The ‘Marxist’ is at it again…

Archlayman of Munich:
Nothing Wrong with Sodomy!

What passes for “Catholic theology” less than 60 years after the close of the Second Vatican Council is absolutely pathetic.

The dangerous Nouvelle Théologie (“New Theology”), rejected by Pope Pius XII in 1946 and also in 1950, has thoroughly dissolved genuine Catholic intellectual thought and led its proponents exactly to where the impeccably orthodox Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange predicted it would: straight back to Modernism.

A clear example of that can be found in “Cardinal” Reinhard Marx, who has been “Archbishop” of Munich since 2008, and who has been one of “Pope” Francis’ closest advisors for years.

In a new interview with the German secular magazine Stern, published in the Mar. 31, 2022 edition (pp. 67-71), Marx showcases his theological cluelessness in service of the sodomite agenda.

The interview, which was conducted by journalists David Baum and Frank Ochmann, comes on the heels of Marx offering an anniversary “Mass” for the “queer community” of Munich, in which the false shepherd called for an “inclusive church” based on the “primacy of love.”

Our TRADCAST EXPRESS 151 reported on that event (listen from 2:53 to 5:28 min mark):

The Stern interview is a follow-up of sorts to Marx’s homo liturgy, hence its heavy focus on matters of sexual morality, or rather, immorality.

Right off the bat, Marx is very up front about his beliefs: “Homosexuality is not a sin. It corresponds to a Christian attitude when two people, regardless of sex, support one another, in joy and in sorrow. I am speaking of the primacy of love, especially as regards the sexual encounter” (Stern, n. 14 [2022], p. 68; our translation).

The actions Marx describes so euphemistically as the “sexual encounter” among people of the same sex are so depraved and contrary to God’s Law that the Almighty Himself destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone from heaven (see Genesis 19).

What the real “Christian attitude” is regarding unnatural vice, was described by St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans. It sounds a bit different from what Marx has to offer:

And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

(Romans 1:23-32)

Apparently St. Paul was missing that “primacy of love” Marx has now discovered, the one that manifests itself in mutual support of joys and sufferings, regardless of sex — bummer!

Further on in his conversation with Stern, the “Archbishop” of Munich makes it absolutely clear that he believes in a merely human church that changes in accord with the times: “For years I’ve felt more at liberty to say what I think, and I want to move church teaching forward. The church, too, is subject to change, moves in accordance with the times: LGBTQ+ people are part of creation and loved by God, and we are called to oppose discrimination” (p. 68).

It is good to know that Mr. Marx is now finally telling people what he really thinks. Heaven knows what he told people in the past — and perhaps hell does too.

Marx’s idiotic assertion that “LGBTQ+ people are part of creation” shows how theologically bankrupt — or perhaps simply malicious — the man is, since of course there are no “LGBTQ+ people”. There are only human beings — “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). As human beings born with original sin and its consequences, all of us have affections that are to some extent disordered and must be subjected to reason. That is what mortification is about, which is practiced especially during Lent. We may not be able to control how we feel about something or someone, but we are able to control, with God’s assistance, how we respond to our feelings.

The most unmerciful thing anyone could do is to affirm a sinner in his sins, encouraging him in his evil ways, telling him that his immoral actions are not really wrong but are perfectly fine and even part of his “identity”. That is neither loving, nor supportive, nor merciful. “And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion?” (Lk 11:11-12). Now we know — Reinhard Marx would! “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20).

Ironically, it is the secular interviewers who keep reminding “Cardinal” Marx that homosexual acts are a sin according to Catholic teaching. In response, “His Eminence” wonders why they keep harping on sin when the real focus should be on the “quality of relationships”. You see, Marx wants sodomite lust to be enhanced by an emotional dimension — which, of course, would only harden the sodomite in his immorality even more, for it would make it much more difficult for him to give up his vice, since he would then be invested emotionally and not merely sexually. In other words, Marx recommends that people attached to unnatural vice become engrained in it not only with their bodies but with their whole being. That, surely, will gain him a special place in hell.

Not that Marx actually believes in eternal damnation, of course — that would be totally beneath him: “He who threatens homosexuals, or [people] in general, with hell, has not understood anything”, he opines (p. 69). That would include a great number of people, such as Cardinal St. Peter Damian (1007-1072), Doctor of the Church:

Certainly, this vice, which surpasses the savagery of all other vices, is to be compared to no other. For this vice is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls, pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the intellect, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, introduces the diabolical inciter of lust, throws into confusion, and removes the truth completely from the deceived mind. It prepares snares for the one who walks, and for him who falls into the pit, it obstructs the escape. It opens up hell and closes the door of paradise. It makes the citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of the Babylonian underworld. From the star of heaven, it produces the kindling of eternal fire. It cuts off a member of the Church and casts him into the voracious conflagration of raging Gehenna. This vice seeks to topple the walls of the heavenly homeland and busies itself with repairing the old walls of scorched Sodom. For it is this which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity. It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion. It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean. For “all things,” as the apostle states, “are clean to the clean: but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, nothing is clean” [Titus 1:15].

(St. Peter Damian, The Book of Gomorrah, Chapter XVII. In The Book of Gomorrah and St. Peter Damian’s Struggle Against Ecclesiastical Corruption, trans. by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman [New Braunfels, TX: Ite Ad Thomam Books and Media], pp. 122-123; underlining added. Purchases made through this Amazon link benefit Novus Ordo Watch.)

It would also include, of course, our Blessed Lord Himself:

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:40-42)

Clearly, St. Peter and our Lord didn’t understand anything — good thing at least Reinhard Marx has figured things out! As St. Paul once wrote: “For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:22).

Demonstrating his perspicacious grasp of Catholic moral theology further, Marx complains: “There are people who live in a close relationship of love, which also has a sexual manifestation. And we want to say that it has no value? Sure, there are people who want to see sexuality reduced to reproduction, but what do they say to people who cannot have children?” (p. 69). Behold the result of decades of bad philosophy and theology.

God made humans sexual beings for one primary purpose: children. “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen 1:28). No, sexuality is not thereby reduced to reproduction, procreation is merely affirmed to be the primary end of the sexual act, to which all other ends must be subordinated.

Substituting for this traditional doctrine other purposes of sexuality that are placed higher than, or on an equal footing with, procreation — John Paul II’s dangerous “Theology of the Body” comes to mind — gradually leads to a complete erosion of Catholic sexual morality. “Cardinal” Marx’s ideas are simply the ripe fruit of the rotten theology the Vatican II Sect teaches.

In 1944, the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII issued a decree that concerned itself with precisely the inversion of the proper order of the ends of Holy Matrimony and firmly denounced the new ideas as a “revolutionary way of thinking”:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them “Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

(Holy Office Decree of April 1, 1944; Denz. 2295)

In an allocution given to midwives years later, Pope Pius XII also touched upon this subject and clearly rejected what would later be promoted by “Pope” John Paul II (for example, see his exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 11):

‘Personal values’ and the need to respect them, is a subject that for the past twenty years has kept writers busily employed. In many of their elaborate works, the specifically sexual act, too, has a position allotted to it in the service of the person in the married state. The peculiar and deeper meaning of the exercise of the marital right should consist in this (they say) that the bodily union is the expression and actuation of the personal and affective union.

Articles, pamphlets, books and lectures, dealing in particular even with the ‘technique of love,’ have served to spread these ideas and to illustrate them with warnings to the newly-wed as a guide to marriage that will prevent them neglecting, through foolishness, misplaced modesty, or unfounded scrupulosity, what God, who is Creator also of their natural inclinations, offers to them. If a new life results from this complete reciprocal gift of the husband and wife, it is a consequence that remains outside or, at the most, at the circumference, so to say, of the ‘personal values’: a consequence that is not excluded, but is not to be considered as a focal point of marital relations.

Now, if this relative appreciation merely emphasized the value of the persons of the married couple rather than that of the offspring, such a problem could, strictly speaking, be disregarded. But here there is a question of a serious inversion of the order of values and of purposes which the Creator Himself has established. We are face to face with the propagation of a body of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to serene, deep and serious Christian thought.

(Pope Pius XII, Address Vegliare con Sollecitudine, Oct. 29, 1951)

The fact that some married couples are naturally unable to have children is a mere matter of circumstance, it does not change the essence of the marital act. The sexual act in which they willfully engage is still one that by nature results in the procreation of children. It is due to a circumstance beyond their control that it does not, in their particular case (per accidens), lead to that result to which it is geared per se.

The sodomite, on the other hand, willfully engages in an act that consists of an abhorrent misuse of the generative faculties for the satisfaction of a disordered pleasure. The act deliberately frustrates the purpose for which these faculties exist. This is not the case for the married who are naturally unable to have children, a circumstance, we might add, which is often a source of great sorrow for them. To call the sodomitical abuse of the reproductive organs a “manifestation” of “love”, as Marx does, adds an additional layer of malice and perversion to an already-depraved act.

Ironically, Marx affirms that the standard by which the Christian must measure his actions is the Gospel (p. 69). What gospel he believes in, he does not say (cf. Gal 1:8-9), but it is obviously not the Gospel in which our Blessed Lord taught with regard to holy purity: “You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:27-28). If, then, the mere lustful glance, deliberately willed, at a member of the opposite sex, constitutes a mortal sin of impurity, what does “His Eminence” think the lustful glance at a member of the same sex constitutes?

For the objection that his own doctrinal handbook — the official Catechism of the Vatican II religion — forbids homosexual acts, Marx has an easy answer: “The Catechism is not set in stone. One is permitted to doubt what it says” (p. 69). Having rejected the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and his own (compromised) Catechism, one may be permitted to infer that Marx only accepts himself as the infallible rule of Faith and morals.

In any case, another German Novus Ordo bishop who recently had a problem with the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church for is Georg Bätzing — and for the same reason:

Batzing’s immediate predecessor as head of the German Bishops’ Conference, by the way, was Reinhard Marx. Now Marx has more influence on Francis than Batzing does, so perhaps the “Pope” will soon discover some more human dignity and amend the catechism so it finally agrees with the latest ideas so popular in the German church.

By the way: Asked whether he has ever been in love, Marx responds in a most curious manner. He says that naturally he too finds “persons” (Personen) attractive (p. 69) — he deliberately avoids saying “women”, and it sounds as odd in English translation as it does in the German original.

Good to know.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons (Botulph)
License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.