “cross”. openly in public, at a youth event.
My conscience problem now is, was I right to assure the seminarian that I would not take the matter further? Am I wrong to sit back and do nothing, while a homosexually inclined (and possibly active, whether past or present) man is ordained to the Catholic priesthood?
I’m inclined to write to him one more time to say that in light of the tsunami of scandals caused by the ordination of homosexual men, I now really do need to contact his seminary rector – since to repeat my exhortation to withdraw from seminary could be (mis)construed as blackmail. I do, however, wish to forewarn him that I feel duty bound to contact his rector, given that I did give him my word that I would not do that.
Does anyone see my problem? Feel free to take on the role of my own personal Agony Aunt or Agony Uncle. I think I’ve more or less made up my mind to do as outlined above, but if anyone feels strongly that that would be the wrong thing to do…. speak now or forever hold your peace…
editor, one of the hardest things I have ever had to do since ordination was write to a vocations director to tell him that I had just become aware that a man who was about to join the seminary had a problem with which he needed help before commencing training (not homosexuality in this case, but another addictive behaviour not congruent with priestly ministry).
I agonised over it for some time and experienced hostility from other clergy after the event, but it was absolutely the right thing to do and it was a great weight off my conscience when I did it. I still have a clear conscience about it now. They listened, he got help and down the track entered formation in a state which meant he actually had a chance of completing his studies.
Sometimes it can be very difficult emotionally and spiritually to do the right thing – especially if one dwells upon possible consequences. However, in my experience, it is always better to do the right thing – whatever the consequences. I will pray for you for God’s guidance – I am sure He will let you know what you must do.
Thank you for that. Much appreciated. And very grateful for your prayerful support.
Again, thank you for that advice.
I have now, minutes ago, emailed the young man concerned, so ask for bloggers’ prayers to enable him to discern the truth of what I have written – which is, essentially, to re-consider his vocation in the light of the Church’s prohibition on ordaining “homosexual men, those with deep seated tendencies, and/or who support the so-called gay culture.” AND in the light of the flood of scandals which have been published since our correspondence in the summer.
We ask for his mother, Our Lady, and his Guardian Angel, to awaken him to the grace available to help him act with integrity and courage at this time.
( How he and other Bishops interpretated the Churches Teaching on Homosexuality ). That sentence really sums the lot of them up . It’s also nice to see them go Jolly Hollys together with our Money. Ad like to be a fly on the wall at these little Jolly Hollys. Really it’s now getting past the point that we Know Our Catholic Church is being run by Homosexuals. Maybe it would be a good idea that they be made take a Lie Detector Test before entering a Seminary. To tell you the Truth and probably all on here feel the same am Scunnered.
“scunnered” – haven’t heard that in a long time! Well said!
Fr Marsden has written an excellent letter which gets to the very heart of the corruption in our hierarchy – sodo-clericalism. Not only does moral corruption arise from this phenomenon, but it leads to liturgical, doctrinal and financial corruption as well.
editor, is there any way this letter can be made available to “Church Militant TV”? Michael Voris finally seems to have taken the red pill and is doing a real number on these perverts in the hierarchy. It would be good for the bishops over here to feel the heat of his anger too.
The letter is already published at Church Militant.
I have emailed the link to this thread to both Maynooth (President and Theology office) and to Canon Oakley at Oscott.
I was just thinking, those responsible for this priest’s dismissal as a seminary formator ought to know about this thread.
If they are reading this, I hope they are thoroughly ashamed, but that is unlikely. If they had properly formed consciences in the first place, they would know that homosexual activity is unnatural and completely unacceptable in any seminary. Instead of removing the guilty seminarians, they shoot the messenger! How stupid are they?
Our seminaries in Scotland folded, and not a day too soon, IMHO. I think Oscott and Maynooth are going the same way.
editor, thank you for the “heads-up”. It seems that CM were the ones who actually broke the story. Lifesite news have run with it as well, but no sign of it appearing in any of the lamestream Catholic media – they are so totally dependent on the sodo-clerical perverts.
That surprises me – since CM are American, and Voris has his own homosexual issues, I wonder how they came to get the story first? Maybe someone did what you did, in reverse (!) i.e. asked CM to share the story with Catholic Truth? I doubt it, as editor uses publishes source with a link.
Nothing like this would ever be published in the main Catholic papers. They are too busy trying to pretend there’s no crisis, LOL!
It’s a great letter, and Fr Marsden is to be supported and thanked for his courage. I hope he isn’t made to suffer more, as a result of his letter. I looked up SCJ and it is an order of priests dedicated to the Sacred Heart. Our Lord will take care of him and reward his fidelity, no doubt about it.
Michaela / Deacon Augustine,
For the record, I never visit the Church Militant site. I used to value Michael Voris’s work, but I’m afraid I now have a number of very good reasons for not wanting to have anything to do with them. One of our readers sent me the link to Father’s Open Letter, and I WAS puzzled to see it on an American blog, especially the CM blog, but, given its importance for us in the UK, I decided to track down the priest author and seek his permission to publish his Open Letter here, attributed to himself, and not CM. As you can see, Father granted that permission.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
I never visit Church Militant website. It doesn’t interest me. I’ve no time for half-baked traditionalism. Catholic Truth is really all that’s required.
I hope those seminary people you sent this link to are reading it and are hanging their heads in shame. I doubt it – those who are sold into the gay lifestyle are usually described as “proud” which I’ve always found interesting.
I hope you don’t mind if I ask you why you posted the comment to editor about contacting Church Militant with this letter.
I don’t remember you ever doing that before, and since CM is an American blog and the letter is for the UK bishops, I’m just curious.
I must confess, the very same thought occurred to me, and I’m not (usually) a suspicious character. There really is a first time for everything, as they say 😀
You ask a fair question and, if I don’t interrupt myself again, I will try to give you a straight answer.
I gave up on CM some years ago after MV’s steadfast refusal to entertain any criticism of the most evil pope in history.
However, after the Vigano revelations in August, CM finally dropped the papolatry and MV came out with an explosive denunciation of Bergoglio and demanded that he resign for all his involvement in the cover-ups of homosexual predators in the Church – dating back to his days in Buenos Aires.
I have had more time for CM since then and I have been following their daily exposure of the sodomite infestation of the Church both in the US and globally. They have been appealing for whistleblowers to come forth from both clergy and laity in order to expose all the corruption to the light of day. They have even started investigating the murders of priests who were going to blow the gaff on the homo-corruption in their dioceses.
As an ex-homosexual himself MV has been tearing into the sodomites like a poacher turned gamekeeper. Other Catholic online news services have been picking up on the reports and multiplying them through social media.
This is the only thing which will expose the bishops who support and facilitate this depravity to the full glare and embarrassment of public shame. The bishops hate it because they can’t control it like they control the traditional Catholic media.
Our bishops over here just keep quiet, keep their heads down and pretend nothing is wrong. They rely on the ignorance of the people in the pew to carry on perverting the faith without anybody doing anything to stop them. Fr. Marsden’s is a brilliant and honest letter which will rock their leaky little dinghy and it deserves to get as wide a coverage as possilble. With an audience in the 10’s of thousands I thought CM might be one way to achieve that – whatever misgivings there are about CM itself.
Just one correction to your explanation – Michael Voris has NOT given up on his papolatry. He still insists that it is wrong to publicly criticise a pope and has explained his apparent change of heart by making a ridiculous distinction between theology and morality – as if the two can possibly be separated.
So, no problem in concealing (and thereby being complicit) in the Pope’s shocking anti-Catholic statements, such as condemning the concept of the one true Church, seeking conversions etc. Only now, with the increasing number of scandals of a homosexual nature, is it acceptable to speak out in the Gospel according to Michael Voris. Wrong.
For all the years we were reporting on the dissent of Cardinal O’Brien, we were ignored and/or dismissed as extremists – including by CM. Only when the Cardinal himself was exposed as a homosexual did the world sit up and even then, reports across the Pond were muted, with no mention of our years of expose. Just because of his occasional (and qualified) statements that abortion is wrong (albeit “I’m not a one-issue man, nuclear weapons are also anti-life…”) he was portrayed as a “Vatican hardliner” by Catholic, as well as secular outlets. So, you see, your request to me to make sure CM was aware of Father’s letter hit me between the eyes, since HE didn’t bother making sure that I knew about it – and we are right here, wham bang IN the UK (no thanks to Nicola Sturgeon et al, I agree 😀 ) He knows about Catholic Truth – see below… I wonder why he wouldn’t alert US to Father’s letter? That makes much more sense than me alerting him, all that distance away…
The unconscionable way Voris turned on his brother organisations over the there, also makes me question his integrity; his warning not to read any of the outlets, such as The Remnant, criticising the Pope’s scandalous words on “theology”, I presume still stands.
And, of course, the icing on the cake is his false claim that the SSPX is in schism, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Thus, this is a man who would recommend you attend a novus ordo Mass said by the Pope, with a couple dancing the tango in the sanctuary, over a Mass offered by a priest of the SSPX.
Finally, at the time when I WAS a fan, thought his work was excellent, he was invited to Scotland by another group (approved by the Church authorities here, allowed use of parish premises for their meetings, and allowed to advertise in the Catholic press) and I went along to support that event.
Imagine my shock/horror when Voris’s very first words to that packed hall, packed with laity and clergy, his very first words were not to worry, the Church had had plenty of crises over the centuries, this was just one more. That’s what our readers (encouraged by me to attend) heard, and must have wondered at my repeated statements in editorials that this was the worst ever crisis to hit the Church. And here’s an interesting – and very revealing – aside…
I had a call from the organisers of that event to ask if I would be willing to be interviewed by Michael for one of his videos. I agreed. Couple of days later, I received a call to say, sorry they wouldn’t need me after all, since CM didn’t have their internet equipment. He must have forgotten that I was planning to attend because there was their internet equipment hidden in plain sight, in full view (as confirmed by later videos of them in various Scottish locations) so there was clearly another reason for not wanting to give any publicity to Catholic Truth. Note: when he originally asked me to be interviewed, the organiser innocently said something that made me smile a hollow smile. He thanked me for agreeing to be interviewed because (drum roll) he had thought and thought and thought about it and just couldn’t think of anyone but me to be interviewed about the crisis in the Church in Scotland. “Laugh”, as they say, “out loud” 😀
I’ll leave it there, although I could say more (you know me, I always can….) But, no, sorry, – Michael Voris is not the clearest thinker in the world, our Deacon. I’m delighted if he is helping to expose the homosexual crisis; I really am delighted about that. I never visit his site, no longer watch his videos, so I was unaware of that fact. Still, with respect, any secular could do that. He remains complicit in covering up the reason FOR the homosexual infestation – the false doctrine, the fact that this pope, by his own admission, doesn’t DO Catholicism. He mocks Catholic Tradition, has insulted Our Lady, rubbishes the ancient Mass and, indeed, the papacy itself. THAT, Deacon, is the key issue, not whether, like any Evangelical Protestant worthy of the name, he is exposing public homosexual sins being committed, and covered up within the Church.
That was my initial thought when I saw Voris’ video after Archbishop Vigano’s testimony – how on earth can you separate faith and morals? You can criticise the pope for his dissent on morals but not the faith? Crazy! Surely morality is a branch of theology? I did a module on “moral theology” at university and I’m pretty sure morality is rooted in theology.
Since God is the author of the moral law, the two clearly cannot be separated!
I’d have had more respect for Michael if he had simply said that, on reflection, and seeing the scandals unfolding and multiplying, he now realises he was wrong and obviously we have a duty to, albeit sadly and reluctantly, warn against what this pontiff is saying and doing.
In other words, we not only may but must criticise a pope when necessary, that is, when he is attacking or undermining the Faith.
Sticking to his guns and coming up with his false distinction between theology and morality, doesn’t cut it with me, at all.
It means, in effect, that if Pope Francis says something outrageous tomorrow about Christ, His Church, or the Holy Trinity, CM can’t report it. Madness!
editor, I don’t disagree with you – I never said the man was perfect!!!
Particularly his false distinction between the pope’s theology and morality which IMHO is BS. Refusal to believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us, and teach the same, is the greatest moral failure for any man and is the precursor of all other moral failures – it is a sin against the First and greatest Commandment.
Nevertheless, when one is engaged in a world war against the Nazis even the French and Italians can be a useful allies on occasion.
“editor, I don’t disagree with you…”
Those are my favourite words on this blog, alongside, editor, you’re right !
And I don’t disagree with YOU either, that we can work with French and Italians in this war against the Faith (and our fundamental humanity, if you include the whole ridiculous nonsense about transgenderism…)
In fact, though, I haven’t said a WORD about the French and Italians. One of my favourite bloggers here is Frenchman, Lionel, so stop putting rumours out there – just because I voted BREXIT doesn’t make me anti-European or racist… 😀
No, I don’t mind at all. 😉
You’ve just confirmed my suspicions!
Aha! But did you suspect, dear editor, that I might be a clumsy, butter-fingered old git who just managed to delete most of my reply to Theresa Rose before I hit the “enter” button???
Oh dear, Deacon… once again I got it wrong… What am I LIKE? (Strictly rhetorical question 😀 )
Editor, Deacon Auustine, et. al.,
These posts about Voris reminded me of the last time, or nearly the last time, I consulted Louie V before he went off the rails. He wrote an expose of Voris and showed that whatever comes out of Voris’ mouth is dictated and/or approved by his money man, one Terry Carroll, with the assistance of Voris’ alleged spiritual director, whose name I forget but who accused the SSPX of “having the seed of schism,” or something to that effect. (That spiritual director was the priest who attacked Fr. Gruner the day after he died).
It seems that Terry Carroll had a personal wild hair about the SSPX, which resulted in Voris’ endless stream of false accusations and smears against them, which included some collateral damage to such traditionalist flagships as CFN, The Remnant and The Fatima Center (purveyors of “spiritual pornography” as he put it).
So if the purse strings control Voris, maybe his handler decided they were losing money and/or readership for laying off Francis, and came up with a handy excuse to – as Christopher Ferrara put it – “lead from the rear.”
Having said all that, however, if Voris is generating considerable heat regarding the Lavender Mafia, then perhaps he will be useful in some way, as these spiritual thugs and racketeers continue to try to stonewall their way out of their pit.
And speaking of generating heat against homosexual stonewalling, I see that Stephen Brady’s “Roman Catholic Faithful” is back in business, in Illinois, thanks to Cardinal Cupich refusing to “go down the rabbit hole.”
Thank you for that alert about the return of Stephen Brady’s apostolate. I have just emailed as follows:
One of our American bloggers has just alerted us to the return of your apostolate, which, remembering the great work you did in the past, I warmly welcome.
I hope you don’t mind me writing to correct something which, while very common across the Catholic world these days, is always sad to see – the use of the term “Roman Catholic” to describe Christ’s Catholic Church.
We have a short article – entitled How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name – on our website, explaining how this term only came into use at the Reformation, a means by which the new Protestants sought to promote their branch theory, that the Catholic Church adhering to the Pope in Rome, is but one branch of the universal Church, so I include it here for your information – in the hope that it is not too late for you to amend the name of your site.
I do wish you well in your re-launch – I will sign up for your mailing list.
God bless you.
Thank you, Deacon Augustine for your quick answer.
This issue also impacts on Scotland. The diocese of Motherwell has sent a seminarian to Oscott this year. I’m not sure, but I think this seminarian was removed from the Scottish Rome College for alleged homosexual behaviour many years ago. It’s very worrying he’s now been sent to a college with a gay subculture.
If you could email me the name of that seminarian, I would be grateful, because there was a seminarian removed from the Scots College in Rome after an approach by Catholic Truth, following up information provided to us by a concerned priest. If this is the same seminarian, it would, indeed, be a matter of much concern. I should add that I am not claiming that he was removed because of our approach; he may have been going to leave or be removed anyway, I don’t know that. I’m just interested to see the name, for obvious reasons.
The ‘queering of the Church’ has been going on for decades, as has been obvious to a blind horse.
It is something that should have been nipped in the bud as soon as it started, just look at the mess we are in now! An old saying – once the camel is allowed its snout inside the tent, its ugly derriere will soon follow….
When it became known that partenered homosexual Julian Filochowski had been made director of CAFOD, many traditional Catholics were outraged. I personally wrote letters to several senior clerics, including the Papal Nuncio. The point I made was that nobody, but nobody, who openly flouts the Church’s teachings should be allowed to hold office in any organisation calling itself ‘Catholic’. Homosexuals only number about 2% of the population. Of all the people who could have been appointed CAFOD Director, why was Filochowski chosen? What a surprise, my letters went unanswered and no action was taken.
Filochowski may no longer be CAFOD Director, but hasn’t gone away. See the recent General Discussion thread.
I have since learned that the same thing happened States-side – a similar Catholic aid organisation over there had a homosexual appointed as its ‘grand fromage’. Surely these are HAND-PICKED, for the sole purpose of challenging (if not overturning) the infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church. Now, isn’t it working like a charm.
Since I discovered that scandal about CAFOD, I stopped contributing, both to CAFOD and SCIAF. There are too many people using these “Charities” as a career option, anyway, apart from the stories about their being involved in distributing condoms.
God bless Fr Marsden. I am having Mass offered for him and he will be in my prayers. We should all rally round and offer this priest as much spiritual support as possible. Masses, rosaries, etc. He’ll need it.
Interesting. Even a same-sex attracted male affirms that men like himself shouldn’t be ordained to the priesthood. He can’t be accused of ‘homophobia’, surely? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/men-like-me-should-not-be-priests-says-catholic-with-same-sex-attractions
What a brave letter from Fr Marsden. I am sorry to hear of his persecution but he has done us a great service by bringing this situation to light. We should all keep him in our prayers.
Of course the ineffectual Bishops will not act – and what an indictment that is, when even Mario Conti (former Archbishop of Glasgow and arch-anti-traditionalist) would reject overtly homosexual men (I have met such a man).
However, Fr Marsden need not despair because, thanks to him, young men with vocations can properly discern – I sound like Francis, using that word – when they would like to study. Of course, no worthwhile candidate would chose such dens of iniquity for their formation and so with luck these places will die off in due course.
With the SSPX receiving a 30-year record intake of seminarians this year, it seems this selection process is already underway and let us pray it continues.
Choosing a diocesan or national seminary over a traditionalist one would be like choosing McDonalds over a Michelin-starred restaurant.
A shocking development at the Youth Synod.
That is shocking beyond words. What on earth – he’s not even hiding his approval of homosexuality? What are we to think? Is he actually gay himself?
Father Marsden’s letter is excellent and after reading the Chris Ferrara article and seeing the photo of the Pope wearing a rainbow cross, bold as brass, it’s come at the right time.
Good for Father Marsden – if only we had more priests like him, but then, there was only one Bishop John Fisher in England at the time of the Reformation and only one John Ogilvie, SJ, in Scotland.
What on earth would St John Ogilvie make of Pope Francis???
Well, we can safely say that we know what Pope Francis most likely makes of St John Ogilvie…. rigid, for starters. Why did he allow himself to be put to death at Glasgow Cross instead of promising never to offer Mass again? How un-ecumenical was John Ogilvie?
That Pope Francis wears that – well, as Chris Ferrara describes it as that “pectoral thing” not dignifying it by calling it a cross, is shocking indeed. Blatant approval indeed.
Father Marsden’s is being persecuted for upholding Catholic teaching on this matter. We do need more priests like Father. Certainly I will keep him in my prayers.
Petrus, Theresa Rose et al…
I’ve copied that shocking photo to post directly here…
Now, I’m sorry, but I have to say that this photo makes me question, seriously, the Pope’s own “sexual inclination” and definition of purity. Am I wrong in thinking that if I wore the symbols of a false religion or – as in this case – an immoral behaviour, it would be matter for Confession?
He must, surely, have known when he put on that disgraceful symbol of sodomy (albeit, the rainbow has been stolen from Sacred Scripture by these people) – but in the context he is wearing it, the Pope MUST have known he was sending a very positive signal to the LGBT+++++++ movement.
Why would he do that? Why would any seminary rector, bishop or pontiff, support sodomy, permit it, tolerate it, encourage it – unless they were that way inclined themselves. I just do not get it.
I’ve read in several places that Francis surrounds himself with homosexuals because they can be easily controlled. However, I think that’s only part of the story. I think it also has to do with who got him elected (the Lavender Mafia), and in exchange for what (personal power in exchange for destroying – or attempting to destroy – the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, including her disciplines regarding admitting same to the priesthood.
That is, if Francis is not a homosexual himself – which is a possibility – then he is simply carrying out the political wishes of his sponsors. In fact, it would be very interesting, to say the least, to find out why his sponsors chose him rather than another Cardinal favorable to the cause of perversion.
Which brings me to another criticism of him, that he is the “political Pope.” In this case, as if the politics itself wasn’t bad enough, he has brought “identity politics” to the Church.
I think homosexuals who can be easily controlled must be a feature of life in the USA (and possibly Rome) – over here, they are running the country. All of them: England, Wales Scotland (and the province of Northern Ireland). Go to any part of the UK and criticise homosexuality, refuse to bake them a cake or take their hotel booking and you’re splashed over the front pages of the tabloids, not to mention hauled into court.
Wherever they are easily controlled, it ain’t in the UK – believe me!
I meant internally, within the Church, as in, “You rat me out, Bishop X, and I’ll do the same to you!”
Why do I ever doubt you?
That is one shocking, shocking photo.
I’m afraid I am now seriously considering the possibility that the Pope himself is homosexual.
You are definitely not alone in thinking that way. Tragically. If ever we needed to pray hard for a pope, it’s this one. With bells on. Not sure if you’ve every prayed with bells on, but if not, get to it now! 😀
This article published in the Remnant Newspaper dated 19th October, 2018, is in fact a letter from Archbishop Vigano responding to one he received from Cardinal Oullet.
As both the Archbishop and Father Marsden are both being persecuted for presenting the facts on homosexuality and the priesthood, I thought it apt to add it to this thread. I cannot remember how far back the previous thread about Archbishop Vigano was.
It is terrifying to think how severe such persecution is to these good priests and anyone else who upholds Catholic Teaching.
Todays I NEWS 20/10/48
Wendy, thank you for that report.
It’s a very typically modernist take on the current crisis. Shifting the goal posts, as if, by virtue of the fact that we are calling for the Pope to be held accountable for not doing his duty in rooting out the cause of the sexual abuse scandals, we have some sinister hidden agenda. And more, pointing out that he, himself, is implicated in cover-up even before he was elected Pope. If this had been Pope Benedict, widely, although wrongly, perceived to be “traditional”, they would have been baying for his blood.
Note that these same people go crazy if anyone dares to question a woman’s allegation against a male – witness the recent hounding of Brett Kavanaugh – so, yet again, we see the double standards of those to the left of Kim Yong un.
Again, thank you for posting that very revealing report, Wendy. Much appreciated in the context of keeping a close eye on the enemy camp.
The priest’s Open Letter is magnificent.
I fear, however, that nothing short of the Fatima Consecration of Russia, will end these scandals.
The more I read and hear, such as the Pope wearing the rainbow cross at a youth synod, the more I realise why God saw the need to send His Mother to earth to forewarn us of this diabolical disorientation.
As Father Gruner RIP said, “only she can save us now”. We need to pray hard to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I can’t see anything else working.
You may be right, Laura, but the danger with that mindset is we retreat into ourselves and do nothing. I’m not suggesting that that’s what you mean, but it’s something we must guard against.
Get Outlook for Android
We need to follow the principle of St Ignatius I think it was, who said that we should work as though everything depended on our efforts, and pray as if everything depended on God.
There’s no way out of it, Laura – we must play our part as Soldiers of Christ, battling first, of course, our own selves to attain virtue but also the attacks on Holy Mother Church.
I had the privilege of meeting Father Gruner more than once and spending time with him when he came to Scotland to address one of our Conferences. He’s the last person who would encourage us to sit back and wait for the Consecration. We must work AND pray.
I’m sure you know that, and be assured that you are, overall, absolutely correct in that only the Consecration of Russia will bring about the end of the current turmoil. We just need to keep our sleeves rolled up until that glorious day dawns 😀
The letter from Fr Marsden was extremely brave but as resident of the Birmingham diocese it also made me very sad. Like everywhere else we are very short of priests in this diocese and I can understand how difficult it must be for good normal semiarians to survive in a perverted atmosphere. It has been obvious to me for a long time that many of our clergy were homosexual in disposition, whether actively so I wouldn’t know, but at the same time the last three curates we have had have seemed to be of a more traditional bent and genuinely pious. I had hoped that oscott was improving. We desperately need principled, holy and firm bishops to take things in hand and sort this out. But where are they to be found? Considering that not one of the UK hierarchy have had the courage to openly support the Dubia or speak out about Amoris Laetitia then I have little confidence that any of them will respond to this open letter. Why do they think they are bishops? It is deeply worrying but so sad above all,
Some years ago, when I spent a few months living and working in the Maryvale Institute in Birmingham, I had occasion to visit Oscott. I was always with one of the Maryvale priests so can’t say I noticed anything, can’t remember much and certainly no names, but I, too, feel very disappointed at the contents of Father Marsden’s letter.
As for why do they think they are bishops? That’s an excellent question and worthy of its own thread! One of these days!
I hope you don’t mind if I contribute some biblical trivia on the significance of the rainbow and why that thing around the pope’s neck is so blasphemous.
The 7-coloured rainbow signified God and mankind being at peace because it is shaped like the bow (as in the weapon of war) being laid down on the ground in a non-offensive position. The 7 colours are significant because in Hebrew the word for 7 (shebah – pronounced “shevah”) is nearly the same word as the Hebrew for “oath-swearing” (ishebah). Oath-swearing along with sacrifice are the consitutive elements of creating a covenant – in biblical terms a blood-bond or family tie between the parties to the covenant.
Thus the rainbow signified God’s Covenant with Noah, which He swore by oath, that He would never again destroy the world by flood. It became forever a Covenant sign from the heavens of the peace (shalom) that had been restored between God and man following the deluge.
However, please note that the “rainbow” sported by the “LGBT+++” movement is not a 7-coloured phenomenon. As in the picture of our dark lord above you will see that it consists only of 6 colours. The number 6 obviously does not signify the Covenant in biblical terms, but is something altogether sinister – the number of the beast – bestiality.
Although, like the beasts, man was created on the 6th day, unlike the beasts, man was created FOR the 7th day – the day of Sabbath rest and peace with God. The Sabbath was the sign of the first Covenant God made with man, but If any man refused to enter into the 7th day with God – refused to enter into the Covenant-relationship with Him – then he remained in the 6th day with the beasts. Hence the number 6 being used throughout Scripture to denote evil e.g. Goliath being 6 cubits tall, the number of silver talents taken in taxes by the then-corrupt King Solomon being 666, the number of the beast in the Apocalypse being 666 etc.
Thus the very idea of defacing a sign of the Covenant such as the rainbow by replacing it with this 6-coloured device is actually a demonic parody of the sacred sign which is similar to the way in which Satanists use the inverted Cross to mock the Crucifixion.
That should give people a clue as to the spiritual origins of the whole “gay” movement which from the days of Noah and then Lot at Sodom and Gomorrah and so on, has always been depicted in Scripture as an abominable, Satanic rebellion against God which cries out to heaven for vengeance. Do you think the movers behind “Pride” were unaware of all this when they chose to fashion their 6-coloured “rainbow”?
What you have on display in that picture is the pope wearing a sign which is not only promoting immorality and defacing the Cross, but which is clearly Satanic in origin – the sign of a Satanic rebellion against God Himself and everything which is good, true and holy.
I hope to God that Bergoglio is ignorant of the significance of what he is wearing – for the sake of his immortal soul. But if he is not, I fear that we have seen nothing yet.
WOW! I didn’t know any of that, so many thanks for posting that enlightening, if disturbing, information.
When I say I didn’t know any of that, I should have made the exception of the significance of 666 and, head bowed in shame, I have to admit that my mobile number ends in those three digits…
Our then media officer told me years ago, that a man in the Galloway diocese, criticising Catholic Truth, said that all he needed to know about me was my telephone number to know that I was working for the devil – ouch! Not the case, I assure you, one and all. Indeed, when I have occasion to give my number to businesses, for example, it often offers the opportunity to say a few words to the effect that I’m on “the other side” – a bit of light relief, with a silent prayer to the effect that I hope I’m helping to make up for choosing the number in the first place!
Anyway, again, thank you for that most informative post, Deacon Augustine. Much appreciated, and, as you say, let’s hope that Francis doesn’t realise the significance of what he is wearing. The alternative does not bear imagining.
I’ll probably get shot down in flames for this, but to be completely fair, I wonder if this cross he is wearing is one of those colourful ‘El Salvador’ crosses which are very popular among lefty types. It looks very similar to the ones I have seen. The ‘El Salvador’ crosses are not my cup of tea (understatement of the year) but they are not associated with the ‘LGBT’ movement as such. I’m wondering if he was wearing it because he had just recently canonised Oscar Romero and had been given it by one of the El Salvadorian people (see Chris Ferrara’s two articles on The Remnant website about those canonisations!). Just a thought before anyone goes jumping to conclusions. But even if it is an El Salvadorean cross, it is irresponsible to wear anything rainbow coloured these days, because it can be misinterpreted. Particularly if you’re the Pope.
You just stole my reply in your final two sentences!
WF and Editor,
Since Francis just “canonized” (wink, wink, cough, cough, please pass the grain of salt) Paul VI, who wore the Ephod, maybe PF thought he should go Paul VI one better by wearing his Latin American blasphemy.
I’m not sure that it is definitely an El Salvadorean cross, but as I said, it’s very similar to ones I have seen. I visited the Catholic Church in Canterbury a while ago, and was dismayed to see a relic of Oscar Romero displayed in the church. It was in a gaudy ‘reliquary’ of the same style, also similar to the horrible ‘Romero Cross’ in Southwark Cathedral. All these El Salvadorean ‘art’ things look like they’ve been cobbled together by primary school children.
WF / RCA Victor,
I meant to say last time I was on here, that I think it’s terrible to use the Cross as some kind of symbol of something else. At one point, some years ago, we had the T in Catholic Truth in the shape of a cross, thanks to the kind soul designing our website and newsletter at the time, but I never felt entirely comfortable with it. And that was a straight forward “cross” – these efforts which, as WF says, look like they’ve been “cobbled together by primary school children” are a disgrace.
Comments are closed.