More about Cardinal Mahoney - Catholics only

[Servus Iesu]

Cardinal Mahony ordains openly homosexual activist deacon



Monday, June 20, 2005

Mahony ordained Mr. Stoltz to the diaconate in 2004

In Cardinal Mahony's L.A., priesthood ordinations are way down. Only 5 priests were ordained this year and future vocations projections hold very little promise of improvement as long as the man at the top in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is Roger M. Mahony.

The ordination of married permanent deacons, by contrast, is way up in Roger's realm. On June 11 of this year, Mahony ordained 11 men to the permanent diaconate. All 11 of the new deacons are married and, one would assume, heterosexual. Last year, yet another group of 11 married, presumably "straight" men, were ordained deacons by Mahony, plus one other man whose sexual orientation is in no wise in doubt. His name is Eric Stoltz. Stoltz has an impressive looking resume and currently works as an apparently successful web developer. Deacon Stoltz is also an avowed homosexual.

Mr. Stoltz, a self-described "gay urbanite," sees himself as ...

"... one of that despised class widely assumed to be irreligious and hedonistic and an imminent threat to everything that is good and holy in our society."

He continues:

" ... we [gays] are supposedly to blame for the breakdown of the family, yet I know of no gay people that have abortions, abuse children, get divorced, neglect the ethical and religious education of children; heterosexuals do all these things, but blame homosexuals for the results ..."

Stoltz is a professional writer and published author who obsessively weaves into his essays and homilies the usual "gay" themes: discrimination against "gays" by "straights" and by the Church; special privileges for "gay" couples; and, of course, AIDS.

Not surprisingly, Deacon Stoltz is a big fan of both Cardinal Mahony and Father Peter Liuzzi, O. Carm. (former director of Mahony's "ministry to Lesbian and Gay Catholics" and currently pastor of St. Agnes Church and School in Phoenix). He wrote about both (without explicit mention of their names) in a piece that was published in the "gay" friendly Jesuit weekly, America. http://www.ericstoltz.com/writings/America1.html

About Liuzzi:

"I recall the words of a priest in charge of gay and lesbian ministry for the archdiocese who encountered the protests of a deacon who complained about gay people "flaunting" their orientation; why couldn't they just keep all that to themselves? (Don't ask, Don't tell.) "And what about that ring on your finger and the picture of your wife on your desk?" he asked the startled deacon. "Are you not flaunting your heterosexuality?"

Regarding the advancement of militant homosexuality in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles:

"And what have I seen in the Church since I returned? I've seen wonders that you can never imagine. I've seen my friends received into the Church with their lovers as sponsors. I've seen bishops welcome the gay and lesbian community by name. I've seen gay couples bring up the gifts at the offertory procession. I've seen the funerals of friends who accepted death from AIDS with joy as new members of Christ’s Mystical Body."

And about the most influential champion of "gay" militancy among Catholics in L.A., Cardinal Roger M. Mahony:

"I have seen the archbishop of Los Angeles process into a church (for the record, not my parish) preceded by six gay pride flags (and I wept)."

Later in the same article, Mr. Stoltz talks about ...

"... the publicly orthodox Western bishop who says privately that the Catholic Church will recognize gay unions within the next 20 years."

"... the pastor who counsels parishioners on how to develop a positive gay relationship."

"... the bishops who dine regularly with gay couples."

"... the pastors who give the blessing of the meal at all-gay dinner parties."

And then by way of conclusion, he writes:

" ... Vatican bureaucrats and self-proclaimed defenders of orthodoxy may take offense at my experiences, but I know that I have been witness to wonders and marvels that will forever affect the nature of the Mystical Body, for we, too, gay men as we are, are also members of that body. And mind by mind, soul by soul, heart by heart, we are building a consensus fidelium that will one day set us free ..."

"Have you noticed that I named no names in this article? What does that say for a Church that proclaims that "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free?" On the day that I can name names in this article, pastors, people and parishes, we will all be truly free. Until then, we will continue to struggle ... " For more jeremiads by Cardinal Mahony's "gay" deacon, Eric Stoltz, go HERE

​

 

[stray bullet]

The stuff about dining with the sinners sounds familiar.

 

[lonnienord]

this thread is outrageous it is yet another vicious attact on Holy Mother Church.

 

[Irenaeus]

So much judgment, so little wisdom.

The Bishop may have perfectly honorable intentions in eating at such dinners...like stray mentioned.

However, a bishop must watch what he attends, because what may seem like he approves may cause scandal to others.

In any case, I pray for Roger Mahoney.

 

[Ave Maria]

The stuff about dining with the sinners sounds familiar.

I agree but would ordaining a homosexual activist really be prudent? But then again, I suppose that all depends on just what issues he is actively supporting.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Interesting.

There is nothing wrong with a bishop, or anyone else, dining with homosexual couples in my mind. Provided that he is not condoning homosexual relations, then I see little problem. I am certain that there is talk of the "scandal" that can be caused. But I for one am not half as worried about scandal as it seems many are. All this talk of scandal can lead to disasterous situations of secrecy where secrecy is not needed, of undue shame and of an inability to help a situation because we don't want to recognise it, or because we want to recognise only a charecature of it from our high pedestal.

God Himself ate and socialised with ragged, filthy outcasts and prostitutes. Think of today's reading: "The prostitutes are going into the Kingdom before you." If God can do it, and He was certainly scandalised, then are we too good to do the same? Are we better than God?!

There are indeed issues about the inappropriate behaviour spoken of in the article. Last time I checked, however, reaching out to people in need, speaking up for hated minorities and caring about people avoiding STIs were not crimes. Being honest about your sexuality is not a crime. Making a choice not to sit in a dark room cutting yourself and crying with shame about something you didn't choose is not a crime. Homosexual relations, and supporting homosexual relations, are crimes.

Inasmuch as those involved are supporting and engagin in homosexual activites, they are gravely at fault. But many of the actions criticised are not in fact sinful. Dining with active homosexuals is not wrong, speaking out against discrimination is in fact called for by the Catechism.

Confirming people in gay relationships is, of course, sacrelige. But then so is giving Communion to someone who you know beat his wife up that morning. So is marrying someone who you saw passing out drunk the previous night. Giving the Sacraments (other than Confession) to those in mortal sin is wrong, regardless of what mortal sin they have committed.

Ordaining a homosexual deacon, even if you and everyone else knows he is homosexual, is not a sin. Ordaining a man who supports homosexual relations or engages in them unrepentantly at the time of Ordination is.

The problem is not with being "gay". It is not with telling people that you are gay. It is not with associating with people who are gay. It is with participating in, and actively supporting, mortal sin, be it murder, drunkeness, rape, pornography, theft, deceit or homosexual relations.

Rob

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I agree but would ordaining a homosexual activist really be prudent? But then again, I suppose that all depends on just what issues he is actively supporting.

Precisely. What do we mean by a homosexual activist? Do we mean someone who fights for gay adoption, gay marriage and acceptance of homosexual relations by the Church? If so, then he is in grave error and sin. He should not be ordained if he is unrepentant.

If, however, we are talking about someone who is open about his sexuality, believes that homosexuals ought to be treated as human beings, but agrees fully that homosexual relations are always wrong, and plans to remain celibate, then I see no problem.

For the record, I think that we are talking about the former in this case, and I agree that his ordination was probably wrong if I am right about this. It seems to me also that His Eminence need to clarify his position on homosexual relations, and make sure that no-one is in any doubt that he condemns them outright and absolutely.

Pax

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

this thread is outrageous it is yet another vicious attact on Holy Mother Church.

Lonnie,

Whilst I think that the article needs to be clear that being homosexual and supporting homosexual relations are very different, I don't think anyone is trying to attack the Holy Church. Criticising Bishops, even the Bishop of Rome, is not wrong. It is in fact necessary ad virtuous if they are at fault. Obeying the Church is right, but speaking up against the wrongs of some of Her members, be they laypersons, priests, bishops or Popes, is equally the work and service of the Lord.

 

[Cat59]

Here's some clarification based on the words of Cardinal Mahoney. He made this statement in 2003. It seems to be very orthodox in what it says and is an accurate reflection of Church teaching, which is that homosexual acts are wrong but that those inclined to homosexuality should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity.
http://press.la-archdiocese.org/2003/030731___.html

While the Church once again reaffirms its respect for homosexual persons, it makes it clear that this respect “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

While stating forcefully that marriage between a man and a woman is the only union which derives from God’s plan for the human family, the Church once again cautions against discrimination towards homosexual persons: “…men and women with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.’ They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. [no. 4]

I urge all Catholics and people of good will within the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to continue all efforts to extend understanding, respect, compassion and sensitivity to all homosexual persons. Every form of discrimination must be avoided. The Archdiocese will continue its pastoral care and concern for all peoples, including homosexual persons.​

The document also speaks to the reason often given for granting legal recognition to homosexual unions:

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual persons is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the autonomy—to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society. [no. 9]

The final section of the document speaks directly to Catholic politicians and their responsibilities to oppose first-time legislation granting legal recognition to homosexual unions, and to work to diminish the effectiveness of any existing legislation: “… it is his/her duty to witness to the truth.” [no. 10]. I urge all Catholics serving in public office in and from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to reflect carefully upon this teaching.

It is my prayerful hope that this new teaching document will afford us all the opportunity to reflect more deeply upon God’s plan for the human family, and to take those steps necessary to protect the foundational elements of that plan for the good of marriage and family life.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

It's good to hear that His Eminence has made his position clear.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Since when is five ordinations a year considered few? Many dioceses would be jubilant to get that many.

 

[Monica02]

Since when is five ordinations a year considered few? Many dioceses would be jubilant to get that many.

Five might be a good number for some DIOCESES, however LA is , I believe, the LARGEST ARCHDIOCESE in the country. It would be nice to see a three or four times as many ordained in a larger diocese.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Since when is five ordinations a year considered few? Many dioceses would be jubilant to get that many.

Our archdiocese consists of 301 parishes, and that's not counting the cathedral.
So, five ordinations would be considered few.