Apostate German Novus Ordo Bishop: “Homosexuality is willed by God”

“Love cannot be a sin” and other brilliant insights…

Apostate German Novus Ordo Bishop:
“Homosexuality is willed by God”

Helmut Dieser (b. 1962) is a Modernist apostate who poses as the Catholic bishop of Aachen, Germany. “Pope” Francis appointed him to that position in 2016.

On Sep. 8, 2022, the publication Christ & Welt (“The Christian & the World”), which is a supplement to the mainstream German paper Die Zeit, published an interview with “Bishop” Dieser that illustrates the utter theological depravity that infests the minds of these false shepherds in the Land of Luther. There is simply nothing Catholic left in these people — they have sold their souls to Modernism, and it doesn’t seem to trouble them in the least.

What Dieser says in his interview with editor-in-chief Georg Löwisch is a theological train wreck of gargantuan proportions. Early on, “His Excellency” makes the following profound claim: “God always says: You can be who you are, if only you really want it”. It’s too bad the fake bishop doesn’t reveal where in Scripture or Tradition he finds this interesting idea, but his comment prepares the reader for how much theological depth and prowess to expect from the rest of the conversation.

The simple fact of the matter is that “Bp.” Dieser does not believe — not in divine revelation, not in the Gospel, not in the Catholic Church, not in dogmatic truth. His revolutionary theology reflects the typical errors of our time: Historicism, Liberalism, Naturalism, Existentialism, a false concept of revelation — and, of course, a denial of original sin or at least its consequences. In short, Dieser is simply not a Catholic. He is one of those “false apostles … deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13), and concerning this he leaves absolutely no doubt.

Christ & Welt presents the interview with the big headline: “Homosexuality is willed by God” — an abridged but accurate quote of Dieser’s words. The image below shows the title page of the Sep. 8 edition. For copyright reasons, we cannot present the full text of the interview here; however, a few quotes (our translation) and paraphrases are permitted for the sake of evaluation and commentary. (The German text is available online, but it is behind a paywall.)

Dieser, we must note up front, is very much involved with the controversial German “Synodal Path”. He is in charge of the synodal forum that bears the ominous title “Life in successful relationships – living love in sexuality and relationships (“Leben in gelingenden Beziehungen – Liebe leben in Sexualität und Partnerschaft”). Forewarned is forearmed!

Asked about how he reconciles his liberal stance on sexual morality with the “commandments and prohibitions” of the Church, Dieser claims that the interpretation and application of the Ten Commandments is “always time-bound”. He then points to “Pope” Francis’ change of the Novus Ordo Catechism regarding the Fifth Commandment and the death penalty to illustrate his point — clever fellow! Of course it was clear that once Francis had made one doctrinal modification to the Catechism, the floodgates were opened, in principle at least, to perpetual change. See how much hinges on accepting the charlatan Francis as a true Pope!

In his interview with Mr. Löwisch, Dieser shows how far removed he is from reality. While ceding ground to the woke left concerning allegedly “non-binary” people, he has no qualms about accusing traditional Catholic morality of maintaining a “questionable understanding of sexuality” and noting that he doesn’t “wish to return to that time” before the sexual revolution of the 1960s. But of course! What would 1900 years of Catholic teaching and practice know about human sexuality, when compared to the latest hip “science”? As Pope St. Pius X once said, “pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 40).

When the interviewer brings up God’s creation of man, things get really wild. “Man is not self-sufficient”, Dieser points out and adds that human sexuality allows man to go beyond himself and approach the other. Reminiscent of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, the false bishop then notes that it is a part of life for man to give himself to another. He goes on to ask: “What about people who feel attracted not to the other sex but to their own?”

Such theological argumentation is simply abysmal, as we will now show.

First, although it is true that our human nature is not self-sufficient and we need others to achieve even temporal happiness, this fact simply establishes that we can deduce from human nature that there must be a way to produce offspring — which indeed there is! “It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself” (Gen 2:18); “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen 1:28). God Himself created human nature in such a way that procreation would be possible. That this process of procreation would have to be carried out in accordance with His Law, like anything else in the created universe, goes without saying.

Second, it is also true that some people feel attracted to members of their own sex rather than to members of the other sex. But from this empirical observation about what is, Dieser illegitimately deduces what ought to be. From the mere fact that some people feel a certain way, he infers (incorrectly) that it is a natural impulse given by God, much like the natural sensation of hunger, and so he concludes that there must therefore be a morally licit way to satisfy that longing.

However, like any good Modernist, Dieser leaves out of account entirely the fact of original sin and the horrific consequences it brought not only to man but to all of creation: “Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now” (Rom 8:21-22).

The most evident consequence of original sin under which we all labor is concupiscence, the tendency we find in ourselves by which we are drawn to sin. We are, by our fallen human nature, constantly tempted to commit sin. Pride, greed, envy, gluttony, anger, lust, covetousness, sloth, vanity — these and many other sins are appealing to us because of concupiscence. Although original sin is wiped out in us through baptism, and sanctifying grace is restored, by the merits of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, concupiscence remains and must be overcome through prayer and penance, especially mortification.

This is the Way of the Cross we must all walk, with God’s help (see Lk 14:27), if we wish to “enter by the narrow gate” into Heaven (Lk 13:24). It is what St. Paul was talking about when he told the Corinthians:

Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air: But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

(1 Corinthians 9:24-27)

During Lent (and hopefully also at other times), Catholics practice mortification and self-denial. We deprive ourselves, to some extent and for a certain amount of time, of pleasures that are perfectly licit in themselves, especially food. This is done for many reasons, but especially to do penance for our sins (cf. Lk 13:3) and to train the will so we will resist temptation and not fall into illicit pleasures, which are sinful.

In short, we must suffer in this life. But thanks to our Blessed Lord and Redeemer, this suffering is not needless. United to His Sacrifice on the Cross, and in utter dependence on His grace, our suffering can now merit us eternal life. All this is explained masterfully by Fr. Edward Leen in his book Why the Cross? (1938).

When, therefore, even the legitimate desires of our fallen nature, such as hunger and thirst, must be brought into subjection, lest we fall into sin, how much more then must we become master over the illegitimate desires of our sinful nature!

Thus we see how specious “Bp.” Dieser’s argumentation is. The fact that some people experience a sexual attraction to members of their own sex does not mean the attraction is licit to act upon. It only means that their appetite in that regard is unsound, which is a consequence of original sin. They are called to overcome their disordered affections through mortification, just as the rest of humanity has the same obligation with regard to all other inclinations to sin they may experience. Not even the Apostles were exempt from this temporal affliction and its attendant obligations: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway” (1 Cor 9:27).

To be clear: Experiencing same-sex attraction is not sinful by itself. Sin is always in the will, and where a temptation is not willed, there is no sin. Indeed, even those attracted to members of the opposite sex — i.e. the vast majority of humanity — do not for that reason have a license to have their desires fulfilled. For, just because the desire is intrinsically lawful, this does not mean there may not be circumstances which make it unlawful. Our Blessed Lord taught this explicitly. Although He mercifully forgave the woman caught in adultery, He immediately exhorted her to “sin no more” (Jn 8:11), and He was very clear that even a lustful thought or desire, if fully consented to, constitutes a mortal sin of impurity: “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 5:28).

Very often in life we must fight an otherwise perfectly lawful desire, either under pain of sin or simply because a certain situation demands it. It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that just because we experience a longing, it is for that reason also permissible to satisfy it. For example, think of a woman whose husband has left her. She cannot now enjoy the lawful pleasures that pertain to the married state, even if it is in no wise her fault. She has no choice but to suffer — that, indeed, is God’s will for her — but this suffering she ought to unite to the sufferings of Christ, who will make it availing for her unto salvation: “…if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us” (Rom 8:17-18); “A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him” (2 Tim 2:11-12a); “…but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved” (Mt 10:22). The Gospel of our Blessed Lord is truly the Good News.

Dieser ignores all of that — in fact, he denies it, as becomes even more evident in his subsequent comments. Challenged concerning the Catholic position on the sinfulness of homosexual acts and consent to such feelings and desires, Dieser asserts: “Sin is a questionable term [Begriff] here. After all, sin is something one does although one could act otherwise.”

Notice how the anti-Catholic pseudo-bishop here claims that sodomites simply cannot help but commit acts of sodomy. But that is a manifest lie, for the freedom of the will is part of human nature and is indeed a necessary component of any human act. It is true that there are circumstances in which our free will is not (fully) exercised — as, for instance, if we are intoxicated or sleepwalking — but these are not human acts and are certainly not what Dieser is talking about.

Rather, the Aachen apostate’s claim is that people who cannot help experiencing same-sex attraction — which is entirely possible — have, for that reason, no other choice but to act on that attraction, which of course is false. It is a denial of free will, one of Martin Luther’s many heresies: “If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 5; Denz. 815).

Now, it is often difficult to overcome temptation, especially regarding sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, as certainly original sin has weakened our will considerably; but that is where God’s grace comes in to assist us: “And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (2 Cor 12:7-9; see also Denz. 792).

In short: We must overcome our inclinations to sin with God’s supernatural help because our final goal is a supernatural one, the Beatific Vision in Heaven. This life is a constant spiritual battle, a battle we must win at all costs (cf. Mt 5:29-30); and to that end, our Blessed Redeemer has given us His very Self — Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity — not “merely” once on the Cross 2000 years ago, but even daily on our altars in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and as the “Prisoner of Love” hidden in the tabernacle.

All of that is entirely missing from “Bp.” Dieser’s remarks, who quite obviously does not possess, much less preach, the Roman Catholic Faith, but instead offers the unfortunate souls who listen to him, a pernicious diet of Modernism, Naturalism, Protestantism, and Existentialism. Instead of helping sinners abandon sin and be regenerated in the saving grace of Christ, he tells them that their sins aren’t sins and that indeed God Himself is the author of their disordered passions and inclinations. What a wolf this “shepherd” is! “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Mt 7:15).

When the interviewer points out that it is traditional Catholic doctrine that the chief purpose of human sexuality is the generation of new life, Dieser replies that in his opinion, such an “interpretation” is unnecessary. “There is male and female; the variations are manifold. And so it is possible that [what is] male is attractive to a man and [what is] female to a woman, and that they experience in that the feeling of not wanting to remain alone. This desire [Regung] is willed by God: not remaining alone! So why should I have to judge this in a fundamentally different way between homosexual and heterosexual orientations?!”

Once again we see the anti-Catholic pseudo-bishop’s Naturalism rearing its ugly head. The man speaks as if original sin had never been committed, as if there were no consequences to created nature on account of Adam’s fall.

As we already mentioned, even perfectly natural heterosexual desires must often be fought against; for example, if a man is attracted to a woman who is already married or has taken religious vows: “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 5:28). So much for “not wanting to remain alone”!

Next, Mr. Löwisch wants to know if Dieser is saying that God has no problem with homosexual relationships. To which the Modernist from Aachen replies: “What we find in creation is good. Homosexuality is not a mistake on God’s part, it is willed by God in the same measure as creation itself: He saw that it was good, we read in creation history.”

And there we have an incredibly audacious bombshell of heretical blasphemy! Here “Bishop” Dieser is asserting that God positively wills same-sex relationships as a part of the created order!

His argument is entirely specious, of course, but clever. He establishes a false dichotomy by claiming that either homosexuality is good or else we must accuse God of having made a mistake, and he withholds (and implicitly denies) the revealed truth regarding original sin and its consequences. This extremely deceitful combination is deadly. The correct answer is one that neither accuses God of failure nor condones sodomitical unions but points out that ever since Adam’s sin in Paradise, our passions no longer obey our reason and must be brought into subjection, a constant battle from which we can only emerge victorious with God’s help through prayer, penance, and the sacraments.

But notice how quick Dieser is to turn to Sacred Scripture in an attempt to defend his position: “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:10), the false bishop remembers the sacred text as saying. What he, of course, does not do, however, is clarify that this quote from the Bible speaks of creation before original sin and its disastrous consequences. Of course what God made did not become in itself evil after the fall, but it was seriously harmed — concupiscence was introduced, and this inclination to evil we must now resist valiantly: “Let no sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof” (Rom 6:12).

Not surprisingly, the anti-Catholic prelate’s use of Sacred Scripture is rather selective. Holy Writ contains a number of condemnations of the vice of sodomy and the intrinsic depravity of same-sex attraction, but somehow those passages are not on Dieser’s radar, except perhaps to minimize them, reinterpret them, or neutralize them in other ways. Among the most famous is God’s punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Gen 18:16-19:28; Jude 7), from which the term “sodomy” is derived. Other passages include Rom 1:23-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; and Apoc 22:14-15. Dieser is silent on those, and so we suspect that The Book of Gomorrah by Cardinal St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) doesn’t feature too prominently on his list of literary favorites, either.

Further, Aachen’s “Catholic bishop” acknowledges that he used to believe homosexuality to be sinful, but after talking to many people, especially the young, and looking into the advanced developments of science, he changed his mind. Clearly, the word of man trumps the Word of God for him, and that goes to show what he believes about divine revelation. These people worship man, not God!

That is not to say that Dieser doesn’t believe in sin at all. He certainly does believe certain things are wrong, especially those things that pertain to how we relate to other people — being violent, putting others down, being unfaithful, indifferent, etc. “But when it comes to love, to this variation of love that then takes on an erotic form, when the body becomes an expression of this love and the language of this love, then I think: Love cannot be a sin.”

Let’s be very clear here: Sodomy and its attendant desires and inclinations are not a “variation of love” but a perversion of it. Such acts are called “unnatural” because they frustrate the very purpose for which the generative faculties exist and are thus contrary to human nature.

Some will object and say that sexuality must not be reduced to mere procreation. While it is true that human sexuality has other purposes besides the mere generation of offspring, those other purposes are secondary to the primary end of procreation and must therefore be subordinated to it. That is the timeless teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

It was the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), “Pope” Paul VI (1963-78), and “Pope” John Paul II who inconspicuously introduced an inversion of the proper order in that regard, thereby opening a path to an eventual revolution in Catholic teaching on sexual morality, which is precisely what we now see in various stages and degrees throughout the Novus Ordo Church.

Such an assault on Catholic morality had already been attempted before Vatican II, but Pope Pius XII shot it down. In 1944, the Holy Office 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; underlining added.)

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 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; underlining added.)

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 willingly 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, willingly 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. That 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 “variation of love that … takes on an erotic form”, adds an additional layer of malice and perversion to an already-depraved act.

The same moral principles that condemn sodomy also condemn adultery and fornication, of course. They have nothing to do with love but with lust, and lust is a mortal sin. That is what every Catholic must believe and confess. Since Dieser claims to be a Catholic, he has the same obligation.

With regard to those people who more or less claim to create or determine their own nature — by “identifying” themselves as this or that non-binary “gender” — apparently the promotional slogan for that disastrous idea is, “I am I” or, alternatively, “I am who I am.” At least that is what the journalist sets before the Aachen “bishop”, probably not realizing how dangerously close he is to crossing into blasphemous territory, as the phraseology evokes God’s revelation to Moses: “I AM WHO AM” (Ex 3:14).

Dieser comments that such a declaration of “I am I” has legitimacy in the eyes of God, and adds: “It is biblical. It must not be diminished.” What exactly he means here is not clear, but it does not bode well. In fact, one is reminded of the following passage in Pope St. Pius X’s first encyclical:

Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” [2 Thess 2:2].

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi, n. 5; underlining added.)

Notice, furthermore, how Dieser once again appeals to what is (supposedly) biblical as being normative for the Christian — yet when it comes to the staggering biblical evidence against homosexuality, his desire to adhere to Holy Writ quickly yields to the latest (alleged) developments of the human sciences and to the testimony of young people.

That Dieser should make clear that he has no problem with artificial contraception, goes without saying. In fact, he argues that it helps “protect” life, when in fact it is precisely the contraceptive mentality that leads to abortion since the child is seen as an undesirable side effect of the sexual act, which must either be prevented beforehand or, the prevention having failed, eliminated after the fact.

Surprisingly, Dieser does not compromise regarding abortion. He does not tolerate either the pharmaceutical nor the surgical killing of the preborn. In our day and age, this alone makes him “conservative” in the minds of many, when it is clear from all his other comments that he is nothing of the kind. He is simply like a broken clock — right twice a day, by accident. But then perhaps he will immerse himself in the “human sciences” some more and later declare he’s changed his mind… because, you know, “progress”.

It is truly alarming to see what passes for “Catholic theology” in our day in the Land of Luther. Dieser, who was first raised to the rank of “bishop” by “Pope” Benedict XVI, by the way, exemplifies the utter absence of anything remotely Catholic in the German branch of the Vatican II Sect. These people are so far gone now that they have no qualms about affirming that God Himself is the author of the vice of sodomy! The blasphemy is too frightful to contemplate. These people have lost all sense of Catholicism, of decency, and of the fear of God!

To read more about Dieser’s outrageous interview, please see the following links:

• German bishop: Homosexuality is ‘willed by God,’ contraception ‘strengthens the protection of life’ (Life Site)
• German bishop describes homosexuality as ‘God’s will’ (DPA)

Although of course not all German Novus Ordo bishops approve of sodomy, Dieser is by no means the only one who does:

• Top German Novus Ordo Bishop says Sodomy, Adultery not sinful, wants Catechism changed
• Archlayman of Munich: Nothing Wrong with Sodomy!
• German Novus Ordo Bishop: God is Present in Sodomitical Relationships

As blasphemous as Dieser’s claim is that God Himself wills homosexuality, it nevertheless pales in comparison to what “Pope” Francis affirmed in the infamous 2019 Abu Dhabi declaration known as the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together. In that unholy document, the false pope declared:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.

(Antipope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, “A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together”, Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019; underlining added.)

To say that God positively wills homosexuality is a frightful and disgusting outrage; but to say that God positively wills a diversity of religions is infinitely worse, inasmuch as it is a direct attack on the Godhead.

So, as bad as his “bishops” are, somehow Francis always manages to top them.

Who knows what further doctrinal and moral aberrations we will see from the Vatican II Sect in the near future. At this point, anything seems possible. Anything, that is, except actual Roman Catholicism.

That, somehow, seems to be the one thing not willed by God.

Image sources: Wikimedia Commons (Domsteinchen) / Christ & Welt
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 / fair use