Who is Paul Kokoski, and why is he so right? — A Church Divided

EDITOR: Found the following spot-on essay, “A Church Divided”, by Paul Kokoski on Pravda.ru this morning. A quick google doesn’t reveal who Paul Kokoski is, but one uncharitable woman describes our mystery man [here] such:

Paul Kokorski is a sick, deranged invidual in Hamilton Ontario Canada who routinely spews forth his evil opinions in the face of reality by sending his letters to editor and opinion pieces to newspapers around the world hoping to pull the wool over most editors’ eyes, even Pravada got foolled on this one. The man is the most unethical liar on Earth. Someone should investigate who he really is, if in fact that is his real name. To attack Christophher Hitchens this way just shows what a sick deranged person this Paul Kokosli is. He is a shame on all of unthinking Catholicism. He is not a Christian. He is sick sick man.

Ghost writer or not, Mr. Kokoski’s fine work gets re-presented here…

A Church Divided

When Our Blessed Mother appeared to Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa in Akita, Japan in 1973 she warned that “The work of the devil will infiltrate the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”

The word “diabolic” comes from the Greek “dia-boline” which means to tear apart, rend asunder. Anything, therefore, that breaks pattern, that destroys unity, that corrupts gestalt, that produces discord. That is the diabolic. Biblically speaking, the essence of the satanic or the diabolic is the hatred and contempt of the cross of Christ. We have it – the spirit of it – in the Catholic Church. Notice, for example, how much we have given up mortification, self-denial, discipline in schools, discipline in seminaries. The decline of the spirit of discipline is a hatred of the cross and, therefore, of Christ himself.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2010 homily for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, confirmed that the greatest damage threatening the church today is the pollution from within that is “eroding the integrity of the Mystical Body, weakening its ability to prophesy and witness, tarnishing the beauty of its face.”

Today we find numerous examples of this bickering and infighting among top members of our hierarchy. For instance, only recently public accusations of a sex abuse cover up were leveled by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna against Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who served for 16 years from 1990 to 2006 as secretary of state, the Vatican’s second-most important position. According to protocol accusations made against a Cardinal are the sole competence (of judgement) of the pope.

There are also many open displays of opposition to church teachings by both priests and laity on issues such as the Holy Mass, women’s ordination, papal infallibility, contraception, homosexuality, abortion and obligatory celibacy. In April 2009 Georgetown University, in a disgusting public display of shame at the name of Jesus, covered over the monogram “IHS” to please U.S. President Barack Obama who no longer believes America is a Christian nation. In Phoenix, Arizona, Bishop Thomas Olmsted had to excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride, a nun and ethics committee adviser, for trying to justify a direct abortion in the first trimester.

We also see a variety of disturbing contradictions in the ways in which the faith is being practiced. For example, while the archdiocese of Denver had permitted a Colorado Catholic school to deny enrollment to a gay couple’s child, the Archdiocese of Boston, in a similar case, countered the decision of a local Catholic elementary school that denied admission to an 8-year-old child of a lesbian couple.

Also, while roughly one third of U.S. bishops strongly opposed President Barack Obama”s appearance at Notre Dame in 2009, about 2/3 of the bishops tacitly approved the visit giving the pro-abortion president a national platform to advance moral relativism. We see contradictions even in clerical dress – many priests and nuns refusing to wear their collars and habits as a visible sign of Christ in the world.

Indeed, our National Bishops Conferences’ have been unable to speak with a single unified voice on the simplest of issues such as that regarding the question of whether pro-abortion politicians should be allowed to receive Holy Communion. On this elementary and straightforward matter each U.S. bishop has been given the green light to set his own policy in his own diocese. This of course is a claim to “territorial morality” – in essence the same slogan and formula used by politicians who claim the right to lead a double life – a private life in which they supposedly oppose the evil of abortion and a public life in which they allow and even promote this evil in others. What form of mental ‘compartmentalization’ or bicameral thinking can allow intelligent thinking humans to rationalize this way when Scripture has it that “no man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6: 24)?

We also see a rise in fraudulent or nominally “Catholic” newspapers run by the laity and clergy alike such as Commonweal, America Magazine, The National Catholic Reporter, Catholic New Times, Prairie Messenger, and Conscience Magazine. Under the pretense of serving Vatican II they seek to maim the true Spirit of the Council. Even the Vatican newspaper L”Osservatore Romano (LOR) has, in recent times, veered from its main course in defending orthodoxy. Since Giovanni Maria Vian became its editor-in-chief the paper has become somewhat of an international scandal attempting to become relevant to an international pop culture that is increasingly decadent. In 2009, for example, LOR published an article by Archbishop Rino Fisichella entitled “On the Side of the Brazilian Girl” which falsely claimed that direct abortion could be morally justified and its evil mitigated in some “extreme circumstances”.

Coming to the fore also today are several fraudulent “Catholic”groups seeking to overthrow in anarchistic fashion the church hierarchy in favor of a people’s democracy. Some of these are Catholics for a Free Choice, We Are Church, Voice of the Faithful, Catholic Network for Women’s Equality, Catholic Women’s Ordination. These groups tactfully use the mass media to deliberately misrepresent Catholic teaching in the public square. Added to these groups are various and spurious charities and health organizations such as Development and Peace and the U.S. Catholic Health Association which are known to support several pro-abortion and pro-homosexual groups. Under the tutelage of Sister Carol Keehan, the U.S. Catholic Health Association became hugely instrumental in helping to bring into law President Obama’s anti-life health care reform.

These are not isolated cases of internal division threatening the church. Indeed Cardinal George of Chicago recently lamented the rise of a “parallel magisterium” seeking to destroy the faith completely from within. This is all the work of the diabolic, the satanic. We can have no tolerance the devil. Bishops have to vigorously, uncompromisingly, and publically condemn these false and shady groups with an unambiguous and unified voice that is both heard and understood.

Pope John Paul II, as Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, warned in 1976, during a visit to Germany: “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through… We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel…we must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not too distant future, trials that will require us to be ready to give up our lives.” St. Paul himself writes in his Letter to the Ephesians: “for we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present world of darkness, against the evil spirits in the heavens” (cf. Eph 6: 12).

Pope Benedict XVI, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, continued this theme stating in 1997 that the Church in coming years “will assume different forms. She will be less identified with the great societies, more a minority Church; she will live in small vital circles of really convinced believers who live their faith. But precisely in this way she will, Biblically speaking, become the salt of the earth again.”

The Gospel speaks of the Church as a whole and of her indemnity from the forces of evil in their full and profound sense. Jesus has thus promised us that “the powers of death shall not prevail against” the Church. To procure and safeguard this remnant flock and achieve victory during this time of great persecution and purification we need to set out immediately on the mountainous path to the good where we will discover more and more the beauty that lies in the efforts demanded by truth.

Three powerful weapons we can use against Satan are: I) The Holy Name of Jesus. That is a name that Satan cannot stand. Because in the name of Jesus every knee will bend in the heavens, on the earth and under the earth. 2) The invocation of the blood of Christ. We are saved by the blood of Christ and therefore in temptation we should call upon his blood for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. 3) Devotion to our Blessed Mother, for at the beginning in the book of Genesis we are told it was the seed of a woman that would crush the seed of Satan.

Indeed, the rains are here and the pope’s ship is already sailing. Those who do not climb aboard the barque of Peter while there is still time will be left behind as in the days of Noah.

Paul Kokoski

Canada

END OF POST

11 thoughts on “Who is Paul Kokoski, and why is he so right? — A Church Divided”

  1. This article was very good because of its truthfulness and because it defends the Catholic religion against the protestation of today’s modernists who make fun of religion in the name of religion. Like the Pharisees they seek to do away with Christ and his cross so they can move forward with their new religion of man (so-called renewal), all done of course in the name of ‘God their father.’

    But their father is the devil (John) who is using a fallen hierarchy to tear the Church asunder. Satan entered the Church at Vatican II and engendered the reform of liturgy and has since been the guide of the post conciliar reform that has raped the spouse of Christ and left her in utter shambles.

    Paul Kokoski is one of the few people left on earth who has come forward to defend the Catholic Church and its head for which he to be prasied. Like Veronica in the Gospel, he too has had the courage and the good will to come forward and wipe Jesus’ face with a towel against the opinion of the jeering crowd. He sets the example of what every Catholic today should be doing in defense of the Faith as opposed to today’s clergy and bishops who collectively are using their rank of destroy the Church. Like the Pharisees they deny their faith and the souls in their care so they can have the acclaim of the world. Their adulteration of religion is what has spawned the adulterated spirituality we hear about in the news today. To ardently defend the Faith in the face of such rebellion is the duty of every baptized Roman Catholic. Hats off to Paul Kokoski for doing his duty. May he keep it up!!

    David Martin
    jmj4today@att.net

    1. Paul Kokoski has claimed his honor to be the Moses of Satan …. so shall be his position in Hell to his master, Satan

  2. Paul Kokorski is a liar and an unethical Catholic who routinely signs his letters to editors of world newspapers pretending he lives in the city where the paper is published, when in fact it is a lie, and he is a liar. You think he is an angel, in fact he is a devil in disguise bc he will do anything for his beloeved Chruch even lie and act unethically. and you salute that? you have lost THE WAY….

  3. Nancy J Kokstis said…

    Danielle appears to also be one who is one in denial of her sin and needs a loving chrsitian counselor. May God shower his Truth and mercy on them both befoe they die that they may live with Him in eternal glory.

    December 27, 2010 5:20 PM

    1. Why is it that christians seem to spew the most hate? No where in your bible did Jesus say to condem homosexuals. Jesus loved and accepted all. ALL. Your type of christians are sad and sorry people indeed. Love all – that’s What Jesus Would Do.

      1. I’m sorry Mike, your reinterpreting sacred scripture. Jesus died for sinful mankind, and the Holy Spirit confirms the reality of sin, such as the homosexual act. The Old Testament and New Testament both forcefully reject homosexual behavior. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

        Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

        Here’s a reliable understanding of homosexuality according to the teaching of the one Church Jesus founded; and everything about the teaching is directed toward love, eternal and everlasting love in heaven–salvation. Your understanding of love (confusing itself with human sex) does not lead to authentic love, either here on earth or in heaven. And that’s the meaning of life, to attain it forever. Your temporary philosophy is a dangerous roadblock to that superior goal.

        Thanks for the comment, and may God bless you and yours with a change of heart. EDITOR.

        HOMOSEXUALITY

        Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

        Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

        Divine Law

        The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).

        Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

        Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

        But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

        Reinterpreting Scripture

        To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

        While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

        Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

        Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

        All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

        Natural Law

        People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

        The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

        Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

        “I Was Born This Way”

        Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

        But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

        Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

        Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

        For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.

        The Ten Percent Argument

        Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

        But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

        But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

        Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

        Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

        “You’re Just a Homophobe”

        Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with “homophobia”—that they hold the position they do because they are “afraid” of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

        Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

        Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

        Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way “afraid” of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying “homophobe!” falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

        The Call to Chastity

        The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

        The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

        However, the Church also acknowledges that “[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

        “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

        Paul comfortingly reminds us, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

        Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

        Courage,
        Church of St. John the Baptist
        210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

        (212) 268–1010
        Web: http://couragerc.net

        NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
        presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
        Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
        IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
        permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
        +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

        HT/ CATHOLIC ANSWERS

  4. The bible only says that you cannot lay with a man as you would lie with a woman. But I’m not laying with them as I would with men, goddammit! But on a more serious note, I find it sad that you all claim that all people are equal in God’s eyes, but not if they’re gay. But fine, claim to love ‘everyone’. I think God hates haters more than gays. After all, the first commandment is ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ and many of you seem to be forgetting that. We’l see who god likes more when the apocalypse comes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s