Is Cardinal Mahony defying the Vatican’s recent teachings regarding worthiness to receive Holy Communion by placing a ‘gay’ Rainbow upon a Sacred Christian symbol, the fish?
One of the chief symbols of the early Church is the fish symbol, the Symbolum maius. The Sacred and essential characteristic of the Christian fish symbol passes throughout time unchanged and preserved in Sacred Tradition. The holy, ancient, outward symbol represents our Lord and the Eucharist, in association with the loaves of bread and the fishes. The fish symbol was derived from the Greek word for fish, Ιχθυς (or ichthus), and became a holy acrostic for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.”i
Contrary to Sacred Tradition,ii Cardinal Roger Mahony’s Archdiocese of Los Angeles ‘Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics' (MLGC), under his Episcopal authority, has robbed this ancient symbol of its sacredness, mutating and deforming the Christian Eucharistic fish symbol into a profane external sign of the homosexual subculture.
Cardinal Mahony instructs his nearly 5 million Catholic members to "see in the [gay] fish pin a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers." Is Cardinal Mahony trying to hook his already desensitized laity with this fishy bait?
The Cardinal is perversely distorting a once holy and revered symbol used not only by the early Christians but today’s Christians as well. Through the gift of the same Sacred Tradition the Apostles received from Christ, the early Christians recognized one another in the image of the fish during the persecution of their Church.iii
Most harmful are the Cardinal’s attempts to further confuse his priests, religious, and laity by ‘normalizing’ the homosexual idioms ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ using the ‘gay’ Rainbow colored fish.
Let us examine how damaging is Cardinal Mahony’s normalization of homosexuality, especially now when once again Californians are battling evil legislation which would permit ‘homosexual marriage’ in their state of California.iv
The idioms ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ signify same-sex unions between two or more persons. ‘Lesbian’ and ‘gay’ couples boldly assert that one’s same-sex perversion is equal to heterosexual, traditional marriage.v The ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ idioms denote ‘acting out,’ or openly and freely promoting and seeking the sodomite lifestyle. A popular gay chant is “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!”
No one can honestly refute that the same-sex ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ culture subverts and degrades procreation in traditional marriage. ‘Lesbians’ and ‘gays’ have, because of their same-sex perversions, high disproportional rates of health problems,vi infectious sexually transmitted diseases, mental depression,vii drug and alcohol use, suicide, domestic abuse, child abuse and pedophilia.viii ‘Lesbian’ and ‘gay’ acts go against God’s natural law.ix To be ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’ means being defiantly unresponsive to the Church moral teaching about this evil.x
To this effect, why would any Archdiocese give normal, sacred recognition to homosexuality by the use of a Sacred Christian symbol?xi
The Vatican has warned against such recognition. On June 3, 2003, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Pope Benedict XVI) published the infallible moral document: “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,”xii which makes special mention of the obligation of Bishops and politicians to oppose any type of recognition of homosexual unions.
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against natural law. [I, §4].xiii
Why does Cardinal Mahony attempt to confuse others by covering the Church’s Sacred fish with the homosexual Rainbow Flag colors? If the same-sex ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ culture is normalized, will not Los Angeles Catholics falsely accept ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ couples as equal to traditional ‘one man and one woman’ married couples?
Is the Los Angeles Archdiocese attempting to normalize the abnormal ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ culture?
Let us examine just how dangerous is Cardinal Mahony’s Rainbow ‘gay’ fish and what the Rainbow Flag signifies to most all world cultures.
The homosexual movement has established the ‘gay’ Rainbow Flag symbol worldwide to publicly personify the ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ pride and perversity.xiv
Looking at the homosexual Rainbow Flag, we see it consists of six colored stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet, with the red stripe on top.xv These colors are displayed worldwide, everyday, in a myriad of ways: on flags, on sashes, on jewelry, T-shirts, parade floats, body paintings, tattoos, billboards, banners, store window displays, subtly and surreptitiously hidden signs in the most unexpected places – even recently displayed upon a Christian fish. Any sorrowful display or exhibit of this ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ Rainbow sign is offensive to the people of God and demonstrates opposition to the biblical promise by God to Noah of God’s everlasting Covenant to mankind:
And God said, ‘This is the sign of the Covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud and it shall be a sign of the Covenant between Me and the earth. [RSV, Gen.9:12-13].
When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting Covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. [RSV, Gen.9:16].
The Rainbow Flag sign is so combative that the Catholic Church forbids anyone wearing this ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ attire from receiving the Eucharist. It is important to understand that this Church discipline is for those persons wearing the Rainbow signs who are living the intrinsically disordered lifestyle as well as for those persons wearing the Rainbow sign who are not living the lifestyle but openly support it. The ‘gay’ Rainbow sign is a public statement of opposition to the Catholic Church's infallible moral teachings against homosexuality, and a public statement that the wearer condones sodomy.
Today's Eucharistic abuses "are not to be taken lightly," said Francis Cardinal Arinze recently.xvi Is Cardinal Mahony defying the Vatican’s recent teachings regarding worthiness to receive Holy Communion by placing a ‘gay’ Rainbow upon a Sacred Christian symbol, the fish?
On February 11, 2005, in an interview with Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) host Raymond Arroyo, as reported by LifeSite, Vatican Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, said when asked if people wearing homosexual ‘Rainbow Sashes’ could receive Holy Communion:
No, no. You see, let us get it clear. These rainbow sash people are really saying we are homosexuals, we intend to remain so, and we want to receive Holy Communion. The question arises; take the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says it is not condemning a person for having homosexual tendency. We do not condemn anybody for that. But a person stands condemned for acting on it . . . The Catholic Church has never accepted homosexuality as normal. You read the scripture. It is very clear. What exactly are we examining? Are we going to change Divine Law, how God made us . . . Quite another matter if a person had just the tendencies and is making (an) effort to live the Divine Law, then that is fine. So, we respect persons but be clear on the truth.
Cardinal Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has notified the 'Rainbow Sash Movement' that his Cathedral will welcome 'Rainbow Sash Members' as part of the Catholic Family to his Cathedral. Cardinal Mahony further assures members of the ‘Rainbow Sash Movement’ (a movement similar to the bowel movement) that when they present themselves for Holy Communion, they will receive it.’
Cardinal Mahony has never denied the 'Rainbow Sashers' Holy Communion, even though the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops as a whole has denied 'Rainbow Sashers' Holy Communion at each of their plenary conferences for the past several years. In 2005, the Rainbow Sash Movement issued a national call for others who oppose the Church's teachings on sodomy to join them on Pentecost Sunday by wearing the Rainbow Sash in a parish or a Cathedral.
Meanwhile, in another related fishy issue, we read a disturbing interview with the Los Angeles Times wherein Cardinal Mahony stated on December 1, 2006, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles will pay $60 million to settle just 45 of the 562 clergy homosexual and sex abuse cases pending. The 517 remaining molestation lawsuits could cost Californian parishioners hundreds of millions more. The Cardinal remarked on December 2, 2006, that he felt energized by this decision to fight the remaining lawsuits, "I feel much more energized for the other 500 cases now.”xvii
Consistently tolerant of homosexuality, Cardinal Mahony stated in a 2004 deposition related to civil trials in Los Angeles, as reported recently by the New York Times, that a priest expressing sexual urges toward a 9-year-old would not be an automatic cause for removing him from duty in his archdiocese.
Adding to the disconcerting reports on Cardinal Mahony, it is no secret he is most notable for hosting controversial and heterodox Religious Education Conferences each year. At each of these modernist annual conferences, Cardinal Mahony presides over various events and liturgies, most featuring abuses forbidden by the Vatican such as immodestly clad women liturgical dancers, rock music, pop liturgical ‘vocalists’ and bongo instruments. The stage ‘Altar’ is always absent of necessary Sacred Vessels and crucifix, while use of large illicit glass pitchers of altar wine, glass chalices and ciboria, wicker baskets of illicit altar bread, multi-colored picnic-style tablecloths in lieu of altar linens, New Age labyrinth arrangements are ‘soup de jour.’
Journalist Allyson Smith covering the 2006 Convention noted no artwork nor statues of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Saints nor Angels were found anywhere, but she noticed there was one piece of artwork in the place of Eucharistic Adoration called ‘Sacred Space.’ It was a painting showing the muscular backside of a man wearing only tight shorts, who was apparently “stepping into freedom.” Too bad we don’t have a photo of that inspiration.
The list of the 2006 annual Conference speakers teaching heretical catechesis to approximately 41,000 attendees included the usual suspects from Call to Action, Dignity, We Are Church, noted liturgical pirates, also heretical Fr. Richard Sparks,xvii as well as noted Lesbian and Gay Ministries leaders and clerics supporting the homosexual lifestyle by attacking church teachings. Included in this list was controversial Keynote speaker, Great Britain’s Fr. Timothy Radcliffe.
In respect of your office, Cardinal Mahony, this writer fully understands you are a priest ‘in Persona Christi.’ Please do not continue to cause further scandal to the Catholic faithful by persisting in these abuses. Start the New Year 2007 A.D. by turning from error and instead faithfully and obediently follow all magisterial teachings and show respect for the Church’s Sacred Traditions.
Endnotes
1. Early in Christian Tradition, the Greek word for fish, Ιχθυς [or ichthus], represented the first letters of the five Greek words: “Jesus [Iesous] Christ [Christos], God’s [Theous] Son [(h)uios] Savior [Soter]. In later years, the holy fish became a popular symbol of one’s relationship with Christ in the Eucharist, and remains such a symbol today.
2. Sacred Tradition is the sum of revealed doctrine which has not been committed to sacred Scripture but has been handed down by a series of legitimate shepherds of the Church from age to age through Christ or the Holy Spirit, and in a broader understanding, doctrine spread by word of mouth. We read in St. Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold to the Traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our letter.” And again, Paul admonishes us: “And we charge you, brethren, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the Tradition which they have received from us.” [cf. John 20:30; 21:35; 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14; 1 John 2:24; Jude 1:17]
3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357-2359.Cf. In “An Open Letter to the Bishops,” the Catholic Medical Association Task Force on July 23, 2002, had this to say: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexuality's "psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" (#2357). While it is understandable that the writers of the Catechism would not wish to make a definitive statement about a question which is at the center of such a contentious public debate, this statement does not accurately reflect what is known about homosexuality. There is ample evidence that same-sex attraction has many different causes. These lead to significant childhood and adolescent emotional pain and psychological problems. Among males these could include a weak masculine identity, social isolation and loneliness, peer rejection or a poor body image and in females, a mistrust of male love or a weak feminine identity. No one can say "this is the cause" for same-sex attraction as though there were a single cause, but an individual can come to understand the origins of his or her own same-sex attractions through insight gained in therapy.”
4. Cf. Americans For Truth.com, for up-to-date news on the Homosexual movement.
5. Cf. “Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?” By the American College of Pediatricians [ACP]. The ACP found those studies to actually conclude that: “Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.”Cf. NARTH, for numerous well-documented medical and psychological sources of the harmfulness of homosexuality upon society and individuals.
7. Cf. “Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems,” by N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
8. Cf. “Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences? Lethal consequences to engaging in defining features of male homosexuality– promiscuity and anal intercourse” by Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
9. Cf. “Law of Nature Excludes Homosexuality,” by Dr. David van Gend. An Australian medical ethics expert told an audience at a marriage conference recently that homosexuals are excluding themselves from marriage and family by refusing the join the great human ‘circle of life.’
10. Cf. “Homosexuality and Hope,” Statement of the Catholic Medical Association, 2007.
11. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH] recently stated: "The AMA encyclopedia incorrectly notes that homosexuals comprise 10% of the population (a figure denied even by gay activists), and erroneously says that attempts to change a person's sexual orientation rarely, if ever, succeed. The 10% figure has been discredited by recent surveys, including one from Canada's Community Health Survey showing that only 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women identify themselves as homosexual. The AMA has also ignored the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer showing that some individuals with same-sex attractions can change their sexual orientation." Dr. Nicolosi and other NARTH officials are available for media interviews. Call 818.789.4440 to set up an interview.
12. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication. The moral document is taught infallibly.
13. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.
14. First designed and used by Gilbert Baker, a homosexual San Francisco artist during a July 25, 1978 Gay Freedom Day Parade.
15. The Gay Almanac, which was compiled by officials at the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian & Gay History in New York City states the original homosexual ‘Rainbow Flag’ consisted in eight colors, including pink of sexuality, orange for healing, yellow for the sun, green for natural serenity, turquoise for art, indigo for harmony and violet for spirit. In 1979, the homosexual ‘Rainbow Flag’ was change to substitute blue for turquoise and indigo, and violet replaced with dark purple. The ‘Rainbow Flag’ is used by gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgenered, and queer groups.
16. On April 23, 2004, Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, promulgated a long awaited 70-page liturgical norm or ‘Instruction.’ Entitled, 'Redemptionis Sacramentum…On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist' (or 'The Sacrament of Redemption), heretofore referred to as ‘RS.’ In this clearly written liturgical Instruction, we are firmly directed: "let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected" [183]. 'RS' is clearly an important elaboration of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (GIRM) and the Encyclical Letter 'Ecclesia de Eucharistia' (EE). All are supported by the Code of Canon Law, "to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at this disposal" [RS, preamble n.2].
17. The 45 cases settled Friday, December 1, 2006, resolve only allegations of homosexual and sex abuse in years the archdiocese was either not insured or was underinsured — cases that took place prior to 1954 or after 1986. The payments cover just a fraction of the 570 claims filed against the nation's largest archdiocese, setting the stage for payouts in the hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve the cases still pending. Diogenes explains what will really happened and why.
18. Cf. “Step Into It,” by Allyson Smith: At the beginning of his Saturday afternoon talk, "Human Sexuality: Nature and Relationships in Cultural Milieus," Paulist Father Richard Sparks, pastor of the University of California at Berkeley's Newman Center, admitted he had gotten into trouble for remarks he had made at the 2001 L.A. Religious Education Congress. At that congress, Sparks acknowledged Church teaching on the relationship between the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. “But if somebody says, 'do you think Joseph ever wanted to jump her bones?' Do you think Joseph ever thought, 'God, why can't we consummate this thing?… Now all I'm saying is — even if they didn't have sex, did they ever neck? Or did they maybe cuddle and snuggle? Did he ever sort of fondle his wife? Did she ever kind of fondle him?" At the same conference, Sparks commented on the size of his genitalia. "It's a little bigger than Mel Gibson's, but the bigger the better, I say," he said. Fr. Sparks’ bishop was, at that time in 2001, Archbishop Wm. J. Levada, now Cardinal Levada, the number two man at the Vatican [the Pope being number one man]. Levada is also Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith [CDF], the position Cardinal Ratzinger formerly held. Archbishop Levada’s successor, Archbishop George Niederauer still allows Fr. Sparks to pastor and speak nationwide.
Avemaria@earthlink.net
Read more articles by Barbara Kralis
As far as Cardinal Mahony's actions are concerned, I am in total agreement with your argument. People are already confused with the mixed message many priests and bishops have given the laity. He is adding to the confusion. But, the tone of your article comes across much harsher than than the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. The question is how can the Catholic Church be merciful and true to its teachings at the same time. Giving an imprimatur to the gay agenda is obviously not the answer, but showing kindness and mercy to gay people as individuals has to be part of the mix. I don't get any sense, again by the tone of your article, that this should be part of how the Catholic Church's ministry to gays and straights alike should function.
Comment by Brooklyn Dave | January 23, 2007
"The question is how can the Catholic Church be merciful and true to its teachings at the same time. Giving an imprimatur to the gay agenda is obviously not the answer, but showing kindness and mercy to gay people as individuals has to be part of the mix."
As evidenced by this statement:
"Cardinal Francis Arinze, said when asked if people wearing homosexual ‘Rainbow Sashes’ could receive Holy Communion:
No, no. You see, let us get it clear. These rainbow sash people are really saying we are homosexuals, we intend to remain so, and we want to receive Holy Communion. The question arises; take the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says it is not condemning a person for having homosexual tendency. We do not condemn anybody for that. But a person stands condemned for acting on it . . . The Catholic Church has never accepted homosexuality as normal. You read the scripture. It is very clear. What exactly are we examining? Are we going to change Divine Law, how God made us . . . Quite another matter if a person had just the tendencies and is making (an) effort to live the Divine Law, then that is fine. So, we respect persons but be clear on the truth."
Helps if you actually read the entire article before you go criticizing the church for being homophobic. For one thing, the church should be homophobic - it's expressly forbidden in their Bible and all of their holy literature People who are practicing homosexuals don't get to receive communion and enjoy a full relationship with Christ, according to Christian doctrine, anymore than a person practicing idolatry, or murder, or theft would. As the Cardinal above said, if the person is a homosexual, but does not act sinfully on his/her impulses, then they are free to receive communion. When they walk into the church with a "gay pride" sash on, they are flaunting their sin before the church. If a guy walked in with a stolen TV, he wouldn't get to take communion either. How egregious.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 25, 2007
Actually my criticism was directed more at the author of the article than at the Catholic Church itself. Sounds as if she's be ready to personally give 40 lashes to the offending party.
Comment by Brooklyn Dave | January 26, 2007
Some thoughts:
As a Eucharistic minister, I was told never to give communion to someone wearing a pentagram, the sign of the Devil. Those sporting such a symbol while receiving communion are engaging in "in-your-face" defiance. So what's different here?
Cardinal Mahony seems to be making a basic error. The Church in general, and the bishops in particular, are charged with the holy task of molding consciences, saving souls, and transforming culture through the propagation of Christian truths, not to be changed BY the culture.
“Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time.”
“The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
February 2006
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650
If these people are sincere, why don’t they just find a religion that more closely aligns with their beliefs instead of agitating for Catholicism to validate their lifestyle? It would be a lot easier and quicker. The only explanation is they are agents of Satan trying to destroy Christ’s church from within.
Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated apostates with prophetic precision:
It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.
He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the godly task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In Torah-loyalty he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of the past.
He sees in “liberation” from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and so humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about progress toward this great goal must be employed.
He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to the Law. If the Church were to change its teaching on homosexuality, what of those who still believe the traditional teaching? Are THEY the ones who are now going to have to find another church?
Comment by sedonaman | January 27, 2007