Subtle Inversion and Deliberate Removal of Context by a Self-Avowed Homosexually-Tempted Priest


by Pauly Fongemie
October 1, 2012

Feast of St. Remigius,
A Zealous, Orthodox Bishop and Preacher

The priest, a retired diocesan cleric took the pulpit as always, in a quiet understated way on the last Sunday of September, the better to misdirect the people, perhaps? He was filling in as the parish is short handed for a month or so. He has a well known [by those on the alert and not in denial] long history of dissent and heresy, among which are the following public statements of his --- but a handful from a plethora:
Unfortunately for Father Columnist's reasoning, there is no dilemma at all. First, it matters not if the Pope is accused of regression, for that is not a problem for any Pontiff, apart from the political, for it is the duty of the Vicar of Christ to be accused of regression, for the Church --- and the Catholic --- is not of this world, albeit in it for the time being, thus, by definition, in regression as in maintaining the traditions handed down to us by Christ and His Apostles. Fallen man has a vaunted opinion of his ability "to progress." The problem is not with the Pontiff but with those advocating the right to dissent. I want you to recall the point about so-called regression when I address Sunday's scandalous sermon below.
In a local class he taught for St. Joseph's College in Windham he maintained that Jesus Christ, Our Lord, did not know Who He was until the very last moments of His earthly mission on the Cross; that infant Baptism was a mistake and that the Church was "reconsidering" infant Baptism; that it was necessary for the person being Baptized to give full consent of the will and understand the Sacrament to validly receive it ---  bold and blasphemous lies! During one class discussion he excoriated a pro-life student, telling her in front of the entire class, that she "had no right to impose her beliefs on society" and then compared her unfavorably to a despot, at the time, the Iranian Khomeni imam leader. He was risibly angry with her. I also want you to remember this last especially when I mention some of his sermon of this past Sunday which will begin immediately below. All of this preceding is by way of background which provides  part of the context for deciphering the mind of this errant cleric, who once publicly professed his "homosexual fantasies", I kid you not. He remained a priest of the diocese in good standing after that, which reveals the shabby state of the diocese in general. Father likes to incorporate both the Old Testament reading along with the Gospel and New Testament reading in his sermons, in of itself a splendid method. That is, provided he does not misinterpret the meaning as already pronounced by Holy Mother Church through Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Pontiffs in accord with that Tradition. In Father's case a disaster waiting to happen when he is in high dudgeon.

He claimed that the first reading from the Book of Numbers 11:25 about Moses, prophecy, and the people teaches us that God is all inclusive and kind while we human beings can be exclusive and not so kindly motivated. A great oversimplification at best and a deliberate overreach to move forward his agenda at worst. A distortion in both cases because he did not provide any real context. He then went to the Gospel:

"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea." [Mark 9:41] He did not elaborate on this, maybe because this was what he was continuing to do himself? Anyway he went on at length about the upcoming referendum on "Gay Marriage", mentioning that the bishop had taught about our duty here and that we did indeed have to form our conscience rightly. Good so far as it went. Merely fattening the trusting sheep for slaughter. He expanded his delusions about PC exclusivity and inclusivity when he began talking about politics, its tenure of backbiting, etc. Surely no one can argue with this point either. More readying for the slaughter. Here is how he went about undermining the bishop's most recent letter to us, published in the Sunday bulletin, in which we were exhorted to vote against the referendum, although he had decided not to join the pro-family committee this time. [We soldiers in the trenches know the political realities of such a weakened strategy and consider this a sell out, which it is, of course, in the practical sense, whatever the bishop's motives actually are.]

Father repeated that exclusivity of ideas is out and that all ideas ought to be on the table in so many words, because he urged us to listen to the opposition, not to see them as divisive or as "the enemy". He added that we ought to do this with other religions also, that they, too, have something to teach us. We ought to be kind in the words we use for those who oppose us politically, ignoring that reality must include the hard truths, sometimes which cannot be expressed prettily, and never more so on the very abomination of the sundering of the natural law of marriage! Then the bombshell, and I quote: "Whatever side you decide ...." This after carefully prepping us to consider that the other side, the pro "Gay Marriage" side is wholesome and well intended, just like we are, and that the Catholic thing is to acknowledge this and act accordingly. Note "whatever side". The bishop made it abundantly clear that there is only one Catholic side, that we do not have the option of choosing as if both positions are equally valid as in mere opinions.  Father then stressed once more how inclusive we are to be without explaining how we go about this while voting against the sham of same sex "marriage." Without context, it sounds more than suspiciously like we are free to choose and that if we want to be Catholic, that is all-inclusive, whatever that actually means in its application which he leaves up to us, why wink, wink, hint, hint ....

I had thought briefly that Father, in old age and retired had mellowed a bit and moderated his views, sincerely contrite. But as we can see he is up to his old tricks of cunning deceiver once more. And if the MATTER WOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WHOM ONLY GOD KNOWS AT THIS POINT, since our bishop is currently administering two dioceses, one in Buffalo and then supposedly ours still, he can say "I was misunderstood." There is just one slight problem, Father, you made yourself all too clear when you gave it all away, "whatever side you decide" .... There is no choice to choose but rightly as our bishop has stated and restated and stated once again. The polls for the presidential election show that in Maine, Catholics make up the vast majority of Obamerites, once more. If they think they have a choice here and remain Catholic in good conscience, surely the same number will have no problem fancying themselves faithful for choosing for the legitimazation of one of the four sins crying for vengeance.

But just to make certain that we knew what the wink, wink, hint, hint was all about, Father talked about the goodness and perfection of Vatican II that corrected past errors of the Church's prior restrictive, exclusive councils. He purposefully omitted that the Vatican Council II was pastoral and thus had no doctrinal protection from error under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and that prior councils were doctrinal, thus infallible by definition. Truth, infallible truth, is also by definition very exclusive for it cannot include error and sophistry and casuistry!

"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea."


Almost every other week, when not actually every week, we hear sermons about "social justice" usually in context of the poor, but with no reality-based application. All in all, the Maine Catholic is subjected to a continuing echo of Barach Obama's mantra of "social justice". Ergo, why of course these benighted souls will think they are justified to vote Obama back in office! Naturally enough, supposedly, if you do not support Obama, why then, you hate the poor or don't care enough about them at the very least. The priests do not have to say this outright, this is the obvious implication because of the lack of proper explanation. They never consider that those of us who oppose Obama's statist agenda and wild spending even on the undeserving "poor" do so because we really truly do care about the poor who ought to be assisted. Soon the whole facade --- the money printing borrowing scheme --- will come tumbling down like the proverbial house of cards it is, hurting the poorest of the poor the hardest, who have become dependent on government largesse. It is not only wanton practice it is unCatholic to the core. The Catholic Church has until recently promoted care of the poor as Christ did, independent of government, for care of the poor is the work of charity combined with some aspects of justice on occasion, but charity is a virtue of individuals rooted in the love of Almighty God; in this undertaking, I cannot rob you at gunpoint because I want to help another neighbor. You, too, are my neighbor. Together you and I decide, based on our own family's needs, different for each of us, not a one-size fits all policy, how we can assist our brother justly in need.

Government can only force us to give above our own ability to others who may be wasteful, or not any more deserving then we are at best. Example: We cannot afford a cell phone even at the cheapest rate and we would like one for emergencies because we are both ill and aging. We cannot afford one because our taxes are going up all the time in every direction and we are struggling to survive modestly. Our exorbitant taxes go to purchase cell phones for people who cannot afford them but are officially classified as poor. This is manifestly unfair and irrational, but so rational as government goes and all too typical. They do the deciding for us regardless of individual circumstances. Then, too, the way government dispenses our money to others encourages dependency, not just provide a genuine helping hand when absolutely necessary. This last is a sin when you think about it, an actual sin against the poor themselves not merely theft by government force. Justice is the virtue of seeing that people are not deprived of what is owed to them; charity is not. The problem is that the priests never define for us what is meant by "what is truly owed under pain of sin" and how do we know? This is why the Church has always promoted non-governmental sponsored work on behalf of the poor and the destitute because the local people in their community relationships know. No man who claims he can't work because of a "bad back" but then is seen skiing during the winter months at local resorts [a real case] would be able to scam the local Catholic charity network, simply because we could not afford to indulge such a con and would take immediate action to stop it. Thus, those who are honest, and really cannot find any work or truly cannot work would have enough to suffice because there would be more to go around. This is real charity, and where applicable, true social justice. It ought to go without mentioning, but to be sure I will add, that the local Church would survey its members to see if jobs can somehow be shared or provided for through them whenever possible, without government input or interference because of impossible "union rules". There is dignity in work, all work that properly benefits mankind. I know of real people, employers on a small scale, who take less pay for themselves to hire someone, even if only part-time, rather than a handout of alms, because of the dignity they merit. These people are local heroes of sorts, but quiet and unsung; they do not want praise, merely just enough income to keep preserving in this way; they [devout Christians] want to be left alone by government except for defense, and only the most basic, necessary role of a government in touch with reality and the just limits imposed on it through common sense and the Constitution. If government were not so greedy to spend other people's money in such profligate fashion, there would be many more Christian employers doing the same.