By Fabien Tepper, Contributor / November 6, 2013
After months of false starts, the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to legalize same-sex marriage, and Pope Francis’s recent comments about homosexuality may have played a small but significant role, reports suggest.
At least one Catholic lawmaker cited the pope’s statement as she explained her recent decision, and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, also a Catholic, used the pope’s words to articulate his own reasons for supporting the bill. Previously, he had been criticized for not pushing hard enough to rally support for the bill.
… [W]ith polls showing public opinion moving toward greater acceptance of gay marriage, the events in Illinois raise questions about whether opposition among Catholic lawmakers could be waning.
Pope Francis caused international ripples in July, when he warned that the Roman Catholic Church had become too focused on its opposition to homosexuality, asking, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?”
At that point, the Illinois bill had passed through the state Senate but was languishing in the House. The House convened in both January and May without voting on the bill, as its supporters struggled to assemble a majority amid a tide of organized opposition, with churches among the leading opponents.
Res ipsa loquitur?
Meanwhile, there’s a cleric in Rome who’s willing to challenge what he calls the Satanic trinity of relativism, individualism, and disobedience. Rorate Caeli notes an interview in Catholica with Don Ariel Levi di Gualdo, from which I excerpt the following:
“In this book [E Satana si fece trino (And Satan became trinity)], I [Don Ariel] explain that … during the … years [following Vatican II], we returned to the period that preceded the Council of Trent, with its corruption and alarming internal struggles for power. After abundant discourses ad nauseum about dialogue, collegiality – for nearly half a century now – new forms of clericalism and authoritarianism have emerged. The progressive champions of dialogue and collegiality use aggression and coercion against anyone who thinks outside of the “ religiously correct.” It is always possible to make light of the dogmas of the Faith, to deconstruct them according to an anthropological logic, but woe to those who dare place in doubt the “sacred” and “infallible” character of the magisterium exercised by some theologians imbued by Hegel and the theology of Karl Rahner – thoughts that lead them alongside modernism and heterodoxies of every type: that [type of] man will be banned from this united and powerful “clique” in the Roman Curia as well as from the Pontifical Universities.
To this we need to add that from the 1970s onwards, there has been the insertion of homosexual ecclesiastics in which the number, by cooptation, has increased considerably over the years. Today these constitute a veritable lobby – mafia-style – powerful and ready to destroy whoever stands in their way. Processes in the inversion of values have emerged – good becomes bad, virtue is changed into vice, and vice-versa. … We have seen then, in many cases, the innocent punished and marginalized and the culprits of grave moral conduct, protected [Ahem?]. When it was seen opportune to expel someone from the Roman Curia, they were welcomed and protected by bishops in those dioceses where circles of influence have been installed, surrounded prevalently by homosexuals. [Here we go with Randy Engel and The Rite of Sodomy being vindicated all over again.] …
It is paradoxical that under the pontificate of the “theologian Pope” [Benedict XVI] we have seen an increase in nominations, to key positions in Church government, of individuals who are in total contradiction to what the theological premises of Benedict XVI represent [Ahem?]: prelates of dubious theology or of insignificant profile with respect to the present challenges, such as that of the new evangelization. A common trait characterizes them: behind the façade of humility – the prevalence, not of the Church, but of their own person. In the decades to come, I do not know how the pontificate of ‘the splendid doctrine’ will be judged, but by the facts [it is] contradicted with the presence of these people. Nevertheless, at present, I ask myself how [is it possible] that the hidden influence (puppeteers) of a few, has become so powerful to end up reducing our Peter, navigator without a crew, in a barque tossed by waves and tempest gales, to such impotence?
… God will not judge us on our words, but according to the wisdom of our works (Mt. 11,19). We will have to respond to God for the talents that He has given us, and eventually for that talent buried for fear of thieves. (Mt. 25, 12). … Without any doubt, when historians study this pontificate [of Benedict XVI] emerging from such a difficult and distressing age, in this context of profound decadence that weighs on the Church, they will show how Benedict attempted to act for the good of the Church of Christ, on the basis of what the circumstances permitted him to do. The crowds, at his death, will undoubtedly, not shout “santo subito”, but it is probable that within the decades to come he will be “santo sicuro” (a saint for sure).
Once again, oremus!