Vatican Cardinal: Divine judgment will fall on priests who do not oppose abortion,and homosexuality
( – Cardinal Robert Sarah is warning that priests who fail in their duty to oppose the breakdown of morality in modern society, particularly pro-abortion and anti-family policies, will receive the condemnation of God.

In a sermon delivered on June 25 to seminarians of the Community of St. Martin, whom he was about to ordain to the priesthood and diaconate, Sarah admonished his listeners, “if we have fear of proclaiming the truth of the Gospel, if we are ashamed of denouncing the grave deviations in the area of morality, if we accommodate ourselves to this world of moral laxity and religious and ethical relativism, if we are afraid to energetically denounce the abominable laws regarding the new global ethos, regarding marriage, the family in all of its forms, abortion, laws in total opposition to the laws of nature and of God, and that the western nations and cultures are promoting and imposing thanks to the mass media and their economic power, then the prophetic words of Ezechiel will fall on us as a grave divine reproach.”

Sarah quoted the prophesy of Ezechiel found in chapter 34:2-4: “‘Son of man, prophesy against the pastors of Israel to pastor themselves. Should not the pastors feed the flock? You have been fed with milk, you have dressed yourselves with wool. You have not strengthened the weak lambs, cared for those who were sick, healed those who were injured. You have not restored those who have strayed, searched for those who were lost. But you have governed them with violence and hardness.’ (Ez. 34: 2-4)”

“These reproaches are serious, but more important is the offense that we have committed against God when, having received the responsibility of caring for the spiritual good of all, we mistreat souls by depriving them of the true teaching of the doctrine of regarding God, regarding man, and the fundamental values of human existence,” the cardinal added.

Cardinal Sarah, who was appointed to the presidency of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum in 2010, is overseeing a radical restructuring of the Catholic Church’s international development aid programs. These have been criticized for a secular mentality that ignores the spiritual needs of recipients, often promoting values that are opposed to Catholicism, including the legalization of abortion and homosexual unions.

In late May, Sarah gave an address to the Church’s largest coalition of aid organizations, Caritas Internationalis, in which he noted a “serious moral regression and gradual ‘silent apostasy’” in the western world. He also noted that foreign aid for Catholics “is not merely philanthropic and humanitarian assistance aimed at relieving a certain kind of distress, but also and above all it entails giving back to human persons all their dignity as children of God, and promoting an anthropology that also encompasses the religious dimension of human persons, namely their encounter with God.”

In his June 25 address, Sarah notes that in modern society “we no longer know what is evil and what is good. There are a multitude of points of view. Today, we call white what we once called black, and vice versa. What is serious, and make no mistake about it, is the transformation of error into a rule of life.

“In this context, as priests, pastors and guides of the People of God, you should be continuously focused on being always loyal to the doctrine of Christ. It is necessary for you to constantly strive to acquire the sensitivity of conscience, the faithful respect for dogma and morality, which constitute the deposit of faith and the common patrimony of the Church of Christ.”

Cardinal Sarah’s homily in its entirety can be read by clicking on at head of article.

This entry was posted in Homily, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Vatican Cardinal: Divine judgment will fall on priests who do not oppose abortion,and homosexuality

  1. Mr Badger says:

    Cardinal Sarah’s homily in its entirety can be read by clicking on at head of article.

    Thanks but no thanks, got the gist. All wonderful stuff of course though.


  2. Divine judgement will fall on us all.


  3. toadspittle says:


    “Today, we call white what we once called black, and vice versa. “

    Is the Cardinal accusing ‘us’ of calling him white? If not, has anyone any idea what he’s referring to?
    An example or two would be nice.


  4. umblepie says:

    Cardinal Sarah speaks bravely and wisely as a true shepherd of his flock. God bless him.


  5. Mr Badger says:

    Cardinal Sarah speaks bravely and wisely as a true shepherd of his flock. God bless him.

    Given his senior and secure position, and the fact that he knows he has a large receptive audience; no bravery was required or shown whatsoever. None. Zip.


  6. joyfulpapist says:

    I find the African Cardinals interesting. Archbishop Sarah was for 21 years the Archbishop of Conakry, in Guinea. 3% Guinea’s 10 million + people are Catholic – around 5% belong to other Christian denominations and 85% are Muslim. I’ve just been reading about what he went through to be ordained – he certainly doesn’t lack courage.

    Incidentally, I’ve read the text of his address, and he didn’t say, as implied by the headline, that divine judgement would full on priests who don’t preach against abortion. He said precisely what is quoted above, that priests who are afraid of proclaiming the truth, and who accommodate themselves to moral evils, will hear the words of Ezekiel as ‘a grave divine reproach’.

    In the previous paragraph of his address, he quoted from Timothy to give this advice: “Show yourself a model for believers, by word, conduct, charity, faith, purity…Commit yourself to reading, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the spiritual gift that is within you, which has been conferred upon you by a prophetic intervention accompanied by the imposition of the hands of the college of priests…Watch over your person and your teaching; persevere in these dispositions.”

    He goes on to say:

    The duty and the mission of being a shepherd, of witnessing to Christ, is understood as nothing more than the love of Christ, than the love of the Crucified One. And the cross is the greatest school where we learn to love. When we do not love, we have terrible fear in the face of the powers of this world, and we seek to compromise. When, to the contrary, we love, there is no power that can close our mouths, and the lashes of the whip, the threats, the calumnies, or even stonings do nothing more than purify us of fear and fill our hearts “with joy for having being judged worthy of suffering outrages for the name of Jesus” (Acts 5:41)…

    It seems to me that, if there is today a true crisis in the world, that crisis is that of the love of Christ and of the pope, the Vicar of Christ, among many, and even among certain Christians, priests, and bishops. They consider the pope and Christ as an idea or an institution or a power or a myth and not as they modestly and divinely are, to wit: a God that, in the man Jesus, has defeated death so that man can experience liberation, and a brother (the pope), who guides men liberated by the blood of Jesus and who are called, for their part, to lead others to the fullness of liberation that is nothing else than the plenitude of love. It is only in loving that the world, which does not know, will understand the meaning of belief, and will discover love, that love which is not a vague sentiment nor an egotistical quest for pleasure, but rather a friendly face, a brother who has died for each one of us, so that the world will discover love. This, then, will be the Passover, forever and for all, that Passover that the ordination of priests gives us to celebrate each day for the glory of God, the sanctification and the salvation of the world. I entrust you to the Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist.

    It was an excellent homily.


  7. toadspittle says:

    Toad would still appreciate an answer to his question of yesterday: “What is now white that was once black?”

    One example will do. Two or three would be nicer. Easy. Surely, Joyful?


  8. toadspittle says:

    Toad wil, rephrase that to fend off the pedants.

    “What do we now call white that we once called black?”

    (This is not a trick question, by the way.)


  9. manus says:


    While there will never be universal agreement on moral codes (where would we be without our contrarians, after all?), there are surely several areas where conventional wisdom has been turned on its head over the last few decades.

    Thus : tradtional frugality as the default mode of operating for all but the very rich, has been turned into a duty to consume. Not only does your cousin Gordon Gecko tell us that greed is good, we have constructed an economy that will fail unless we are constantly consuming at or beyond our ability to pay. This is ‘black turned white’ insanity.

    Similarly, traditional restraint in the public expression of sexuality, has been turned into an approval, if not actually a duty of ‘expressing oneself’ sexually. Elaboration is entirely unnecessary on this point, I’m sure.

    Malcolm Muggeridge said something like this in the 1960s: ‘ Sexual freedom is the mysticism of consumerism’ and I think he had it about right.


  10. joyfulpapist says:

    And for something that was once white and is now black, how about self-abnegation?


  11. Mr Badger says:

    Once white but now black?

    The defense of Christian orthodoxy by violence, for one, and the others listed by JP and Manus. This parlour game is easy Toad!


  12. toadspittle says:


    It may be a game to Badger, but it’s lfe and death for Toad. Not!

    Joyful, Self-abnegation is like the weather – everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.
    Anyway, it was always ‘white’ and always will be. Ignoring it is not the same. Thinks Toad.

    Interesting point Manus, re ‘Frugallty.’ Of course, in the good old days we poor were always frugal, and made a virtue of it. We had no choice. That’s not to say we liked it.

    And, as you point out, the filthy rich have always lived beyond our means, and always will.

    Naughty cousin Gordon, with his, “greed is good,” balls, was never really listened to by anyone, except some brainless Komodo Dragons.

    That is to say: If you were to ask anyone, “Is greed good?” They will say, “No.” Thinks Toad.


  13. manus says:


    We need to distinguish between:

    1) Instinctive human appetites, which are consistently disordered – nothing changing there.
    2) Moral vanity – as I said to one of our pagan visitors, morality is a great spectator sport. There is nothing more delicious than sitting in judgement on others – what else could explain the popularity of the Jeremy Kyle show? We love to pontificate on what doesn’t materially affect us. If I tell you I think greed isn’t good, perhaps I’m only saying it because I’m greedy for your good opinion. That doesn’t mean I’m not actually greedy.
    3) Publically proclaimed, and materially supported, virtues. What, in practice, does society make it easier to do? Here, surely, things have changed.

    And of course, there are overlaps between one and the other – moral vanity being the last refuge of once commonly held public virtues.

    But in a nutshell, white has become black in that the Christian-inspired suspicion of all appetites, making a virtue of restraint, has been overturned by a materialist-inspired celebration of all appetites, except, of course, the appetite for restraint, and those very darkest appetites that still await rehabilitation via the radical edge.


  14. Mimi says:

    Well said, Cardinal Sarah!

    Papabile? Wouldn’t that be cool!


  15. toadspittle says:

    Part Time Pilgrim says: “Divine judgement will fall on us all.”

    Oddly reminiscent of Chicken Licken. Thinks Toad.


  16. Except Chicken Licken was wrong, whereas when it comes to divine judegement ……


  17. toadspittle says:


    Indeed, Part Time.Pilg. Chicken Licken was wrong as you shrewdly point out. But there is a lesson there for all of us. Toad suspects.
    The unfortunate chicken was struck by an acorn and deduced from that fact that the sky was falling. There are people around who, when Hitchens, or someone, says, “Catholicism is silly,” Immediately begin to rock back and forth, head cradled in hands, keening, “Persecution! Persecution!”

    Toad sees a similarity there. He thinks.

    Good to have your valuable insights on CP&S, thinks Toad:


  18. I am not sure that the idea we will all be judged is particularly insightful but thanks anyway.


  19. joyfulpapist says:

    Some do, indeed, say greed is good:

    As to self-abnegation, the Ayn Rand fans will tell us it is a form of self-hate:


  20. toadspittle says:

    Joyful, nobody is suggestng that there are not idiots out there that think “greed is good.” There are people out there that believe statues cry and bleed and weep. There are people out there that will believe almost anything, providing it’s stupid enough. As you well know.
    What Toad is suggesting is that, in general, people do not, and never have subscribed to the notion that greed is good. That is, to say, that it was once universally considered “black” and is now unanimously regarded as “white.”

    As to self-abgnetion, Toad will happily climb down a bit on that, after reflection.
    You have a point, he thinks. But it is far from being a black and white issue, he suggests you might accept.
    It is clearly no longer fashionable to self-denigrate.
    Whether it was ever the accepted rule to do so in all cases, who knows?
    Toad is constantly being cited for being “too hard on himself.” But he doesn’t think that he is.
    He thinks he deserves his own rebukes. Oh, well.

    (And he know nothing of Ayn Rand fans. Or cares.)


  21. joyfulpapist says:

    You are, of course, right that the rhetoric is an exaggeration if you take it to mean that once there was one view and now there is another. Cardinal Sarah did say that there are multiple points of view today, but he did imply that everyone agreed in the past. I think it fair, though to suggest that ‘greed is good’ or ‘self first is good’, while it might have been a personal opinion in the past – say 100 years ago – was not an opinion to be stated in public, for fear of the reaction.


  22. manus says:

    More to the point, Toad, you deserve our rebukes, all of them. In fact we are far too kind to you. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

    I’m surprised you haven’t taken up the entertainment value of Ayn Rand. As far as I can tell, she is the Godless (dead) prophetess of the New Republicanism whose heavily influential promotion of self-centredness ought to embarrass any pious American Right-Winger. Of which we have so many on this blog, obviously. Sort of like your friend M*l, but a tad more fashionable. They’ve just done a film of her supposedly unreadable Atlas Shrugged, haven’t they? I sense others shrugging too.

    As for morality etc, people’s statements are never entirely consistent, because what’s a little moral consistency compared with letting yourself off the hook and/or condemning your neighbour – infinitely more satisfying.

    But there is a sea-change going on. How about this: the sanctification of desire. You are what you want. Totally disastrous, of course.


  23. Gertrude says:

    Didn’t John Stuart-Mill try that in the 19th century?


  24. I am not sure he went as far as “sanctification of desire”. Sanctification of desire goes further than that because it allows harm to others in order to excersie your “rights”. (Is it your own term Manus?) Not total freedom but freedom up to but not beyond the point of causing harm was his idea, wasn’t it?

    Anyway it’s John Stuart Mill, to rhyme with “… particularly ill.”


  25. Mr Badger says:

    I think it fair, though to suggest that ‘greed is good’ or ‘self first is good’, while it might have been a personal opinion in the past – say 100 years ago – was not an opinion to be stated in public, for fear of the reaction.

    well, that’s true JP, but as to the philosophy which sustained the hell-hole factories of the era, who can say? Certainly it was not stated in public, or at least not in fashionable society.

    But there is a sea-change going on. How about this: the sanctification of desire. You are what you want. Totally disastrous, of course.

    But is that really what is happening? Sounds like pure rhetoric to me.


  26. Mr Badger says:

    More to the point, Toad, you deserve our rebukes, all of them. In fact we are far too kind to you. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

    This blog would be a lesser thing without Toad manus. — And you know it, you grump!!!


  27. toadspittle says:


    Manus is right, Badger. His trouble is he doesn’t have a nasty bone in hs body.
    Which puts him at a serious disadvantage.


  28. manus says:

    Erm, right.

    Part Time Pilgrim: I’m not aware of having lifted ‘sanctification of desire’ off anyone in particular, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t. It sounds the sort of thing someone thoughtful might say, doesn’t it? It’d be a shame if it were only me!

    Badger, it’s a subtle game maintaining the old Anglo tradition of males showing their fondness for one another by hurling insults. My mother once told me that a chorus of “He’s no bl**dy use at all!” was the highest praise offered in the mess of the RAF base where she was brought up in the war. Anyway, welcome to the club.

    Rhetoric? Dunno. There are some constants – basic appetites on the one hand contending with the raw human conscience on the other. But surely the values of a society have a significant influence on behaviour and the formation of conscience, and surely those values have changed markedly in the developed world over the last few decades. Who can speak of ‘duty’ without being ridiculed these days? Our responsibilities to the environment are relentlessly emphasised and our bins are scrutinised; our responsibilities in human relationships are all effectively optional and say neglect of elderly relatives is scarcely noticed still less disapproved of.

    But perhaps the undercurrent has always been there. I think it was Somerset Maugham who said, ‘do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.’ What is new is that the policeman will arrest you for killing a squirrel, but not for killing an unborn child. Unless of course it is ‘wanted’. i.e. validated by desire.


  29. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Actually Munas, it’s not so much Anglo as British, tho’ the Londoner has brought the affectionate insult to a fine art.

    You b*****d.


  30. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Sunam says “we love to pontificate on matters that don’t really affect us”. I totally agree, for I do this all the time. Especially after a good bottle of wine.



  31. manus says:

    Well, I assume it’s broader than British, sort of Anglo-sphere wide, isn’t it? I thought better of using either English or British. Being Irish, y’know.


  32. manus says:

    Psst. And Badger’s a Kiwi. If that isn’t too confusing.


  33. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Anglophone, yes – spot on. Thass better.

    I am glad you are Irish, for you can be welcomed anywhere round the world. I am half Irish, so I receive a half welcome, for which I am half thankful.

    But what’s this about you wanting rid of Taod? I leave you lot for a week or so and I find you all bickering.



  34. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Badger a Kiwi!
    Donner und blitzen!
    You’re right, it is confusing. Do you think someone interfered with his genetic code? Tampered, I mean. Oh! that’s worse.



  35. Mr Badger says:

    Badger a Kiwi!

    I’m pretty sure it’s a crime to badger a Kiwi, we’ve only got six of the inept little fellows left 🙂


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s