Rainbow Pastoral Care
Let me take you down the rabbit-hole(s) of the ongoing efforts to queer™ the Catholic Church, as always facilitated by vainglorious people who have the audacity to rewrite Scripture
Some time ago, friend-of-these-pages
who writes about the Covid Mania in Australia, penned a long-ish essay entitled ‘the churches will help’ (the overlords’ anti-human) agenda. If you haven’t read it, I strongly urge you to spend a few minutes of your time on it:
Why am I bringing this up?
It is with great concern that some of the oldest existing institutions aren’t exactly immune from the anti-human, irrational body-and-mind virus that goes by about as many names as the alphabet soup ‘LGBTQIA+’ (that’s current, according to Wikipedia).
Despite being an entirely man-made (up) label and set of (multiple, often at-odds with each other) group identities, it is typically conflated by activists, journos™, politicos™, and practitioners. (We note, as an aside, the interesting notion that English Wikipedia entry on ‘Collective identity’ is noticeably different from its German version ‘Kollektive Identität’: the former offers a variety of origins—Alberto Melucci, George Mead, and, ultimately, Karl Marx—while the latter squarely points to both the Chicago school (sociology) and Sigmund Freud.
Whatever its exact configuration or definition, though, what matters here for our purposes are the following aspects:
All such collectivising identities are, to varying degrees, fictitious (some clearly more than others) or even utopian; this is significant as they are, in Weberian terms, ‘ideal-type[s]’, that is, ‘figment[s] of imagination not empirically found anywhere in reality [orig. dieses Gedankenbild (ist) nirgends in der Wirklichkeit empirisch vorfindbar]’. In fact, ‘it is a utopia [es ist eine Utopie], and for historical scholarship the task arises of determining in each individual case how close or how far reality is from that ideal image’.1
And then there is the staged nature of such utopian nonsense (mind-fuckery), which lends both strong theatrical qualities to any such expression. As this June is, once again, the so-called Pride Month™, a strange moment in time that comes with its very own sets of public displays of enforced conformity, if not (yet) mandatory participation—just consider ‘LGBTQIA+’ flags on public buildings, incl. kindergartens and schools—I merely note the depraved absurdity of demanding inclusive™ behaviour and requests for approval by everybody.
And then there is what in my mother tongue (German) is labelled vorauseilender Gehorsam, which, once rendered into English, means something like ‘anticipatory obedience’ in the sense of seemingly voluntary action or participation; it is done because it is known that, if one would not do so, participation would be mandatory.
And with that being said to be kept in mind, please follow me down this next instalment about the (self) destruction of the Christian denominations in Europe. I’ve written about this before, and I’ll provide some more links below the piece; for the time being, though, note that the below content comes to you in my translation, with emphases and [snark—rather: sighs] added.
Pride: Church Strengthens Visibility of Queer Believers
Via religion.ORF.at, 12 June 2025 [source; archived]
To mark Pride Month, numerous parishes and church groups in Austria are increasingly signalling their support for queer-sensitive pastoral care. In addition to rainbow flags on churches, prayers and blessings, full-time and volunteer staff are visibly involved in Pride events in several dioceses.
Those responsible for the church’s rainbow pastoral care see progress, but also a need for further action such as structural anchoring and support:
Clear responsibility at the level of the Bishops’ Conference [orig. Bischofskonferenz, the forum of the assembled heads of Austria’s Catholic dioceses] is urgently needed.
Thus Father Gregor Jansen from the management team of the Roman Catholic Rainbow Pastoral Care Austria [orig. Regenbogenpastoral] to the news agency Kathpress.
In many dioceses, rainbow pastoral care is organised on a voluntary basis, but professional resources and mandatory training for pastoral workers are often lacking [now you see, clearly, why I penned that seemingly high-brow intro: offering this kinds of pastoral care is ‘voluntary’, but the state broadcaster (no less) notes that ‘mandatory training’ is lacking: are you surprised?]. That’s the demand by Father Jansen:
Guidelines for queer-sensitive pastoral care should be implemented in all dioceses. This also applies to all training programmes, especially for priestly training. The aim is [for them] to function as resilient bridges between queer communities and church locations so that a mutual invitation, acceptance, and support can be experienced.
Consequences for Homophobic Attacks
There also needs to be clear consequences on the part of the bishops ‘when homophobic attacks occur in sermons or other statements’. According to Father Jansen, this is currently happening ‘only in part’ [lest anyone is in doubt, there’s a world of difference between personal opinions and what, you know, Scripture says—which reveals the framing here: let’s bring up ‘homophobia’ (which, ludicrously enough, relates to but the first three letters of that alphabet soup) to conflate the issues; the aim is obvious: make the bishops’ conference change by guilt-tripping them].
Benno Karnel, deputy chairman of the Rainbow Pastoral Platform, also wished ‘that more and more people responsible for their parish or organisation would take steps and take courageous action to create a safe space for queer people’ [strangely enough, he’s both a theologian and happily married since 1987 (source)]. People from the queer community should be able to find a safe home in the Catholic Church and ‘not because of their sexual orientation, but because they are simply there, are involved with their talents in the groups and parishes’. For this to succeed, ‘courageous leaders in parishes and organisations are needed to take steps’. [here I call BS: last time I checked with Scripture, ‘being there’ isn’t a requirement to follow Jesus; it’s the first step on a journey, and to demand the equivalent of a free lunch for simply ‘being there’ while totally ignoring, you know, the entirety of Scripture seems…strangely heretical for a theologian to note; moreover, I’m at a loss what the casual self-celebratory mentioning of ‘courage’—no less directed by Mr. Karnel at himself—is, that is, other than a vainglorious exercise in narcissism]
People from the queer community should be able to find a safe space [orig. Heimat] in the Catholic Church, according to the rainbow pastoral ministry.
Karnel and Jansen currently identify different speeds in terms of rainbow pastoral care in the Austrian dioceses. Both were positive about the Austrian commitment of parishes with the ‘a+o accepting and open’ label [a kind of wordplay relating to Jesus referring to himself as ‘the Alpha and the Omega’, fittingly from Revelation 22:13]. This means that church organisations and parishes are making a voluntary commitment to a queer-sensitive attitude [orig. Haltung] and approach to LGBTIQ* people as well as awareness-raising processes [the label, of course, is awarded by the Rainbow Pastoral, which renders it a kind of Mark of the Beast].
A New Departure Since ‘Fiducia supplicans’
Both cite the Vatican letter ‘Fiducia supplicans’, which explicitly does not exclude blessings for same-sex couples, as an important impulse [here’s a reasonable summary of its controversies (Wikipedia)]. Father Jansen:
Fiducia supplicans has confirmed what has long been a reality in many places: blessings for same-sex couples are possible—not as a sacrament, but as an expression of pastoral closeness [well, if the Doctor of Theology feels the need to point out that a ‘blessing’ isn’t a sacrament, well, WTF? Even (sic) its above-related Wikipedia entry is quite clear here: ‘On 25 September 2023…Pope Francis signalled the Church’s openness to blessings for gay couples as long as they did not misrepresent the Catholic view of marriage as between one man and one woman.[28][29].’ Given that the ‘TQ+’ (and then some) part of that alphabet soup community™ denies the existence of two sexes, I suppose Father Jansen’s comment points towards either ignorance or delusion (I think it’s both)].
It is remarkable that numerous bishops have expressly welcomed the document: this makes it clear that couples who wish to have a blessing ceremony no longer have to act as supplicants ‘who are dependent on the goodwill of individual parishioners, but that there is a right to pastoral accompaniment’, explained Jansen [now, I may be wrong here, but if you’re a (self-declared) member of the ‘TQ+’ (and then some) part of that alphabet soup community™, why is it that you’d need to claim a ‘right’ (no less) from the Church? Now, I’m not a theologian like Dr. Jansen, but here’s the first (!) sentence from Fiducia supplicans: ‘The supplicating trust of the faithful People of God receives the gift of blessing that flows from the Heart of Christ through his Church.’—And ask yourself (and Father Jansen, while we’re at it): how does one claim a ‘right’ to a ‘give’ from God? I think that works only if one denies Him, which is also why I mentioned that notion of the Mark of the Beast before…].
Official Concept of Blessing
In the diocese of Gurk-Klagenfurt, an official blessing concept [orig. Segenskonzept] was published—with a foreword by Bishop Josef Marketz—which takes into account both same-sex and heterosexual non-sacramentally married couples [wasn’t too easy to locate it, but it’s linked now—and here’s some more commentary from Bishop Marketz (source, 25 March 2025): ‘Among other things, the document envisages more participation by laypeople, as well as church services that are aimed at people ‘who are not regular worshippers’. Needless to say, that blessing concept doesn’t contain a single reference to the rainbow-themed nonsense].
With regard to Pope Leo XIV, Jansen and Karnel hoped for continuity with the line of his predecessor. Karnel referred to his frequent emphasis on the term ‘all’—similar to Pope Francis’ ‘todos, todos, todos’—and saw this as a sign of openness. Jansen expected ‘that the movements initiated by Pope Francis will be carried forward and anchored in canon law’ [note, once more, the rather perfidious way of conflating something that may or may not have been meant one or the other thing with the ‘expectation’—rather: demand—to promulgate the ‘rainbow pastoral’ into Church law (which it isn’t, hence also the absence of it in the above-discussed blessing concept)].
Austria-wide Commitment
‘In all Pride [no double meaning, let alone mentioning of the fact that Pride is one of the Cardinal Sins] cities, committed full-time and volunteer people are involved, in some cases also organised as a group, the Young Church, the rainbow pastoral leaders, members of ‘a+o’ parishes and organisations. Pride prayers will be celebrated, blessing corners will be set up, and people will be available to answer questions’, reported Karnel [I would have a few, but here’s the chief issue I take: do Mr. Karnel and his ilk really think that by further submitting (denigrating) themselves to the Zeitgeist will fill the pews once more? For that’s the premise, and if you read the above-related commentary carefully, that doesn’t seem to be the case (looks more like the other way round to me)].
In practice, the growing commitment can be seen throughout Austria: Pride prayers and a church presence at parades have taken place this year in Klagenfurt, Vienna, Linz, Ried im Innkreis, Bregenz, and Graz, among others. In Vienna, many parishes flew the rainbow flag in June [see the above-reproduced picture].
Father Jensen: A lot of Acceptance at the ‘Grass Roots’
‘In many parishes, i.e., at the so-called “grassroots” [more astro-turf: Catholics don’t vote for their parishioners, and it’s also quite impossible to get rid of a super-woke priest], and in organisations such as Catholic Action [orig. Katholische Aktion], I see a lot of acceptance and a natural approach to LGBTIQ*’, said Jansen, who also emphasised the support and backing of the diocesan authorities, who support the commitment to queer-sensitive pastoral care. ‘This benevolence was much less common just a few years ago,’ added Jansen [here, a core problem is revealed: the Church hierarchy at the diocesan level has, in many ways, become fully woke-ified (and they’re about to go broke)].
Karnel also called the ecumenical cooperation [meant is Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants) join together in this]—for example at the ‘Pride Prayer’ in Klagenfurt with around 100 participants—an additional ‘encouraging sign’ [what is there to say? Perhaps I should point to the Protestants who are now doing Harry Potter Masses to attract people—a sign of both depravity and desperation].
In October, a nationwide qualification course for full-time and voluntary church employees will take place for the first time with the ‘Basic Training LGBTIQ* Competence’ at Bildungshaus Schloss Puchberg. Topics include queer-sensitive [sic] Bible interpretation, liturgical organisation, sexual medicine [WTF will they be talking ‘bout?], and legal principles. According to the initiators, the aim is to enable pastoral teams to create ‘safe spaces’ for queer people [so, I had another look at the above-linked information material, and it is about as expectably absurd as you’d imagine it to be: there’s a segment on the history of the homosexual and queer communities™, a ‘trans person relates the process of finding their gender identity’, and then there’s this gem:
An exegetical reassurance. Does the Bible recognise and condemn homosexuality? [as if the ‘TQ?+’ segment appears in Scripture] Based on the relevant biblical texts and their contexts, the biblical hermeneutical and biblical-theological significance for today is analysed. In order to be able to categorise the biblical texts accordingly, the findings of the human and social sciences of recent decades must be taken into account [I suppose that the Word of God is related during Mass and explained during the Homily: more obfuscatory BS that merely opens the door for the introduction of depraved and irrelevant content from woke professors—and then there’s the entire notion that the ‘human and social sciences’ are entirely man-made, which renders this entire exercise heretical, too]
Of course, there’s also an element of grift involved, and we must not omit the fee of 400 euros for a three-day workshop.]
Bottom Lines
When I first saw the legacy media piece, I thought ‘WTF is this now’?
Yet little did I understand about the organised, grifting, and, above all, rabbit hole-esque qualities of this topic. I started out looking for the featured individuals (Father Jansen, Mr. Karnel) who may have started out with good intentions—but who have become, I’d argue, very much infected by the woke mind-virus.
Then I read the ‘blessing concept’ and was stunned that the official position of the Diocese of Gurk-Klagenfurt (Carinthia, Austria) doesn’t talk about any of this. As the above media piece notes, Bishop Marketz’ commentary is in the preface, which is telling enough: I submit he knows that this isn’t covered by official doctrine, hence the employ of weasel words.
Needless to say, we observe the same old agit-prop attack tactics used by all other subversive elements: claim a big tent (‘LBGTQI+’), consciously conflate very, very different, if not irreconcilable, things (‘LGB’ is not, and should never be, mentioned in the same context as ‘TQI+’), and blow away all resistance by indignant claims of foul play.
This is quite clearly observed by the fact that this workshop mentioned at the end of the media piece includes a Trans™ person whose ‘journey’ inevitably involves the denial of both Creation (biology) and science (reality). This is both perfectly understandable if one considers the fact that the term ‘queer’ cannot be defined—here’s the one essential consideration from David Halperin’s Saint Foucault (1995) you need to read to understand the above legacy media piece (emphases mine):
I consider this all demonic, if not outright satanic; I’m not doing so because of my personal faith (which isn’t the issue here), but because of the way I understand Scripture (and I’m quite certain I’m not the only one who does so), as opposed to Father Gregor Jansen who calls himself a ‘parish moderator’ (orig. Pfarrmoderator) instead of parishioner and who, incidentally, also offers courses and exams on Catholic Morality (see here for his German-only narrative C.V.).
And then there’s the additional rabbit-hole of the ‘Global Network of Rainbow Catholics’, which coalesced in 2014 and is already five conventions deep into this entire absurd depravity.
I’ll delimit myself to but a few lines here (from this ‘Rainbow Pastoral Care Initiative’ piece by Luis Mariano González García; emphases mine):
The life of those of us who are believers and, moreover, LGBTIQ, has oscillated between sin and illness [claims of victimhood]. And in this binomial in which we are pigeonholed both socially and ecclesially [more such claims] we sustain our faith, because we have the conviction that Someone greater than ourselves sustains and encourages us.
The time has come for LGTBIQ people to move from the simple apology of belonging to the Church, to the full recognition of the Kairos, the Time of God. That moment, when minorities, all of them, but especially rainbow believers, are confessors of the faith, because we continue to remain faithful and loving to the Church and creating possibilities of belonging for others.
When we had every argument to leave, we did not. In the Church we came to know Jesus, the all-inclusive one and his Gospel [interesting, if largely fake, take on, you know, Scripture], and in the Church there have always been companions who, after discerning their apostolate, courageously have been and are willing to go alongside us, even knowing that ours is not a red carpet ministry and that it could, as in fact happens, complicate their lives a lot…
To know in order to understand. Only what is known is loved, understood and cared for. It is important to put a face, name and speak in the first person, breaking the silence and ending the secrecy and invisibility that do so much harm. Because only by being visible and becoming a point of reference can we help those who have nowhere to direct their gaze, doubts, fears, hopes and life projects.
I’ll spare you the remainder, but it’s a wild read; I merely delimit myself to reiterate that, in order to follow Jesus, people are encouraged to act upon the calling of the Lord. The notion of ‘being visible’ and simply ‘being there’ as one’s contribution to salvation is utterly alien; in fact, I’d argue it also denigrates the martyrdom of Christ, his disciples, and every persecuted Christian. What about that as a deed?
In ye olden days, everyone who attended a theatre play or freak show at a fairground knew that doing so was not a reflection of reality.
Nowadays, if sick minds like the ones we met today have their way—and there is plenty reason to expect just that, esp. given official support—there’s probably no better place to end this long read than on Matthew 5:30:
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.
Here’s a bit more to follow-up on the queering™ of reality:
Weber, ‘Die Objektivität’, 191 (emphases in the original). The above translation is mine, which differs slightly from the one offered by Hans Henrik Bruun in Weber, ‘Objectivity’, 127: ‘The ideal type is a mental image that is not historical reality, and certainly not “true” reality; still less is it meant to serve as a schema into which it would be possible to fit reality as a specimen.’
I feel so bad for Germany and Austria. I am so sorry you have to deal with this. The entire world is watching in horror.
When it comes to protecting usury, anything goes! ;-)