The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
“Still, the process hadn’t been proved in sharks or mammals. And there seemed to be a good reason why. An egg that fertilizes itself makes two identical sets of chromosomes, including sex chromosomes. In birds, snakes and most lizards, two identical sex chromosomes make a male. That allows parthenogenesis to function as a DNA survival mechanism, because an isolated female — close your ears, kids — can produce a son and mate with him. But in sharks and mammals, this wouldn’t work, because two identical sex chromosomes — XX — make a female.”
Virgin birth happens statistically with one in every 10,000,000 human births. The offspring is always a girl, which is further verification of how miraculous was the Christ as a boy. Such was only supernaturally possible.
Goodness, can you imagine the headache and reproach if suddenly a chaste Catholic girl found herself pregnant, without even the benefit of a man and the enjoyment of mortal sin? Who would believe her? As a nun in the cloister she would be forced to surrender her child to adoption. As a layperson, she would face the stigma of being a single mother or racing around to find some noble man willing to marry her and to believe her story, accepting the public blame for a child he did not help conceive.
The article goes on to say:
“Mammals are different. We have a mechanism called imprinting, which foils parthenogenesis. But we’ve also developed an organ that can foil imprinting: the human brain. A few years ago, scientists produced 10 mice, two of them apparently normal, by manipulating a couple of genes so that eggs could fertilize each other. The scientists predicted “even greater improvements in the efficiency of parthenogenetic development in mice,” and they vowed to try next with pigs.”
I am not sure if there are any moral problems with parthenogenetic research in animals. But as for human beings, the notion of taking sperm and genetic DNA material from two females to create a embryo (for research purposes) seems highly suspect and wrong. There are a host of serious questions. One might contend that such efforts at reproduction foil the natural law which requires one man and one woman and the marital act.
However, if parthenogenesis (the fusion of two eggs) already exists in human-beings (although quite rare) then might one argue that enabling such a process is just a promotion of a rare naturally occurrence. Of course, those who terminate pregnancies also claim that they merely do what sometimes happens naturally, miscarriages. My contention would be that a rare statistical event of this sort (parthenogenesis) represents an abnormality and that which is the usual and most frequent instance of reproduction must be considered normative. Further, while human science can change all sorts of parameters, this in itself does not make such research moral. Men can act against their nature and this includes the reduction of human life to a commodity or to a curiosity for medical research and experimentation.
“Will we try parthenogenesis in humans? We already have. Biotech companies are rushing to industrialize it, with one claiming “a dominant patent position in the production of human embryonic stem cells by parthenogenesis.” The stem-cell version of parthenogenesis can’t make babies, but the mouse version might be able to. Theoretically, it would make it possible for two women to create a child together — not a clone, but a mixture of genes from each parent, just like you or me.”
Women might be able to have children together? Given that a number of women only rank the importance of men based upon their abilities to perform from the waist down, this possibility seems to make men largely disposable. Technologies give women devices for various forms of masturbation and now reproductive schemes would grant them “female” offspring. Socially, many women have already made the break, particularly in the households of female single parents. I recall in a liberal minority congregation years ago being told by a woman getting federal and state assistance: “What do I need a man for? I already have my babies!” Men provided entertainment and a stud-service, but nothing else.
Lesbian couples would not have to adopt but could now have children from their own combined DNA. This is a jump from the fusion of two egg cells in a single woman to the forced sharing of genetic material between two. Indeed, there is no scientific reason why genetic information could not be shared from many individuals. Of course, this would quickly represent a new eugenics with designer children. Men could participate, but would be completely optional, unless one wanted a male child.
I see no significant reason why such research should be pursued. The race is not facing immediate extinction.
This is the fifth installment in this extended dialogue about homosexuality. I must warn the reader that not everyone is polite and few are timid about remarks. The majority express a strong negativity to the disorientation. Unfortunately, one of its strongest proponents was an avowed atheist. I was hoping that we might more deeply explore how some try to reconcile such a lifestyle with a professed Christian faith. The atheist rejects Christian morals because the Bible is just another book to him. Natural law often fails because he rejects intelligent design and order. The active homosexual person who tries to be a Christian would face serious quandaries regarding the Scriptural prohibitions. Does he argue that the Bible is not inerrant and fully inspired? Does he contend that certain teachings are prejudiced and so historically and culturally situated that they no longer speak to us? Would he contend that just as slavery was tolerated, core Scriptural values would override and come to the fore with later reflection about homosexuality? Might such dissenters merely ignore parts of the Bible and our sacred tradition, giving greater gravity to secular humanism and present-day social engineering? These questions really did not arise in this conversation.
DURCK:
Homosexuals are imposing their standards upon me and my children by claiming that such a lifestyle is acceptable and by telling my children that they, too, can live the gay lifestyle. Yes, the gay agenda is to force (yes, force) society to proclaim homosexual and lesbian unions as legitimate and valid. Absolutely not! All of you can talk until you’re blue in the face— I’m not buying any of it.
And when gay couples adopt children, they’re bringing yet a third party into their madness.
Who do any of you think you’re kidding?
MICHAEL:
Durck— you’re right. This is an abuse of the English language. We call them homosexual lifestyles right? Let’s call them what they really are. They’re death styles.
When I was young, my parents took our family for a Sunday ride through historic Bucks County, Pennsylvania. We drove through a town called New Hope. That was the first time in my life that I had witnessed two men kissing each other in public. One of the men was wearing a full length mink coat and then exposed himself to the other man. What stands out the most in my mind was the negative reactions of my parents. This left an indelible impression upon me for the rest of my life. My conscience told me how sick and how wrong that was. I’m sure that my late father, given the chance, would have kicked the crap out of them, only because his children were there.
A gay couple should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child either. Children need both a mother (female) and a father (male).
We have to fight today to keep normal things normal. It isn’t natural or normal for two people of the same sex to be physically attracted to each other. GET SOME HELP.
MORSE:
So Michael, when I see stories of Christians and Catholics abusing children, should I assume that every Christian and Catholic is a child abuser?
Perhaps Christians and Catholics should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child. Because of COURSE they’re ALL just horrible child molesters. [sarcasm]
FATHER JOE:
Okay, everybody let us try to place nice.
MORSE:
Why? I’m using his logic. Because two men were once lurid in public, he is casting down judgment on all homosexuals. Why should I not do the same to Christians?
FATHER JOE:
It may be that he could have better made his case. Remember, Christians presume that the believer who lives out his faith is properly disposed to virtue. By contrast, active homosexuality would undermine one’s moral standing, even if discrete. It is still sinful. While there are hypocritical Christians, there are also many homosexuals who reinforce the stereotype of low morals by public acts of lewdness and dissent.
DURCK:
Glad you agree, Michael. I’m sure your late father was incensed that his young son had to witness such a spectacle, but, seeing you today, he would have no cause to worry of any negative effect that sight may have had on you.
My heart breaks for children, especially today— the smut and the insanity they’re subjected to is absolutely criminal. What infuriates me the most is the brainwashing that’s imposed upon them while they’re still so vulnerable.
I know that homosexuals and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and that we should treat them respectfully, but I’m finding the task of loving them increasingly more difficult.
LARA:
See what I mean, Michael, that “anger within?” Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life, so since they’ve chosen not to, they presume the right to clobber us for our every foible. Speaking of straining on gnats and swallowing camels…
MICHAEL:
Morse— for your info, neither Christians and Catholics, nor priests hold a monopoly on child abuse and pedophilia. That’s what deceived and deluded people try very hard to believe.
You can also thank Almighty God that you weren’t raised by either two males or two females, or were you? If I struck a nerve with you GOOD!
Gay is not OK. If you’re a “CHRISTIAN” then you’ll agree because homosexuality in the site of God is an ABOMINATION.
Be it known that I DON’T HATE HOMOSEXUALS! I LOVE THEM BECAUSE GOD DOES. What I hate is sinful behavior, especially in public and in clear view of innocent children.
Dear Lara, they don’t have any defense. That’s why they’re angry.
If their biological parents never came together in that most sacred act, they wouldn’t be here defending their abnormal and sinful behavior.
MORSE:
Christians who live out their faith are virtuous? Well, the majority of homosexuals are also virtuous. You happen to think you have a monopoly on virtue. The rest of the world disagrees with you.
“Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life.”
No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so. A book saying something does not make it so.
FATHER JOE:
Morse, I am using the word “virtue” or “virtuous” not simply in reference to natural virtues but that which is brought about by grace and is supernatural. I would hardly think an atheist could tell me who has and has not been so favored by God, particularly since you deny his existence. How often have I spoken about Catholics as not only a people of “the Book” (the Scriptures) but of a rational faith, too?
Homosexual acts also violate the natural law.
LARA:
The “rest of the world” disagrees with Father Joe?
Oh, please. That’s quite a hopeful stretch of the imagination, I must say, and not only painfully (for you) inaccurate, but a bold-written lie.
The Roman Catholic Church and her priests show more genuine, loving compassion toward you as homosexuals and lesbians than any other group on earth, and even their love you reject and ridicule. Why? Because they refuse, again, out of love for you— to pat you on your head and tell you, “There, there, my child, live as you please with a clear conscience…”
And you think the left cares for you? No, they’re using you, that’s why they couldn’t care less how you live.
“No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so.” No, there isn’t a good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral, but there are plenty of horrible reasons, aren’t there? No big surprise, either, that the Holy Bible is considered “just a book” to you. If the Bible condoned homosexuality, you wouldn’t view it as just a book, then. I, or anyone else, don’t have to quote you a good reason why homosexuality is immoral— you already know that it’s immoral. Oh, yes you do.
Morse, you’re at the wrong site to seek the validation you’re after, but there are plenty of sites that will tell you what you want to hear. Why waste your time here?
ISHMAEL:
Father Joe, yes God can only judge homosexuals and it’s true that their acts are against God’s laws. But we should respect homosexuals and treat them very kindness and respect.
I don’t have a problem with homosexuals but I don’t agree with the sexual stuff they do. But I believe God will judge us at the same time that he judges homosexuals. I believe the things that homosexuals do is sinful, but that being gay is not a sin.
LEIGH:
OK, everyone is quick to judge the homosexuals whether men or women; but, at the same time, we have Catholic priests molesting BOYS. Maybe you should put all your time and energy on something that matters?
FATHER JOE:
I have spoken about the tragedy of such men in the Church, too. But someone has observed that while not all homosexuals are pedophiles (or pederasts), most of the cases of such sins against children by churchmen have been homosexual in orientation and act.
LEIGH:
I have read the Bible and know what it says about homosexuality. I also know that I will only be judged by God. None of you have the right to throw judgment on anyone else. You are no one to say what is right and wrong.
FATHER JOE:
You have read the Bible, really? What you say is not what the Bible says.
LEIGH:
I know straight people and gay and most of the straight marriages I know (not all) end in adultery and lies. Meanwhile, spouses in all the gay marriages I know have the upmost respect for each other.
FATHER JOE:
You would recommend perverse relationships by castigating marriage? No, you are very much in error.
LEIGH:
I believe a person cannot help who they fall in love with and are attracted to. I am not saying gay is better than straight; I just think everyone should worry about their own relationships and give the gay community a break.
FATHER JOE:
I think we already give them a break. We love them, despite their sinful behavior. However, it would be a false love to say nothing regarding actions which offend God and our nature. We speak not as a perfect people or as kin to the self-righteous Pharisee, but as sinners who know Christ’s mercy.
ISHMAEL:
Father Joe, God does not judge homosexuality because that’s not good.
Homosexuality is not a sin. It is just the ministers out there trying to get people to believe otherwise. God will never judge because he respects and accepts them for who they are. If they are God’s kids, then why does he judge?
FATHER JOE:
Sorry Ishmael, but something objectively wrong is not right just because we want it to be otherwise. The ancient Jews condemned homosexuality as repugnant to God and enacted severe punitive measures against it. Likewise, both Christian Tradition and Scripture are clear in its prohibition and in how such activity deprives one of membership in the kingdom of heaven. Your view of parenthood is flawed; it is a role not of blind toleration, but one where guidance about right and wrong is offered. Divine justice speaks to the demands of natural law and divine positive law. Yes, there is infinite love and wondrous mercy, but never at the cost of truth or by compelling collaboration with moral evil. We are creatures and it is not the place of the creature to tell the Creator that he cannot judge us. We belong to him. Our posture should always be that of humble obedience. God does not merely accept us for who we are but calls us to repentance and conversion. If you do not know that then you are a stranger to the Gospel.
WAYNE:
Father Joe, I am who I am and not defined by my sexuality alone. I feel that I am no less one of God’s children than a heterosexual. I can only hope that God is more compassionate than you are.
I have spent my life trying to be a good person by loving and being considerate of my neighbor and sharing my time, talent and treasure.. I pray and participate at Mass, not just attend, on a regular basis and have faith that God will judge me for all I was in life, not just my sexuality.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
FATHER JOE:
Given the weather, I have a few snow balls, but no stones to throw. It is NOT my intention to be inconsiderate or mean. I am, however, a Catholic priest, and as such am obliged to teach and believe what the Church holds to be true. Yes, you are not utterly defined by your orientation; however, although you admit this, you then demand a full acceptance of your homosexuality or else. Sorry, that just does not wash. Like any unmarried heterosexual, you are called to a chaste life without genital or sexual activity. Since homosexuals cannot marry one another, you must then practice perpetual celibacy. As long as you are free from mortal sin, there is nothing that prevents you from the full and active participation in the Mass and Holy Communion. This is a statement of fact. Nothing is said to hurt you. God loves you and so does the Church. But all of us must obey God. The moral code on such questions is quite clear. I will pray for you.
ISHMAEL:
So Father Joe, are you are saying that if you were not a Catholic priest you would agree with homosexuality? You said, “God loves you and so does the church,” but then you said, “All of us must obey God.” It sounds like you are saying God does not love Wayne. It sounds like you are against homosexuality, Father Joe!
FATHER JOE:
No, priest or not, I would accept and believe what the Church teaches. However, as a priest I have a special commission to preach and to teach. It is not my place to substitute the whims of men for the truths of God and his holy Church. The Church rightfully opposes homosexual activity as wrong and as sinful. Homosexuality is a disorientation, a disease of the mind. God loves us all, including homosexuals. However, he wants us to LOVE HIM enough to obey him and to make the needed sacrifices to do so. We all struggle but not all our struggles are the same. Deviant sexual attraction and practices do not constitute a legitimate human right, nor should they be encouraged or normalized. Civil society is very wrong about this. There should even be civil sanctions against such crimes. Until recently sodomy was listed among the vices that were punishable under law.
MARCIA:
Anatomically speaking, the anus was not designed as a sexual orifice nor was man’s seed intended to be planted in feces. Male and female were created by God sexually different so as to procreate the species. Going beyond that design by anyone is perverse.
Homosexual acts are perverted or nicely put, “disordered.” There really is no argument here since the created design of male and female was quite simple and meant for the most basic intellect to understand.
To argue that God allows or accepts anything else negates everything the Scriptures tell us. Sex in and of itself is not necessary for love to exist.
ISHMAEL:
Dear Father Joe, why is the Church so against gay people? It is not a disease of the mind you dumb priest! The problem is ministers out there trying to get people to hate homosexuals. Do you dislike gay people?
FATHER JOE:
I do not hate anybody. But I am a priest and a Christian. I trust God’s Word on this subject. My appreciation of natural law substantiates my religious beliefs. I believe that homosexuals are called to lives of celibate and chaste love. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin.
Some argue that in regard to the condemnation of homosexuality it would be difficult to find anything comparable in the Scriptures to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is true— if you don’t know what the story references.
FATHER JOE:
Scripture has many levels and can be multivalent; nevertheless, how it is understood by the people who claim it does matter and more so than any proposed rediscovery or rethinking of the texts. You are simply bending over backwards to discount one of the two tiers against homosexuality, the witness of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church also employs a Christian anthropology that relies heavily upon the perennial philosophy of the Church and natural law.
MAX:
Historically, the story is presented as an indictment of homosexuality. Presumably, those knocking at the host’s door are male homosexuals bent on abusing the host’s male guests. The telling moment in this story, however, is when the host offers his daughters in place of his guests. These were “townspeople.” So, since the host knew them, he would have known that in this situation his daughters would not satisfy homosexual men— from the youngest to the oldest townsman— presumably from five years old to eighty.
FATHER JOE:
Lot offered his daughters because he was desperate and really did not know what to do. The men at the door are true “sodomites,” wanting to have their way with his mysterious visitors. Even the revised New American text has not garbled it: We read: “Before they went to bed, ALL the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—ALL the people to the last man—closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may HAVE INTIMACIES with them’” (Genesis 19:4-5).
MAX:
Most Catholic Scripture scholars today would see the story differently. Probably it is a story of ancient hospitality codes; the conduct rules between hosts and guests. When one travelled to a distant place he usually stayed with strangers. There were no Holiday Inns. This made for a risky situation for both host and guests. So host-guest rules (Xenia) were critical. In fact, Lot alludes to this in telling the townspeople: “these guests have taken shelter under my roof.” So he must protect them at all costs— including the lives of his daughters and his own. The nature of their assault on the guests symbolizes the degree of depravity in their lives. What was the nature of their depravity? Take your pick. Israelite tradition attributed it to wickedness of the city. The Yahwist (J Source) thought it was homosexuality; Isaiah thought it was a lack of social justice. Ezekiel saw it as a disregard for the poor and Jeremiah thought it was a general state of immorality.
FATHER JOE:
I do not know any orthodox Catholic Scriptural exegetes who would take the sin of homosexuality out of the mix. Your supposition about hospitality codes is just that and probably derived from the few footnotes on the bottom of your Bible. Every school boy who went to a Catholic college learned about the sources imbedded in Genesis. We also know that stories and references are sometimes told with a different emphasis. However, the whole Bible and not dissected parts is what we embrace as God’s inspired Word. The text is clear that these townsmen and boys wanted the visitors for homosexual rape. I would call that being pretty inhospitable! Sodom is destroyed because their perversion capped a vast malaise of immorality. “But among Jerusalem’s prophets I saw deeds still more shocking: Adultery, living in lies, siding with the wicked, so that no one turns from evil: To men they are all like Sodom, its citizens like Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 23:14). The comparison here is less with sodomy and more with the fact that like Sodom, no one is innocent or seemingly willing to repent before it is too late. People selfishly involved with their sinful lives care little for justice or for the poor. Likewise, Ezekiel compares God’s people to Sodom to awaken them from their moral stupor: judging his people as neglectful of the needy, he said, “Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them” (Ezekiel 16:50). In any case, this was a bit of an aside. I made reference to Sodom and Gomorrah to show that, even in the earliest days, the Bible condemned such sexual behavior as sin. I doubt that any day soon God will shoot lightning bolts down upon gay people. God would still be displeased, though.
MAX:
In contemporary times it has been fashionable to demonize homosexuality every chance we get in spite of the Church asking that we show kindness and sympathy. Maybe that’s why we like the homosexual interpretation so much.
FATHER JOE:
I neither like nor dislike it. It is simply the way things are and I have no authority to change it. Homosexuals should not be teased or bullied. We should not call them names. They are also God’s children. God calls them to celibate love and holiness. I embraced celibacy as a sacrifice of my priesthood. For the sake of my vocation to serve God’s Church, I freely gave up the right to have a wife and family. Unless some reversal in inclination is in the offering, the homosexual accepts celibacy from necessity. Homosexual actions are sinful. As for the homosexual orientation, it is unfortunate but invokes no fault. The life of purity brings no condemnation, but grace and holiness.
MAX:
For me it’s a question of catecheses. In the Old Testament we need to stop teaching old Babylonian myths and Assyrian folkloric stories and start teaching Hebrew history and how the Hebrew Bible was put together.
FATHER JOE:
Faith is not found in dissected parts of the Bible or in historical-critical analysis of Scriptures. You seem to admit some deficiency in various parts of the Bible, and yet, it is all God’s inspired revelation. The final interpretation of the texts remains with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, not with you and not with the so-called experts. Look to the kerygma of faith, and not to the semi-atheistic techniques that rob the Bible of mystery and ultimately of binding truth.
MAX:
The New Testament, particularly the Synoptics, are written in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies. If one is not familiar with the genre form, he’s not going to really appreciate the New Testament. The average pew Catholic, which is the majority, gets none of this from the pulpit. So as time goes on movements like the New Atheism is going to continue to eat our lunch as we will continue to look sillier and sillier. Catholicism is a defensible religion. So we need to start doing it.
FATHER JOE:
The New Testament gives us four Gospels each with its own particular theology but all about the life of Jesus Christ. If you deny that it gives us the real life of Christ then you fall under the censure of the Syllabus of Errors against the heresy of Modernism. We have Acts that gives us a window into the early Church. We have the Book of Revelation which reminds us about God’s providence and how all things will be consummated in Christ. We have various letters, which instruct and admonish the churches.
We will not survive the New Atheism by adopting its methods or by making Christian truths, dogmatic and moral, somehow relative. Sorry, I will stick to the faith that is survived the ages and is true, not with your new dissenter’s version.
Returning to the topic of this post, homosexual acts are immoral— PERIOD!
Discussion
TS:
“Only God Can Judge Homosexuality”— Assumption: The perfect Deity has a need to cast judgment.
FATHER JOE:
Actually, we have a need for judgment. We bring it upon ourselves. We were made for God. If our faith in words and witness testifies to him, he will give us himself. If we reject him, he will respect our freedom and draw us away from his presence. The joy of heaven and the pains of hell are first fashioned in this world and made final in the next.
MICHAEL:
I don’t understand why we complicate the simple things of life. God desires so much to bless us in abundance. Why are we so ignorant of this?
Instead of being receptive, we’ve chosen to be wayward in disobedience and unworthy of any blessings. God can’t bless us if we are self willed and live according to our flesh. This is an insult to God. I would choose to go without sex my entire life for that fact alone, IF I were a person with homosexual tendencies.
Our Lady told the Fatima children that souls fall into hell like snowflakes because of sins of the flesh. They’ll never know what they’ve missed out on. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IS RESERVED FOR MARRIED PEOPLE OF OPPOSITE SEX ALONE. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
TASTI:
Father Joe, I am glad that you have gay friends and continue to have dialogue with them. That says a lot about you and your ministry. I will read your other posts. You have every right to your opinion as I do. On this issue we differ. I do not have argument with God. It is you I disagree with on this issue. I am sure we can go back and forth on just this point.
Even the clergy is at odds about their own interpretation of Scripture, each calling each other valid or invalid. Look how many churches exist today who broke away from the original Catholic Church because of one point of doctrine or another. Yes, we can go back and forth on this point also.
As passionate as we are about our different points of view on this topic, you have responded to the opposing questions thoughtfully with your points. If I ever have the opportunity to be in Maryland one day, I would love to drop by your parish and visit. You would be a very interesting person to talk to about faith matters.
MORSE:
“Returning to the topic of this post, homosexual acts are immoral— PERIOD!” Why? If it’s just because you think your god says so, then it’s as completely arbitrary as “wearing hats indoors is immoral.” If you have an actual reason as to any harm that homosexuality causes, by all means present it. I am, however, well read in many of the debunked “homosexuality leads to crime/depression/unsafe sex’ studies.” But, as I said, they are debunked. Anything new, however, would be lovely.
FATHER JOE:
My posts are religious ones. Two Scripture citations were made in the first, next I quoted the universal catechism, and here I record an extended debate. It is a debate within Christianity. Except for the matter of natural law, I had not originally intended to extend it to atheism. As a Catholic, I believe that God exists and that he and his laws are part of an objective order. Christians have as much right as anyone else to have their say and to have their votes counted in a free society. As for the various problems associated with homosexuality, I hardly want to discuss such a sordid business. Let it suffice to say that I know a doctor who has had to perform a great deal of rectal surgery because of the damage caused by anal intercourse. In any case, I think your comment here is mere mischief.
NIGEL:
Nigel cited my initial blog post with the two Scriptures passages that condemn homosexuality…
Pastor, I don’t know where you went to seminary, nor do I know how long you’ve been preaching, but it is clear to me that you’ve forgotten a very important, yet basic, passage from the Bible, and this is what it says:
He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Luke, 10:27)
It seems that you are quite capable of doing the first part of this passage quite well, however you clearly don’t have the slightest clue as to do the second. Gays and lesbians, Father, are just as much your brothers and sisters as anyone else. And yet, here you are belittling them and name-dropping God as a cover for it.
My suggestion to you, then, would be for you to re-evaluate the people you work with on a daily basis. Chances are, you work and pray with gays (whether or not you’re aware of it), so I’d suggest that you change your ways.
I hope that you learn to accept people for who they are, regardless of whether or not you agree with the way they live their lives.
FATHER JOE:
Nigel, I think you were rather rash in judging me before inviting some discussion.
I posted the verses on my Blog to illustrate the negative view that is taken from Scripture about homosexual activity. (The inspiration was a new HALLMARK card that supports gay civil unions or marriages.) In my follow up comments I also quoted the universal catechism of the Catholic Church. It was never denied that gays and lesbians may also be brothers and sisters in faith. I firmly believe that we treat everyone with respect and compassion. Considering homosexual acts as sinful does not mean that we must necessarily hate or discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Regarding Luke 10:27, the love of God and neighbor is not an emotional affair but must have real Christian substance. It refers to a movement of the will and a practical application. The model of love that our Lord gives us is that of sacrifice. Loving God means placing faith in his Son and allowing that love to spill over upon our neighbors. If we firmly believe that certain things are right and wrong, then love must take hard stands. Like Jesus in the garden, the movement of our soul has to imitate Jesus’ submission, “Not my will, but thy will be done.” We want to please God, no matter what the cost. We want our neighbor (composed of both friends and enemies) to be happy and to know the joys of the kingdom and eternal life. Although sometimes ridiculed, there is truth in the proposition that we must “love the sinner but hate the sin.”
I count a number of gay men and even lesbian women among my friends. A few of them agree with me that they are called to a life of chaste celibacy, service and prayerfulness. Others would disagree with me but I remain close to them and their families. They know what I think and I will not deceive them about it. They also know that I am there for them, always ready to bring absolution to those with contrite hearts and to anoint those who will soon see God. Peace!
ROBERTA:
No human has the right to judge what is immoral for another.
FATHER JOE:
Ridiculous! Would you not judge the immorality of a pedophile or a slaver? Sure you would; indeed, while subjective, you have already judged me for judging!
ROBERTA:
If gays want to act on the way they were born let them be.
In the end only the higher being can judge if they have made a mistake or not.
FATHER JOE:
Again this is silly. You are saying that the Church must be silent about Christian morality! The Church and her ministers have every right to transmit the values of faith. The Church also has a right to be a player in the public forum.
ROBERTA:
I know many gay people and most of them are wonderful kind loving people with families, friends, homes, jobs and yes even children. Just let them be and show some love and compassion.
FATHER JOE:
A failure to admonish the sinner is a pathetic love. No one is talking about deliberately hurting people just to make their lives miserable. As a Catholic priest and as a Christian, I have a mission mandate to spread the faith. If St. Paul took your advice, whole epistles would disappear from the Bible. As a priest, one of my duties is the forgiveness of sins and to help people in receiving sanctifying grace. We should all want our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters to go to heaven, and ourselves along with them. Silence and moral apathy is a false compassion and not from God. You mean well, but such an attitude is defeatist. My suspicion though, is that it reflects a moral decision, that homosexual activity is no big deal. In contradiction, Catholicism regards all sexuality and personhood as tremendously important.
SMILEY:
Father, what about homosexual tendencies? Let me explain. What if a person has a leaning towards this terrible sin which cries out to God for vengeance? The person may never act on it physically, but what about mentally. Does not the Bible say not only committing adultery is wrong but so much as looking at a woman the wrong way?
What about sinful acts committed in the mind leading to self abuse. This is also a mortal sin is it not?
We live in a spiritual minefield where every ad on TV and in the news and on the radio we are exposed to these things. God Help us!
FATHER JOE:
You answered your own questions; yes we can sin in the mind and the imagination.
JOHN:
Please, let us stop the garbage that only God can judge a homosexual, while we have no qualms about the state or city or Feds putting some pedophile or murderer away.
As a true Traditionalist, let us just go back to our Baltimore Catechism with respect to Sin, chapter 6:
What is actual sin? Actual sin is any sin of willful thought, word or deed contrary to the law of God.
What is mortal sin? Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.
Why is this sin called Mortal? This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation to the soul.
How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal? To make a sin mortal three things are necessary; a grievous matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.
Let’s now jump to chapter 11.
Why did Christ found the Church? Christ founded the Church to teach, govern sanctify and save all men.
Are all men bound to the Church? All are bound and belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it can NOT be saved.
Now this must come as a shock to the Church of Vatican II that teaches that even those that deny Christ such as Jews, Moslems and Hindus can actually be saved, as Mother Teresa actually taught in India.
This is false, and for those who are homosexual which Scripture clearly condemns, this is a mortal sin in any way shape and form, and I can only guess because upwards of 50% of Catholic priests are homosexual themselves, they don’t have the guts to call it like it is.
Christ can only be shedding tears in heaven for what has become of his beloved Church.
FATHER JOE:
I don’t know how many gays may be in the priesthood. Neither can you know. We need to support our priests. Most of our clergy are good men, faithful to their celibacy, their prayers, and to their parish responsibilities. God may also be shedding tears for those quick to condemn priests and for those adding to the wounds of Mother Church. God bless you, you are right about sin. Peace!
MICHAEL:
John, Mother Theresa taught exactly what the Church teaches. We never deny ANYONE the possibility of salvation. We don’t do that because we know that Jesus has been given complete and full authority by His Father to judge and to rule the Earth. All of us will be judged on three criteria:
The light of truth that we have.
The opportunities that God gave us.
The choices that we’ve made.
I disagree with your assertion that 50% of our priests are homosexuals. That’s simply not true and where did you come up with that figure?
Regarding mortal sin as it relates to modern society, there is no such thing as mortal sin anymore. What we have is moral relativism, which is the denial and refusal of objective truth and moral absolutes. I would love to see everyone adhere to fundamental Catholic teachings, but I’m sorry to say that I think that we’re too late for that. This is not 1953 and Fulton Sheen isn’t on prime time TV.
The old man has a strong grip of his short rope and it’s getting tighter and tighter with each passing day. We don’t have any more spiritual unity in this country, which is our main downfall. Despite all of this, I ask myself what I can do to make things better. I know that I can never change another person’s way of thinking by foisting my views upon them. What I do is this; I try as hard as I can in conforming my life to Christ and my will to the inerrant will of God. I can only account for what I do.
JOHN:
Father, my apologies for broad-brushing the priesthood; those like yourself, who are so honorable and devout, are to be role models for sons of the Church like myself. Such is as was the case 50 years ago when the most honorable and proud thing a parent could show off was a son who entered the clergy!
With respect to Mother Teresa, she was a wonderful beautiful woman; but, by many accounts, she was not in any way an Apostle for the Faith. Neither was she in the business of conversions. She actually compromised the Catholic faith in India and taught the teachings of the Church incorrectly, informing the Hindus (a pagan religion— 1st commandment I may add?) that as long as one were a good Hindu, they could be saved. Any 1st year theology student or anyone who ever read the OT or NT knows this is false. She did much good as a HUMANITARIAN; but, in my opinion is not a saint. Sorry.
FATHER JOE:
Mother Teresa always sought to be of one mind and heart with Christ and his Church. She had many wonderful insights into the wonder of human creation and the sanctity of life. She embraced poverty so that she might pour out herself entirely for the poor. She never made any claim about being a theologian. Saints sometimes make practical mistakes and/or fail to make distinctions in the faith that are entirely accurate. But saints are always humble, and like Mother Teresa, always deferred to men like Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). I recall once that she was quite apologetic when she mistakenly received Holy Communion at a Mass offered by a priest of the Patriotic Catholic Church in China. She honestly admitted that she did not know such was prohibited. Although the old Tridentine form was used, she said it looked the same and she had not followed the current political situation between the Church and the government of Communist China. China had invited Mother Teresa and her sisters to start a house in their country. A similar invitation came from Cuba. Doors closed to most in the Western world were opening to her. Such is the mysterious power of love, and a sign that God’s providence was leading her footsteps.
Her sisters in Washington reached out to the poor and offered tender care to those dying from HIV complications. Many of these suffering people were homosexual; and yet, the sisters loved them unconditionally. That is also the face of the Catholic Church on this important issue.
We Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we do wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. Without Jesus and His deal to make it all right, we would be planning our new residence in Hell. But we have taken Jesus as Savior and Lord and He keeps us in His Father’s loving will. As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.
FATHER JOE:
Yes, sin is always a violation of love.
FRED:
Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? Jesus didn’t. These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God’s grace and live by working the law.
FATHER JOE:
St. Paul’s words cannot be rationalized away. He was the great apostle who spoke about us as living in the freedom of grace that faith brings and not under the yoke of the law. However, he is also the one who exhorts against homosexual activity as a sin that can cost us eternal life. Are you saying that the epistles of St. Paul in the Bible are not God’s inspired Word? The teachings of Christ come through his words and actions and through the witness and message of the Apostles in his living Church.
Your questions are good ones and I will attempt to answer as best I can:
1. Who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship?
There are many victims, beginning with Christ who as the saving Lamb of God suffered and died under the weight of all the sins committed or ever to be committed. If we loved Jesus as we should, then we would make a better effort to live a virtuous life in keeping with the commandments. The Jews understood the commandments against sexual immorality as also referring to homosexual misconduct. It was for that reason that they enacted a dire punishment upon those caught. I must also add a corrective. Sometimes sin is not a matter of an “unloved victim” but rather of a person or persons who were not loved enough. True love requires discipline and sacrifice. When I prepare couples for marriage and discover that they are cohabitating and/or fornicating, their response is often that they love each other “too much” to wait. I would not deny that they love each other, but there is something of a lie about what they say and do. If they loved each other as true Christians should, then they should be willing to undergo any difficulty and sacrifice for the beloved. Thus they lie about the depth of their love. The second lie is their relationship, itself. The marital act is a loving act between a husband and wife. Between anyone else it is a fraud and cannot express what God intends for it to convey. Two homosexual men or two lesbian women might have incredible affection for each other. Because of their sexual disorder, this accompanies a passionate interest as well. But sometimes true love does not mean intimate embracing or being together. Sometimes it means walking away and distance. Sexual love is only permitted between spouses in marriage. Unmarried heterosexuals are not entitled to it. Marriage by definition is a covenant or contract between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as same sex-marriage. Thus, people of the same gender may never engage in sexual acts with one another. I know this sounds harsh, but I believe that homosexuality is viewed as an abomination by God. I see no way around the Scriptural testimony or the basic physical mechanics of human nature. Men and women’s parts fit together and they are made for each other. Homosexuality means trying to rewrite the manual, and the end result does not work very well. There is no potential for offspring and the bodies themselves are sometimes harmed. Love does not have to be sexual. If there is no possibility of reversal, I believe homosexuals are called to a generous and prayerful love in the context of the Church and for the larger community. But this love must be chaste and celibate.
2. Where is the hurt?
The hurt comes from a failure to love each other as God intends. One may not immediately become aware of the harm on a subjective level, but it is there. Just as kids who say they are in love take no note of the STD they transmit from one to the other; homosexual couples may only become aware over time of the emotional frustration inherent in feigning legitimate sexual intercourse. Further, there must be a spiritual effect, given that there is an objectively immoral relationship. As for Catholics, the Magisterium of the Church leaves no doubt that homosexual acts are always and everywhere disordered and wrong. The question might be better phrased as, “Who does it hurt?” I hear this all the time from young people who are sexually active. They learn all too soon that it hurts them and that there are serious consequences for sinful behavior. Casual relationships often break off; as for homosexuals, statistics show that the gay pick-up scene is more the rule than the exception. A husband and wife can truly express the two becoming one flesh. Gay sexual activity always leaves the partners somewhat estranged from each other. No matter how much they try, they are never one flesh. This makes infidelity all the easier. The manner by which they parrot the marital act is in itself somewhat abusive and an ugly caricature of the male-female dynamic.
3. Who could bring suit against the “sinner”?
Traditionally I suppose it was society that punished certain sins judged as criminal. The federal government forced the Mormons of Utah to give up plural marriage and up until recent times, sodomy and homosexual activity were illegal in most places. Indeed, cohabitation between men and women was punishable in some states, like Virginia. Many places were so concerned about it that after five years, the legality of common law marriages was imposed. The judgment that most matters, is that of almighty God. Anyone who contends that God would look the other way or favor homosexual unions is fighting two thousand years of tradition. Contemporary revisionism is on pretty shaky ground.
FRED:
It is noteworthy that Gay people employ themselves in loving professions like medicine, education and the ministry. However, some Christians evidently work in the Biblical judicial system.
FATHER JOE:
That is not fair! All Christians should seek to know the mind of God so that they might better please him. God revealed his truths to us for a reason, not so they may be ignored or rationalized away. Many Christian heterosexuals are also in the service ministries, but any denial of the objective moral order represents a false compassion. Homosexuals are urged to be chaste and celibate, not because we are busy-bodies or want to hurt them, but because we love them and want them to do what is right. It is in their interest to be holy and in a right relationship with God and his Church. This relationship has both a personal and a corporate component. We take St. Paul seriously when he says that certain types of conduct can cost us our place in the kingdom of heaven.
FRED:
Certainly if God didn’t want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD” (see Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole “… as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28) for “leaving their natural relations” (i.e., as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex “… as with a woman” would be like.
FATHER JOE:
There is some confusion in your words at this point. Fred, you are not being honest with yourself or us. God is abundantly and brutally clear. The issue with the Jews was a lot more complicated than idolatry. Jewish and Christian anthropology will not permit homosexuality. The verdict for such sins in the Old Testament was terrible, either God raining down fire from heaven upon two cities or the stoning to death of those who were exposed. Arguably the ancient Jews were more bloodthirsty than we would care to think about; but penalties aside, homosexuality was never tolerated.
Many in the pagan world (who worshipped false gods or idols) also tolerated homosexuality. We are not to be like the pagans, yesterday or today. Looking at the context that you note from Leviticus, we read:
“You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent” (Leviticus 18:21-23).
Goodness! The ancient Jews classified the evil of homosexuality as between child sacrifice to demons and sex with animals! Certain elements of the Levitical codes were based upon accidentals and custom. These prohibitions here represent a significant understanding of what makes up the substance of humanity: the sanctity life and value of children as opposed to the barren vulgarity of sodomy and zoophilia.
As for Romans, you are presumptuous in saying that “straight Romans” were condemned for homosexual sex. St. Paul is a Pharisee, he knows the Jewish law. The condemnation here is because some followed their inclination, their homosexual disorientation. By the way, bisexuals stand just as condemned by their conduct as others who violate the natural order and God’s will. Sexual disorientation is viewed by the Church as an effect of Original sin. God did not design men to be so orientated. They are wounded or broken.
Imagine, for a moment Fred that God is speaking to you through St. Paul (Romans 1:18-27):
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
You are suppressing the truth for what you want to selfishly believe. You worship the creature, the folly of men before the wisdom of God. That which should be clear and evident is made foggy in your mind. Here is further Scriptural testimony (1 Timothy 5-11):
“The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance. We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Jude 6-7 offers another witness on this matter:
“The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
FRED:
“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. (The King James Version is honest.) It premiered in a1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.
FATHER JOE:
Do you prefer the label sodomites? [Given that this biblical term is increasingly viewed as hurtful and offensive, I am weaning myself from using it.] The word “Gay” is unfortunate. I have met very few happy homosexuals.
FRED:
What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. Instead of judging them, shouldn’t Christians be telling those “sinful” homosexuals that Jesus died for their sins? The stumbling block is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.
FATHER JOE:
What do you think the Church is trying to do? We want homosexuals to know divine forgiveness and salvation in Christ. However, this requires the admonishment: repent and believe! If we did not love them, we would keep our mouths closed and allow them to continue toward perdition. We speak out because we love and care. Unfortunately, certain homosexuals interpret this as hatred and being mean-spirited. Jesus is both the judge of the world and the lover of souls. He is Divine Justice and Divine Mercy, in person. You focus upon his mercy but neglect his justice. The problem is not that homosexuals “do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians,” but rather, that they are resisting conversion and hard obedience, as well as those Christians who love them too much not to tell them the truth. Homosexual acts are wrong. God does not approve. Embrace purity and platonic friendships.
Discussion
TASTI:
Self-righteousness, however packaged, using scriptures to legislate your brand of religious morality against a group of people in a democratic society is simply reflective of the same kind of intolerance that goes back ages. Scriptures have been used to justify racism, hate and all kinds of acts against mankind in the name of God. Thankfully, there are those within the Catholic and Christian community who don’t share this same kind of narrow perspective. The fight for civil rights for the LGBT community will continue and will eventually win.
FATHER JOE:
Who is self-righteous? I quoted Scripture and the universal catechism. Your problem is not with me but with God and his Church. Apparently you have not read all my posts on this subject, because I believe that everyone, including homosexuals, should be treated with respect. I have friends who are gay. However, I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. They disagree with me and I disagree with them. Why would you deny me the right in a democratic society to express my ideas, no matter how offensive you might find them? I advocate no violence or gross acts of discrimination. I believe in working within the system, yes, even though the legislation and judicial process might very well go the other way. I do not believe in policing bedrooms and neither do I believe in a totalitarianism that masquerades as democratic liberalism. As for Catholics who think differently, yes, some do, and that is their choice. However, as a priest and a Catholic Christian, I remain with the solid teaching of Christ and his Church and not with that of the contemporary dissenters. They base their views less upon the preaching of the Church than upon the views of MTV and a secular culture.
LARA:
At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, Father, this question has occurred to me: does our incessant insanity ever cause our Creator to weep?
STEVE:
“They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)
…to me this sounds like the self-appointed kings and queens I see braying continuously about the perceived evils in others.
Before swinging that bat so widely, let’s just purge the church of all the homosexuals.
Then let’s see how many guys are left standing there in their satins and velvets and embroidered hats.
FATHER JOE:
Most of the clergy I know and with whom I have worked are faithful to their celibacy. I would suspect they are also mostly heterosexuals, although a few bad eggs have given the Church pretty bad press. Pray that priests and bishops will be faithful to God, loving and protecting their flocks. By the way, even REAL MEN can wear the fancy uniforms. Peace!
GRAHAM:
Make no mistake about it: practicing homosexuality is a sin that will send people to hell; but, let’s not forget adultery, fornication, lying (white lies included), hatred, malice, envy and so forth. Read the 17 works of the flesh by Paul.
However, I do believe there are those individuals who are truly born with a desire for their own sex; it is a curse brought down through the generations— and it is an abnormality. God said He would visit the sins of the fathers from 3-4 generations ago upon the children.
(Exodus 20:5) “… for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”
In conclusion, the desire for your own sex, in and of itself, is not sin, just temptation. If, however, that desire is put into practice, you have sinned.
Love the Lord your God and He will make your ways straight (no pun intended).
(Exodus 20:6) “And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
FRACTAL:
Love is good, God is Love. Liberty is good, too.
RENEGADE ICONOCLAST:
Mat. 7:1-5 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
speck: ‘sin’ between consenting adults
plank: pedophiles running around in the Church
FATHER JOE:
You would quote Scripture to get me to stop quoting Scripture? Pleeease! As for your “speck” and “plank” distinction, it is misapplied. Serious sins are all planks: fornication, homosexuality, as well as pederasty and pedophilia— all planks that need removal if blindness is not to become permanent. Mortal sin is mortal sin, although I would grant you that the sin between a man and woman is “according to nature” and the others are “opposed or in contradiction to nature.”
MORSE:
“…and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life,” this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
No one is imposing anything on you. No one is forcing you or your children to be gay. We’re just trying to keep people not unlike yourself from imposing your lifestyle on others.
Here’s a nice metaphor: if you’re hitting someone with a stick, and I take the stick away, I’m not imposing on your rights. I’m protecting the right of the person you’re hitting.
JOHN:
Homosexuality is definitely wrong and serious sin. Yet that does not mean that they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. They can repent and become chaste in their lives and receive the sacraments if they free themselves from this sin. Yes it is hard to reason with homosexuals, abortionists and atheists that get ugly and turn their heads from logic. I personally thought I could change them but it is not me, it is God that does the changing.
This post is a revision of comments made some years ago. I thought I would revisit the topic of the Church’s view of homosexuality and various responses it elicited. Rather than one inordinately long post, this is the second of a series.
A proper understanding of the postulate, “Only God can judge… but that verdict is not pending,” permits little room to escape revealed and objective morality. Homosexual attraction and “sense of self” is a serious DISORIENTATION. While in itself that may not bring down the full weight of culpability; practicing a homosexual lifestyle is explicitly condemned in the Bible. It is not an accidental or trivial matter that can change with the times and morphing cultures. Indeed, the deontological prohibition is confirmed by a teleological appreciation of natural law. Homosexual acts are grievously sinful. While I cannot speak about individual souls or persons, certainly these are the types of acts that can cost one the gift of salvation. Neither I nor the Church defines who is or is not in hell. There is no reverse polarity to the canonization process, where sinners are cursed while saints are beatified. I am well aware that some minimize the worth of divine positive revelation. However, while the Church comes chronologically before the New Testament and a complete Christian Bible; having been ratified by the Church, every Christian stands under the scrutiny of God’s Word and is not the master of revelation and truth. I am amazed sometimes that people fault the Pope for things about which he has no authority to change. The Magisterium interprets and defines Christian doctrine; it does not assemble it brand new or offer something in radical contradiction to previously defined objective truth.
My emphasis here is not upon human subjectivity, but the absolute claims that come from God and his revelation. Subjectivity may mitigate fault because of weakness or ignorance; however, it does not make objective truth into something purely relative. As for the issue of conscience, such must be properly formed and instructed. There is no way for an educated Catholic not to appreciate or to know about the Church’s stance on homosexuality. I will admit that homosexuality is a malady of the mind, but it does not strip one of complete freedom, that is unless we are also talking about a person who suffers from serious mental retardation. Children and those with gross mental defects are blameless and innocent because they do not have a sufficient capacity for reason. Given the context of the average homosexual, I fail to see how absolutely all guilt might be escaped.
It may be a mistake here (regarding dissenters and political proponents) to paint the picture of a benevolent homosexual, misled but well-meaning. Yes, there are a few who quietly struggle while respecting traditional values. I have known reverent souls among them who regularly frequent the sacrament of Confession. However, note the Hallmark card. The post is about something entirely different… the push for gay marriages and the social acceptance of homosexuality as normative. Homosexuality has become increasingly militant with vulgar public acts. Unless one is discussing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, there is little else comparable in the Scriptures. God’s judgment was terrible upon them. We may be invoking God’s justice upon us, too. Little ones are being led astray, not simply because there is an absence of good catechesis but because secular modernity preaches its message more effectively than we do.
The subjective element is left to the divine judgment of individual souls. However, we can say that regarding artificial contraception, abortion and homosexual acts— that they constitute at all times and circumstances, the grievous “matter” of mortal sin. They are those types of acts which can forfeit our relationship with God and blacken the soul. While God is certainly generous with his mercy, we should not commit the sin of PRESUMPTION in supposing that people cannot in general commit such mortal sins. Salvation is purely a gift, not something that we deserve or can merit apart from Christ.
Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church, in her own words (the universal catechism):
[CCC 2357] Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. 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.
[CCC 2358] 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 they may encounter from their condition.
[CCC 2359] 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.
Discussion
MICHAEL:
What a cross!
Isn’t it remotely possible for a person to be attracted to members of the same sex and still be chaste? It certainly is. If love is in the will; then a person (gay or not) can choose to love God by not participating in sinful behavior.
Not every homosexual is a practicing homosexual.
If I were gay, and thank God I’m not, I would be scared to death of engaging in such a sinful act with anyone. The injustice already has the penalty built in, as you say.
DURCK:
I have read the dialogues (in this and the previous post). As you all know, the homosexual and lesbian lifestyles are being incorporated into the curricula of grade schools, high schools and colleges.
Are we not responsible, and therefore accountable, for protecting our children from such distortions in thinking? Are not those non-practicing homosexuals and lesbians similarly responsible to promote purity in our children, regardless of their own inclinations?
Respecting our gay brothers and sisters is not an issue for me. What I don’t and will not respect is the insinuation made by many gays that their lifestyle is “natural” and therefore acceptable.
I interpret the defense of “only God can judge,” as a means to deflect responsibility, just as politicians avoid responsibility for supporting abortion by insinuating the issue is above their pay grade.
Is the heart of the matter not the avoidance of accountability?
FATHER JOE:
We make moral judgments all the time. The expression, “Only God can judge,” probably relies upon a type of atheism (which is at the heart of moral relativism) or the hope that God is so distant that he does not really care what people do. What such critics are really saying is, “No one can judge me, not you and not God.” We have the natural law and divine positive law; do they expect God to come out from behind a cloud and give them an update on their status? No, they do not, and so saying that “only God” can judge them is an attempt to avoid a “negative” judgment all together. They refuse to accept any judgment other than a lenient and positive one.
MICHAEL:
We were all better off when they were “in the closet.” They have no shame today.
LARA:
Thanks, Father. I’m growing tired of God’s name being thrown about with such flagrant disregard, not to mention being tired of having to defend my own belief.
Living the Catholic faith is no walk through the park (as I’m sure you’re aware). I fail miserably and often, but I march on, Father, doing the best I can. I’ve behaved wrongly and plenty of times— but I recognize wrong and try never, ever, to rationalize my behavior in order to pacify my conscience.
I’m simply losing my tolerance for others who commit wrong and do just that.
MICHAEL:
Lara, the joy comes from knowing that you do “good” and that your life can make a positive difference in this crazy mixed up world. What they do is on them.
LARA:
True Michael, but we, and our children, have to live with their foolishness.
When the topic of homosexuality is raised, immediately there are those who deny that we can make a moral evaluation. We are told, “It is not for us to judge, only God.”
Adapted New Hallmark Card for Gay Marriage
Yes, it must be admitted that God is the judge of such things, but that verdict is not pending but has already been expressed by his revealed Word:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)
Discussion
MICHAEL:
His mercy endures forever.
There’s always the mercy of God for those who seek it with a contrite and sincere heart.
No one has to remain in a perpetual state of mortal sin.
Those who have disordered passions or unnatural desires can always ask God, our Lady, and St. Joseph for the gift, grace and virtue of Chastity. They will come around.
Chastity means living purely for God alone in a state of grace.
For the unrepentant reprobates, they will never know what they’ve missed out on. God leaves them to themselves and He always punishes in areas of disobedience— AIDS for instance.
DAN:
I have to admit to attempting to “argue” and “reason” with people in the “blogosphere.” I find that it is impossible— especially with those posting on anti-Catholic blogs. Any argument that I have offered that tries to be reasonable, is usually met with an amazing amount of name calling and anger.
Without even specifically mentioning homosexuality, or same sex attraction, I have been castigated, for even daring to suggest that perhaps the fulfillment of our personhood is better served by trying to over-come our tendencies rather than indulging them.
It seems that we’ve got ourselves a really, really, self-centered, immature culture at this time.
VISITOR:
In my opinion, homosexuals know that homosexuality is not natural. Virtually every living human being possesses a conscience— so do homosexual men and lesbian women.
There are numerous accounts illustrating how homosexuals and lesbians, who have rejected the lifestyle, almost instantly become targets of relentless abuse and harassment by those who remain in it. Clearly, crisis of conscience is at work behind that level of anger.
Today, narcissism reigns. Reality has become personal perspective. Lies have become the truth— but only to those who can’t face the truth. Or won’t.
Every one of us must grow up, eventually, either gracefully or kicking and screaming. Some of us may not grow up until the day we die.
May we all be in a state of grace when that day comes.
OPUS: (in reference to Hallmark same-sex card)
Hallmark has made a small percentage of their profits from me since I was teenager. They’ll make from me not another nickel.
LARA:
Only God can judge homosexuality. Only God can judge whether or not abortion is wrong. Only God can judge if euthanasia is murder. What is this?
When God said we must become as little children, He didn’t mean for us to interpret that statement literally, but you’d certainly think so from the statements made by those advocating homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia.
Reading and listening to the never-ending distortions of what’s right and what’s wrong is enough to send an adult’s head spinning off of their spine— imagine the effect all of this craziness has on children? For crying out loud, the animal kingdom appears less cruel to its own than are many human beings to other human beings. Animals can’t be human, but, evidently, many humans seem satisfied to take on the behavior of animals to justify their actions.
Enough! God said plenty about homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion in His Bible, which, by the way, APPLIES TO THE WHOLE OF THE HUMAN RACE. That includes ALL OF US, not only to those of us who read its contents and follow its precepts.
Let the world exhort that insanity is sane by all of you wayward children (and you know who you are) who advocate sodomy, murder and every other perversion you’re currently advocating, in the vain attempt to clear your consciences— and you won’t, by the way.
But those of us trying to live Christian lives are not standing by to have the grossest distortions of right and wrong imposed upon our lives or upon the lives of our children.
Think we don’t have that right? Only God can judge.
DURCK:
Am I alone in interpreting as temper-tantrums all of this wailing coming from the homosexual community in that no one has a say in their behavior except for God? (Are they serious about this or do they not believe in God and are using Him as a diversion?)
Assuming they do believe, then yes, I imagine God will have the final say about their lives, after their consciences hand them over. Men or women who live the gay lifestyle are, indeed, free (willed) to live as they choose. After all, practicing sodomists and lesbians are, in truth, our brothers and sisters too.
However, when my homosexual and lesbian sisters and brothers imply that their lifestyle is moral and acceptable (by vainly legislating laws to that effect) and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life, then I’m taking issue with that right here and right now.
And I will continue to do so with a clear conscience.
MAX:
“Only God can judge… but that verdict is not pending.”
On an objective basis one would be hard-pressed as a Catholic to argue with either part of that statement. . However, it is another matter on a subjective basis. There are many people who have done acts which are objectively wrong but after discerning their consciences and securing information from whatever source available which hey honestly considered reliable, decided on a course of action which turned out to be objectively wrong but for which they incur no subject moral guilt. This situation could arise from many sources: diminished capacity for moral judgment, educational insufficiency, paucity of moral upbringing, intellectual limitations, etc. In the secular world we live in today in this country and in Western Europe, the vast majority of people have to rely primarily on poorly formed consciences. Unfortunately, that is due to a failure of parents and the Church to develop an adequate catecheses and/or talented apologists. Those are the ones we should be praying for because they are in jeopardy. As the Gospel tells us, not all are called to be teachers; but be assured, that those who are will be held to a HIGHER STANDARD. And, those who would mislead a little one, it would be better if he had never been born.
One would indeed sound foolish to hold that every man or woman who engaged in artificial contraception or for that matter any woman, Catholic, Protestant, Jew or atheist who secured an abortion was subjectively guilty of mortal sin. They ALL committed an objectively morally wrong act but as to their subjective disposition— well, that’s where the judgment of God and the pending verdict comes in.
The above is, and has been, the teachings of my Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and thank God they are because they are the only teachings that are consonant with the image of a just and merciful God.
MICHAEL:
The wages of sin is death.
Yes, God has already revealed how and when He will judge. He also gave everyone a conscience. What we do with it is on us.
This judgment does not apply to those individuals choosing to live a devout and chaste life. It can be done. God loves the sinner and hates the sin.
Archdiocese of Washington statement on the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland:
“The Maryland Senate altered the state’s longstanding definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman in a vote today. Throughout the expedited hearings Maryland House and Senate members held in consideration of the same-sex marriage bill, Catholics and individuals across Maryland encouraged the lawmakers to protect the longstanding and proper definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Regrettably, this did not happen as the House passed legislation last week, and the Senate followed this evening.
“The Archdiocese of Washington opposes the redefinition of marriage based on the clear understanding that the complementarity of man and woman is intrinsic to the meaning of marriage. The word marriage describes the exclusive and lifelong union of one man and one woman with the possibility of generating and nurturing children. Other unions exist, but they are not marriage.
“The Archdiocese of Washington will continue to strongly advocate for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Furthermore, the archdiocese supports efforts undertaken by those who uphold the traditional meaning of marriage to bring this issue to the people of Maryland for a vote.”
I can recall when sodomy was not a “protected right” but a “perverse crime.” It was that way not too long ago. Indeed, any sexual activity, even with a woman, if outside of marriage, was often judged as criminal and there were set penalties. There is division in the Church on the subject and it may be that some have too closely aligned themselves with the American Psychiatric Association which redefined homosexuality from a mental illness to an acceptable sexual orientation.
One of my favorite television programs was DRAGNET. There is one episode where Joe Friday (Jack Webb) is railing against the sins of the city. Among them he lists “sodomy.” When the episode was repeated recently on television, the sound failed precisely when he moved his lips to say the word that is no longer politically correct. In another episode, The Big Kids, there is a dialogue which shows the change in secular morality:
Capt. Lou Richey: It’s not just a problem of law enforcement, it’s a community problem.
Sergeant Pearson: Trouble is there is no community captain. These people come piling in here from every where. They dont know each other and don’t want to. They come out here, make a down payment on a house and move in with a couple of kids. That doesn’t mean they made a home no more than givin’ a name to a place makes it a community.
Sergeant Joe Friday: Yeah and you get a littele weary of hearing every kid give you the same excuse when you tag them. You don’t understand, I just wanna to belong thats why I did it. Belong to what?
Capt. Lou Richey:What it boils down to is the new morality, doesn’t it, a whole new sense of values. The kids see it on television, in magazines. Even hear it from the pulpit. God is dead. Drug addiction is mind expanding. Promiscuity is glamorous. Even homosexuality is praiseworthy. How you gonna fight that?
Officer Bill Gannon: It ain’t easy.
Capt. Lou Richey: What you got to remember that, the vast majority of the juveniles you’re handling are the kids next store. They’re not hard core criminals. It’s just that for them it’s a great deal more important to be accepted by the other kids than to please their parents.
Today, the “love that dare not speak its name” (citing Lord Alfred Douglas) is proclaimed a civil right and thrown into our faces where ever we look, even in Cowboy movies… I know John Wayne is rolling in his grave!
The Church in Boston had to shut down its adoption services because the government made it illegal to discriminate against gay couples. The Archdiocese of Washington has done likewise. Catholic Charities in Los Angeles was almost shut down by a law mandating benefits and insurance (analogous to a spouse in marriage) to the bed-partners of homosexual men and lesbians. Renters are being compelled to permit gay men and women to live and commit mortal sin in their premises.
My faith in our society and the legal system is much shaken. I cannot say that I would generally trust activist judges or spineless legislators to make decisions that would please me or others with traditional values. I concur with the Church that homosexuality is “disorientation” and that to live it out is a grievous offense to God and a corruption of others.
Our compassion and love for them should not translate as utter toleration and/or approbation. We should encourage chastity and celibacy. While it is controversial, where possible, we should pursue proven treatments that have helped thousands to adjust to a heterosexual orientation (as in the work of Dr. Fitzgibbons). This issue is very emotionally charged. We are sorely tempted to look the other way and give homosexual advocates what they want. They insist that not to accept their form of sexuality is a denial of them as persons of worth. But such is not the case. The old cliché still holds, “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” Both natural law and the Scriptures condemn same-sex activity. Sexual expression is restricted to marriage and such is only between a man and a woman. No judge, legislator or shrink can truly change the truth about this. Going through the motions will not make vice into virtue or that which is false into something real. The pendulum is swinging. While gay sex was once illegal; it is now legally protected. Indeed, those who reject it are being subjected to charges of discrimination. I would err on the side of preserving our traditional values but not pursuing matters which would intrude into the privacy of people’s homes. I guess you could say that I would favor bringing back the proverbial closet.
Of course, even if we were willing to leave such people in peace, there will be no peace today for those who oppose the homosexual agenda.
Do we see here the latest faces of evil? While a certain anti-Catholicism has long been fashionable in the U.S., these bigots pull no punches in attacking the divinely instituted hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church: Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Connecticut. Why? It is because these gay men hate the Church for her position against same-sex civil unions. More about this below.
Catholics must stand together against this attack upon the nature of the Church!
The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.
This is not Red China with its puppet “patriotic” Catholic Church; but that is precisely what certain legislators in Connecticut must think. A bill has been put forward that would directly interfere with the internal activities and structure of the Catholic Church. Other churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples are ignored; the Catholic Church alone (at least for now) has been targeted by name. Bill 1098 would strip Catholic bishops of their direct oversight over their parishes. The state would force the bishops to hand their jurisdiction to an elected board of directors. Clergy would not be allowed on this board, only laymen and laywomen. The bishop or his representative could sit with the 7 to 13 members, but he would have NO VOTE.
The overall authority of bishops over their priests and congregations comes from the apostles and the charge given them by Jesus. This legislation rejects the Catholic stance and forces a reformed Protestant form of government upon the Catholic Church. The Church rejected boards of controlling trustees over parishes after the Revolutionary War. Only the Protestant reformers, and not all of them, suggested that the bishops be stripped of their authority. Such a measure would reduce bishops to figureheads, good for periodic Confirmations but nothing more. Pastors would be hired, fired and treated as employees by these boards. Pastors would no longer be true pastors at all. I am sure the Vatican would never have any of it. But what would happen then, a forced schism where the legitimate bishops would govern from exile and their priests minister under tents while the state flunkies took over Church properties and changed policies? Such a view by which the laity rules the Church has been condemned as heretical by the Magisterium. We each have our role to play and the bishops should not be stripped of theirs. How could anyone in government dare think they could rewrite the system of governance for the Catholic Church? This is an obscenity to the freedom of religion!
The diocese of Bridgeport has explained the situation as follows:
“This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.
This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.
This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.
The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.
The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.
For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.
We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church. We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:
Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov
Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com
We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.
It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.
It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.
It is time for us to defend our Church!”
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is found in what is properly called the “Bill of Rights”. It contains these clear words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This bill violates the rights of the Catholic Church and the faith of her good people. It is also unconstitutional and we can only hope that good sense prevails. But, even if we win this one; what about the next attack or the one after that? The Church has a hierarchical structure that comes down to us from Christ’s institution. This legislation is anti-Catholic bigotry at its best. Note that we alone are singled-out for such treatment. It is to be forced upon us because the Church refuses to be silent about such evils as same-sex unions and abortion. Do not think for one moment that these boards would be composed of good practicing Catholics who kiss the hands of their priest each Sunday. No, these would be the dissenters taking charge.
No doubt the scandal of a few bad priests and allegations of abuse weighs in the background for many people, but the rationale given here is that the bishops and Church cannot manage their own financial house. Bishop Lori rightly finds this reasoning quite fantastic, given their high degree of accountability and good management. By contrast, the State of Connecticut cannot close a one billion dollar deficit and the full story will never be told upon the government waste and corruption. The real reason for this Bill is hatred of the Catholic Church and resentment about the tough moral stands she has taken. It is no accident that the day before it was submitted, the same-sex marriage Bill was to be heard. This Bill which focuses on the juridical structure of the Catholic Church is only a thinly veiled attempt to silence our voice. Note that other churches are not targeted for such take-over. The two main proponents are radically involved with the homosexual agenda and hate the Church for refusing to pander to perversity. There can be no doubt, these men are out to destroy the Catholic Church as we know her.
Imagine for a moment what these boards might quickly put on the agenda if they should take charge:
Their first objective would be achieved: approval of same-sex couples, blessings over them and wedding ceremonies.
Next would come condom and pill distribution from Catholic Charities and training sessions for CCD kids and parish youth groups.
Parish pro-life groups would be disowned and replaced with Planned Parenthood or NARAL promoters.
Married priests would be invited back, especially after orthodox celibates are fired.
In short order, women would be ordained and received as priests in the parishes.
Divorce and remarriage would be permitted.
The Protestant “open” communion table would be established, welcoming everyone for communion, even your Buddhist friends.
ACT-UP and Dignity would operate so-called gay-friendly activities using parish funds and property.
MIKE LAWLOR ATTACKS CATHOLICISM AT GAY MARRIAGE HEARING:
The late Pope John Paul II told the young people at World Youth Day that they had to remain strong in the faith. He prophesied that many of them would face great persecution and maybe even suffer martyrdom. While he worked for a better tomorrow and reconciliation with groups which had historic grievances with Catholicism; nevertheless, when asked about the future he said he had a vision of BLOOD.
Many people assert that here in America we are safe to worship as we please. However, religion is about more than ritual, it is also about ideas and activism. Already there are politicians and organizations who oppose basic ideas and activities which touch core tenets of Catholicism. The question of the war aside, the Bush Administration was a momentary respite, an oasis in a storm that was looming ever closer and closer. Now that Obama is president, I suspect we shall find the ark of Peter frequently assailed and with few earthly friends to lend assistance. Catholics in the pews have grown timid to defend and help. They must be awakened from their moral slumber. As in many nations, certain Catholics have become the Church’s worst enemies. Even here in the United States, many Catholic pro-abortion politicians in the House of Representatives, the Senate and in the Executive branch oppose the Church’s efforts for the Gospel of Life. State governments are also turning against us. Many of these efforts are fueled by the big money that organizations like Planned Parenthood can muster. Add to this the general enmity that the ACLU and other such entities have against us, and well, this fight is going to have casualties.
Pretty much every year there is an effort here in Maryland to force Catholic hospitals to do abortion referrals and to distribute contraception, even if abortifacient. So far we have been on the winning side, but for how much longer? Maryland bishops have said they would close the hospitals before allowing any collaboration in murder and sin. The Church in Los Angeles took heat about their insurance plans for employees and was pressured to add same-sex partners to the mix. There is also growing insistence that artificial contraception be included in health plans, despite the Church’s view that such practices constitute mortal sin. The Church in Boston had to shut down their adoption program operated through Catholic Charities because the authorities insisted that they would also have to adopt children out to homosexual couples. No one thought the Archbishop would take such a step, but he had the courage to make the right move. The new president has made no secret that he opposes any “conscience clause” for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who want nothing to do with abortion, embryonic destruction and artificial contraception. Stripped of legal protection, many pro-life professionals and Catholics will have their licenses stripped and be removed from their jobs.
Discussion About the Topic
REALIST:
You are certifiably crazy, and are scaring people away from the Church. The proposals you have made should this law pass are INSANE. Ridiculous! I’m ashamed you are still a priest. Have some honor and speak about the issues rationally instead of just spewing anti-Obama hatred. More flies with honey…
FATHER JOE:
I would rather be a fool for Christ and have you think I am crazy than to be you on the Judgment Day. I will pray for your immortal soul.
And by the way, I do not hate Obama; I am just upset that his administration is so set on destroying the unborn. Did you hear the news today? He is reversing Bush’s policies on the use of embryos for research. Of course, I doubt you care, except as another proponent for murder and perversion. Yes, I suspect you will be very happy with this administration.
MICHAEL:
Fr. Joe, on the subject of the Church and the government, I wanted to ask a question about the tax exemption status and the Catholic Church. There has been a black minister on You Tube. He has been openly and severely critical of Obama before and after the election. I was unable to find his email address, because I wanted to send a message asking him if his church lost its tax exemption status as a result of his many verbal tirades. According to IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations are not permitted to engage in partisan politics, including endorsing candidates or political parties or helping a candidate win an election. To me, tax exemption status makes the church political when she should be entirely spiritual. Priests shouldn’t be afraid to mention names before or after an election IF those in question commit to harming society in any way. We can’t continue to allow our government to tell us how to evangelize or to tell us to shut up in the face of wrongdoing. The church is God’s living voice on Earth. I wonder how our Catholic brothers and sisters in other parts of the world deal with this issue?
FATHER JOE:
It is argued that many black churches are in the hip pocket of the Democrat party. There is no denying that candidates and politicians even speak at services and are endorsed from the pulpit. The so-called political RIGHT is castigated as Republican and is often challenged on their political efforts. Catholic churches are frequently threatened and for the most part remain silenced out of fear that tax exemption and other favors might be lost. We are allowed to talk about issues, but not candidates or politicians. Meanwhile, everyone votes for Obama. There seems a disconnect with moral issues and religious liberty.
JIM OF BOWIE:
Father, thank you so much for speaking out on this; we need to wake up the people as to what is going on in Washington and in many state capitals. The Church is under attack and it is only going to get worse. I have only seen this issue covered on yours and Father Z’s blog. Hopefully more blogs, priests and bishops will speak out. Laura Ingraham did a report on her radio show today with Raymond Arroyo. So maybe EWTN will be on top of it. Let us pray for Bishop Lori.
KAY:
As I read about proposed legislation like this, I am inclined to think that it is so bizarre, so un-American, and so bigoted, that it surely would not be taken seriously. However, more and more often in this country, we are seeing just this kind of craziness get voted into law. Maybe it is an insidious movement to propose the bizarre without much hope that it can be passed. But the publicity surrounding the effort causes more and more people to become desensitized and eventually the bizarre and un-American seems perfectly logical and desirable. It is so sad to see this happening to our country. Thank God for prayer as a resource because I think that is our only hope.
DON:
The smoke of Satan is mixed with the roar of lions over at the coliseum. Lent is a good time to pick up your crosses and follow Christ (to the State Capitol) all you Ct voters (only the ones that didn’t vote for the pro-infanticide president please.)
A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:
Unfortunately, those who voted for Obama and the Democratic Party only encourage this sort of behavior. They have been seduced by style over substance.
We can expect more of this stuff. They have unlimited resources. They have the resources of the government. They will do this until we are bled dry and finally give up.
KARL:
This legislation seems to me to be an open and shut hate crime and should be prosecuted as such using the state’s own laws. It would simply take a prosecutor with some chutzpah. It should not be a surprise, however, that the Catholic Church is under such withering attack; she belongs to Christ, even in her sinfulness. Perhaps those who claim Catholicism unworthily will come to their senses or leave it, making who are left more faithful.
A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:
The attorney who has encouraged this (Tom Galagher) is not only a Knight of Columbus, but is affiliated w/ VOTF. Talk about your 5th Columns!
FATHER JOE:
Tom Gallagher is not only a Knight of Columbus, but also belongs to the Order of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. These guys have taken and run with his ideas, but did he intend to so thoroughly cut the bishop out of the equation?
LADY GODLESS:
I’ve found some info about SB 1098 from the article in the Stamford Advocate… this proposal was previously introduced by a Republican at the behest of a citizen named Tom Gallagher, one of the people who asked McDonald and Lawlor to submit the proposal this time around:
“Democrats have crossed the line between church and state,” GOP Chairman Christopher Healy said.
“But last year a Republican, former Rep. Dolly Powers of Greenwich, pursued similar legislation. Powers said she submitted a proposal on behalf of constituent Tom Gallagher, a driving force behind the bill now pending before the Judiciary Committee.”
“If a constituent has an issue and they bring it to any legislator, that’s part of your job,” Powers said.
McDonald and Lawlor point out that they have submitted this idea for discussion on behalf of a group of their constituents, but they themselves do not necessarily advocate adopting the proposed legislation.
SB 1098 is the result of a real and bitter conflict ‘within’ the Catholic Church, and is not the result of a conflict between the Catholic Church and outsiders:
“Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he scheduled the bill for a public hearing Wednesday because he was asked to do so by southwestern Connecticut Catholics, including members of Darien and Greenwich churches where large sums of money have disappeared.”
“At St. John, the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who’s serving a three-year prison term, stole $1.4 million from 1999 to 2006 to finance a luxury lifestyle, including a Florida condo, he shared with his gay lover.”
“At St. Michael two years ago, the Rev. Michael Moynihan quit as pastor in a financial scandal. About $2.1 million in parish contributions was taken off the books in two accounts and at least $400,000 was diverted to the priest for his personal use, according to the diocese.”
Connecticut already has corporate law that applies specifically to the Catholic Church, and the current statute has been in place since the 1950s. This is not a new thing. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says that the currently existing law may have constitutional problems itself.
Please keep this in your prayers. Also remember the promise of our Lord to St. Peter that the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against His Church.
Make no mistake about it. It’s not going to happen in Bridgeport or in any other diocese anywhere in the world. History has proven this true time and time again within the last two thousand years. Every attempt has always ended in failure. The Roman Empire tried repeatedly to destroy the Catholic Church and failed miserably each and every time. This time will be NO DIFFERENT.
GHOST:
McDonald says he introduced the bill at the request of members of St. John Church on the Post Road in Darien because their former pastor, Rev. Michael Jude Fay, stole over a period of years as much as $1.4 million from funds donated by parishioners. Rev. Fay was convicted in 2007. He used the money to fund a life of luxury with his boyfriend. He rented limousines for himself and his mother (totaling $130,000 in costs) but also drove a Jaguar, stayed at elegant hotels (like the Ritz Carlton, Hotel de Paris and Four Seasons), bought expensive jewelry (from Cartier) and imported Italian clothing. He also had membership at a sports club and shopped at Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on home furnishings and meals. More than $20,000 was spent to mark his 25th anniversary of ordination. The robber priest even spent the money on a Florida condo where he would hang out with his boyfriend. Diocesan auditors discovered the scandal. Half the money was hidden in a secret bank account. In Greenwich, another priest, Rev. Michael Moynihan, resigned in January after an initial audit uncovered a half million dollars in church spending for which he could not account. It is not anti-Catholic to want parish money to be applied to the proper ends for which it is donated. However, the remedy is not to strip the bishops and pastors of their juridical standing and responsibilities.
Both Tom Galagher and Fr. Paul Lakeland, S.J. are progressives and arguably dissenters from accepted Catholic ecclesiology. It makes no difference that Galagher is a Knight, former parish trustee and missionary. As for Rev. Lakeland, our suffering Church knows many rebel priests, oops, excuse me, he is an ex-priest who broke his vows to get married. Lakeland is a defender of the theologian Roger Haight whose Christology was condemned by the Holy See and who has his credentials to teach as a Catholic theologian removed. He would promote religious indifferentism and minimize the unique redemptive work of Christ for all humanity. Height would strip Christ of his authority and Lakeland would do something similar for the Catholic Church. Lakeland espouses both women priests and a Church operated by the laity (see his books, CATHOLICISM AT THE CROSSROADS and THE LIBERATION OF THE LAITY). The beans are spilt about Galagher over at TOPIX COMMENTS. No Spin Personality writes: “Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not ‘step down as a Trustee in 1999’ he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the ‘difference of opinion’ was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting. It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an ‘incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform’. Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church’s business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.”
Both Galagher and Lakeland are members of VOTF, an organization that often finds itself at odds with the Church and has a perspective on Church structure and the priesthood which conflicts with the Magisterium, particularly with the view of Pope Benedict XVI. What revisionists are not admitting publicly is that Church finances and administration often reflect the Church’s doctrinal views and moral positions. The person who controls the purse strings ultimately controls the whole show.
Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you.
The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism.
In other words, all those Democrats, Protestants, liberals, secularists, and gays that many people automatically started fulminating against are ~not~ the force behind this proposal.
Nor does SB 1098 indicate that blood is in the offing, or that anyone is out to martyr you, or that you will now be pressured to display portraits of Jesus that resemble President Obama instead of the currently preferred likeness of Kenny Loggins. What SB 1098 does indicate is that parishioners in certain Connecticut parishes feel that they’ve been cheated, and that they want redress.
Lady Godless said, “Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you. The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism. ”
I am NOT a Republican and right now I am ashamed to admit that both Gallagher and I are attorneys. Maybe though, he was sick the day they studied the First Amendment in first year law school Constitutional Law class. Gallagher may believe himself to be a devout Catholic, but if so, his knowledge of Catholicism is even more deficient than his knowledge of Constitutional Law.
I am outraged that because he cannot convince the Church that his way is “the Way,” Gallagher apparently decided to ask Big Brother to step in and remake the Church so that it would be more to the liking of Gallagher and his ilk.
Are we not to be concerned because this is just a “tiny” infringement of the First Amendment? Perhaps we should just chill until the government decides that the First Amendment needs to be done away with as not “progressive” enough.
As for Gallagher, “confession is good for the soul.”
NEED ANI PHONE:
Here is why we should be pro-choice: It is only for women that pregnancy may represent a health risk. It is only women’s career, which is put on hold, that pregnancy and the ensuing maternity leave affect. There are important questions to be debated, such as whether a pregnant woman in a significantly bad health condition should carry the unwanted pregnancy to term, or whether only healthy women in their child-bearing prime should anti-abortion legislation be targeted at.
FATHER JOE:
Pregnancy might be a health risk, but it is not unnatural or a disease. It is the perfectly natural result of having sexual intercourse.
The business about careers is false. I know men who changed their goals and took the jobs that immediately paid the bills for their children.
A woman might be ill, but if every sick mother killed her children to preserve her mental and physical health, we would not only have a lot of abortions but drowned and shot children as well.
If a healthy woman in her prime does not want her children, then give them up for adoption. I have a list of parents who would take them with no hesitation.
The bottom line has not changed. You can only say what you do because you do not believe the unborn child is a human being. Only fiendish monsters would argue that it is okay to murder children.
But wait a minute, maybe I am wrong about what you believe? After all, President Obama believes that living babies can be allowed to die from exposure and neglect after surviving an abortion… hum?
ANON:
With the exception of rape, the woman puts herself in the position of creating the “unwanted pregnancy.”
It is simply selfishness that is operative here.
Don’t make the false argument that “anti-abortion” legislation “targets” women. Face the truth that abortion is an excuse for selfish sexual gratification for women and IT TARGETS innocent children.
The important question that needs debate is whether you can keep that dime between your knees, sister and your partner in sexual satisfaction can have enough other interests to keep his mind off his own private parts and yours, as well.
Don’t blame the child, whom you created, for your lust.
I guess your precious job is more important than the job of the Catholic or other life-affirming person who will lose theirs because you had to have your abortifacients and they will not supply you with it!
You are no different, or less responsible, than the American with powdered nares whose demand for cocaine, to GET THEM OFF, provides the REASON for the drug cartel hit man to kill another border patrol agent, who gets in THEIR way of protecting THEIR “JOB”!
You are not PRO-CHOICE. You are a selfish brat who never learned self-control or the efficacy of placing the NEEDS of another over your WANTS!
LADY GODLESS:
Huh? Who are you talking to?
BOB:
I believe that “Anon” needs to DRASTICALLY cut back on the coffee!
ANON:
I have six children. The first child I had was the result of a relationship I had in college, before I was married. My plans were definitely put on hold. At that time in my life, I was encouraged by many to consider my “options.” After he was born, the measure of guilt I felt of actually considering those options effectively made me ill, and what is normally 3 day hospital stay for women who have given birth turned into a five day stay for me.
Once a child is created, there is no “choice” any longer, and those who believe that and act on it are in for true heartache.
Additionally, when I was pregnant with my 5th child, I was very ill. I had a condition which required surgery, which my doctors wanted to perform in my first trimester. My OB warned me about the potential harm to the baby and told me there was a very real possibility that the procedure could induce a miscarriage. Again, I was counseled by many to consider my “options.” If I knowingly did something that could produce a miscarriage, to me, that was a clean way of saying I might be choosing abortion. The 2nd trimester was safer for the baby, and though my plans were, again, interrupted by staying in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, I have an amazingly beautiful daughter who is healthy and well (and so am I).
God gives us children as a blessing- NOT A CURSE! As with everything else in life, sometimes those unexpected blessings require us to pick up our cross.
Abortion touches a chord with me, although I see the Church as paying more attention to abortion than it should, when more of its efforts should be towards marriages. Nevertheless, the post was directed towards NEED ANI PHONE who is typical of those who think of themselves first, their irresponsibility for creating the pregnancy, except in rape(which is STILL a wrong that cannot be answered with another (worse) wrong being pushed upon those who they DEMAND, join them in their crimes.
Her position and the defense of abortion is absurd. She should keep that dime between her legs and have the guy arrested and prosecuted who forces himself on her. Good riddance to him. To call him a pig would insult our hammy friends.
LADY DEE:
I am so grateful that such information is brought to the attention of the masses – good on you Father Joe! They say that what happens in America usually repeats itself in the United Kingdom up to 10 years later. Forewarned is forearmed! I truly believe that there are invidious persons buried deep inside our institutions – both religious and other – whose purpose is to take down anything which bands people together.
Why can’t Mr. Galagher, if he is so disaffected, count his true support by setting up his own group and fighting fairly and openly instead of using such poor fools as those named (McDonald and ?).
As I reflect upon the scandal caused by the Bud Macfarlane divorce, I am forced to face as well the legacy of disgrace that has been inflicted by famous priests.
Rev. Kenneth Roberts
I recall as a teenager picking up an IMAGE paperback in the back of the church one Sunday entitled Playboy to Priest by Rev. Kenneth Roberts. The work impressed me and along with several other books about priests, real and fictionalized, fueled my burning desire for a vocation. He would later become famous as the Medjugorie priest and he had several programs televised on EWTN on the Blessed Mother and a youth series based on one of his books, You Better Believe It. It was a great program and young people were really moved by it to study about and to live their Catholic faith. Upon my desk are other books he wrote, The Rest of the Week, Mary – The Perfect Prayer Partner, Fr. Roberts’ Guide to Personal Prayer, Pray It Again, Sam! and Nobody Calls It Sin Anymore. They were not particularly deep; but that was okay because they were popular works for the rank and file. He gave talks and conferences across the nation. His tapes and videos were bought and shared. He was loved. Then he disappeared and rumors spread.
A boyhood hero had fallen. When I had helped out in a Birmingham, Alabama parish in 1989, I actually met and had dinner with him. He was a regular on Mother Angelica’s Catholic television network. Now it turned out that he was continuing to wear clerics, function in public as a priest, and even did television work after he had been censured. Retired from the Dallas diocese for “health reasons” he had been suspended for violating restrictions placed upon him in 1995. His bishop made it very clear that he had to stop distributing his books and tapes and that he had to take down his website and Internet presence.
Dallas Bishop Charles V. Graham signed the decree of suspension on November 13 after verification that Father Roberts had violated restrictions. The English-born Father Roberts, ordained in 1966 for the Dallas Diocese, retired from the diocese for medical reasons on Sept. 1, 1995, and his faculties were restricted, barring him from exercising his priestly duties, wearing clerical garb and presenting himself as a Roman Catholic priest in good standing. His retirement followed public accusations of sexual molestation, though no civil or criminal charges were filed against him at that time. Now in his 70’s, civil charges were filed in 2004 where three are named in a lawsuit filed in November by John Doe. The suit alleges that the Rev. Kenneth Roberts, now retired, sexually abused Doe at St. Mary’s Catholic School in Belleville in 1984. The St. Louis Archdiocese and the Dallas Diocese have responded by asserting that St. Clair County Court has no jurisdiction over them because they do not do business there. St. Louis also says Roberts was never assigned or employed here, although he was allowed to live in three parishes in Florissant and was permitted to conduct some religious services here.
What happened? Was this for real? Fr. Roberts seemed so genuine and faithful; was it all a lie? I have kept him in my prayers because of his importance in my life and in the lives of so many. But, I doubt that the wound caused by these revelations will heal any time soon. There is also a lot of meanness about what happened. One nasty blooger said something like, “What do you think his revised autobiography will be titled, “Playboy to Priest to Pervert”? If the allegations are true, then we pray for the victims and perpetrator. The posture of the Christian is always on our knees in prayer and in petition for mercy.
All of Fr. Robert’s tapes and videos are off the market. His webpage is gone. His programs deleted from the EWTN schedule and some have said they have been destroyed. Is it right that a man’s possible weakness and sin should utterly destroy his legacy?
Rev. Laurence Brett
As a young priest, the pastor and I subscribed to monthly videos of a Paulist production called SHARE THE WORD. The Sunday readings were explained and many useful ideas were given for preaching. The host was an articulate and dynamic priest by the name of Rev. Laurence Brett. We were so impressed that he accepted our invitation to do three weeks of Friday talks and to lead the Stations of the Cross during Lent. He smoked constantly and affected a strong Irish brogue for effect during the Stations. I found the later a bit disconcerting. Why would he purport to be Irish when he usually had no such accent? It seemed like posturing and bothered me. However, his words were good and he proved himself knowledgable about the Scriptures and our faith.
I was transferred and the program, which was also on cable, eventually disappeared. For awhile the Paulists were toying with taking the tapes and re-editing a Sunday commentary series out of it. But, nothing happened. Later, I found out why.
Years before, Frank Martinelli was a 14-year-old altar boy attracted to Rev. Laurence Brett as a role model at St. Cecilia’s in Stamford, Conn. Martinelli claimed that Father Brett fondled him in a bathroom and that the priest urged him to offer fellation while feigning the blessing of Holy Communion. Thirty years passed before he and other young people spoke out. When the priest was finally censured, he became a fugitive. Church officials in Bridgeport and Baltimore called Brett a criminal and an “evil man.” Even the FBI had trouble finding him. He changed the spelling of his name to conceil his identity and settled in 1996 on the island of Anguilla, a short boat ride from St. Maarten.
These men were notable evangelizers through the modern communications medium. They reached out to millions. Little or nothing has been said to explain what happened or to heal the harm caused to believers. The Pharisees had no monopoly on hypocrisy. Hopefully people will remember the message and not so much the messenger.
Discussion
LAURENCE:
Do you think I should stop listening to Fr. Robert’s tapes? I joined the Catholic Society of Evangelists and they provide 4 of his tapes for donations. His teachings are theologically sound. Is it okay to let others listen to his work?
FATHER JOE:
The question you ask is hard to answer. A priest teaches, as we all do, by both what we say and by what we do. While a person could be moved by Fr. Roberts’ ideas and gentle teaching manner, the allegations of sexual misconduct with minors are so severe that I suspect they would likely cause too much scandal and cause more harm than good. The fact that he disobeyed his bishop makes the case even more serious. You can make use of the tapes, but I would not generally share them any longer with potential converts or returnees.
Do not loose heart and know that a good number of us in the ranks of the clergy are behaving ourselves and still proclaiming the Gospel.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
It Takes One To Tango
This is the fifth installment in this extended dialogue about homosexuality. I must warn the reader that not everyone is polite and few are timid about remarks. The majority express a strong negativity to the disorientation. Unfortunately, one of its strongest proponents was an avowed atheist. I was hoping that we might more deeply explore how some try to reconcile such a lifestyle with a professed Christian faith. The atheist rejects Christian morals because the Bible is just another book to him. Natural law often fails because he rejects intelligent design and order. The active homosexual person who tries to be a Christian would face serious quandaries regarding the Scriptural prohibitions. Does he argue that the Bible is not inerrant and fully inspired? Does he contend that certain teachings are prejudiced and so historically and culturally situated that they no longer speak to us? Would he contend that just as slavery was tolerated, core Scriptural values would override and come to the fore with later reflection about homosexuality? Might such dissenters merely ignore parts of the Bible and our sacred tradition, giving greater gravity to secular humanism and present-day social engineering? These questions really did not arise in this conversation.
MAX:
FRED:
I can recall when sodomy was not a “protected right” but a “perverse crime.” It was that way not too long ago. Indeed, any sexual activity, even with a woman, if outside of marriage, was often judged as criminal and there were set penalties. There is division in the Church on the subject and it may be that some have too closely aligned themselves with the American Psychiatric Association which redefined homosexuality from a mental illness to an acceptable sexual orientation.
The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.
Blogger Priest 