The guy that finds “virtue” in stable homo relationships…
Francis appoints Berlin’s Homo-Friendly “Cardinal” Woelki as new “Archbishop” of Cologne
On July 11, 2014, the Vatican issued a press release announcing that Berlin’s “Cardinal” Rainer Maria Woelki had been appointed by the Modernist-in-Chief Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) as the new archbishop of Cologne to fill the vacancy left by the conservative (by Novus Ordo standards) “Cardinal” Joachim Meisner, who had resigned in February of this year. Woelki’s appointment is significant for two reasons: (1) Cologne is Germany’s largest diocese; (2) Woelki is soft on the homosexual agenda. Here are the relevant news stories:
- Official Vatican Announcement
- “Woelki to Cologne”
- “Berlin Cardinal Transferred to Germany’s Largest Archdiocese”
- “Berlin Cardinal Appointed to Germany’s Largest Archdiocese”
Mr. Woelki is known for his “open-mindedness” regarding pervert relationships, to the point that he’s even been nominated for an award for it. John Allen sums it up nicely:
[Woelki] became an apostle of dialogue, holding meetings with leaders of the gay community and saying that, while the church believes marriage is between a man and a woman, it can also see that a long-term caring relationship between two people of the same sex deserves special moral consideration.
Woelki developed into a sort of Francis before his time, calling on the church to dial down the rhetoric in the culture wars.
“The church is not a moral institution that goes around pointing its finger at people,” he said. “The church is a community of seekers and believers, and it would like to help people find happiness in life [sic].”
In 2012, a German “Alliance against Homophobia” actually nominated Woelki for a “Respect Award,” saying he had promoted a “new cooperation with homosexuals in society.” (Woelki expressed gratitude but politely declined.)
You can see why Francis would transfer him to a diocese where he can do even more damage.
Of course, like clockwork, some Novus Ordo “conservative” bloggers started trying to find ways to say that this isn’t necessarily cause for concern, and that Woelki did not say what the evil media quoted him as saying, or that it was taken out of context, or that it was just a bad translation. Sound familiar?
Before we look at some things that have been written about this, let’s look at what Cologne’s new “archbishop” actually said that triggered this whole controversy. The words in question were originally uttered by Mr. Woelki in Mannheim at the biannual German Catholic Conference (Katholikentag) in May of 2012. He said verbatim:
Wenn zwei Homosexuelle Verantwortung füreinander übernehmen, wenn sie dauerhaft und treu miteinander umgehen, muss man das in ähnlicher Weise sehen wie heterosexuelle Beziehungen.
If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they take care of each other permanently and faithfully, this must be viewed in a similar manner as with heterosexual relationships.
It is true that here Woelki is speaking not of the act of sodomy, but of the “care” that same-sex “lovers” show each other. Yet, what the “cardinal” says here is still completely unacceptable. “Faithfulness”, whether permanent or temporary, in a sodomite relationship — just like in an adulterous or otherwise impure heterosexual relationship — is not a virtue, is not something good, something to be admired or praised, accepted or recognized. It is an abomination because it perpetuates an anti-natural, wicked state of affairs and is grounded and occurs in the context of a relationship that is fundamentally and intrinsically disordered and vile. The romantic affection between two people of the same sex is intrinsically depraved and disgusting. This is something Woelki leaves out of consideration completely, because for him, in typical Novus Ordo fashion, all homosexuality is reduced to sexual acts, when this is merely one component of it.
So, for Woelki to look for partial “virtue” in homosexual affection, is grotesque and absurd. By analogy, one might as well see “virtue” in the loyalty two partners in crime show in not telling on each other, or decency in a crook who scams everyone except for elderly widows. But Woelki’s attempt is not surprising, because in the Modernist Vatican II religion, everything can be separated into elements and praised in part, so that they believe in “partial” virtue, “partial” faith, “partial” church membership, etc., which always proves to be the slippery slope leading, for all intents and purposes, to practical acceptance of a given error or evil.
In any case, in subsequent interviews with German newspapers, Woelki was asked to elaborate on his comments made at the Catholic Conference regarding the “care” and mutual “responsibility” shown by perverts towards each other. In order to counteract claims about bad translations and distorted contexts, below we are providing not only a faithful translation of the “cardinal’s” words but also the necessary links and German original text so everyone can see exactly what was said and in what context and can access the entire transcripts.
Here are the relevant excerpts of the interviews:
ZEIT: Vom Katholikentag wird eine Aussage von Ihnen zitiert, die Ihnen eine Menge Ärger eingetragen hat. Sie sagten über homosexuelle Partnerschaften: »Ich halte es für vorstellbar, dass dort, wo Menschen Verantwortung füreinander übernehmen, wo sie in einer dauerhaften homosexuellen Beziehung leben, dass das in ähnlicher Weise zu heterosexuellen Partnerschaften anzusehen ist.« Stehen Sie zu diesem Satz?
Woelki: »Man hüte sich, sie in irgendeiner Weise ungerecht zurückzusetzen«, heißt es im Katechismus über Menschen, die homosexuell veranlagt sind. Wenn ich das ernst nehme, darf ich in homosexuellen Beziehungen nicht ausschließlich den »Verstoß gegen das natürliche Gesetz« sehen, wie es der Katechismus formuliert. Ich versuche auch wahrzunehmen, dass da Menschen dauerhaft füreinander Verantwortung übernehmen, sich Treue versprochen haben und füreinander sorgen wollen, auch wenn ich einen solchen Lebensentwurf nicht teilen kann. Der Lebensentwurf, für den wir als katholische Kirche einstehen, ist die sakramentale Ehe zwischen einem Mann und einer Frau, die offen ist für die Weitergabe des Lebens. Dies habe ich so auch auf dem Katholikentag in Mannheim unmittelbar vor der von Ihnen zitierten Aussage gesagt.
ZEIT: At the Catholic Conference you made a statement that has gotten you into a lot of trouble. You said regarding homosexual partnerships: “I could imagine that where people take responsibility for each other, where they live in a permanent homosexual relationship, that this is to be viewed in a similar manner as with heterosexual relationships.” Do you stand by this affirmation?
Woelki: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”, the [Novus Ordo] Catechism [n. 2358] says about people who have homosexual tendencies. If I take this seriously, then I’m not allowed to view homosexual relationships exclusively as being “contrary to the natural law”, as the Catechism puts it [n. 2357]. I try also to recognize that in such relationships people take responsibility for each other in a permanent manner, have pleged loyalty to each other and want to care for each other, even if I cannot approve of such a way of life. The way of life we as Catholics stand for is the sacramental wedlock between one man and one woman that is open to procreation. This I also said in just this way at the Catholic Conference in Mannheim immediately before the statement you quoted.
And another interview:
[FR]: Wir denken bei „Methode Woelki“ auch an Ihre Aussagen auf dem Mannheimer Katholikentag über die Anerkennung für homosexuelle Paare, die füreinander Verantwortung übernehmen. Weiten Sie damit nicht die Perspektive über den Lehrsatz der katholischen Kirche, dass gelebte Homosexualität dem Schöpferplan zuwiderlaufe?
[Woelki]: Wo immer Menschen füreinander da sind, verdient das Anerkennung. Bei erwachsenen Kindern, die für ihre Eltern sorgen, ist uns das selbstverständlich. Wenn nun gleichgeschlechtliche Partner ein vergleichbares Maß an Fürsorge zeigen, kann man ihnen doch nicht die Achtung dafür versagen. Ich habe jüngst von einem Paar gehört, wo der eine Partner den anderen in schwerer Krankheit gepflegt und bis zum Sterben begleitet hat. Das ist menschlich wertvoll und anerkennenswert.
[FR]: Wie könnte sich diese Anerkennung dann zeigen? Was ist zum Beispiel mit der Möglichkeit für offen homosexuell lebende Katholiken, sich in kirchlichen Gremien zu engagieren?
[Woelki]: Das kirchliche Lehramt hat wiederholte Male klar und unmissverständlich festgestellt, dass homosexuelle Handlungen „in sich nicht in Ordnung sind“, gegen das natürliche Gesetz verstoßen und deshalb von unserer Glaubensüberzeugung her nicht gebilligt werden können. Daran mache ich selbstverständlich keinerlei Abstriche.
[FR]: Aber was heißt das nun?
(Woelki schweigt lange und überlegt)
[FR]: Geht Ihnen gerade die Frage durch den Kopf, ob es der Sache schadet, wenn wir so auf diesem Punkt insistieren oder Sie sich womöglich noch weiter aus dem Fenster lehnen?
[Woelki]: Tatsächlich haben schon meine Worte von Mannheim sogleich die Kritiker auf den Plan gerufen. Nicht zu vergessen das „Internet-Lehramt“ mit seinen gewohnt polemischen Attacken, die gegen einen Kardinal gerichtet, womöglich noch erbitterter ausfallen als ohnehin schon. Weitere Polarisierung bringt uns aber sicher nicht voran.
[FR]: Die Bundespolitik ist gerade dabei, das zu tun, was sie in Mannheim gefordert haben – mehr Anerkennung für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare durch Besserstellung im Steuerrecht.
[Woelki]: Es ist Angelegenheit des säkularen Staates, solche Dinge für seine Bürger zu ordnen. Klar ist: Für uns als katholische Kirche ist die Ehe von Mann und Frau, die offen ist für Kinder, das Ideal des Zusammenlebens und auch das Modell, das wir favorisieren. Auch im Grundgesetz stehen Ehe und Familie als natürliche Grundeinheit der Gesellschaft (so die allg. Erklärung der Menschenrechte) unter besonderem staatlichem Schutz.
[FR]: Regarding the “Woelki Method”, we are also reminded of the statements you made at the Mannheim Catholic Conference about recognition of homosexual couples who take responsibility for each other. Aren’t you thereby expanding the perspective about the doctrine of the Catholic Church that active homosexuality is contrary to the design of the Creator?
[Woelki]: Wherever people are there for one another, this deserves recognition. When it comes to adult children who care for their parents, we take this for granted. So when homosexual partners show a comparable measure of care, we cannot refuse them this respect. Recently I heard about a [homosexual] couple where one partner nursed the other throughout serious illness and accompanied him until death. This is worthy of great respect on a human level and deserves credit.
[FR]: How, then, could this respect be shown? For example, what about the possibility of Catholics who live in an openly homosexual way to participate in church committees?
[Woelki]: The church’s magisterium has reiterated several times in clear and unmistakable terms that homosexual acts “are in themselves disordered”, that they are contrary to the natural law and therefore cannot be approved as far as our faith convictions go. Of course I do not compromise on any of that.
[FR]: But then what does this mean?
(Woelki remains silent for a long time and deliberates)
[FR]: Are you currently pondering whether there will be undesirable consequences if we insist on this point or if perhaps you go out on a limb even further?
[Woelki]: Indeed even what I said in Mannheim immediately brought critics into the arena. We must not forget the “internet magisterium” with its usual polemical attacks, which, directed against a cardinal, might turn out even more acrimonious than they already would anyway. But surely any further polarization won’t help us move forward.
[FR]: The federal government is currently doing what you called for in Mannheim — more respect for homosexual couples by granting them tax advantages.
[Woelki]: It is the business of the secular state to arrange for things like that for its citizens. It is clear that for us as the Catholic Church, the marriage between a man and a woman, open to children, is the ideal of living together and also the model favored by us. Even in the [German] constitution matrimony and the family are specially protected by the state as the natural basic social unit (according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
This is exactly what Woelki said, like it or not. One can see that he’s trying to steer a “middle course” between rejecting perversion and accepting it, by recognizing the “good” found among perverts with regard to each other. And this is completely unacceptable.
In addition, regardless of Woelki’s intent, this endeavor to find a “middle way” between rejecting all same-sex relationships and endorsing them will prove to be but the tip of the first domino that will knock all the rest of them over in due time. We have seen this again and again in the Novus Ordo Church and also in secular society, whether it be on issues such as religious liberty, freedom of conscience, abortion, divorce, contraception, etc. It always begins with this sort of compromise, which, because it is flawed in principle, eventually leads to a complete surrender of moral truth, at least in practice.
This is how the Novus Ordo Sect has caused Catholic truth to be eclipsed and gradually rendered powerless. Mr. Woelki is about to embark on the same ship again, and his insistence that holy matrimony between a man and a woman, open to life, is the “model favored by” the church will be considered as laughable as irrelevant in the near future. Notice how, in the second interview, Woelki couldn’t really give a clear answer when the interviewer challenged him, “But then what does this mean [in practice]?” Here you can already see that Woelki has no idea about even the desired practical outcome of his attempt to have it both ways.
Indeed, what good could possibly be accomplished by the “Catholic Church” recognizing that some sodomites “care” for each other (in a twisted sort of way, since they obviously don’t give a hoot about each other’s souls)? Nothing whatsoever! It would only serve as the stepping stone to accepting homosexual unions, at least for all practical intents and purposes.
This is something the following two blog posts, unfortunately, do not take into account. These are “conservative” Novus Ordo bloggers who try to exonerate Cologne’s new “archbishop” by pointing out what he “really” said. The problem is just that what he really said is still unacceptable:
- “No. Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki did not say that!” – Part 1 (Te Deum Laudamus Blog)
- “No. Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki did not say that!” – Part 2 (Te Deum Laudamus Blog)
Aside from what Woelki really said, however, we must also take into consideration that, although we are to understand another’s words in the most charitable way possible, nevertheless we cannot be naive and leave out of account the fact that Modernists often are deliberately ambiguous, even contradicting themselves at times, in order to appear in doubt or confusion and thus to allow for their errors to spread with impunity, as exposed by Pope Pius VI.
Let’s not be foolish here: There is nothing stopping “Cardinal” Woelki from stepping up to a microphone and denouncing sodomy and sodomite relationships in no uncertain terms — just to make sure everyone knows where he stands and the evil media don’t cause a false impression ever again. But of course, he does no such thing.
Instead, Woelki sat idly by as Germany’s Gay and Lesbian Association (LSVD) nominated him for a “Respect Award” that same year. As John Allen says in the quote above, Woelki declined the nomination, but the reason why he did so adds more fuel to the fire: Because he did not want to be honored for merely “showing respect” to perverts, which, he said, should be a “matter of course” for a “Christian”! (source)
Yes, for Woelki, further confusing and eliminating the boundaries between the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and mortally sinful sodomite relationships, and further eroding Catholic moral principles in a godless society neck-deep in the worst kinds of impurity, is equal to showing “respect towards all people” which is a “matter of course” for him as a “Catholic Christian.” Where is the respect shown to salutary truth and the good of souls?!
Apparently Pope Benedict XIV had never gotten the memo Woelki got because in 1749 His Holiness wrote:
A new kind of war against the enemies of our salvation must now be waged. The license of thinking and acting must be curbed. The luxury and the pride of life must be restrained and cupidity for gain must be kept in check. All impurity must be purged and all enmity eliminated.All hatreds must be abolished. Sound the trumpets and declare a spiritual war against the enemies of the cross of Christ. Strengthen the languid hands of your soldiers and straighten their bent knees. In the first place, make straight the path for those who have decided to come to this citadel of religion, this impregnable stronghold. Let them hear from you that they are not called here for leisurely roaming nor to view strange sights; but they are summoned to carry arms in a Christian militia and to undertake the labors of fighting and war. What are the arms that Satan fears if not the vigils of the pious, their prayers, fastings, almsgivings, their works of Christian humility and of mercy? By these the tyrannical domination of human cupidity is overcome, and the kingdom of love is strengthened and extended.
(Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Peregrinantes, nn. 11-12; underlining added.)
Whether he realizes it or not, Woelki’s tightrope act can only have one possible outcome: the public perception of homosexual relationships as morally equal to heterosexual ones, and the practical acceptance of sodomy and perverted relationships by “Catholics” with a concomitant condemnation of all opposition as “hateful”, “homophobic”, and “unchristian.” Woelki is thereby proving himself to be a very effective servant of the Gaystapo, at best as a “useful idiot.”
Below you will find a very interesting and informative radio interview with the courageous Randy Engel, an author and researcher into the infestation of homosexuals and pederasts in the Vatican II Church. Though she is not a sedevacantist and believes the Vatican II Sect to be the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have lots of respect for Mrs. Engel, who brings competence, charity, clarity, and courage to this important battle.
In late 2013, Engel wrote this scathing Open Letter to Francis, excoriating him for the pederasty and homosexuality in his church, and his failure to do anything meaningful about it. This letter is a must-read that will leave you absolutely speechless.
Randy Engel is the author of the 2006 monumental work The Rite of Sodomy, which is difficult to obtain in print but has been released in multi-volume electronic reading format:
- The Rite of Sodomy: Volume 1 (Kindle edition)
- The Rite of Sodomy: Volume 2 (Kindle edition)
- The Rite of Sodomy: Volume 3 (Kindle edition)
- The Rite of Sodomy: Volume 4 (Kindle edition)
- The Rite of Sodomy: Volume 5 (Kindle edition)
- The Rite of Sodomy (Paperback; 1282 pp.)
Image source: Wikimedia Commons
License: CC BY-SA 3.0