Two Opposites Within Vying for the Catholic Soul in our Day

by Erven Park

"REASON: The process utilized by the mind in attaining the truth. Also the basis or evidence used by the mind in its pursuit of the truth." ¹

"Two opposites within vying for the Catholic soul?" Reason (truth) rejected? Yes, and every day it is more brashly illuminated. This is not conspiracy theory, it holds forth in bold print. It no longer resides only behind secluded doors, it pronounces from the front offices of the Church as well.

Moreover, forget all the folderol and funny fable generated by the spin artists claiming legitimacy by means of the pseudo-virtues such as "diversity," "pluralism," and "multi-" this or that, all of which washes out as painstakingly snarled logic (and perhaps is meant that way). No, what we are addressing here, pure and simple, is the age-old battle between "good and evil." The difference now being that the evil is well entrenched within.

Ironically, we have two Popes of our day who gave specific warning and announcement of this very evil stealing even to the heart of the Church and now in full blossom.

A BRIEF HISTORY

Pope St. Pius X, through heroic and untiring effort, exposed and suppressed the devastating humanist cult known as "modernism" which had come to infect many of the Church's privileged in the early 1900's. This canonized Saint, acting as a true father in the office of Pope, recognizing the deadly properties of this movement ("the synthesis of all heresies"), and exercising his sacred obligation of governance, immediately condemned and put into action the disciplinary workings necessary to halt and root out these revolutionary partisans wherever they might be found. This discipline was enforced from the highest to the lowest offices of all Church organisms including seminaries, schools, universities and colleges, etc. Prior to his death (1914), however, St. Pius X warned that without vigilance and righteous governance, this same movement would return to wreck havoc on the Church as has never been known. The advice was not heeded.

Pope Paul VI made the formal announcement of the reemergence into the Church of the abominable modernist movement on June 29, 1972, the 9th anniversary of his coronation, when he publicly proclaimed his infamous lamentation: "Through some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God." Satan? This was not an observation made in the abstract; it was addressing churchmen he had found in his own company in the heart of the Church, in Rome and the Vatican itself. This was not about some evil spirit bedeviling a parish council somewhere. And when you announce Satan you at the same time announce none other than evil! Strangely, although announcing the presence of these evil persons within, neither he nor his successors to this day have exercised their extraordinary powers (powers granted only to the Pope) in removing these destructive persons along with their heretical ideologies. This papal comportment, of course, being quite the reverse of the actions taken by St. Pius X. We might mention that through Divine intervention, St. Pius X's bodily remains lie incorrupt at St. Peters in Rome.

So now that we've cleared the decks a little, we get down to talking seriously and unambiguously about evil and its purveyors within our church. Moreover, being as how this plague has now metastasized throughout the whole Church, we need go no further than our local church with its public record and testimony to give witness to that of which we speak. For those who are easily traumatized by truth-telling and facts we would suggest you contacting your therapist or terminating your reading at this point.

Having the reality of evil teachings and acts being promulgated within the Church, and especially among the ordained hierarchy, it becomes of paramount concern that there be a trustworthy means whereby truth can be separated from falsehood. Each of us, not just the learned, have this capability and all can apply it effectively because what it boils down to is plain old "common sense," an ability of which we see too little application in our days. Common sense is the fruit of the faculty of reasoning when applied to acts and their consequences. It is a faculty that must be reawakened in many of us, however, in that if has been benumbed by so much of the world around us insisting that evil is good and good is evil.² We will not get into the history of this twisted philosophy but suffice to say its lunatic underpinnings are such that only educationalists of higher learning would leap to its cause.

Reasoning then is our reliable tool in arriving at the truth. Where are we to direct our reasoning as it relates to the faith and morals of our Church? This is not at all complicated but it is of the utmost importance that we not be detoured from home plate. Home plate, or the point of departure if you prefer, being what is known in theological teaching as the "natural law." DON'T PANIC! I can picture some of you right now: "Oh my good lord, Canon Law, Catechisms, Encyclicals, Vatican II, the Pope's papers, etc." All of these are of benefit if we have the means to assimilate them but they are not at all essential to applying our reasoning abilities to natural law.

What is "natural law?" Books have been written about this subject but it can be condensed down to no more than the Ten Commandments. The natural law is that which is written on the heart of every human when God implants it with his/her rational soul at conception. There you have it. The natural law is already imprinted within you and your personal conscience points to its existence. We might point out that those not being conscience of actual sin have willfully buried their conscience with sin.

Why do we focus on the natural law as the foundation for our reasoning? First, by the fact that God is its author and it is the depository of truth as it relates to faith and morals. It would not be unfitting to refer to the natural law as "divine law" in that its origin is from God. The Church, in all its acts and teaching, conforms absolutely to the natural law. If you find a churchman's public acts or teaching as being in conflict with the natural law then you are witness to evil works. In conjunction with this, the reasoning we apply must recognize that the natural law is its trustworthy guide. This is addressed as: "right reason." With these simple disciplines, the truth lies before you.

We shall here then venture forth and apply our right reasoning and select just one issue involving our own archdiocese that has unfolded before us in recent days. The topic chosen will serve well because it has been in the local news; it involves the exposure of a local priest regarding priestly sexual abuse; public testimony has been given by the accused priest; testimony on this case has also been rendered by the local church authority that is held responsible for the priestly formation and comportment of its clergy.

The Case At Hand

The issue we are referring to revolves around one Fr. David Jaeger, a somewhat prominent priest of the Seattle Archdiocese. The Seattle Times newspaper has published two rather in-depth exposés on Fr. Jaeger's aberrant behavior. The first article appearing June 22, 2002 and the latest published September 1, 2002. The framework of the articles are structured around the question of whether Fr. Jaeger should be removed from all ministry as a consequence of his abuses.

"Jaeger, 59, is on administrative leave and faces possible ouster under a "zero-tolerance" policy proposed by U.S. Catholic bishops in June. The Vatican is reviewing the proposal, which requires dismissal of priests who have molested even one child one time." ³

In the Seattle Times, it is revealed that Jaeger admits to the sexual abuse of teenage male youth while serving as a director and Chaplain for the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) of the Archdiocese of Seattle. To date, the Seattle Archdiocese has paid an undisclosed sum of money to one of those victim's in settlement.

"Jaeger now considers himself an abstinent homosexual." ⁴

In other words, he personally identifies himself with the "homosexual" (sodomite) state.

Longtime observers of the Seattle Archdiocese were cognizant of the seemingly coddled treatment that Jaeger enjoyed in his rapid advancement as a young priest. This was bore out by the Seattle Times.

"Jaeger, who was ordained in 1969, went on to make a name as a progressive who participated in anti-nuclear protests and counseled prison inmates. His values made him a favorite of the liberal Rev. Raymond Hunthausen, Seattle's archbishop from 1976 to 1991. Hunthausen made Jaeger director of the archdiocese's CYO, then director of seminarians and head of the AIDS Ministry." ⁵

Before applying our "right reason," we must come to a clear understanding of the sodomy/sodomite condition (same sex sexual activity) as it relates to the natural law. Coming from the immutable teachings of the Church, e.g., Sacred Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the Popes, the Magisterium, there is absolutely no gray area on this subject. All sodomite activity engaged in by the free will of an individual violates the natural law to the extent it constitutes a mortal sin. Moreover, even the "inclination" to sodomy "must be seen as an objective disorder." ⁶ Any man or woman who violates the natural law of his own human nature engenders a subhuman and depraved state upon themselves.

We know the Church teaches that violating the natural law will have serious consequences. Sodomy is unnatural sex so how is this reflected in health statistics, for example? Dr. Harold Feinstein of the Centers For Disease Control made the following statement:

"From a purely biological perspective, sodomy is an intrinsically unsanitary and pathological act. Empirical medical evidence clearly demonstrates that the rectum is not designed for intromission by penises, fists, forearms, etc. Physiologically, the rectum is designed for the expulsion of feces. When sodomy is performed, the peculiar forced inward expansion of the anal canal results in a tearing of the lining as well as bleeding and fissure.

"The damage to the rectal wall facilitates access to the bloodstream of AIDS-infected sperm and other disease causing organisms. The result of engaging in sodomy - as well as the other grossly unsanitary acts commonly practiced by homosexuals - is that STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are higher among homosexuals than in any other subculture. Many diseases are endemic to that group. The diseases commonly found (40 percent or higher) among homosexuals include: gonorrhea, nonspecific urethritis, syphilis, hepatitis, amebic dysentery, salmonella, intestinal parasites, shigellosis, venereal warts, incurable genital herpes, and the Big Daddy - AIDS, which has clearly been linked to homosexual behavior."

It should also be pointed out that the life expectancy of an active sodomite (mid-40's) is just a little over half that of the rest of the U.S. population.

The fearsome information revealed above should instill one dominant priority with any churchman claiming to have a love of his fellow man. That priority would be to make every effort to inform and assist these afflicted persons in removing themselves from the deadly clutches of the sodomite existence. The first prerequisite required being that they personally recognize and renounce sodomy as unnatural and immoral. God will never deny this deliverance to those whose approach is through repentance and prayer. Conversely, denial will only worsen the disorder, both physically and mentally, along with its attendant consequences, which will be borne by the Church as well as society.

After the eruption of the sexual charges against Jaeger the archdiocese sent him to Southdown Treatment Center in Ontario, Canada in August 1989. Following a brief 6-month stay, Southdown "assured the archdiocese that Jaeger was safe to return to ministry on condition he continue therapy and not be alone with minors." ⁷

IMPORTANT NOTE: Recent months have revealed important facts that demand enlightenment to our readers about these so-called Catholic treatment centers. It has come to be exposed that many, if not all, of these institutions are headed by, or have a significant presence of sodomite faculty on their staffs. Moreover, these same institutions are now on record as repeatedly pronouncing serious offenders fit for ministry when the exact opposite was true. Take for instance the notorious pedophile Fr. John Geoghan who has brought ruin to the credibility of Boston's Cardinal Law. As Geoghan bounced from parish to parish, family to family, victim to victim, he was receiving regular "successful" treatments, followed by clean bills of health from the American bishops' top treatment centers, including the Seton Institute in Baltimore; St. Luke's in Suitland, Md. (founded by psychiatrist-priest Michael Peterson, who died of AIDS); Hartford's Institute of Living (where Albany priest Denis Brennan, who became a woman, underwent counseling); the Southdown Treatment Center near Toronto, among others.

We thus have existing in these treatment centers a total contradiction in terms! You have sodomites, of whom the Church identifies their psychological state as being objectively disordered ministering to those of the same disorder. What does right reason tell you of that picture?

To compound this mockery of healing on the local scene, we find that for years the Seattle Archdiocese has employed the services of therapists afflicted with the same depravities as those of the above treatment centers. We will pick just one example. If you look on page 194 of the current Catholic Directory -Archdiocese of Seattle - 2001 -2002, you will find listed: "TARA: THERAPY AND RENEWAL ASSOCIATES [An outpatient psychotherapy resource for clergy, members of religious communities, lay ministers, other professional adults, couples and families.]" The Co-Directors of TARA are Sr. Fran Ferder and Fr. John Heagle. Ferder has been employed by the archdiocese to counsel both the abusers and victims involved in the same case (a violation of legal ethics). It would be presumed that Fran Ferder did afford counseling to Jaeger as she has known to have done for many other priests. Ferder testified in a legal deposition that the archdiocese had her on a $8,000.00 monthly retainer that did not include hourly therapy fees. Now here is the crux of this scenario. Ferder and Heagle are notorious for their public dissent against the teachings of the Church on the sodomite condition as well as their open teaching that sodomy is an acceptable life style - a total contradiction of the Church's teaching! This is all a matter of public record and the Archbishops (Hunthausen, Murphy, et al.) as well as all the hierarchy of the Seattle Archdiocese is fully aware of it

With these truths in hand; we are now prepared to assess the Fr. Jaeger case in a logical and fair manner, sans the idiocy of "political correctness" and the ideological fabrication that has proven so much a part of the sodomite setting.

The two Seattle Times articles we are referencing here essentially draw on the commentary of three entities other than the observations expressed by the authors themselves. They are from: Fr. Jaeger and his explanations; Bishop George Thomas speaking for the Archdiocese; and certain therapists who have assessed Jaeger. We shall reproduce what was written by these separate sources individually and then evaluate what right reason is informing us. Inasmuch as Jaeger admits to the sexual offenses being discussed, we shall pass over that subject as settled. We shall start with Fr. Jaeger's statements as represented in the two Seattle Times articles:

Fr. David Jaeger: Still, Jaeger said he thinks removing him from ministry would be "unwarranted, because I'm so clearly not a danger. ----- "The issue is whether or not someone has any likelihood of re-offense," says Jaeger, who says he would appeal all the way to the Vatican to keep his ministry. "If I'm not a danger to parishioners - which I'm not - then that's the issue." ----- But looking back, he says he must have convinced himself that touching a child was a safe outlet for years of repressed sexual impulses, a way he could be intimate within the confines of celibacy and without the complications of an adult relationship.

Bishop George Thomas: Jaeger is feeling a "tremendous sense of sorrow for his misjudgments of the past," Auxiliary Bishop George Thomas said yesterday. "He's said in a hundred different ways the regret he feels for the betrayal he had on the victims and the terrible embarrassment for the church." ----- He was given the AIDS ministry job because the archdiocese wanted to give him "limited ministry, directed to adults ... so as not to have sustained contact with minors," Thomas said. ----- "I've found no evidence since 1978 that Father Jaeger has engaged in any impropriety or demonstrated any inclination toward sexual misconduct including acting improperly with children," Thomas said, quoting the therapist's report. ----- The Most Rev. George Thomas, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, was involved in the archdiocese's earliest attempts to deal with clergy sexual abuse under Hunthausen. He now oversees a special-cases committee that investigates allegations. "The concern is about ex post facto judgment of cases that are 20 or 30 or 40 years old, where people have been rehabilitated and suddenly they're faced with removal from the priesthood," he says.

Statements of Therapists: Richard Gilmartin, a Southdown psychologist, said in an evaluation that Jaeger "was highly matured in the role of priest," but, because he became religious very early in life, his sexuality was poorly integrated. "He 'held to the rules' by rigidly holding in check both his sexual and anger feelings." After six months of treatment, Gilmartin assured the archdiocese that Jaeger was safe to return to ministry on condition he continue therapy and not be alone with minors. ----- In 1996, his counselor, Richard Peterson, wrote: "There has to be a time to lay to rest suspicions that an individual will act in a sexually deviant fashion. I think 17 years without sexual misconduct with a minor male is more than sufficient to conclude that Father Jaeger is not a danger to minor males."

There are many serious questions that can be directed to the above testimony, such as: Where is any real concern voiced about the permanent damage inflicted upon the innocent victims? Is his seminary training not being cast as blameworthy for Jaeger's sodomite condition? Acknowledging himself as a "abstinent" sodomite, why would Jaeger be assigned ministry that would increase his exposure to this disorder? Why is the bishop's sacred office of teaching on sexual morals now relegated by those same bishops to being under the supervision of the temporal realm of so-called lay experts?⁸ Why would Bishop Thomas allege a person to be "rehabilitated" when that same person's public ministry since this rehabilitation has been directed to the acceptance of the "objective disorder" he is supposedly rehabilitated from? We could go on and on but we encourage you through your own right reasoning to dissect the many inconsistencies and ambiguity presenting itself in the above.

For myself I will finish this writing with comments on the one theme and objective that jumps out from these Jaeger proceedings. Contrary to what it heralds itself as being, it really has nothing to do with the cure or healing of either the innocent victims or the assaulting sodomite. Rather it has everything to do with justifying the retention of sodomites within the priesthood! "God hates a mouth with a double tongue." (Prov. 8:13)

Here we see in action the "Opposites Within Vying for the Catholic Soul." In the above-published testimony (there is much more in the full text), we see right reason rejected as it relates to natural law. Its fruits cannot be other than an escalation and expansion of the evil moral degradation that we now see has advanced even to our highest churchmen.

As to the Southdown Treatment Center's affirmation "that Jaeger was safe to return to ministry…" we now know that for the most part, this so-called treatment center did not afford cures to sexual deviants but rather served the bishops as a safe house for their sodomites until reassignments could more opportunely be made.

We know that Jaeger was not cured in that he steadfastly refuses to renounce sodomy, per se. Moreover, Jaeger maintains that the sodomite condition is biologically acquired,⁹ thereby blaspheming God. It is fitting at this point to quote from an official document issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, No. 14:

"The 'sexual orientation' of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc…An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation…Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality (as does Jaeger) tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be 'either harmless, if not an entirely good thing' and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to 'manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statues and laws…'" ¹⁰

Jaeger has been a homosexual rights activist since his return from the Southdown center when he was assigned the "AIDS Ministry" for the Seattle Archdiocese. This comes as no surprise in that national statistics reveal that literally all Catholic diocesan sponsored AIDS support groups openly function as sodomite advocacy organisms. Those bishops sanctioning these groups are fully aware of this and thus they themselves are providing for the underwriting of the homosexualist ideology.

Jaeger's AIDS office was in the Chancery and his publication The Loom functioned as a coordinator for sodomite apologetics. Indeed, you will even find articles written for the Seattle Gay News printed in Jaegers publication. Jaeger worked closely with Fr. Paul Waldie who headed the local archdiocesan "Catholic Gay and Lesbian Ministry" ¹¹ in organizing public events where nationally renowned sodomites such as Fr. Peter Liuzzi were brought in to speak. According to press reports:

On September 4, 1997, Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles welcomed 170 Catholic homosexual activists to a conference in Long Beach hosted by the three-year-old National Association of Catholic Lesbian and Gay Ministries, the high point of which was a burlesque performed by Fr. Peter Liuzzi, O.Carm, his top "minister" to the lesbian and gay community. Liuzzi pretended to bless attendees with puppy urine, and then simulated a strip show, tossing his clerical collar into the crowd.¹²

Bishop George Thomas states: "He was given the AIDS ministry job because the archdiocese wanted to give him "limited ministry, directed to adults ... so as not to have sustained contact with minors," ¹³ The fact is, however, that Jaeger, with the knowledge and support of the bishops has been presenting his sodomite apologetics at functions and gatherings which are promoted as "family" oriented. Logically, anything family oriented has to include children ("minors").

"Last year, Jaeger was assigned to administrative work, developing resources for parishes to care for sick and disabled people. He was assigned to that new position as part of normal rotations in assignments, Thomas said." ¹⁴ Although it has never been publicized, it is very interesting to note that for the first time in over a decade, the new Catholic Directory - Archdiocese Of Seattle no longer shows a listing of any kind for the office of "AIDS Ministry." (?) Also missing is the listing for Gay & Lesbian Ministry (listed since 1997)! They apparently no longer exist (officially). There is a new office, however, listed as: "Pastoral Care & Inclusion Ministry Resources," which has as its "description" the same advocacy functions afforded to the now defunct AIDS Ministry office. The terms "AIDS," "Gay" and "Lesbian" of course, polarize the intellect to sodomy, as they go pretty much hand in hand, and the volatility generated by the disgusting sodomite scenario uncovered in the American church today makes the use of that term very inconvenient (to put it mildly). And whom do we have shown as "Director" of this new office? Yes, none other than Fr. David Jaeger. A "part of normal rotation"?

Any Catholic clergyman, whether he is bishop or cleric, acceding to the call of ordaining and supporting an "objectively disordered" priesthood has formally announced their open schism with Rome. He is in contempt of both Canon Law and the Magisterium and is thus an agent operating outside the Church's decrees. He is not legitimately shepherding his faithful in the true ways of the Church and that is betrayal by definition.

By example, let us briefly examine the right reason applied in Canon Law regarding the qualification of candidates for ordination. Under impediments we find the following strictures to ordination:

"Canon 1041 § 1. a person who labors under some form of insanity or other psychic defect due to which…he is judged incapable of rightly carrying out the ministry." Under Required Documents and Examination: "Canon 1051 § 1 a testimonial is to be furnished by the rector of the seminary or the house of formation concerning the qualities required for reception of orders; that is, the candidate's correct doctrine, genuine piety, good morals and his suitability for exercising the ministry; and, after a duly executed inquiry, the state of his physical and psychological health."

You will note from the above strictures quoted from Canon Law that "psychic defects" and "psychological health" are considerations that must pass muster. The question then becomes: "Are there acknowledged psychological/psychic defects associated with the sodomite condition?"

Indeed, the church addresses this subject specifically. As noted above, the Church proclaims: "…thus the inclination itself (homosexuality) must be seen as an "objective disorder." No. 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church pronounces that the sodomite condition has a "psychological genesis" (origin).

Our Holy Father weighs in: Pope John Paul II to Brazilian bishops at Rome, Sept. 5, 2002. Zenit - The Pope said "it would be lamentable that…youths with obvious signs of emotional disorders be admitted to Ordination" and that mistakes in choosing such candidates for the priesthood "can cause grave scandal in the consciences of the faithful and obvious harm for the whole Church."

It appears that some of our bishops just cannot come to grips with the two terms: "Objective," meaning: "real, existing, factual," and "Disorder," meaning: "derangement of physical or mental health or functions." ¹⁵ It is that or it is the explicit rejection of the Church's teaching. I believe there is little doubt that it is the latter rejection of the Church's wisdom and directives that prevails with these individuals

Bestow upon the Church a morally disordered priesthood? Right reason says - good or evil?