VINCENT AND THE VILLAGE PEOPLE
~ Skipping towards Gomorrah ~
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" queried William Yeats at the conclusion of his poem "The Second Coming" (1919). Today, we can assuredly answer that the "rough beast" has evolved "at last" into the unrestrained hedonism of the West. It is not, however, slouching towards Bethlehem. Rather, the nihilistic "beast" is heading for Gomorrah - with a spring in its step.
Yeats himself might have guessed at this eventuality. But I doubt he would have anticipated the leading role of the Catholic hierarchy in the moral decline, spiritual decay and dissolution of hierarchy, family and religion that characterises the depraved denouement we are facing.
The unspeakable treachery at play here is embodied in the long-running scandal of the sacrilegious 'gay' Masses being held twice monthly by the Soho Masses Pastoral Council (SMPC), at the church of Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory, Warwick Street, Soho. Fortunately, when the Soho Masses became a major focus of media attention in the run-up to the papal visit, we were able to counter homosexual disinformation and allay confusion in the blogosphere by referring internet bloggers to our detailed articles on the Masses which we have tracked closely for a number of years.(1) It is important, therefore, that we now update our chronicle.
As a measure of the high stakes involved in this pivotal affair and the heat it generates, Dr Oddie later commented in the September FAITH magazine: "The [July] blog was brief, a mere 426 words. The comments, passionate on both sides of the argument, added up to a word count of nearly 11,000 after a week, and they [are] still coming in…."
Just as revealing were the comments posted by Soho Mass attendees in response to the Oddie article, all of whom openly displayed their opposition to Catholic teaching on homosexuality: usually dismissed as mere "Vatican doctrine" to be rejected at will. Other comments from those who have attended the Masses, but are not supportive of the dissent, were also very instructive:
And from another blogger:
Since moving the Masses from St Anne's Anglican Church, Soho, to Warwick Street in 2007, both Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and Archbishop Vincent Nichols have regularly received detailed evidence of this flagrant dissent and sacrilegious behaviour which underpins and surrounds them. Yet in spite of this, they have steadfastly refused to intervene. On the very rare occasions that anyone has received replies from Westminster on this matter, the usual tactic is to deny that there is any problem. One such letter, written in August this year by Archbishop Nichols, disingenuously states:
Leaving aside the patronising assumption that the recipient of the letter has not been praying for all concerned throughout this scandal, the detailed and irrefutable evidence of dissent which has been sent to Westminster shows up Archbishop Nichols' ongoing pretence that these Masses are a "proper attempt" to draw people into the life of the Church, or that those who attend them are "struggling" to "conform their lives" to the teaching of the Church. The overwhelming evidence screams that the only struggle taking place at these Masses is the struggle to conform the Catholic Church to the dictates and aims of the "gay" lobby, whose body-and-soul destroying agenda His Grace is now facilitating with all the arrogance and disregard of a common hireling who has abandoned his flock.
As the SMPC are always keen to point out that these Masses are part of the official pastoral provision for homosexuals in the Westminster Archdiocese, it is a disgrace that those who strive to keep the Church's teaching have been marginalised, while those who openly flout it are supported and cosseted. Indeed, these Masses are an affront, not only to chaste Catholics battling a disordered homosexual tendency, but to all men and women who strive, often under very difficult and painful circumstances, to remain faithful to Catholic moral teaching.
The SMPC's continued commitment to the promotion of dissent makes a complete mockery of what Westminster diocese initially stated about the Soho Masses, i.e. "Information about the Mass will be sensitive to the reality that the celebration of Mass is not to be used for campaigning for any change to, or ambiguity about, the Church's teaching."
Is this the sort of "unambiguous" pastoral care that the diocese promised to provide - promotion at Mass of "gay pride" parades; of "Queering the Church"; of "gay" activism; of authors who are "celebrated" for "facing down current ecclesiastical teaching on homosexuality" and of all the other horrors listed above?
For whatever reasons, it is clear that neither Archbishop Nichols nor the clerics he has delegated to cater for these Masses have the desire or will to stop the corrupting agenda being enforced in this dogmatically dissident "gay ghetto."
This ploy, long endured by pro-lifers bearing witness outside abortion mills, is the oldest trick in the book. It demonises those who pray in reparation, casting them in the role of threatening aggressors, while the SMPC are portrayed as innocent victims in need of protection from such a great evil. It is a shameful waste of tax-payers' money. Undoubtedly, there have been attacks on homosexuals in London, resulting in loss of life or serious injury, and only a sick individual would condone such acts. Yet any right-minded person would prefer the police to devote their time and resources to catching the perpetrators of violent crime, instead of colluding in the intimidation of manifestly peaceful and prayerful citizens.
"Gay" adoptions: the Soho link
It is important to view Warwick St. as one link in the chain of all these interlocking Pendergast groups, which in turn form but a microcosm of the sterile "gay" macrocosm. Under cover of "human rights," "equality," "diversity" and "tolerance," they channel their unflagging, almost preternatural energy and propaganda efforts - whether in churches or classrooms or the infotainment media - into recruitment, without which the barren macrocosm dies. It's all about survival. And in the process, they conspire to corrupt the Faith, society and souls.
An egregious example of this is the manner in which the RCC wickedly undermined the Church through its opposition to the Catholic Care agency in the Leeds diocese.
RCC wrote a letter to the Charity Commission protesting Catholic Care's application to restrict adoption to heterosexual couples (a commendable application but one which had already been seriously undermined by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, who shot himself in the foot by not objecting to homosexual adopters per se, a fact which the RCC were quick to point out and exploit). The letter, in which the RCC signatories presented themselves as Catholics rather than CINOs, and subsequent reports, can be found on their website: www.rccaucuslgcm.co.uk.
Unsurprisingly, the Leeds diocese lost the case. Martin Pendergast followed up this 'victory' for RCC with a self-congratulatory gloat on The Guardian comments website, to which he is a regular contributor, titled: "Catholic gay adoption ruling is a victory for vulnerable children: The failure of Catholic Care's appeal recognises that church pronouncements on the matter are social comment, not doctrine."(7)
Martin should hang his head in shame. What about the promiscuous subset of "predatory gay men" who repeatedly rape young males and could easily get their hands on these children? "The 3,000-pound elephant sitting in the room that no one wants to talk about," as openly "gay" Los Angeles radio personality Al Rantel put it (CO, Feb. 2008, p. 69). "I think it's disgraceful, and I think the media needs to address this. The gay community needs to address this," insists Rantel with a compassion and candour which utterly escapes the mainstream media and the RCC.
And what of the well documented homosexual-paedophile nexus? Even one liberal (pro-"gay") study reported that homosexual pederasts admitted to 150 boy victims each, compared to 19 girl victims per heterosexual paedophile, conservatively an eight-to-one ratio. While the April 1999 Archives of Sexual Behaviour informs us that "The prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%." A further study published in the same journal found that of 229 convicted child molesters "eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."
The hard fact is that homosexuals are massively overrepresented in child sex offenses. "Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children," states Dr Timothy Daily of the Washington-based Family Research Council. "A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1 [in Britain statistically 100 to 1], homosexual paedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses."
Yet despite so many similar findings and the fact that relative rates of molestation put the risk of a homosexual molesting a child at 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual, in his Guardian article Pendergast fully supported the adoption of "vulnerable children" by his fellow sodomites!
To compound his complicity, Pendergast then also called for the Holy Father to publicly apologise for authorising the 2003 CDF document Considerations regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between homosexual persons.(8) He listed the sections of this document which so offended him: "… the absence of sexual complementarity in these (homosexual) unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons … Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."
Yet studies like those just cited only confirm the Holy Father's worst fears about homo-adoption: the disproportionately greater chance of physical violence being done to children by homosexuals. Indeed the first homosexual 'couple' in Yorkshire (and among the first in England) to be approved by the authorities as foster parents turned out to be "gay rights" advocates who repeatedly abused children entrusted to them by local council officials too scared of being labelled "homophobic" to stop handing children over (Daily Mail, 6/9/07). Given the tiny number of homosexuals in the country (1.3% on latest official figures published just after the papal visit), and the tiny fraction of that percentage who adopt or foster children, the Yorkshire case is further alarming evidence of the shocking but largely unspoken truth about the staggeringly high (yet totally unsurprising) proportion of "gay" child molesters.
It is Mr Pendergast himself, therefore, who should be issuing apologies for his wildly erroneous and dangerous conviction that the defeat of Leeds' Catholic Care in favour of "gay" adoption represents "a victory for vulnerable children"! As for the bishops and their adoption agencies, they are more culpable still.
In the RCC submission, Pendergast and his cohorts informed the Charity Commissioners that of the fourteen adoption agencies active at the time of the enactment of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, "eleven have found a way of continuing their adoption services, whilst complying with the requirements of the SORs, with various solutions involving some formal severance from the Catholic dioceses which officially supported them but without losing their Catholic identity."
True to form, Martin's definition of "Catholic identity" is rather elastic! By handing over children to homosexuals and thereby massively increasing the chances of their being molested, such agencies and their personnel will stand guilty at Judgement not only of having surrendered their "Catholic identity" (shocking enough!) but of endangering innocent and vulnerable souls - morally, spiritually and physically.
DIY "gay theology"
From his pontifical Chair in Warwick St., Pope Martin infallibly defines that Church teaching on homosexuality is "officially recognised as third level in the doctrinal hierarchy of truths. It does not touch upon the primary beliefs that define a Catholic, and while requiring from Catholics 'religious respect - obsequium religiosum,' it may nevertheless be open to conscientious dissent."
He is often quoted making similar public statements. It is all some distance beyond parody: an arch-dissident CINO play-acting the part of a faithful Catholic concerned with doctrinal minutiae, as if it meant the world to him to retain his "religious respect" for the Faith he rejects and subverts at every turn! Truly, you couldn't make it up.
As one chaste homosexual familiar with the Soho ruse explained: "It is all aimed at implying that the Church's teachings are current and transient - and in doing so the pastoral outreach is validating a gay Catholic vocation and affirming the gay sub-culture and its lifestyle for gay Catholics."
SPUC Director John Smeaton skewered this fantastical "third level" (i.e. not infallible) teaching dreamed up by Pendergast to rationalise his "gay" deathstyle. In his blog of 23 August 2010, titled "The bishops must defend life by cutting their ties with pro-homosexual "rights" campaigning Catholics," (9) he wrote:
William May, a leading American bioethicist, exploded that claim, writing:
Going by the evidence to date, it looks as though that choice has long since been made in this two-horse race, with His Holiness as runner-up. Meantime, prior to Pope Benedict's arrival in Britain, both Pendergast and Joe Stanley, the Chair of the SMPC, were interviewed about the papal visit. Their dissent is on full display on the Time Out website, where, yet again, Pendergast trundles out the "third-level teaching" canard.(10)
Pre-papal visit coverage
The first programme to mention the Masses was The Pope's British Divisions by openly dissident homosexual journalist, Mark Dowd, who used to Chair the "gay" group Quest. It aired on BBC Radio 4 on 9 September. The Vicar General of Westminster, Mgr Seamus Boyle, was interviewed and stated that Rome has been, and continues to be, "very supportive" of the Soho Masses - in spite of the relentless stream of dissent associated with them. The magnitude of this claim of support from Rome cannot be overstated, particularly as Mgr Boyle revealed that the Masses are supported at a "high-up" level, naming Cardinal Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a prelate with a decidely pro-"gay" history).(11)
An anonymous Soho Mass attendee was interviewed and said that "we're not here to change Church teaching ... ." This of course is a barefaced lie. As we have exhaustively documented, dissent from Church teaching is constantly promoted at the Mass: in the newsletters, in the Mass leaflets, on the bookstall after Mass, and on the SMPC and related websites. But the most alarming comments about Warwick St were those provided by Archbishop Nichols, who totally ignored the fact that these people freely and openly admit to being practising homosexuals or in opposition to Church teaching on homosexuality - a fact of which he is well aware. Significantly, when asked by Dowd if he expected "total chastity from everyone who receives Communion at the Mass," the Archbishop waffled before issuing a thinly veiled threat: "anybody from the outside who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward for Communion, really ought to learn to hold their tongue."
A brief but excellent report on this programme was published by SPUC Director John Smeaton, who in no uncertain terms told the dictatorial Archbishop that "Families will not 'hold their tongue' about bishop-protected dissent on pro-life/pro-family issues."(12)
The same day, later in the evening, Newsnight broadcast a TV programme on the Pope's visit which again featured a section on the Masses. The celebrant at this filmed Soho Mass, Fr Philip Endean SJ, was recently caused a furore by comparing the new translation of the Novus Ordo to the clerical abuse scandal. All those who were interviewed going into the church made comments which revealed their disaffection for the Church and her teaching on homosexuality. One person stated: "You just have to love thy neighbour .... you don't need too many commandments really." While the boastfully active sodomite and Eucharistic Minister Terence Weldon predictably trashed objective Catholic truth by pushing subjective majority opinion: "The simple fact is that Catholics across the world do not believe and do not follow Church teaching - Vatican teaching - on any number of sexual ethics matters."
Newsnight also interviewed ex-priest Tom Munn, who endorsed Weldon's subjectivism: "My faith is more important to me than what the Pope might think," he sniffed.
In spite of all this open dissent and the Holy Father's urgent Ad Limina plea to him and his brother bishops last March "to recognise dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate," Archbishop Nichols continues to ignore the Sovereign Pontiff. And also Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law: "Those . . . who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion." Instead, he berates those who oppose these sacrileges against Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, telling them to "hold their tongue."
Soho also featured on the national evening news, where Martin Pendergast, who is in a civil partnership with Julian Filochowski, the ex-director of CAFOD, was described as "actively gay and actively Catholic," thus exploding once and for all the infantile pretence maintained by the diocese that these Masses are for chaste Catholic homosexuals who accept Church teaching.
Interviewed at Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory in Warwick St., Pendergast pompously declared:"I resist the harsh language that sometimes comes out of the Vatican, but the Vatican is not the Church. The Church is a global phenomenon, and thankfully, the bishops of England and Wales, certainly since around 1979, have developed a very pastoral, pragmatic approach, deeply caring."
What Martin the CINO describes as a "pastoral, pragmatic approach," a Catholic would more accurately describe as bishops turning a de-facto schismatic blind eye to buggery and the dissent that seeks to rationalise it - thereby spitting on the Pope's plea that they "recognise dissent for what it is."
Catholic pastoral care
Catholics have been writing to Westminster Archdiocese and to various dicasteries in Rome about this issue for several years now, yet still no progress has been made. On the contrary: the "gay ghetto" in the Soho village is more emboldened than ever; its adherents not only skipping gaily onwards to Gomorrah but doing so hand-in-hand with Vincent Nichols, their increasingly fragrant pal and protector.
It is all so very sordid. "I can understand why sodomy is a sin," American commentator Joseph Sobran once observed, "but I can't understand why it's a temptation." Quite. Nonetheless, in the course of Catholic pastoral care provided to all those suffering from particularly destructive addictions, provision should be made for those fighting a disordered homosexual tendency. But it must never be provided by Catholics In Name Only. Such care can only be entrusted to those who fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching, as well as the principles laid out by the CDF in its 1986 document: Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons.
Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory, pray for us.
(6) The full list of aims of the Cutting Edge Consortium and details of member groups are at http://sites.google.com/site/cuttingedgeconsortium1/about-us
(7) http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/martin-prendergast (Note The Guardian's spelling error - this URL address uses 'Prendergast', instead of Pendergast.)
(11) See CO, Aug-Sept 2006, pp.10-16).