The Abomination of Desolation

The Synod on the Family taking place in Rome right now is proving to be one of the most disastrous and significant events in the history of the Church. Satan has surely enthroned his servants in high places if our shepherds are seriously considering allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried, second and third marriages, allowing contraception, and recognizing fornicating couples and active homosexuals as comprising some sort of legitimate alternative to true marriage that must be valued. Our Church leaders have not only embraced the spirit of the age but have fallen down and worshipped this idol of lust. They are in the process of constructing a new Gospel that discards or makes powerless the clear words of Jesus Christ Himself. May God intervene!

So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Matthew 24:15-16

Gay marriage almost a reality in New York. Silence from Catholic leaders.

The New York State legislature is one vote away from making same sex "marriage" legal in New York, and apparently it's all come down to our esteemed Staten Island Senator Andrew Lanza. The Republican, Catholic Lanza (a graduate of Farrell high school) would like us to believe that he is so ignorant and uninformed that he has made it to 47 years of age without forming an opinion on the subject. I hope that this indecisiveness is just a ruse to mollify the liberals, so that after he votes against gay marriage, he can point to his long deliberation on the matter as proof of his judiciousness and fair-minded consideration. However, being from such an overwhelmingly Republican and conservative district as he has, I would have thought Lanza would have slightly more backbone.

In any case, my reason for writing on the subject is to point out yet again the complete and utter silence on this monumental moral debate from our supposed Catholic leaders on Staten Island. Archbishop Dolan did nothing but write a blog post, but even that is more than our co-vicars Finn and Dorney have done. Perhaps they might eventually get around to writing a letter to the Advance, like they did with the Nativity controversy in December, but that's not a given. I heard a prayer intention for Monsignor Dorney at Mass a few weeks ago, so I suppose he's not feeling well, not that he ever did anything for the Church while he was in the bloom of health. With these kinds of leaders, it is such an absolute embarrassment to be a Catholic on Staten Island these days.

I understand that not every priest is going to be a dynamo of action and a leader of men. But shouldn't our leadership positions be filled by men of such caliber? There are roles for shy and retiring priests in monasteries and theological seminaries and helping positions all through the Church, where they can pray, think, write, work and contemplate the Divinity all day long. Heck, Saint Andre Bessette the miracle worker was nothing but a porter, janitor and all-around handyman, and he became a great saint. But listless and passive personalities shouldn't be made pastors and bishops and "co-vicars" of hundreds of thousands of souls, when what is required of such positions are aggressive leaders who are prepared to fearlessly teach and proclaim the Gospel and engage in moral combat with the world. What do we get instead? A couple of men whose most vigorous action in living memory was to try to sell the St. Margaret Mary convent to the Moslems.The evangelicals are standing up for morality. Why can't the Catholics?

Well, it's leaderless resistance in the Catholic Church again. Please write and call Senator Lanza and tell him to vote no for gay marriage.

Archbishop Dolan shows support for gay groups?

Michael Voris recently publicized a visit by Archbishop Dolan to a Manhattan parish which is well known for being "gay-friendly". I encourage everyone to watch this video. During the visit to St. Francis Xavier, Archbishop Dolan was videotaped smiling and cheering as the parish's gay and lesbian groups were presented to him. A defender of the Archbishop could say that the speaker's description of these gay groups was somewhat ambiguous, as they were lauded for their efforts to help "LGBT Catholics return to the Sacraments and find an adult place in the Church of their youth", so the Archbishop could easily have thought that they were faithful Catholic groups trying to help gays live chaste lives in accordance with Catholic morality. However, an examination of the facts would disabuse us of that notion. The Archbishop is well aware of the stance of this parish and their gay groups; they march in the Gay Pride Parade every year under the banner of the parish and are quite public in their affirmation of the gay lifestyle. The archbishop wrote a letter to the lisping, effeminate pastor ordering him not to allow the gay groups to march under the church's banner. They complied by simply turning the banner around, an act of passive aggressive defiance, as everyone knew exactly who they were and who they were affiliated with. I bring up this story because it tells us New Yorkers something disturbing about the man who was appointed to be our spiritual shepherd. But on a more local level, I ask if this man is really going to have enough courage to quash the deal with the MAS, if he doesn't even have enough backbone to deal with an openly gay advocacy group in a Catholic church.

The Validity of Homosexual Vows of Chastity in Religious Life

This is off the topic of Staten Island Catholicism, but I had to recommend one of the best articles I've read in a long time. It deals with the question of homosexuals in the priesthood. A lot of Catholics (some of them sincere), when they want to express their toleration of homosexuality but do not want to seem like full-blown dissidents, will say that it doesn't matter if a priest is a homosexual so long as he is celibate. This penetrating and well written article demolishes that argument and I would recommend all to read it. It originally appeared in the New Oxford Review, which I encourage everyone to subscribe to. Catholic publishing, like almost all magazines and newspapers, is in a severe crisis and needs all the help it can get.

Mysticism, gay Jesuits, and Catholic abortion providers

Just a few links that piqued my interest: The first is this very perceptive article from the NY Times, about the death of mysticism in contemporary religion, specifically Catholicism. The writer is absolutely correct. When was the last time you felt transcendence in a Catholic Church? When was the last time you felt the Spirit of God at Mass?? The last time I felt those things in Church, my priest was a man who took his vocation and our Faith seriously, whose attitude spread to the entire congregation. What I see now in my church-shopping travels are priests who seem to view themselves as bureacrats or administrators of some sort, who rush through Mass in 30 minutes, who would rather tell jokes than preach repentance, who would prefer to talk about the Yankees than the Gospel.

The other article was also from the Times. It was the obituary of a gay Jesuit who was one of the key figures in the gay rights movement for over 30 years. There's a picture of him marching in a gay rights parade with 3 other priests, all wearing their clerical collars. Can someone tell me how this man was permitted to remain in the priesthood for one second after "coming out"?

The 3rd article is about how the group which represents Catholic hospitals has come out in support of President Obama's health care bill, despite the fact that abortion supporters are telling their people that it will allow federal funding of abortion.

Father and his boyfriend.

The Advance ran an obituary the other day for a priest, Rev. Daniel Cassiero, who had served in several Staten Island parishes and schools during the 70s, 80s and 90s. Passing away at the fairly young age of 66, the Advance detailed the various milestones of Father Cassiero's life and career. Towards the tail end of the standard obituary verbiage, the following bombshell was inserted nonchalantly:

"Father Cassiero retired from the VA in 2004 and moved to Albuquerque with his partner, Craig Stoebling. While there, he enjoyed volunteering for the VA pharmacy in Albuquerque.

“He served in a variety of ministries, where he was known for his humor and the quality of his preaching,” said Stoebling, his partner of 10 years."

Whoah.

Obviously, these 2 short sentences don't provide too much information, but I think the fact of a gay priest merits some notice and discussion. I have questions. When did he first break his vow of chastity? If it was during his time in the Church, is it possible that no one noticed that he had taken up with a "partner"? And if they did, why was nothing done about it? He served as an Air Force chaplain over the course of 9 years, with a brief interlude as master of ceremonies at St. Patrick's Cathedral. How did this young and obscure priest from the boonies of Staten Island obtain such a prestigious position? Why does the phrase "Lavender Mafia" come to mind? After retiring from the Air Force, he then became a public school teacher in Virginia. That seems very odd. What was the reason for his early retirement and subsequent career as a public school teacher? Why Virginia? He then returned to the Island and taught at a local Catholic high school. How did he explain his unusual career path to whomever interviewed him at Moore? After getting a Masters in social work, he then spent the remainder of his working life as a social worker with the VA. Why? Did he have a religious function there or was his position purely secular? How was that allowed by his superiors? What kind of priest was he? Was he the kind of priest who inspires young men to consider the priesthood? Or was he the kind of effeminate gay priest who repels young men from anything having to do with religion? If he was breaking his vows, and living an unnatural lifestyle contrary to the Magisterium, how faithful and orthodox could his leadership have been? What could his "quality" preaching have been like if his lifestyle was in such contradiction to basic Christian morality? I would be interested in hearing what his former parishioners have to say about that.

I went to the website of the Albuquerque parish that is burying Father Cassiero. The church describes itself as "a multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-cultural inclusive Christian Community." To be charitable, the wording may be unintentional, but "inclusive" is usually a euphemism meaning that "the rainbow flag flies here".

And again, to be charitable, the quality of journalism at the Advance has sunk to such horrendous levels that their inept grasp of the English language may have misrepresented Father Cassiero's business partner as something totally different. Judging from his Facebook page, I would say not though. (Note- the Facebook page has been changed- here is the original picture:
It took the sex abuse Gethsemane of recent years for the Church, led by Benedict XVI, to take positive action against the pernicious cancer of homosexuals in the priesthood. God willing, the Pope's directives will be effective. How many actively gay priests are still in the priesthood is anyone's guess, although I've heard too many high-pitched lisps and slack morality from the pulpit to think that the number is negligible. No doubt we'll see more reports in coming years of priests retiring to sunny climes with their boyfriends and an Archdiocesan pension. But let us not respond to these monstrous revelations with either resigned silence or meaching tributes to their sense of humor, their prize winning gardenias or the delicate skill with which they threw a tea party. Let us name them for what they are: liars, con artists, oath-breakers, deceivers, and a Fifth Column of corruption within Christ's Church.

UPDATE, APRIL 26, 2019: The Cardinal has published a comprehensive "List of Archdiocesan Clergy Credibly Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Minor or the Subject of Eligible IRCP Compensation Claims". Daniel Cassiero's name was on the list, in the section for clergy whose accusers were eligible for compensation. The men in that section were not officially charged with anything since they were deceased at the time of the accusation and so could not defend themselves. The verbiage strains to make clear that the fact that one's name is on the list does not equate with a guilty conviction in a court of law. However, it must be noted, the claims were deemed credible enough to entitle accusers to financial compensation. Therefore, it seems like some of the anonymous comments here may have validity.