Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Homoheresy Unmasked

February 23rd, 2013, Promulgated by Hopefull

Please view last night’s Church Militant TV presentation by Michael Voris which strongly speaks of, and against, “Homoheresy” in the Church at this link.  Also at that site you will find a link to the report by Fr. Dariusz Oko, Ph.D. of Krakow.  The 38 page report is entitled:  “With the Pope Against the Homoheresy.”  What has long be whispered behind the scenes has just been unmasked in a way we have not seen before.  This may be a long conclave.

Here are the highlights, about which Michael Voris speaks, from Father Oko’s Report:







































This may be an auspicious time to revisit a number of items in the Rochester Diocese, not the least of which is the 2004 signatures from many priests lobbying for “better” pastoral treatment of gays and lesbians in the DoR, pro-gay articles in the Courier by Bp. Clark,  speakers invited into the DoR who embrace same-sex-attraction as a civil right, the significant DoR liaison relationship to Fortunate Families and Dignity-Integrity, scandalous contributions by some DoR priests to Fortunate Families, articles and comments in Parish Bulletins not faithful to Church teaching on the matter, and the departures of some noted figures, priests and staff, in the DoR.  Would that every diocese would respond to the work Fr. Oko is doing by “outing” what does not belong in their midst, including the homosexual role in pedophilia and what that has cost not only in damage to human beings, but to parishes and to those whose contributions were not used for their parishes but rather to hide the sins of the hierarchy. 

Cleansing Fire seems well positioned (and has been for a long time) to respond supportively to Fr. Ono’s 4th remark above.  We already have much of the information.  Hence, and hopefully, this post.

Tags: ,


21 Responses to “Homoheresy Unmasked”

  1. Dr. K says:

    From an issue of the Catholic Courier circa 2000:

  2. Richard Thomas says:

    Simply teaching about the Majesterial views about homosexuality was enough for the Catholic Physician’s guild to get suppressed by Bishop Clark.

  3. Richard Thomas says:

    I am convinced that labeling the sex-abuse crisis, “A crisis of pedophilia” was a way the homosexual lobby was able to shield themselves from the terrible information that at least 80 to 90 % of the molestations were of homosexual priests on teenage boys.

    Pedophilia is a much more mundane label than homosexual. And the bishops at the USCCB were intent on doing it this way. This speaks volumes as to the make-up and philosophy of the leaders of this inauspicious organization.

  4. Richard Thomas says:

    The word “Pedophilia” means an attraction for children. How clever those @ the USCCB were in diluting the seriousness and truth about this situation.

    For they made the sex crisis an issue involving all children and were able to de-emphasise the fact that this was mainly a homosexual issue and most of the victims were teenage boys.

  5. Bruce says:

    Time to put the homosexualists on the run. The sun is now beginning to shine on their disgusting and clandestine activities, and its not smelling very good. It is time for genuine human beings – heterosexuals and chaste homosexuals – to rise up and admonish these sinners. They have been admonishing us for decades. It is their turn. For the sake of married laypersons and celibate homosexuals, it is time to clean house.

  6. Bruce says:

    Wow, the more I read in Fr. Oko’s report, the more angry (righteously) I become. I wanted my son to become a priest, but if this disgusting, sinful, and animalistic culture is still in full-swing in our seminaries and Church, I will steer him away. Homosexuals should not be priests, period. It is time to make a stand against this disorder. We are called to love them? Absolutely – but loving homosexuals means supporting them to stay chaste and celibate, to undergo counseling and medication if need be, and to stay as far away from the active immoral homo life as possible.

  7. militia says:

    Once Pope Benedict gets safely away from Rome, perhaps a meteor in the middle of the Conclave would save everyone else a lot of trouble.

  8. y2kscotty says:

    Militia, after the meteor wipes out the Conclave, who would be the Pope? Maybe the priests of the Diocese of Rome would have to pick one of their own.
    But – I digress.
    If we have knowledge that a priest is “entertaining” tee-age boys in his room at the rectory, and we have some evidence of immoral behavior, to whom do we complain? The Bishop? The Metropolitan Archbishop? The Nuncio?

  9. militia says:

    Militia wishes to withdraw the geographically-impaired comments about a meteor. Militia had no idea Castel Gandolfo is only 15 miles from the Vatican. Militia must learn to use an atlas more effectively. Thank you.

  10. A bit to close for the meteor….maybe a selective meteor instead?

  11. Hopefull says:

    Next two in the Church Militant series:

    Homosexuals and the Conclave:

    The Papacy and Gay Mafia:

  12. Kevin says:

    That last one, around 8:45 minutes in, has a PHOTO OF ST. MARY’S DOWNTOWN!!!! I think I know where Voris got that photo…possibly here. Which means all sorts of interesting things about who is actually reading this blog.

  13. Diane Harris says:

    You have a sharp eye, Kevin. I believe you are exactly right! Often, when I mention CF to someone, they say: “Oh, yeah, I read that!”

    Michael Voris was one of the speakers at Festival for Freedom during the Fortnight last June/July held at Notre Dame Retreat House in Canandaigua. Both of his talks are on the website under the MEDIA tab/ VIDEOS along with some of the other speakers. Michael’s first talk was on Tyranny, and his second was on Church Militant. If you view them, you will note a lot of chuckling and Michael a bit abashed at the very beginning. I had just introduced him and had secretly passed out his trademark orange pencils to the audience. So he was welcomed with both applause and a swirling of the pencils in the air. (I later learned none of his audiences had ever done this before!) Sorry, that part wasn’t captured on the video….

    I drove Michael back to the airport and mentioned Cleansing Fire during our conversation. He was WELL AWARE of our website and of the Rochester situation. His first talk (Tyranny) was given the evening before the Supreme Court’s HHS Mandate decision. The second talk (Church Militant) was given the evening of the day of the decision. As we drove, he was already getting a crew called in to record his HHS decision broadcast that same evening, to well past midnight. I must share that in spite of all he had to do, he could have been understandably preoccupied, but was nonetheless personally engaging, interested in our experience, and only broke off for a few moments as we drove past St. Mary’s Church in Canandaigua, to bless himself and say a prayer. Fierce as is Michael’s exposition of Truth, he is a kind and gentle and approachable person. I think more of that aspect of him comes through in his two presentations at Notre Dame.

    In the last two weeks, the festival website has seen a huge increase in viewing and downloading Michael’s two presentations. The timing, of course, may be related to the Pope’s resignation or the emerging ‘homo’ reports and exposure of the deep-seated issue.

    Now, to a point which I hope CF viewers will consider with all seriousness. In April there will be a major fundraiser to support Church Militant TV, and I’ll be posting more on that in the coming weeks. I believe the goals of CF and CMTV are not only complementary, but also synergistic. More soon.

  14. Kevin says:

    The best part about noticing that picture was it was 2:30 AM and when I saw that photo, I swore loudly in surprise and almost fell out of my bed I was so shocked.

  15. Mike says:

    Did anyone else catch the reference to the priestly status of Charles Curran?

    The importance of the matter [i.e., homosexual candidates for the priesthood] for the Pope and the Holy See is emphasized by the fact that despite a great shortage of priests and new vocations in Western Europe and America, the Church does not want to admit such candidates in its seminaries; the grave abuses of homosexual clergymen have already caused too much evil, too many disasters, and have cost too much.


    Not everyone wants to accept the above rules. There is resistance to what is taught by the Pope. The homosexual community in the Church defends itself and is on the attack. It also needs an intellectual tool, a justification, and that is why homoideology takes in their minds, words and writings the form of homoheresy. The most open revolt against the Pope and the Church is headed by some Jesuits in the United States, who openly oppose them and announce that despite the above decisions, they will keep admitting homosexually-oriented seminarians, who are, indeed, especially welcome.[26] They have a long tradition in that vein, for years being the mainstay of homoideology and homoheresy. They take many views of the heretical moral theologian, ex-priest Charles Curran, for their own …

    Unfortunately, the Jesuits aren’t the only order in open revolt on this point. The Basilians, who at one time ran Aquinas Institute and St. John Fisher College, make it clear that homosexuals are welcome in their order, as long as they are capable of “affective maturity,” whatever that may be.

    The Vatican Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies clearly states that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” are not suitable candidates for the priesthood. It goes on to add,

    Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

    Twisting the meaning of this clear instruction a full 180 degrees, the Basilian vocation web site declares,

    The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood.

  16. y2kscotty says:

    Yes, I caught the reference to Father Curran. It’s a fact that Fr. Curran is a priest, not an ex-priest. He has not been laicized or “defrocked” by any action of either the Bishop or of “Rome”. Or maybe he has been removed from the priesthood by the authority of this Fr. Oko – and if this is so, who gave him that authority? I didn’t read about this in The Wanderer.
    Now, I don’t see any evidence that the Basilians are in “open revolt” because of their statement, “The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood”. As I read the plain English of the Vatican Instruction, the important phrase is “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”. So, where’s the “open revolt”?
    Let’s get our facts straight.

  17. Dr. K says:

    “Fr. Curran is a priest, not an ex-priest. He has not been laicized or “defrocked””

    I think the same might be true of Jim Callan. I don’t recall Bp. Clark do anything other than suspend this schismatic.

  18. y2kscotty says:

    I wish to be clear that in my previous remarks, I am not advocating the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood. What I do advocate is the admittance of men who have a healthy and mature attitude and friendship with both men and women.

  19. y2kscotty says:

    Dr. K, I think Jim Callan is still a priest – but he has been excommunicated – which is more than being suspended. You are right that he hasn’t been defocked or laicized. The official diocesan statement refers to excommunication “latae sententiae”. SO I think that’s Bishop Clark’s official positon.

  20. Mike says:


    If a “homosexual orientation” is not the same as a “deep-seated homosexual tendency” would you please tell me how the two terms differ and why, with regard to admission to the seminary, the former would be less problematic than the latter?

    BTW, my reference to the “ex-priest” statement was a poorly phrased attempt to point out the error.

  21. y2kscotty says:

    Mike, I don’t know how the two terms differ. I think that the person who used the qualifier “deep-seated” should explain what he means. What would it mean if I said I said I have a deep-seated heterosexual tendency? Perhaps I would be more “dangerous” and likely to act on my deep-seated heterosexual tendency? Some Roman official must have thought “deep-seated” was a way of telling us that such a person was a real danger.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-