HomoHeresy Oozes From Bergoglian Heresies

If the reigning mathematicians at the best universities assert that 2+2=5, and the best scientists in the world propose that ice is now heavier than water, then all sorts of further untruths will, logically and inevitably, follow.  Other mathematicians will proclaim 2+2+2+2+2=15, and other scientists will propose the theory that the polar ice caps will sink.

And thus it is with the new heresies that have already been announced, and more that will inevitably follow as the evil spawn of the Bergolgian heresies. This now includes the homoheresy.

Bergoglianism Heresies

As are so many infernal heresies through history, Bergolgianism is named after its author, Jorge Bergoglio. A substantial number of the heresies included in Bergoglianism are based on the core principles of his exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. These include:  1. There is no mortal sin,  i.e. no sin so grievous that when the sinner is unrepentant results in the eternal loss of sanctifying grace; 2. This is true even for those aware of the demands of the divine law; 3. Divine grace does not make all mortal sins avoidable; 4. A situation’s circumstances can dismiss one from the demands of the divine law; 5. Depending on the situation and its circumstances, God sometimes wills a person to sin; and 6. For those God judges and who are then sent to hell, hell is not eternal, the fire is not everlasting; and no one is condemned forever. [see, in addition to the numerous verbatim quotations from public statements of Jorge Bergoglio, these sections of his exhortation Amoris Laetitia– 296, 297, 300-303, and 305]. Implicit in the proclamations of Bergolgianism is that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit made mistakes, errors corrected by Jorge Bergoglio.

The HomoHeresy- No surprise!

The homoheresy is this: In certain situations men and women can voluntarally and intentionally engage in homosexual actions and not only are these actions not sinful, they are acts of loving virtue.  In these situations, this is God’s will for them.  Fully aware of what they are doing, they may continue in their sin, even publically, and be admitted to all the sacraments of the church.  God made them this way. No matter what the situation or circumstances, none of these people will ever be condemned forever for engaging in these actions. “These people” can include married people who and ordained priests, bishops, and cardinals.

Clearly,  Bergoglianism is the evil parent of this heresy. Recent declarations of the homoheresy by Vatican officials and by bishops in several countries make it clear that this heresy is one specific restatement of the Bergoglian heresies.

The Vatican

Very recently, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a book entitled What Is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology. In this book, the church’s true teaching on homosexual actions is given minimal voice while the text concentrates on denigrations of established church teachings which cast them  as  “archaic”, “historically conditioned”, “outdated”,  and deficient for not evidencing a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person.”

There is little or no reference to scholars and works well-grounded in current and accepted scientific knowledge and philosophical discussion that are in accord with church teaching and contrary to the presentation of the homoheresy.  In terms of church doctrine, tradition, and teaching, this book gives a platform to serious and widespread errors, but there is no explicit condemnation of them.


Some German bishops have also recently proclaimed the homoheresy.  The chairman of the Marriage and Family Commission of the German bishops’ conference has already publicized the fact  that the German bishops agree and now teach as shepherds of the faithful that homosexuality is a “normal form” of human sexual identity.

These bishops have announced an upcoming study of this topic: “The Sexuality of Man – How should one discuss it scientifically-theologically and judge it ecclesiastically?” One news agency reported that their aim is  “Newly Assessing’ Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality.” It is clear that the conclusions to be reached at the end of the German hierarchy’s two-year “Synodal Process” for addressing such issues have already been written.

Both the Vatican and the German bishops are proclaiming the homoheresy, weaseling it into the public discourse under the cover of what they allege current science establishes about a better and more sufficient understanding of the human person. The homoheretics conclude that this correct scientific understanding demands a required correction of the view that God values only heterosexual unions; and that true doctrine, as they have discovered it and as God most surely intended from the time of Adam and Eve, includes the irrefutable and intrinsic value of homosexual unions and the dogmatic acceptance of homosexuality as a worthy expression of what God intended about what it means to be human. 

There is no doubt that the homoheresy finds its foundations in the Bergoglian hersises.  German Archbishop Koch has declared that these “developments” of doctrine regarding their discoveries of God’s will have been made possible and energized by the teachings of Amoris Laetitia. Declaring that previous church teaching is notup to date,” German bishops have stated that  homosexuality is one of the “normal forms of sexual predisposition,” that homosexuality is “not changeable” through socialization, “nor does it have to be changed.”

The Bible

The inspired words of God in both the Old and New Testaments explicitly contradict the homoheresy. Below are several excerpts which make this clear. 

Leviticus 18:22:  “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Romans 1:26-27:  “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their perversity.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10:  “ . . . understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, kidnapers, liars, perjurers . . . ”

Jude 1:7:  “Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The catechism, in a section entitled “Chastity and homosexuality” directly contradicts the homoheresy.

“2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. . . . Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”  They are contrary to the natural law . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

“2358  . . .  This inclination, which is objectively disordered, . . . ”

“2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”

Church Fathers

In the early church, men known as the Church Fathers wrote about Holy Scripturem church teaching and tradition. Many of their works directly contradict today’s homoheresy. Below are several excerpts of their works.

Athenagoras:   “But though such is our character (Oh! why should I speak of things unfit to be uttered?), the things said of us are an example of the proverb, ‘The harlot reproves the chaste.’ For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure – who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God.”

Eusebius of Caesarea:  “[God in the Law given to Moses] having forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men.”

Saint John Chrysostom:  “But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. . .  For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration! . . Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! . . . For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls.  . . . For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? “

Saint Augustine:  “Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.”

Saint Gregory the Great:  “Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire.”

Saints, Theologians and Scholars

Numerous saints, theologians, philosophers, and scholars over the centuries have explicitly denounced the homoheresy. Quotations from the work of a few of them are below.

Saint Peter Damian:  “Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth . . . The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell . . .This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas:  “If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature….”

Saint Catherine of Siena:  “But they act in a contrary way, for they come full of impurity to this mystery, and not only of that impurity to which, through the fragility of your weak nature, you are all naturally inclined (although reason, when free will permits, can quiet the rebellion of nature), but these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility, but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind and fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before me, who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin.”

Saint Bernardine of Siena:  “No sin in the world grips the soul as the accursed sodomy; this sin has always been detested by all those who live according to God.… Deviant passion is close to madness; this vice disturbs the intellect, destroys elevation and generosity of soul, brings the mind down from great thoughts to the lowliest, makes the person slothful, irascible, obstinate and obdurate, servile and soft and incapable of anything; furthermore, agitated by an insatiable craving for pleasure, the person follows not reason but frenzy.… Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others. He who lived with this vice of sodomy suffers more than another, for this is the greatest sin.”

Saint Peter Canisius:  “As the Sacred Scripture says, the Sodomites were wicked and exceedingly sinful. Saint Peter and Saint Paul condemn this nefarious and depraved sin. In fact, the Scripture denounces this enormous indecency thus: ‘The scandal of Sodomites and Gomorrhans has multiplied and their sins have become grave beyond measure.’ So the angels said to just Lot, who totally abhorred the depravity of the Sodomites: ‘Let us leave this city….’ Holy Scripture does not fail to mention the causes that led the Sodomites, and can also lead others, to this most grievous sin. . . . Those unashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this never sufficiently execrated depravity.”

Why ?

Why would anyone, let alone a bishop of the church, proclaim and be an advocate for the homoheresy? Two answers come to mind.

Church Powers and Princes are Homosexualist

Many of those ordained to Holy Orders who now rule in the earthly power structures of Jesus’s church are  thoroughly homosexualized. They are known publicly as the “lavender mafia.” It includes thousands of ordained homocriminals, including sodorapists, pederasts, homopredators, and perverts, who have had tens of thousands of victims worldwide. It also includes those pastors, bishops, archbishops and cardinals who have enabled these ordained homocriminals and who have, for decades, shuttled them from parish to parish, diocese to diocese, and country to country – with the full and certain knowledge that the homocriminals would again commit their crimes.  Some of these same ordained and consecrated men have authorized the payment by the church of billions of dollars to settle claims by their victims – billions of dollars of the money given by  the faithful.

Of course such men would cum laetitia accept and promulgate the homoheresy.

Doctrinal Dominoes Fall – One, Then All

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The Bergoglians reject this. They are pursuing a path that appears to be based on this scheme: If one, only one, of the truths proclaimed by Jesus’s church is shown to be false, then Jesus’s church is destroyed, and the heretical new church will endure.

A fifth century Church Father, Vincent of Lerins, warned about this demonic plan:

For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.

The homoheretics have tried to open wide the gates of hell to the unsuspecting faithful, not knowing that they will, if unrepentant, pass through the gates themselves.  No matter what someone wearing papal white may exhort or proclaim, the homoheresy is and will be heresy.

More to explorer


  1. Too long to read.
    Homo-heresy may being advocated by Bergoglio as justification for the estimated 60% of clerics who are homosexual.

  2. Ice is neither heavier or lighter than water, ice is less dense (mass/volume). The change to solid form in water causes an increase in volume as the hydrogen bonds push out in crystalline form. Water is actually a very unusual liquid in this regard, most liquids don’t expand when frozen. Which is a marvelous wonder in Creation, think of what Life would be like if lakes and oceans froze solid without a protective layer on top.

    Homo-heresy would be more destructive than that.
    Widespread Contraception is at the root, delenda est!

  3. Gentlemen, Thank y’all for reading and commenting.

    Michael, You should have seen it before I cut 30% from the previous draft. I wanted to make the point that there is a plethora, a huge load,of scripture, tradition, teaching etc contrary to the homoheresy, and I wanted to provide the ammo for anyone who wanted to study this. Yes, too long still, but I hope anyone who gets bored half way thru will at least go to the end instead of stopping. You are spot on, dead solid perfect, re: the 60% comment. Of course, if you control the message, you declare homosexuality normal and that engaging in these acts to be virtue. It is like declaring there is no marriage [Soviet socialists, 1918] or that Jews are not human beings.
    David, Yes. I allude to Orwell’s 1984:
    ” The Party says that ice is heavier than water.” “His [Winston’s] thoughts wandered again. Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger on the dust on the table: 2+2 = 5.” “He loved Big Brother.”

    May 2020 be glorious and joyful for you both and for all who read here, God bless us, everyone! Guy, Texas

  4. April 16, 1987:
    “You must offer yourself as a victim for the conversion and the sanctification of priests and religious, who have abandoned the path of the doctrine and of morality, losing the strength of salvation and because of them many souls go to hell” (op. Cit., P. 102)

    The individual will of each of us united to the will of Our Lady will then become a United Will to God and in so doing each of us becomes the answer to this dilemma of ours plaguing the Holy Catholic Church.

    We do hold the key, imho, of healing the negative effects of wayward religious who have made a mockery of His Doctrines and His royal priesthood. Some victims from the diabolic sex abuse clergy can only be healed by Christ himself, but we can offer ourselves to help break the bonds that domonic forces have used to enslave many religious.

    The fight isn’t over.
    We do have powerful means at our disposal.
    Will we engage?
    Will we armchair the fight instead?

  5. This Sunday being The Feast Of The Holy Family, our conservative, young Father Sullivan gave a long homily on the Christian Family. When he came to the part, “Marriage is between one man and one woman,” one woman got up and left. FYI no one got up and left when he iterated the Church’s opposition to artificial contraception.

    The Warden tells me I’m heartless. That that woman must have a child who she loves that is a sodomy son of a bitch (Patton’s florid terminology).

    Right! She loves her child so much she will see him burn in Hell.

    So it goes with the omniscient, Hell-bound.

  6. Too long, they said. But, …
    By the 3rd sentence, I realized this must be McClung of Texas. And, it will be long. But, I couldn’t stop; and read thd whole thing. In fact, it’s so good, I’m thinking of reading it all over again.
    Thanks Guy, for your excellent work.
    I encourage everyone to give it another look.

  7. The novus ordo ape church is collapsing, poisoned by the machine that was designed and installed fifty years ago for that purpose–the novus ordo missae.

    The day is coming soon when a Catholic parish will be easy to identify: There will be no novus ordo missae there.

    Most of the hierarchy–including the “conservatives”–will go over the cliff with Bergoglio, because Bergoglio will make sure that there will be a cost to breaking with him. These “conservatives” have already swallowed adultery, sodomy, abortion, and demon-worship. They will “ordain” women and will accept invalidating changes in the novus ordo missae.

  8. T. Shaw,
    Although it’s a phrase commonly used, there’s no such thing as “artificial” contra-ception. This confuses the point, it makes the argument as natural against artificial which it is not. The church is not against artificial birth control because it is artificial but because every means of artificial birth control is either contraceptive or abortifacient.

    Contraception literally means “against the beginning”. Contraceptive acts -act against the beginning of Life so that a man and woman can have sex without children. As we well know an act against the beginning and what has begun (abortion) are both fruits of the same tree.

    The Church is not against “birth control” properly understood as births and self control (not no births and no self control as the world understands it).
    I don’t like the term natural family planning because it too confuses the point. I like the term fertility awareness method, basically man and wife identify the beginning of fertility and the end of fertility and for a serious reasons abstain during the wife’s fertile time.

    Please don’t use the term artificial contraception because it implies that there is such a thing as natural contraception which there is not. It’s abstinence during a fertile time, That’s not natural contraception.The couple didn’t act against anything they didn’t do anything.

  9. The first sin is to refuse God, God’s grace, God’s love and God’s mercy. The second sin is to accept disordered behavior as normal love, (Love without God is feckless; garbage in garbage out). The third sin is the scandal to innocent children. The fourth sin is to deny hell, punishment and eternity. The fifth sin is to blame God and Jesus Christ for the misery one has brought down on himself. The sixth sin is to convey the lie throughout history, time and space to infect other souls with despair, ruination and misery.
    Still the greatest of all sin is denying the sovereignty, the divinity and the Fatherhood of God in our immortal human soul.
    God made us “very good”. That we sell our souls to the slavery of sin is despicable.

  10. Thank you Guy. None of this is theoretical to me or textbook discussion because of my own beloved son, ex seminarian who left just before his transitional ordination when B16 said not to present for priesthood with SSA. My son was at least honest enough to get out. Now completely away from Catholic Church and God, he and his partner need your prayers. He needs healing. please pray.

  11. David WS.
    Thank you for your post regarding “artificial contraception” and “contraception.” I cringe every time I see/hear someone use the term “artificial contraception.” Even priests use it.
    On a side note: today, for the first time ever, I heard a homily where abortion was the main topic. The sins of contraception and abortion can be heard from the pulpit at “NFP” conferences or meetings, and sometimes at Rosary Triduums, or retreats. But to hear a homily, quite unexpectedly, regarding abortion, on a Sunday, by the pastor, with the “usual congregation” (children present!) Wow!! First time since I started attending a Catholic Church back in 1995.
    The one flaw was that the priest made reference to Plan B being acceptable to use after a rape. I am not entirely sure what the official teaching on it is, and I am guessing our pastor may be misinformed on how it works.
    I am not surprised people use the phrase “artificial contraception,” but we must delete that phrase from our vocabularies.

  12. The sad thing is that many of our cardinals in the Vatican and bishops elsewhere are heretics and in some cases, homosexuals, and continue to try to change Church teaching on this abomination. Even our – so called – Holy Father chimes in on this.
    All the prophesies have been fulfilled – those of Fatima, Garabandal, Quito, Akita, the Apocalypse, and even the OT prophesies of Samuel .
    I await with trepidation – but also a certain eagerness that will bring an end to the present abominations – that the time has come for Our Christ to cleanse His Church. 2020 is an epochal year ( IMO ).

  13. Don Beckett.

    I do hear you.
    As terrible as it will be, a cleansing is coming.

    On 1 January 1988 the seer receives a revelation that opens the doors of the future that awaits mankind:
    “You have some examples, Sodom and Gomorrah did not repent, they did not do penance and you know what justice made of them”

    […] “Unless you do not convert, iron and fire will fall down upon you”

    […] “What you call peace is nothing but deception because it lacks of conversion* and everything is getting ready for a satanic war”

    *(repentance and rejection of sin) (op. Cit., P. 187).
    Another apparition very close to our times, is that of August 14, 1999:
    “The Virgin shows me the religious, the priests, the bishops, the cardinals and tells me:
    ” They are deaf and foolish! They see the signs that are a call, but do not reason upon this reality”

    […] “They deny the Triune God and proudly make themselves god ‘ “(op. Cit., P. 195)

  14. Canon 2357 opens the door to the very thing it was quoted above to condemn. By defining homosexuality as exclusive or predominant attraction to members of one’s own sex, it implies that acts of sodomy committed in circumstances where members of the opposite sex are unavailable, e.g. in a seminary, are permissible.
    The Catechism is not a reliable guide to the Church’s teaching, and it is high time that it and other manifestations of the “John Paul the Great” myth were discarded by anyone who cares about orthodoxy.

  15. Bernonensis????

    . 2357: …. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. ” Really? Permissible?

  16. Yes, Ordinary Catholic, permissible, because according to the Catechism’s definition, they are not homosexual acts as long as they don’t proceed from an “exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex.” Now, while common sense may tell us that such acts are still sinful, the Catechism does not. Are these acts of assisted masturbation? That seems like the right description, but neither this canon nor any other says so.

  17. 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    Sir Bern.
    You said; . By defining homosexuality as exclusive or predominant attraction to members of one’s own sex, it implies that acts of sodomy committed in circumstances where members of the opposite sex are unavailable, e.g. in a seminary, are permissible.

    It implies that?


  18. Hooo boy. Okay Bernonensis. I’m sorry if I don’t share your interpretation. I’ve never heard that reasoning before and I don’t accept it. I stick with what the Church has held and taught for 2000 years and what the Hebrew tradition taught about the sin of sodomy or what we call homosexual acts. Your implication goes completely against the grain of what the Church teaches. Sounds a lot like the miracle of the loaves occurred because the people shared their food and not because Christ multiplied the loaves. Sorry that dog don’t hunt.

  19. Ordinary Catholic and Mr. Nachazel,
    It seems as though you are both missing what I’m saying. I also believe what the Church teaches. The problem is that the Catechism doesn’t express that teaching properly. If homosexuality is defined, as it is here, as exclusive or predominant same-sex attraction, then by that definition an act of sodomy between two men who prefer women is not a homosexual act, and so is not condemned as intrinsically disordered or contrary to natural law. That’s not what I believe, but that’s what the Catechism implies. If that isn’t the conclusion we were meant to draw here, what was the point of defining homosexuality in a way that excludes some acts of sodomy? Were the editors of the Catechism pushing the gay agenda, opening the door a crack by saying not all same-sex “affection” is sinful? or were they orthodox but just incompetent? I don’t know, but either way, the Catechism is wrong.

  20. Guy McClung began by assuming the truth of the conclusion he set out to prove. Then came handwaving. It’s weak support for the claim of “Bergoglian heresy”. Too weak. I remain unconvinced by either Guy McClung or the New York Times.

  21. I think you are reading way more into this to reach the conclusion you have. This the only time I’ve ever heard of this and there are theologians way more intelligent than we who would have spotted what you seem to think is ambiguity in this particular canon. If you’ve heard of others espousing your view, I would like some resources because otherwise I cannot come to the same conclusion.

  22. You know, about a year or so ago, there was a fairly interesting essay at I think Crisis on the deficiencies of the categories “homosexual/heterosexual” from the perspective of Catholic anthropology.

    Somebody should track it down maybe.

  23. Micha E, Thanks for reading this. Are you saying?:

    1. Jorge Bergoglio has proclaimed no heresy
    2. There is no homoheresy and no homoheretics
    3. If there is a Bergoglian heresy, homoheresy does not flow logically from the Bergoglian heresy, and/or
    4. What some are proposing which is contrary to the church’s teaching and tradition is not heresy ?

    Me and the NYT, now that’s a new one for me. You may have insulted the journalist at the NYT. As for me, especially of late, I have stated, verbatin, in publications many times “2+2=4”.

    God bless you and yours & Happy New Year! Guy, Texas

  24. Ordinary Catholic,
    If someone were to define “dog” as “canid kept as a pet or trained to serve in various ways” it wouldn’t take a zoologist to see that the definition precludes the existence of wild dogs. I don’t see ambiguity in the Catechism’s definition; I see inadequacy.

  25. Bernonensis.

    Whether or not the authors deliberately left a crack in their definitive opinion regarding Homosexuality I can’t say.
    The final line pulls no punches however; Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    The love of chasity and perfecting one’s virtues including the purification of one’s heart is a prerequisite to living a priestly life. Anything else is a distraction.
    To follow the sordid German Bishops is to take the wide road to hell.
    I realize you do not condone immoral behaviour as you stated above.
    Inadequate is your take on the CCC 2357.

    Interesting take.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: