End Times Prophecy
In Mark 13:4, the disciples ask Christ to tell them about the signs of the end times: “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?” The Lord replies: “Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;” (Mark 13:12). We also read similar words in Matthew 10:21.
For those of a certain age and perspective, it often seems that the changes in culture, social mores, and even Catholic devotion, values and faithful behavior have declined incredibly fast. “How could so much have happened so quickly?” is a question frequently encountered, often unanswered. Some would say the rapidity of change is because the Church is so weakened especially in its hierarchy; others would say the Church is weakened because of evil influences that lie within, uncauterized by the flame of disciplined faith. Without attempting to identify specific causes, it seems incontestable that the change is so rapid as to seem to be in the hands of supernatural, evil forces.
Consider the three signs which Christ gives regarding end times, and how they would seem to directly relate to the three burgeoning areas of sinfulness, especially in the last decade or two.
Consider these three potential signs in more detail:
- Fathers abandoning their children to death is one description of fathers allowing (even pressing for) abortion of their offspring, not supporting families, leaving fatherless homes to cope on their own. (This in no way excuses the women who yield to such pressures).
- Children rising against parents and having them put to death is just emerging with respect to euthanasia. In some countries children, usually who also will take under their parents’ last testaments and wills, are permitted to be among the signatories to euthanize their parents. In no other area of life would such conflict of interest be legally permitted!
- Brother delivering up brother to death? Yes, and not only in the violence of Cain against Abel, but even more in homosexual activism, advocacy, and sin-laden lifestyle. While the delivery unto death may represent physical death and disease, such as HIV, the bible also uses “sleep” as a euphemism for physical death (John, 11:12-14), and the “second death” as a spiritual death (Revelation 21:8).
The next series of posts will attempt to examine further what “Brother delivering up brother to death” means. The sin is not new, and is well-documented in Genesis, in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The teaching against the sins of homosexual lifestyle has not changed in the New Testament, with Christ’s command of “love.” Rather, it is well-documented by St. Paul in Chapter 1 of Romans.
But not every sin spreads like wildfire through a culture, touching most families, rapidly destroying relationships, precipitating lawsuits to institutionalize an alleged “right” to sin, stained by sins from pedophilia to maiming through transgenderization, even affecting interpersonal communication by demanding modification of pronouns, or else absurdly large fines! Such broad and rapid growth of any sin must not only have a serious demonic influence, but an institution through which to spread faster than other proclivities. What institution? Nothing could be more effective to facilitate “brother delivering up brother to (spiritual) death,” than to spread through the very institution dedicated to protect and lead souls to eternal life. The smoke of Satan which Pope Paul VI identified as having entered the Church has been (and continues to be) stoked by the flames of hell.
Psalm 11:3: “If foundations are destroyed, what can the just one do?”
Eventually such spread of sin reaches a shocking magnitude at which the Faithful cannot help but shouting out in pain and begging for correction, as is now the case with once-upon-a-time-eminence McCarrick’s scandal. Now there is even a refrain which admits the hierarchy is paralyzed by the sin, and calls to the laity to take action! But how? Without the support of the clerics? Or with the support of clerics, at their own great and significant risk, to be Gideons to a remnant flock? (Judges Chapters 6-7) We must not take lightly the real risk from members of an institutionalized sinful hierarchy to priests whom we need so desperately to care for our own spiritual needs. And we must not ignore the depth and virulence of the homosexual lifestyle and activism perpetuated over many years.
And, so, returning to the history of the Rochester Diocese, where Cleansing Fire began, we offer a look at Bishop Matthew Clark’s “Along the Way” column from November 2005. But, first, here is a perspective against which to view that diocesan column. Pope Benedict XVI was elected by the conclave in April 2005. With a clear perspective of the Church’s needs, from his long time position as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict focused on what he saw as a most pressing need of the Church, forged from a visitation of seminaries. It was reported that in August 2005 Pope Benedict circulated among the prelates the draft he intended to issue a few months later.
Pope Benedict XVI’s Instruction: November 4, 2005
On November 4, 2005 the Congregation for Catholic Education issued Pope Benedict’s teaching: “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.”
A key summary of Pope Benedict’s work is contained in the following Paragraph 2 of that document:
Bishop Clark’s Column, Nov. 12/13, 2005
Regarding the column from Bishop Clark, it is a fair question whether or not the welcome and gratitude he gives to priests who identify as homosexual isn’t a failure to teach his brothers in the faith, ultimately to risk turning brother over to spiritual death, essentially encouraging others who should not be priests, and politicizing Christ’s call to the priesthood. It seems to be the same mindset which is so proud (“Gay Pride”) that it doesn’t recognize or admit sin. Lack of humility then resists Pope Benedict’s prescient words “objectively disordered,” which is such a thorn in the side to those who fit the description, and a lost opportunity for a bishop to teach. There are clues in Bishop Clark’s writing which give hints as to the identity of the priests, if one notices. And that is what happens when sin is merely discussed, and apparently not under the Seal of Confession, where it belongs.
I remember reading Bishop Clark’s November 2005 ALONG THE WAY posted above when it was first published. What struck me then still seems significant now, especially in light of the excerpt of the INSTRUCTION also posted above. Bishop Clark welcomed men with same-sex attraction to inquire regarding a vocation to the priesthood by writing, “We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception”.
In fairness to Bishop Clark, his column emphasized celibate chastity. Regarding the priests who “came out” to him, the Bishop highlights honesty, simplicity, trust and confidence. He never asserts he is pleased that these men are homosexual priests. He never states a homosexual orientation is a good, a gift or something to be acted upon. Over and again faithful priestly ministry is emphasized.
However, given the revelations that sexually active homosexual priests, bishops and cardinals have gotten away with their immoral activities without exposure or reprimand, but even were promoted, one can only wonder if our former Ordinary courageously would have disciplined sexually active diocesan priests.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/bishops-will-defend-faithful-priests
We are in a unique and dangerous situation.
When in recorded history was there ever this notably large contingency of homosexuals in far reaching powerful positions?
Combine that fact with their guaranteed long-term securities, increasing legal advantages, and worldly social acceptance.
Long-term trouble
Bishop Clark’s letter was written some time ago. Think of all that has transpired since then. Think of all the silence and omissions.
The aim of this contingency is apparent and very much parallels mainstream gay agendas.
Ginger, in an attempt to answer your question, “When in recorded history was there ever this notably large contingency of homosexuals in far reaching powerful positions?”, I offer an excerpt from a Ralph Martin Renewal Ministries article reposted by a Missouri Bishop Rice:
“We need to remember that this isn’t the first time such grave problems have beset the Church. In the fourteenth century, St. Catherine of Siena bemoaned the “stench of sin” coming from the papal court and prophesied that even the demons were disgusted by the homosexual activity he had tempted priests into and the cover up by their superiors! (See chapters 124-125 of Catherine of Siena’s The Dialogue.)”
Apparently National Catholic Register first Published Ralph Martin’s Letter, DEAR TROUBLED CATHOLICS. Then the courageous South Missouri Bishop Rice posted it on his Diocesan blog.
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/guest-blogger/dear-troubled-catholics-a-letter-from-ralph-martin-about-the-current-crisis#.W23cqKQpCaM
Dominick, the situation is a bit different than in St. Catherine’s time in that the problem stretches the globe to touch all cultures. We have a legal system that is fueled by pro gays looking for vengeance. The clergy and episcopate fully understand that the financial equity of the Church is enough to sustain their lifestyle for their lifetime even if the faithful boycott the collection basket. It ver much appears they would rather go to hell in a hand basket rather than be concerned about the collection basket. On top of that, evil fully embraces today’s powerful momentum of social acceptance for its cause. Just watch recent political ads by gay candidates. Google ‘Madaleno kisses same sex partner’. Consider the 150+ openly gay and LGBTQ promoters running for political office …just this round in November. These are people the majority loves. Many pseudo Catholics are part of that majority.
I read the article you shared by Ralph Martin. I don’t disagree with anything he said.
He ends his discussion with good advice and a hopeful note…Sacrifice and Pray!
Perseverance is key because we might not see resolutions in our lifetime.
No grumbling allowed.
Thanks to local Cleansing Fire Staff for offering this place to come together and focus on the task at hand.
How does the saying go? The fish rots from the head down?
https://www.worldmeeting2018.ie/en/Programme/Congress/Thursday-Programme/Session-2-Presentation-3
Father James Martin is invited to speak at the Papal World Meeting of Families this month.
I believe Ginger is correct in reminding CF readers that today’s situation is different than in Saint Catherine of Siena’s time. However, while the “gaying of the Church” and society does stretch across the globe touching all cultures, the sexual perversity in the Vatican and Rome today resembles the situation there in the 14 th century. ( Interesting how the Russians stubbornly stand up to the Homosexual agenda. Catholic Bishops in Africa seem to resist gay conformity, though there is an other problem; something about priests and women. )
Ginger’s comments about the pro gay legal system and the hierarchy’s financial well being do cause me to pause and make me feel the need to catch my breath. Enemies of Christ and his good news seem to have the upper hand but we who are graced with supernatural faith will persevere, not give up nor resort to mere grumbling.
To those who are devout, insist with me that Catholics, clergy and lay, stop playing Church and begin being the Church the Lord Jesus Christ empowers us to become. Nothing less is good enough!
I remember the stir over 10 years ago, when the priest featured on posters -everywhere-in the Diocese of Rochester, promoting the priesthood, was then found to be defending homosexuality, etc.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/poster-boy-priest-of-rochester-diocese-is-known-dissident
Further, an article written by Diogenes in Catholic Culture.org
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=3583
Perhaps what is happening in the Church today is summarized in Revelation 19:7?
“Let us rejoice and exult and give Him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and His Bride has made herself ready;….”
Perhaps what we are seeing even in the ‘outing’ of so many clergy is the Bride (the Church) making herself ready for the marriage of the Lamb? If so, then those already in the Barque must hold on ever tighter to the Faith; but those outside will find it increasingly difficult to enter, not because God’s mercy fails, but because they will be so repulsed by the revealed sin in the Church that they can’t bring themselves to enter?
The verses in Revelation that remind me of the situation in todays’s Church are found in chapter 2:
“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”
How about verses in Matthew 23 that start with Woe?
‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow until harvest.’ Matthew 13:28-30
Recalling these words in response to some radical solutions I’m reading about elsewhere on the internet.
I agree with Dominick’s assertion, that Bishop Clark was writing his column in light of mandatory celibate chastity for priests.
In contrast, there was an online article from a Catholic publication (I dare not share the link and get in trouble again) which published the comments from priests who voluntarily wrote in to the publication to share that they were homosexual and to give their viewpoint about homosexual men in the priesthood. They additionally wrote comments about what they thought of mandatory celibate chastity. There were some comments that would probably shock some laity, and also some clergy. Readers of this post would be familiar with some of the names.
Basically, the consensus was that homosexuality shouldn’t keep a man from becoming a priest.
There were some comments made relaying that celibate chastity should not be mandatory, but it was NOT an overwhelming consensus. But after reading all of the comments, I couldn’t help but wonder if some of those priests engaged in homosexual sexual relations with a consenting adult male.
I just don’t get it. When men enter the seminary and are eventually ordained to the priesthood, they know that a single man takes a vow of celibate chastity. (A married man approved for the priesthood takes a vow of chastity). They know what the Catholic Church’s stand is on active homosexuality also. Yet there are some priests who seem to interpret their vows differently, or challenge the rules. I’m wondering if those who think there shouldn’t be mandatory celibacy for homosexual priests have the flawed opinion that there should be an exception made because marriage within the Catholic Church is not involved or an option, and also that there is no chance of pregnancy.
It’s along the same lines of students or employees of a Catholic Institution challenging rules or protesting conditions they feel are unfair when they already know the Catholic Church’s stand on these matters. Students or their parents are the ones who chose to attend a Catholic Institute of Education. Employees are the ones who chose to be employed by an Institution or Entity of the Catholic Church.
How are those priests who do not keep their vows of celibate chastity themselves able to counsel others facing or living out vows of chastity such as pre-cana couples discerning a vocation to the married life, men discerning/entering a vocation to the priesthood or diaconate, men and women discerning/entering a vocation to religious life, married couples, clergy, and religious?
Just to clarify, please. The point of including what Bishop Clark wrote years ago was not to debate if he meant what he said, or to parse the implications of celibacy / chastity / continence issues, or to further encourage those who think the homosexual lifestyle issue is up for debate even among the clergy. No, the reason it is included in this article is to illustrate the disobedience and arrogance of even issuing such a column knowing that Pope Benedict’s clarification was just issued, and in what appears to be an in-your-face reply to the Holy Father. The timing is NOT an accident, since the prelates had advance copy months earlier. The other reason for its inclusion is to show the underpinnings of the current crisis having deep roots that went unchallenged for years. There is an inevitability of any perversion or disordered lifestyle becoming ever more egregious as it becomes more deeply entrenched. The homosexual abuse of young men and teenage boys goes back to such “justifications,” and has been wrongly termed “pedophilia” for a long time. No wonder Pope Benedict accepted Bishop Clark’s mandatory resignation virtually instantaneously.
I am not in agreement with church hierarchy who had/have only been concerned with what they deem pedophilia. Years ago, they ignored this, and more recently, they seem to think only the abuse of a minor counts.
There are some priests with a homosexual orientation that victimize young boys, or priests young boys and teenage boys. And there some priests who victimize young boys, teenage boys, and young men. There are some priests, with I don’t know what sexual orientation, who have abused both young boys and young girls. There are some priests with a heterosexual orientation who victimize young girls or teenage girls, or just victimize teenage girls. There are some priests who victimize teenage girls or young women, or females in any age range.
There was one account of a priest who was called to give last rites to a dying elderly woman at home. The priest asked the family to leave the bedside and bedroom while he administered last rites. The elderly husband stated that the family heard a lot of noise and commotion. He stated when he went to check, the priest was on top of his wife and was raping her. -I felt absolutely sick when I read that account. If I was one of those family members, I believe I would have laid hands on that priest!
I think any priest, or anyone, who victimizes another person sexually is disordered. You expect more from a priest because he is supposed to be God’s ambassador on earth and commit himself to a holy lifestyle.
I do think there is a higher rate of victimization among priests with a homosexual orientation.
I do however want to stress, that the vast majority of priests are faithful priests who do endeavor to be Christ’s ambassador on earth and live a holy life. We need to support those who are faithful and good, and pray for them.
Another in-your-face assertion was ex-Cardinal Theodore Mc Carrick’s purposeful misinterpretation of the letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on denying Holy Communion to pro-choice politicians, to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004. He had received that letter from then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That Letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was leaked to the press a week later, and “the disparity” between Mc Carrick’s report to the USCCB and the letter were apparent. Additionally, Ex-Cardinal Mc Carrick supported causes that were in direct violation of the Catholic Church’s stand, such as abortion, LBGT rights, and same-sex marriage.
So I wonder why on these points alone, why he was disciplined or removed.
This post was quite relevant. Thank you for posting it, Diane. I’m not saying this was your intent, Diane, but I’ll go ahead and say it. Having homosexual priests (even if chaste) is a major problem. We need priests who are properly ordered. There is no reason we need to be afraid to say it.
Janet Smith:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/janet-smith-to-bishops-save-the-church-tell-everything
Thank you, Diane, excellent research, and analysis of the problem of the smoke of satan entering the Church specifically in the area of homosexual priests.
My question, after having been asked by other persons: can someone detail the process of submitting a case of priestly homosexual abuse to proper authority?
And of course, the important part of this question is to do it safely and effectively for the victim(s). Victims are concerned that their privacy be maintained, and that their legal and moral rights be preserved. Is it beneficial to retain an attorney? Are there attorneys versed in this part of the law, in the local area? Has this process been detailed somewhere else on this blog? Thank you very much for your good guidance.