We are a Country of many broken people in many kinds of pains that cause people to react in strange ways and become the very things they hate. We are a world of ‘‘if it’s broken throw it away instead of fixing it. Homosexual marriage and adortion are our biggest threats. We need God, if people knew God just a little they could turn to Him and Trust in Him. God help us’

I am upset that this article wasn’t a bit more analysis.  There are too many questions that the should have answered:How does the poll mentioned break up along party lines?  socio-demographic lines? What was Obama’s specific references to Gay Marriage beforehand?  Was the change in the poll numbers are directly tied to gay marriage like the author insinuates?  This was also at the same time that employment numbers came out and they had no influence?  I was hoping for a more engaging article.

Tim, Click on the link. The poll is specific to the question.
Pat, Good reminder about the 32 states.

This isn’t an article Tim, it’s a blog entry. And one that makes a good point because if one has bounced around Catholic or conservative blogs even a little, there is a slew of commentary by people ostensibly on our side counselling surrender and despair. Instead, let us use employ new nomenclature: Heteronormaphobes.

This is an extremely engaging article. It’s short, to the point, and funny. Party lines are a joke. If Romney had come out for gayness, the polls would have switched the other way. We are driven by issues, not politics. It’s the politicians and academics who wish otherwise. We resist their manipulations. Most times they are too tricky for us and we fall into their traps. But the main point is, we resist and we will continue to resist.

The problem isn’t the present, it’s the future.
.
Most recently, North Carolina’s marriage amendment passed with 61% of the vote. In contrast, South Carolina passed their amendment with 78% of the vote only six years ago.
.
Furthermore, an analysis of the electorate showed that the most educated counties in North Carolina had the lowest percentage of voters to support the Amendment. Orange County, home of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (and little else) voted overwhelmingly against the Amendment. Neighboring Durham County, home to Duke University, did likewise.
.
Younger voters and more educated voters are the ones who are most likely to support gay marriage. While the “gambler” in the article has done well, the trendlines are clear that his luck is running out. This makes me wonder if it bothers the author or any other gay marriage opponents that they are losing the young and the educated?

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress in 1972 and by 1973 30 states had ratified it.

All the young people supported it and it was very popular among the intelligentsia.  It was only a matter of time.

Guess what?  Never ratified.  Trends are trends.  Winning is winning.  So far, we have been winning, why quit?

LOL@Jim

Well duh, more “educated” counties are going to vote more liberal. Because Academia is liberal and uses the classroom to idoctrinate the younger generation. I work at a university and we staff have a saying here: A degree does not common sense make.

Most of the goals of the ERA were achieved by statute when the Amendment wasn’t passed. Additionally, feminist groups quietly backed away from supporting the ERA when they realized that passage of the ERA would dramatically curtail affirmative action and other programs that benefited women.
.
As for education, does it not bother you that the less educated someone is, the more likely they are to support your position?

@Dejah: And religion has never indoctrinated anyone? Especially the kind that is dominant in the rural South?

As has already been said: a degree does not common sense make.

It doesn’t matter what the intelligence level of the *average* or *most common* proponent of a position is. What matters is how convincing and well-articulated the *best-proposed* argument for the position is. Otherwise, we engage in an ad hominem or genetic fallacy. Take your pick which.

The right answer is still right even if many argue clumsily for it. So, address the strongest forms of argument against gay marriage, if you want to fight for gay marriage. Don’t smack a position simply because many of its proponents are “less educated”.

There are definitely some problems with education today. Nobody in public education understands metaphysics, morality, or religion except through a egocentric filter of defining the world. THAT is a serious flaw.

Most Christians aren’t very well-educated. So what? Christianity is not an elitist religion, so it’s not surprising that many of our brothers are not fully educated. That doesn’t in any way make our points less valid, however.

Thanks for the reminder, Pat. I live in NC in Wake county where Raleigh is. I voted for the amendment as did a lot of my neighbors, most of whom were afraid to have a sign in their yards, like we did. Most here and in the other 6 counties where the majority voted against it, are transplanted Yankees. They desperately need evangelization which I try to do.
Wake county is the New Jersey part of NC, btw. Orange county, another of the 7 is where UNC, Chapel Hill and John Edwards are and is the Berkeley part of NC.

“Most Christians aren’t very well-educated. So what? Christianity is not an elitist religion, so it’s not surprising that many of our brothers are not fully educated. That doesn’t in any way make our points less valid, however.”
.
I think you misunderstand my point. The problem is not that some Christians are uneducated, the problem is that relatively few of the educated agree with your position on gay marriage. If your points are so valid, well articulated, and convincing, then why are the most educated (and presumably most intelligent) rejecting them?
.
As for arguments, the argument that marriage should not be redefined is strong. Whatever same-sex couples have, it is not the same as marriage, nor can it be. However, the argument that the law should not recognize the existing relationships of same-sex couples (i.e. civil unions) is far weaker. One is a moral and social argument, the other a legal one. Unfortunately, many of these ballot initiatives, including the one in North Carolina, confuse the two.

I live in Wake County and voted against it because this particular law was so badly drafted that I could not in good conscience support it. North Carolina law on marriage before the Amendment was crystal clear and the judiciary is one of the most conservative in the country. There was no risk of gay marriage happening in North Carolina. Now, we have no idea how the courts are going to handle the language in the Amendment which exists nowhere else in North Carolina law. Oh, and now the federal courts can get involved because the broad language of the Amendment may impact things that have nothing to do with gay marriage.
.
Whatever your position on gay marriage, there is no excuse for legal sloppiness.

“Younger voters and more educated voters are the ones who are most likely to support gay marriage. While the “gambler” in the article has done well, the trendlines are clear that his luck is running out. This makes me wonder if it bothers the author or any other gay marriage opponents that they are losing the young and the educated?”

Yes the trend is against homophobic bible nonsense. That is how this ends. One day people will not care what aging baby boomers care about, say in about 20 years.  Today’s 30 year holds will be 50 and this will die with a whimper. It be like trying to introduce laws against marriage between individuals of different races. To date the opponents of marriage equity have yet to provide a harm from a decade of experience.

This notion linking gay marriage and education with morality is… to put it politely, nonsense, claptrap, and utterly false. 
What upper level degree or doctoral program has morality at its very core?
Would it not be theology?
How many Priests do you know that do not have a degree?
If someone has an upper level degree in… I dunno… let’s say accounting or industrial arts, I wouldn’t arbitrarily state they were better educated and better equipped regarding this subject than anyone sitting in a pew with some regularity.
As for loosing the young, that’s about as true as the media routinely ignoring (and by doing so implying) there are no youth who are pro-life.

“As for loosing the young, that’s about as true as the media routinely ignoring (and by doing so implying) there are no youth who are pro-life.”
.
I know far more young people who are pro-life than who oppose gay marriage.

Marriage has been dead for years. 50%+ divorce rate etc.

So in the 1850’s the majority of states would have backed “the defense of slavery”, so what is the point.

And let’s be honest, “traditional marriage” was about protecting property rights and solidifying political alliances.

Live and live, people. You know, like Jesus would

“And let’s be honest, “traditional marriage” was about protecting property rights and solidifying political alliances.”

It is most importantly also about something greater which you are ignoring regardless of man’s failure to live up to it.

“Live and live, people. You know, like Jesus would”

Jesus would never do this.  You can fool yourself to believe such a thing and ignore the teachings of the Church, which are Jesus’ teachings.  In the end, the Church will stand against this reality no matter how ingrained it becomes within society.  God have mercy on all of us for not providing better witness to His will.

I came from a traditional marraige. Parents were cradle Catholics, did not live together before getting married, never used contraception, both firmly against abortion, gay marriage. They were practicing Catholics who had three kids all of whom were baptised, brought to mass regularly, and confirmed. We even used to goto mass on vacation. My father used to occasionally bring us to Friday night confession.

The only little problem with this…my parents couldn’t stand each other. They were married for 27 miserable years, they separated three times, then divorced when I was 16. The last two years of their marriage they stopped sharing a bed and spoke only when necessary. It got so bad and absurd when were growing up my mother and father used to go to mass in separate cars and sit in separate pews.

My point is NOT that all traditional marriage is bad or that the Catholic Church is to blame for my parent’s disastrous marriage but that traditional marriage is fetishized and over glorified by an institution run by elderly, unmarried, childless men. Glorified and fetishized by men who have a grand total of 0.0 years experience being married to an actual woman.

On my paper my parents were a Bishop’s dream in reality I never saw them happier than when they were free from the institution of traditional marriage.

Their divorce was a blessing because I got an involved, motivated, happy father for the two years for he died. I am so fortunate to have not lived in my mother’s homeland of heavily Catholic Ireland, where divorce was illegal.

The biggest problem with traditional marriage is how easy it is get married in the Catholic church. Literally, it took my wife and I three phone calls, one 10 minute conversation with a priest, and a 150$ donation. That’s it! My parents knew it each for 9 months before they got married and the priest had absolutely no problem with this.

My father’s mother—Thank you, Nana!—tried to delay my parents from getting married because she felt they didn’t know each other enough. That woman had more sense and goodness in her than a hundred priests combined.

Catholic marraige prep was a joke. Not even sure what the point was. It was run in a hotel ballroom by that well meaning, spacey, ultra Catholic couple that we’ve all met before. The one that even the priests think is weird. This couple lectured us and then sent us back to a hotel room to fill out a workbook, then back for another lecture. For four mind numbing hours. None were asked to talk about our feelings, concerns, ideas…nothing. In the grand old tradition of orthodox Catholicism that I grew up in, it was just sit there and be lectured to.

A few of my Catholic friends one night played a game “Who’s marraige prep was the biggest joke?”: The couple who won had a 45 minute talk with a 75 year old priest who handed them a workbook(!) at the end.

I know the Church can’t peer into the minds of an engaged couple and I know people can put on fronts and decieve. But if you want the layity to take marriage seriously then make marriage prep more than a formality. How can the Catholic Church expect the layity to take marriage seriously when they seem not to themselves? In many parishes marriage prep is clearly an afterthought.

Why is it that the Church can get the entire English speaking world to say “consubstantial” in that mind numbing “pledge of allegiance” aka The Nicene Creed, but they can’t standardize marriage preparation. Instead the layity is left with this ludicrious hodegpodge.

We’re all supposed to give undying support for traditional when many of us have stories similar to or worse than mine, ones in which traditional marriage done in a Catholic Church failed miserably, was a source of unhappiness, and great spiritual and psychological damage?

How many children have been scarred by traditional Catholic marriage?

It seems as if the Catholic church is so enthralled with traditional marriage that it will marry any man to any woman, with a minimal effort to find out if they can even stand each other, before they’d ever marry a gay couple truly madly deeply in love.

Aaron. That is a sad post. Sorry for your experience. It doesn’t really apply to this issue, though. Your parents had an unhappy union. I have the complete opposite. Does either one make a case for or against traditional marriage? No. It’s about a greater societal good. It’s about a conjugal understanding of what marriage is - which is not the same as just a commitment or some other a legal union. You can’t redefine the institution of marriage with a revisionist view that fits “my” experience. The sun is the sun, the moon is the moon. You can’t pass a law and tell me to make me believe that one is the other ... when I know the truth.

I doubt that it’s the education of the voters in the North Carolina counties that decided how they would vote.  It’s more likely that they’re from states & homes that were more liberal—those are also the same counties that have the greatest number of people from other states.  My husband and I have plenty of education, but we support traditional marriage.  My less educated siblings support so-called “gay” marriage.  Go figure.

Viva Cristo Rey!

I’m not in favor of changing the definition of marriage.  Having said that I am incredibly annoyed at simplistic and confusing arguments such as this one in this article.  I don’t get the gambling analogy, and the unpopularity vote is such a small dimension of the issue, that I get dizzy from shaking my head.  I am not afraid to admit it.  I am homophobic and in the sense that they mean when they accuse people of being homophobic.

  I do believe in hate the sin lover the sinner but after an honest look inside my heart I came to realize that I do see some gay people as if they were lepers. I get really angry inside if I find out they are activists.  When I meet someone and I come to find out they are gay, my entire view of them is caught up in that fact instead of looking at them as people with joys, sorrows, dreams, talents, gifts, experiences, knowledge, personalities, traits, etc.  I don’t shun them and I’m polite and I go out of my way to reject the homophobia I feel inside.  I have to force myself to try and see them as other than gay people, and see them as just people. Learning to recognize my own homophobia I have learned to recognize it in my Catholic peers.  And in this respect I do sympathize with the spirit of the gay activism that seeks to humanize gays, bring them out of the margins of society, and have them take their place that they humanely deserve.  I’ve come to know several gay men and women and maybe one out of ten have been able to overcome the traumatic experiences they have gone through in life.  They experience childhood abuse, sexual and otherwise, bullying and it doesn’t stop when they are adults.  It carries on and on, and they have to see their friends die of AIDS.  I get irritated that as a Church we do not give enough airtime to how we as a Church can offer them love and care.  Admonishing them is loving, but what else????  We can and should do more.  And it starts with looking inside and let go of any real and destructive homophobia that may live in our hearts.

The majority of Americans are also against abortion…..it’s the non-play of mainstream media that (also) doesn’t give fair and balanced treatment to this issue, as well as the traditional marriage issue.  Keep up the good articles and information on these hot button issues…..Pax

The main stream media has brougth us to this:

from Rockport Pilot Newspaper:

I’m Here, She’s Dear, Get Used To Us

Out of the Monogamy Closet

      As the dark ages of heterophobia are waning, our society is evolving, for the good, to the point where it can now accept me and my ilk.  I cannot deny it any longer-I am coming out of the monogamy closet.  Yes! I am faithful to my wife and I always have been since the day we were married over 38 years ago.  I have always felt different around those who, with absolutist certainty, preached:  self-fulfillment, freedom, liberty, self-worth, if-it-feels-good-do-it, I-gotta-be-me, do-it-my-way, grab-for-all-the-gusto-you-can, grab [another partner]-now, do-not-judge, my-morality-is-good-as-yours, and I-choose-my-morality. Why they want to impose this on me I do not know.

      I knew deep in my heart and in my soul I was different. This is something I can turn on and off, it is a matter of my choice, my free will.  It is innate in me. This is the way I was made by God and so I have come to believe it cannot be bad. I knew I was free to choose, it felt so natural.  And I chose –over and over, again and again -to love my wife, and only my wife.

      I know many will heap opprobrium on me, and some will even condemn me. So, I would like to begin a dialogue with those who are not like me, even though the grip of monagaphobia for some is overwhelming and the response from some monogaphobes is often shrill, scary, and even violent.  Hopefully such a dialogue will spawn a movement to have the right to monogamy recognized legally and, if necessary, enforced by the government with concomitant retroactive compensation for past injustice, with future preferential treatment.

      If it comes to legal action, no doubt many judges, fine judicial legislators, on courts at all levels and on the U.S. Supreme Court, will easily discover the Right to Monogamy hidden in the interstices of the Commerce Clause and in the penumbras of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, buried there long ago by our Founding Parents.  I anticipate that City Councils across our land will pass hate speech legislation so that I and those like me will no longer be assaulted with “one-wifer!”

      I look forward to Monogamy History Month – surprisingly there were monogamists who played major roles in our nation’s storied birth and growth, although this included relatively few politicians and journalists.  Monogamy Challenged parking places will facilitate my visits to Wal-Mart. I relish the thought of the educational materials to be produced by organizations funded with my tax money for kindergartners that will portray monogamy in a tender, welcoming, accepting light and provide instruction, in graphic detail, about the mechanics of monogamy.  I cannot wait for “Tommy Has One Mother and One Father,”  “See How Happy Sally Is With Her [One] Mommy and [One] Daddy,” and “The Illustrated Joy of Monogamous Sex.”   

      Monogamy has become the love that dare not be mentioned, for some a stifling, dirty thing.  But, in private, I have quietly revelled in it, glorying in the love of my one wife while keeping my mouth shut for fear of reprisal.  I can no longer be silent. Now I dare…. I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us.

Guy McClung

PO Box 2553

Rockport TX 78381

Those who would vote for a Mormon Pagan instead of a Christian are just plain foolish!  There should be equality for everyone-not just straight people! The Republican Party has been busy trying to stop all progress and roll back the clock 100 years when it comes to women and Gay people, unions, and American so-called entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Anyone who votes Republican and isn’t a Billionaire is just plain foolish-and is putting a nail in his own coffin lid! When the Republicans are done, our American Empire will be over! We will become just another second rate country!  They want to maintain world domination by our military at the cost of the Middle Class-not the Rich!  By cutting all our benefits, they think they can finance the Military-but for how long? When the Middle class is dead-drained of all it’s wealth-then the Country is also dead!

Guy, can my (shhh…“husband”) and I join you?  We are so tired of pretending to be shacked up, and only being able to wear our wedding rings at home alone! How will we ever tell our adult children that they are legitimate??  We have gay and shacked-up friends that may shun us after we “come out”.

Thank you for speaking up for those of us who are an oppressed minority!

The U.S. is never going to go back to the days where gay people kept their orientation a secret. So what will happen if activists keep on fighting gay marriage? It is clear that the younger the person, the more accepting they are of same sex marriage. It is also clear that this is probably due to greater openness about sexual orientation in the younger generation. Some of their friends are openly gay, as are many famous people. This familiarity makes them comfortable with the idea of families with two mommies or daddies. Those opposing same sex marriage will eventually lose the fight by simple attrition unless they can succeed in making younger people feel threatened by these families. Abstract morality will not trump friendship and experience. I do not believe this fight can be won—only prolonged.

Guy and Pattie, you are being silly. The “norm” is and has been a married couple. The social stigma of being single has been terrible until very recently, especially for women. Spinster, anyone?

If our country is really about freedom we will allow people to live as they want. It truly is a sad day for American when people think they have a right to deny others their rights.

@cowalker: “The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man.” Pope Benedict XVI

God’s Natural Law is not abstract. It is written on the souls of every man and woman, hardwired into our existence. There is no other way to participate in God’s procreative process other than conjugal love between man and woman. God designed marital love to be the mirror image of His own love for us. What makes you think friendship & experience are mutually exclusive from marital love? My husband and I are best friends after 27 years—that’s a lot of experince, isn’t it? Lest you think all youths will automatically accept this new society, or be pushed into it, you’re wrong. Get ready for a fight, because the Catholic Militia Immaculata Youth is a growing group that is preparing for a counter-revolution against these attacks on traditonal religion by a corrupt culture. Humanists can try with all their might to humiliate and marginalize religious persons, even take us to the gallows over this; we won’t renounce our faith. We will NOT cave.

It is so sad that people keep on using the term ‘gay’ marriage, instead of homosexual/same-sex “marriage”. When my girl-friend and I got married, it was very GAY and wonderful, which is the way that it should be. When a man and woman get married because they want too, it is GAY, when two of the same-sex try to get ‘married’ it is evil and foul-smelling; as all of our sins have a horrible odor to God.  GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!!  +JMJ+

Hat Lady, no one’s demanding you renounce your faith or cave, especially in the case of civil unions. The Catholic Church and other private faith organizations should never be forced to marry people they don’t think should be married. I would never tolerate or want, e.g., police officers in a church forcing a priest to marry two men.

But let the people of each individual state decide on the issue of civil unions. No church should have any influence at the justice of the peace.

“Natural law” is such an easily manipulated, subjective term that can be used to justify almost anything, however cruel and horrific or good and wonderful.

Look at the arguments for the divine right of kings, a medieval concept thankfully resting on the old ash heap of history. They all smack of “Natural Law” type reasoning, which was little more than invoking
God to get the populace to accept the injustice of whatever political system they suffered under.

It was once commonly accepted that ability for good governance was passed on through the genes of the nobility and that God blessed this. It took centuries of atrocities committed by tyrants and inbred imbeciles (from the expansive Hapsburg family and others) for humankind to finally reject this.

Actually the Hapsburgs, who infilitrated almost every court of medieval Europe, propagated by happily mating first cousins to each other and uncles and nieces…all in marriages conducted in Churches.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/5158513/Inbreeding-caused-demise-of-the-Spanish-Habsburg-dynasty-new-study-reveals.html

Posted by That Hat Lady on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:22 AM
“God’s Natural Law is not abstract. It is written on the souls of every man and woman, hardwired into our existence.”

I don’t believe in God. However we do have hardwired responses to other humans, such as empathy and a sense of fairness, that promote tribal survival (and thus personal survival) that developed during our evolution. In the area of family structure, human societies have shown themselves to be extremely diverse and adaptable. The lifetime nuclear family with husband and wife has not always and everywhere been the dominant model. I think what is happening with young people is that their empathy and desire for fairness are overcoming the previous cultural bias against homosexual behavior. It is an abstraction to them to say same sex marriage can’t be allowed just because it “breaks Natural Law.” You will need to demonstrate harm to others to overcome their natural tendency to empathize and want fairness.

 
“What makes you think friendship & experience are mutually exclusive from marital love?”

That was not my meaning. I meant that young people have experience with gay friends. Their gay friend wants to marry the person he or she loves, and probably already lives with. Someone tells them this shouldn’t be allowed because “There is no other way to participate in God’s procreative process other than conjugal love between man and woman.” People are making all kinds of different choices about procreation these days. I understand that official Catholic doctrine opposes many of these, but the average American doesn’t agree. It’s an abstraction to most people.

“Humanists can try with all their might to humiliate and marginalize religious persons, even take us to the gallows over this; we won’t renounce our faith. We will NOT cave.”

This is a struggle between people who don’t want religion involved in government and religious people who are trying to impose their religious beliefs through the laws of the land. Most of the people who don’t want religion involved in government are also religious, but they wouldn’t want religions other than their own enforced by law. Therefore they understand that government must be secular. I think that most Americans would react rather badly to the Catholic Militia Immaculata Youth fighting for the right to enshrine Catholicism in law.

“….the most educated counties in North Carolina had the lowest percentage of voters to support the Amendment.”

I love the exhibition of arrogance; “most educated”. The need for and the decision of “Dred Scott v. Sandford” was brought about by some of the most educated in the country.

A lot of the conservative punditocracy is economically conservative and not necessarily socially conservative.  They actually have the same core assumption as secular leftists: that what really matters is the material.  Sure, you can believe in God or the tooth fairy if that’s your thing, and Republican politicians are happy to make God noises until the votes are counted.  This “pragmatic” readiness to throw the culture under the bus in favor of what’s “really” important (i.e. wealth and power) gives their game away.  If only Catholics would vote as Catholics the national landscape would look very different.

“the most educated counties in North Carolina had the lowest percentage of voters to support the Amendment.”

And college students are more liberal than college graduates.  There’s a clue.  Unfortunately, in some of our centers of higher learning being told what to think and value passes for an education, and people think that the bandwagon argument is a sound one.

“This is a struggle between people who don’t want religion involved in government and religious people who are trying to impose their religious beliefs through the laws of the land.”

I’d say that it’s a struggle between those who think that believers should have the same access to the public square and policymaking as nonbelievers, and those who do not tolerate that.  Indeed, the battle over same-sex “rights” is a symbolic one and the core issue is whether one believes in a transcendent Creator who speaks to the human race in objective, propositional terms or not.  As evidence I offer the observation that in secular news site comboxes stories on gay “rights” instantly touch off a wave of people expressing their unremitting hatred of Christians, whether religion was mentioned in the story or not.  Commenters don’t take the same care as journalists to ignore the connection.

Cowalker said, “People are making all kinds of different choices about procreation these days.”

Since procreation is a fixed process, the only way I can “conceive” of there being a choice is to do it or not do it. “All kinds” seems to be exaggerated. I suppose you could do something similar to stealing instead of working to make a living.

One more observation.  Narratives aside, in my own experience the people who show fear and hatred of those different than themselves are not Christians but “enlightened” secularists who think of themselves as tolerant and are on the politically correct side of same-sex marriage.  And they don’t even pretend to appeal to reason.  Simply submit and conform or you’re persona non grata.

My neighbors are lesbians. I like my neighbors. They are good neighbors. I want nothing but the best for them, and they seem very happy together.
.
I refuse to believe that I am a better neighbor than God.
.
I have gay friends. I have lesbian friends. The gay men I know just aren’t interested in women. Their sexual preference is pretty strong and when they’ve tried to ignore this to “fit in”, the women they get involved with have gotten hurt.
.
The lesbians I know seem to be more interested in the relationship with their individual partner than that they have an exclusive attraction to women. If asking gay men to “change” is asking them to deny their desires, asking lesbians to “change” is often to ask them to not love a specific person they care very deeply for.
.
There is a lot I don’t understand about same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships, but I don’t think “Sorry, we can’t help you. Enjoy your life of involuntary celibacy.” is the answer.

There is a lot I don’t understand about same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships, but I don’t think “Sorry, we can’t help you. Enjoy your life of involuntary celibacy.” is the answer.

Jim, don’t jump to conclusions, refer those who want help to:

http://www.couragerc.net/

@Howard: The problem is that the “help” they offer doesn’t work. The leading study supporting reparative therapy (Spitzer) has been retracted, and this is generally considered psuedoscience by the psychiatric community.
.
Once again, this leaves gay people with “Enjoy your life of involuntary celibacy.”

Posted by Kevin on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:26 AM (EST):
“I’d say that it’s a struggle between those who think that believers should have the same access to the public square and policymaking as nonbelievers, and those who do not tolerate that.”

Christian believers owned the public square and policymaking in the U.S. up until the last fifty years, and they still exert powerful influence there. Now non-believers are saying that actual policy must be grounded in common values, and we don’t agree on the value of implementing the Christian God’s will into law. You can make the argument that we should do it because your God wants it, but it will not be respected. Factor in growing religious diversity leading to the problem that different religions can’t agree on what God wants, and you have a strong argument for leaving religion out of government. 

“Indeed, the battle over same-sex ‘rights’ is a symbolic one and the core issue is whether one believes in a transcendent Creator who speaks to the human race in objective, propositional terms or not.”

I agree that is true. That first category of people in the battle is miniscule. Most believers believe that our understanding of the will of a transcendent Creator changes as our understanding of nature increases and our societies change. Think of all those who call themselves Christians in the U.S. but believe that Jesus was only referring to a society where most people died young when he forbade divorce and remarriage.  Citizens of Europe once believed universally that God wanted the state to enforce religious orthodoxy. That is now history. Once money-lending for interest was forbidden for Christians. Who even remembers that now?

Jim, if you won’t refer those who ask for help and then leave them stranded, maybe anecdotal stories will help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrviw8nu7gQ  

Jim, Courage is not based on Spitzer.

The following Five Goals of Courage were created by the members themselves, when Courage was founded. The goals are read at the start of each meeting and each member is called to practice them in daily life.

To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality. ( Chastity )
To dedicate our entire lives to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. (Prayer and Dedication)
To foster a spirit of fellowship in which we may share with one another our thoughts and experiences, and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone. (Fellowship)
To be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life; and to encourage one another in forming and sustaining these friendships. (Support)
To live lives that may serve as good examples to others. (Good Example/Role Model)

“. Now non-believers are saying that actual policy must be grounded in common values”

cowalker, I have to disagree with that.  I nowhere see non-believers appealing to common values.  When I see them appealing to anything at all (as opposed to a naked will-to-power approach) it is to the notion that secularism means marginalization of religion (in effect, of believers) in public life, rather than meaning mere government neutrality toward all religions or none.  The former is indistinguishable from atheism as official policy.

“Most believers believe that our understanding of the will of a transcendent Creator changes as our understanding of nature increases and our societies change”

To a limited extent, yes.  But growth in our understanding of God’s will is not the same as replacement of a common understanding of that will as expressed in both nature and revelation with contemporary taste and fashion dressed up in clerical drag.  Morality doesn’t change by majority vote, and I have not met a single person who appeals to moral relativism when it’s their own ox being gored.

I really do feel sorry for people who go through life with a same sex attraction.  I do know a few people with same sex attractions and they seem to be decent guys.  That has got to be one tough way to go through life.  But, I don’t think everything is quite as rosy in the land of same sex attractions as it is made out to be in the main stream media.  I think there’s quite a bit of whitewashing going on with regards to the same sex lifestyle and I think there’s legitimate concerns regarding downstream ramifications. 

Click on this link and scroll down to the question: “What does scienctific eveidence show about homosexuality?”  This article is well foot noted and sites many different sources backing the statements made:  http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

The media has done a great job marketing same sex marriage, just like they have been doing with abortion.  They cloak reality with terms like “choice” to direct your attention away from some rather unpleasant truths.  Studies do exist showing drastically reduced life spans for men living the homosexual lifestyle - and this is true even more so when they live in communities that openly accept and celebrate same sex relations.  One study which did a survey of obituaries in homosexual periodicals showed an average age of death as only 38 years.  Even if those studies are off a bit, doesn’t that raise a red flag to anyone?  Sure, other studies have tried to discredit that number, but those were sponsored by homosexual groups with an agenda.

Why the reduced life span?  It appears to be a combination of emotional and physical ailments resulting from rampant promiscuity, which is another issue quietly swept under the carpet and replaced with the image of nothing but dutiful, monogamous partners.  It seems that even men get tired of being treated as sex objects and it has a profound effect on the human psyche.  Men living the same sex lifestyle are more prone to substance abuse, emotional problems, and suicide.  They also suffer from physical diseases rarely found in heterosexuals and that would include anal cancer and some specific types of urinary tract infections.  It has long been known that anal sex is not healthy and is unhygienic.  This is probably the reason why the Bible has spoken out about sodomy.  It seems the ancient people, who would likely be considered ignorant and crude by our educated elite today, understrood the concept of infection.  Lack of proper bathing facilities and the fact that most men were uncircumcised further compounded the problem.  If a man who has been having anal sex has relations with a his unknowing wife, that could be a death sentence for her as all this would be taking place in a world without antibiotics.

It does not surprise me that the “more highly educated” people are OK with same sex marriage.  These are the same people who are popping birth control and Plan B pills like they’re M&M’s so they can indulge themselves in pleasure.  While they are called “educated” they’re far more likely to spend their spare time learning how to use their new smart phone rather then reading and thinking about things more deeply.  A few sound bites here or there are all that is needed for these smart and sophisticated people to make a decision.

On the other side of the coin, we have many Christians who can quote the Bible chapter and verse.  That’s fine, but there are reasons why those verses are in there and it has to do with observations made by generations past.  Christian need to think more deeply about this issue as well and ask themselves why the Bible says what it does. There is inherrent wisdomin the Bible and we should know it.  Quoting Bible verses is not going to impress our smart phone using educated elites.

Now, about downstream ramifications, what would they be?  It is conceivable that some enterprising group of people will eventually want to legalize plural marriage - and they’d have a good case for it too.  Every argument used for same sex marriage can be used for plural marriage.  There’s also the question of education.  In states that have same sex marriage the issue of eductaing children at younger and youger ages has arisen.  In Provincetown, MA there was a proposal to handout condoms to early grade school children.  If same sex marriage is the law of the land, you get bet your last dollar that some teacher will want to push the envelope on this.  And what can be said in opposition if it is the law of the land?  You can also expect laws to be passed regarding transexualism.  These laws will recognize many different genders and further add to the confusion.  This happened in Conecticut.

Should homosexuals be treated with dignity and respect?  Yes. Should they be mistreated or ostracized?  No.  Should they be welcome as Mass? Yes, absolutely.  Should we change the instituion of marriage? No.

The gay people I know aren’t asking for help.
.
I did see some material for reparative therapy on the website. If this is not what Courage is all about, then fair enough. But even the five steps are about how to enjoy a life of what amounts to involuntary celibacy. If someone believes this life is best for them, that is fine. But this appears to be exactly what Courage is offering.

Jim, your post seemed to be criticizing others for an abandoning behavior. There is plenty of evidence that this is not so. Your neighbors are not the whole world and it seems that if others seek complete reversal or just celibacy you should be anxious to help them. Why do you call members description of themselves as “involuntary celibacy” then contradict yourself by then saying, “If someone believes this life is best for them, that is fine.”

@New Yorker: Why all the focus on gay men? What about lesbians? Lesbian sexual practices are quite tame, compared to gay men and even heterosexuals.
.
Notably the Bible, while condemning male homosexuality, says nothing directly about lesbianism. Romans 1:26 (“even their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature”) refers to women exchanging regular sex for heterosexual anal sex, not lesbianism. This makes sense both in the context of the passage and from a health perspective. While one could interpret the phrase broadly to include any non-procreative act, Paul was talking about a specific “vile affection” that to him epitomized the depravity of mankind.
.
Even so, not all gay men engage in anal sex, although a substantial number do. A Biblical prohibition against anal sex (gay and straight) makes perfect sense for the reasons you have stated; extending this to all non-procreative sexual practices, less so.

@Howard: It’s not that I have any problem with gay people or anyone else choosing to live a celibate lifestyle. It’s that Courage and the Catholic Church are offering this as the only morally acceptable option. That is what is involuntary about it.

Jim, the Church is a voluntary organization. Why do you care what someone else chooses?

@Howard: What other people choose is their business not mine.
.
So do you believe the only moral answer for people with exclusive same-sex attraction is a celibate lifestyle?

Jim, I don’t dictate in this area. I leave it up to them.

To anticipate a response, I also don’t dictate what a homosexual person SHOULD do - God give him/her free will. I just resent co-opting marriage.

Jim, I have a strong suspiscion that much has been glossed over in the lesbian world as well.  Although physical relations among women may not be as physically harmful.

You might want to Google “Dr. Joseph Nicolosi” and read some of his research regarding the development of same sex attractions.  I’ve listened to one of his lectures and I almost wanted to cry because the pattern of development he describes fit an acquaintance of my son to a “T”.  This young fellow, who had a terrible relationship with his father, went to college and was encouraged to “come out”.  He did.  He started indulging in same sex relationships - lots of them.  He ended up in drug rehab.  I met this kid a few years a go, before he started living the lifestyle.  Really nice kid.  The wife and I liked him very much.  That’s why I was so sad to find out what happened to him.  While many are encouraging people with same sex attractions to act on them, it didn’t work out too well for this poor kid and I suspect this is not a rarity.

To me, same sex relations are a sin equal to other sins such as drinking too much, gambling too much, womanizing, etc. etc.  A sin is a sin because it harms us and no one is without sin.  But unlike these other sins, there’s no marketing campaign to promote indulging oneself in them.  No one encourages an alcoholic to drink.  That would be evil.  So, if that’s evil, what would it be if we encouraged someone to partake in a lifestyle that, to whatever extent, ended up reducing their life expectancy?

My heart goes out to anyone who has a same sex attraction, and I say that with all sincerity.  But I’m afraid that acting on those impulses may cause more harm in the long run then the pain of celibacy.  That’s why support programs like Courage MIGHT help some people.

There are other organizations.
.
http://exodusinternational.org/
http://www.ha-fs.org/
http://pfox.org

No one likes being called “intolerant”, “a hater”, “a phobic”,  “a bigot”... but ...

No one is EVER going to look up their gay “Parents” on Ancestry.com someday.

No one.

“So do you believe the only moral answer for people with exclusive same-sex attraction is a celibate lifestyle?”

Yes. Read about it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jim. Where it says that homosexuals are “called to chastity.”

“Homophobia” is a flawed word that supporters of the homosexual lifestyle have carved into our culture to frame the Church’s teaching from a standpoint of so-called fear and prejudice rather than from a standpoint of dignity and love.  The Catholic Church’s position has always been counter-cultural.

Jim; I humbly beg you to read this commentary on Jesus and homosexuality:

http://www.ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml

Tell me just one place, anywhere in the Bible where God or Jesus said on thing against homosexuality and I am with you. You won;t find it anywhere because it never ever happened. God didn’t include it in the ten commandments, though he did include lying, stealing and adultery.  Otherwise, stop doing this insane thing.  Christ walked the Earth for 33 years and never said one thing against homosexuals or homosexuality. Not a word.

Why then has the church made this its one main focus? Why is homosexuality the biggest sin known to man, but not apparently known to God? Answer that, or face and eternity in hell for fighting against God’s children. God made people gay. God does not make mistakes. Get over it and stop making it your sole focus, when God nor Jesus ever said one word on the subject.

Actually, the 32 state thing is not correct.  Arizona rejected the gay marriage ban the first time it was placed on the ballot.  Only after it was tried the second time and massive tv ad money brought in from outside the state, was it passed.

But more to the point, gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and civil rights ultimately will not rest on popular votes.  Even the DOMA advocates know that, that’s why they constantly talk about a federal amendment to “protect” marriage, after talking out of the other sides of their mouths about “leaving it to the states.”  That’s because they know, as we do, that no state law can override Constititional provisions such as the Establishment Clause (the government cannot approve of any religion-based version of marriage without violating that clause), and the equal protection provisions which make the state laws moot.  No civil right can be subjected to the test of popular vote, otherwise rights become just the prizes in popularity contests.  Nobody has rights when a majority of people who don’t like you can take them away. 

The entire argument at the basis of this thread is just bunk, on every level.  Additionally, the public opinion trend on gay marriage is steadily and strongly toward approval, now at the majority level, since 1996, with no sign of turning around in the other direction.  Bigotry is dying out.  Bigotry which is being pimped and disguised as a religious objection is going to fail utlimately, and probably sooner than later.  Sorry.

Why quit? Because you are on the wrong side of God and history. God never said one thing negative about homosexuality. not one word. It is no wherein the ten commandments or anywhere else. Jesus never , in his thirty three years on Earth ever had one negative thing to say about homosexuality. He talked about a lot of things but never homosexuality. Why do you suppose that is? He just didn’t have a firm grasp on the subject. Didn’t understand it? Had a faulty memory and was forgetful?

You have no basis for saying God does not approve of homosexuality. You can say some men, form time time to time didn’t approve but you cannot cite one example where God said one thing negative about it. It is evil to pretend that God has taken a position against homosexuality when he has done no such thing. If you do not want to burn in hell for that, you should rethink your position on this.

Leviticus 18:22
King James Version (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Jude 1:7
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

Pat: You knew the trolls are working overtime these days, right? Propaganda Alert!

Grant: Too many strawmen and a ridiculous line of argument. What is the teaching of the Church with regard to homosexuality? Read the Catechism and get back to us. Save the college dorm stuff for college dorms, where the students won’t dare disagree with your rubbish.

Thymezone: You are the one peddling bunk here. Everything you said is straight off the liberal/homosexual sites. Incontestable fact category: “gay” marriage goes down to defeat when the people vote directly on it. Back to the Obama campaign, buddy.

Incontestable fact:  Civil rights cannot be decided by popular vote.  You are getting away with it so far, but that’s because the courts, and general public opinion, have not caught up with you yet.  I don’t read liberal/homosexual sites, so I don’t know what you are talking about.  If you think you are going to tar me with the gay, sorry, I promise you I am straighter than you are, and better at it too.  So that road will get you nowhere with me. 

DOMA, as a concept and as law, completely fails two simple Constitutional tests:  The Establishment Clause, and the Equal Protection provision.  It’s that simple, and the ultimate outcome will rest on those principles, as administered by the courts, and finally, via federal law, a la the Civil Rights Act.  The states are trying to do an end run around the Constitition of the United States, and that end run will fail.  The evolution of US law, public opinion, and demographics are all working steadily against you.  Sorry.

Homosexual marriage is not a civil right. Try repeating that to yourself in betweeen the rosary beads you are no doubt praying right now.

When the premise is faulty, the argument fails. Logic, my friend.

Of course it’s a civil right.  Where does the Constitution give government the power to decide whom you should marry?  Who told you it was not a civil right?  Your priest?  That’s because your church still believes that marriage is a church institution.  Fine, make it so.  Do whatever you like in your church ... although, I must say, if gay activity is your concern, you might want to start with your own clergy before you set upon the rest of us.  But that’s another matter.  Your church can tell you whatever it wants.  The government answers to a higher power ... the Constitution.  You might want to look into it.

Well, there you go. You say potato, I say tomato. If you only had a brain, I would point out that you have now removed any bar to incestuous and polygamous marriages…since all marriage is a civil right and can’t be restricted by the people or their elected representatives. But I digress.

Are you part Cherokee? If you are, there’s a job opening at Harvard Law.

Genesis 19
King James Version (KJV)
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
.
Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Marriage, or the non-church version of a civil union, is absolutely a civil right.  Whatever risks you think there are in that outcome, you will have to deal with when if it becomes necessary.  Polygamy is being attacked mainly on the basis of sexual abuse of children, since it is usually an excuse for marrying and having sex with children.  Incest is already covered under laws against child abuse for the most part.  After that, there are public health issues involved in incest, having to do with procreation.  Since procreation is not a factor in same sex marriage, I fail to see how those matters are an issue.  But you are straying off the sidewalk.  What you want is the power to hire the government to enforce your church rules about marriage.  Sorry, that path is going to lead to failure of your whole proposition, for the obvious reasons already stated.  The courts, and ultimately, federal law, will put an end to that nonsense.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  My Constitution pretty much trumps your bible blather.

Back to you.

Thyme, on second thought—stay out of Law School. Pretty please.

In other words, you have no actual argument.  Also, I am confused.  I thought the Catholic Church was a gay organization?  Otherwise, why am I never reading about Methodist ministers molesting little boys in the rectory? 

I would think you want to clean up your own backyard before deciding that the whole world is your business.

Also, Phil, you might want to brief all the courts that so far have struck down gay marriage bans ... be sure to explain to them how you know the law better than they do.  I am sure you will get some enthusiastic responses!

Thyme—trolling has to be subtle. Baiting pious little old Catholic ladies is not cool, dude. Give it a rest.

Phil, argument has to have some convincing content.  Calling me a troll is not really feeding the bulldog.  You guys have not answered a single one of my points.  All you have is smart alecky retorts?  Really?  Please make a Constitutional defense for the idea that government can tell you whom you can marry ... whom of legal age and outside of your immediate family.  Can you do that?

I didn’t think so.

Grant, Ioannes gave a link that explains that Jesus did speak against homosexuality in the bible-see below.

http://www.ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml

Especially scroll down to the section titled: Jesus and the Wellsprings of the Heart. Jesus lists a variety of sins which come from the heart, fornications is one of them. The Greek word used is porneia, porneus in latin, which describes a multitude of sexual sins including homosexual sex and the people of the time would have known that. And to say that God never spoke of it, read Leviticus in the Old Testament. He is very clear on that.

Please do not say that the Church has absolutely NO BASIS for it’s teachings on homosexual sex - you do not understand Bible hermeneutics and probably not Greek, Latin, or Aramaic either. You cannot just go by the simply English translations of the Bible, although as I stated above, Leviticus Chapt. 18 I believe, is where God does speak against it very clearly, even in the English translations.

No, Thyme, I’m not going to feed you. I’ve debated the issue many times, and have clobbered many a liberal Catholic online over homosexual marriage. (Some were, or claimed to be, constitutional law students.) But I don’t do trolls. How do I know you’re a troll? As the Good Book says,“By their comments ye shall know them.”

Domino’s Nabisco, sport.

Phil, get off it.  Calling me a troll is just an excuse to run away.  You haven’t made any argument here.  How have you “clobbered” people over gay marriage?  By insulting them, calling them trolls, and running away?  Get serious.  Do you have an argument?  Then make it.

“Posted by Thymezone on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:40 PM (EST):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Yet, the HHS mandate is doing exactly that, and wanna bet that eventually, if “gay marriage” does become the law of the land, that the government will eventually try to force all churches to perform marriages that are against their moral beliefs and teachings.

Regarding homosexual priests in the Catholic Church, you are correct- the majority of the abuses were against teenage boys- it was homosexuals who were wrongly allowed into the priesthood that was the major cause of the sex abuse scandals. Re: Methodists, etc. That’s the media for you. Protestant ministers, teachers, coaches, et al., have much higher rates of child sex abuse compared to Catholic priests, but you don’t hear so much about that in the media.

Sorry for my cynicism, but in when same-sex marriage goes to referendum in Maryland in November, the country will be 32 and 1.

Marriage is not a civil rights issue. The reason government gives out marriage licenses and design incentives for its existence is because it benefits society and country. Not because people deserve to have recognition of their union with the state.

Thymezone, same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue because it is very common for people who engage in same sex relations to be harmed physically as well as emotionally. Why does the Bible speak out against it?  I mean there must be some inherent wisdom in there, right? 

In fact, there is a good reason.  Whether we want to admit it or not, the sad truth is that homosexuals TEND TO live short, troubled, unhealthy lives.  In other words, homosexuality harms people who engage in it and since God loves us he doesn’t want us to be harmed.  No parent would want to see their child engaging in harmful activity.  Here is one example of how homosexuality harms us: Before AIDS homosexual men had an average life expectancy of only 48 years.  Since AIDS it has decreased to only 38!!!!  There’s a variety of reasons for this, but one of them is not Christian persecution.  Understanding this, if your child had a same sex attraction, would you not be concerned and speak to him?  He may or may not listen, but a good parent would certainly try.  Should God also not try to warn us of the dangers by speaking through the scriptures?  Click on this link and scroll down to the question: “What does scienctific eveidence show about homosexuality?”  This article is well foot noted and sites many different sources backing the statements made:  http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp   My heart goes out to anyone who has to wrestle with a same sex attraction just like it would go out to a person who has to deal with a substance abuse problem.  They are all sins because they harm us - and they are all EQUAL.  Despite your comment, the church has not singled out this sin above all others.  Everyone needs to pray for homosexuals just like you would for any other sinner. 

An activity that brings about such harm to its participants should not qualify as a civil right because that would be tacit approval and encouragement into an activity that would likely cut lives short.  It would be like giving beer to an alcoholic.  It is sinful to encourage people into an activity that will hurt them.

You know, my friend, I’ll pray for you and if you do have a problem with a same sex attraction, I hope you find a way to come to terms with it that will not cut your life short.

Calling it “marriage” won’t make it marriage, just like Lincoln said about five-legged dogs:  “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg. “ In article in Commonweal magazine, [BOREDOM OR EXPERTISE, Sept. 9, 2011] the editors note that one writer now advocates sexual promiscuity even within marriage, but with some exceptions: “unless it involves feces, children, pets, incest, or the dead”.  Based on what America to date has already accepted as Supreme court “truth”-the creation out of whole cloth camouflaged as “principled reasoning” of the so-called “constitutional”, so-called “rights” to privacy, abortion, and sodomy – there is nothing on the books or in our culture that will prevent the Court from similarly exercising almighty legislative power in creating constitutional rights to polygamy, pederasty, and perversion (which, like the “right” to abortion has heretofore been hidden in constitutional shadows intentionally put there by our Founding Fathers in 1781 but penetrable only by divine-wise judges of today, and bursting with the light of justice). It would be enjoyable to witness the logical contortions and lies of any liberal constitutional lawyer, those typically unchallenged by the principle of non-contradiction, who would present an argument, based on what the Supreme Court has done in the past in the way of creation ex nihilo,  that there is NOT a constitutionally-guaranteed right of every American to have sexual intercourse with her dog, with his dead mother,  with minors, with his or her multiple spouses, or with a favorite cow or oak tree – perhaps, but maybe not, limited to the privacy of the bedroom or the backyard.  Can you imagine what “teaching materials” complete with detailed diagrams Planned Parenthood will then be providing to our kindergarten and elementary schools, with “no parents allowed” mentoring and field trips?

Guy McClung
Rockport TX

@Ioannes: Every single passage in the Bible that refers to homosexuality refers to MALE homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says absolutely nothing about a woman lying with another woman. Paul’s original Greek (and older translations, including the D-R and KJV) is quite clear that what is translated as “homosexual” refers to male-male behavior. Romans 1:26 does not refer to lesbianism, and I have covered this earlier in this thread. (And would be a rather odd place to be the only mention of it in the Bible if it were.)
.
The reason why male homosexual behavior is condemned while very little is said about lesbianism is probably due to the health risks of anal sex. This is a common sense health law, not an arbitrary restriction on sexuality. If anyone else can come up with an explanation of this discrepancy, then I would like to hear it.

“Nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Yet, the HHS mandate is doing exactly that, and wanna bet that eventually, if “gay marriage” does become the law of the land, that the government will eventually try to force all churches to perform marriages that are against their moral beliefs and teachings.”
.
I GUARANTEE that the HHS Mandate is going to get struck down by the Courts, if they don’t strike down the whole health care reform act first. It will probably be a Scalia opinion and I would not be surprised if it is 9-0.
.
If the government tries to make a church perform a gay marriage, the Courts will smack them down hard. This is not Europe or Canada. The First Amendment is crystal clear and it is nearly impossible for the government to interfere with a church.

Interesting that your arguments are that it doesn’t matter what God or Jesus said about homosexuality, that the Catholic Church has been quite clear on this. Of course, that is my point - the Catholic Church has clearly stated something that is not from God or Jesus. They have supplanted their opinion for that of Christ or God. Therein lies the problem. If this were an issue for God or Christ, don’t you suppose they would have mentioned it? In the Ten Commandments or at some point during Jesus’ thirty-three years? To pretend that God or Jesus were just too busy or that they just took it for granted that everyone knew this already is a cop out. They didn’t ever say it was wrong - EVER. Argue as you will, you will never be able to support your argument with words from either God or Jesus and anything else is just regular men talking and that carries much less weight than the word of God or Jesus.

For all of those who have cited Leviticus to show me where God spoke on homosexuality - Leviticus were the rules set up by Rabbis, that included not eating pork or shell fish, not shaving your face or cutting your hair. These were not rules handed down by God, they were rules made up by men for men. Similarly, citing Paul’s words in Romans is not the same as citing Jesus’ words. Paul never knew Jesus. He was speaking from his own prejudices.

No one, by the way is proposing to force the church to perform gay marriages. We are talking about civil law here, not church law.  The Church does not recognize marriage between two divorced people, but the state has no such issue. OF course a hefty donation to the Church can make the first marriage go away - be annulled as it were - but the state has no such restrictions. The Catholic Church can continue to deny homosexuals the right to marry until the end of time. No one frankly gives a damn. This is about civil law and the federal and state laws that pertain to marriage.

“The Catholic Church has clearly stated something that is not from God or Jesus.”

Your argument from silence does not say what you’re implying about homosexuality.  If anything the opposite must be concluded.  Within Jewish society in Jesus’ time, it was clearly understood that lying with another man was not appropriate.  If Jesus’s silence is to be used, it would be to confirm what Jewish culture was purportedly against which would be any sexual deviation against the natural law of how humans were to engage intimately.  In fact, if Jesus’ were for homosexuality and against the prevailing wisdom he would have spoken out against those who were thinking it was wrong.  Silence gives consent to the cultural standard of the time and not what you’re stating, which was against the Jewish faith.

TO say Jesus was supporting traditional Jewish law by not speaking on the subject of Homosexuality, you have to explain why he went on and on on other sins that were also a part of Jewish Tradition. You lose on this rather lame and stupid point of argument.

@Aaron, really?  Another 1970’s-style cultural “Catholic” screed. Forgive me for saying so.  I grew up secular, in an equally bad broken home, but without the luxury of a faith to villanize.  I don’t see your point.  You say, “My point is NOT that all traditional marriage is bad or that the Catholic Church is to blame for my parent’s disastrous marriage”...and then you go on to blame the Catholic Church for your parent’s disasterous marriage. As for the bad marraige prep, are you aware that you can pay $50 and get NONE at any protestant church, Vegas wedding chapel or justice of peace?  Were you TRYING to get anything out of your preparation?  Or do elderly, childless men and ultra-freaky Catholic couples have nothing to teach a relationship expert such as yourself, a deeply spiritual person such as yourself who numbly mumbles “the pledge” and rolls his eyes at everything sacred.  I once knew a boy from Africa who couldn’t eat lunch in the school cafeteria. He’d known real hunger in his life.  Food was life and death to him and watching a spoiled kid toss a sandwich in the trash because the bread looked soggy sent him into apoplexy.  As a convert, former atheist, I feel the same way any time I hear some cradle pew warmer spit on a faith that is life and death to me and also to yourself whether you know it or not.

Grant,

Jesus was a faithful Jew.  I don’t have to explain why “he went on and on on other sins that were also a part of Jewish Tradition.”  His words are clearly there and explain His positions.  You are the one that has to explain why he didn’t speak out against homosexuality because if it is as you claim that he was not against it, he would have said something to clearly delineate what was wrong about Jewish thinking regarding homosexuality as he did about the other sins.  Grant, I feel for you but your logic is clearly not following from what you’re saying.  Anybody can see it.

Neither God nor Christ ever found it necessary to say one word against homosexuals. Not one word. Yet the Catholic Church has taken this to be the greatest sin on Earth. There is no way to justify that. Homosexuality is spoken of only twice in the Bible, both times by ordinary men. Leviticus and Romans. Never once by God. Not once. You cannot say that neither God nor Christ spoke about it because it was too terrible for them to speak of it. It is not in the Ten Commandments. It didn’t make God’s top ten list. Jesus NEVER spoke about it. And yet you cling to a couple of random phrases in the Bible as your be all and end all of religion. You have a major problem and so does your Church. Accept that your bigotry is merely oppression of a minority that you do not like. That is it.

Grant,

I’ve clearly shown your logical error and all you do is attack and launch aspersions to things that are not true.  You want a rational discussion or do you want to insult your way to some sort of victory.  You claim you don’t care about what the Catholic Church does or thinks by some of your previous comments yet you don’t stop insulting people.  I’m sorry but I cannot indulge your attitude when you can’t even see the inconsistencies and the contradictions in your statements.

What logical argument do you allude to. That neither Jesus nor God ever spoke on the subject of Homosexuality, didn’t include it in God’s top ten list because EVERYONE KNOWS that homosexuality is wrong and there was no reason to discuss it? Seriously? That is your logical argument? That is incredibly stupid.

Grant,

Your argument from silence is not an argument in favor homosexuality.  If you’re going to use this line of thinking, you have to acknowledge that silence implies consent for the culture of that moment in history with regards to homosexuality which is directly in opposition to what you’re stating.  You’re the one that’s using this “silence” argument by stating “God nor Christ ever found it necessary to say one word against homosexuals.”  In other words, don’t use it and folks won’t point out your logical fallacy.  Saying nothing about something does not imply consent in this circumstance because it would be disingenuous and historically inaccurate to state that Jesus agreed with something because he didn’t say anything about it.  Please layoff the insults.  They make your argumentation look all the more desperate.

The Catholic Church speaks for God; Jesus expressly gave it that charism. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”; “you are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my kingdom, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” the Catholic Church is protected by the holy spirit from teaching error in all matters of faith and morals. Thus, the Church has supplanted nothing from the old testament. In fact, the Church has revealed the true meanings of the OT, guided by the spirit, and taught by Christ himself, during his time on earth post-resurrection, as stated in the Bible. You also realize that not everything ever uttered by Jesus is in the Bible, right? John explained how many more things were said and done, but these things are written down so that we may believe in Jesus and have life in his name. Jesus didn’t leave behind a book, he left behind a church, who he protects from doctrinal error: the Catholic Church.

Silence from the beginning of time by God and Jesus does not say that they had already accepted anything. There were so many things that Jesus touched on and not a word about homosexuality. No, sorry, silence just doesn’t cut it. To say you know God is opposed to something because he didn’t ever - EVER - bother to SAY ANYTHING on the subject is absurd!

If God gave the Catholic Church the right to speak for God, please show me where and when he expressly did that. Not where the church says that he did, but where HE did.

The Church claims to be infallible, and yet it has done horrible throughout history in the name of God. From the Inquisition, to the Crusades, to the killing of Joan Of Arc, to the cover-up of Pedophile Priests and the cooperation with Hitler. Only a fool would believe that the Church speaks for God on Earth. Here is your sign.

Grant,

“To say you know God is opposed to something because he didn’t ever - EVER - bother to SAY ANYTHING on the subject is absurd!”

Jesus was a faithful Jew and since he never touched upon this subject, it demonstrates clearly that he supports what Jewish culture believed in during that time.  When he spoke, he spoke clearly and he never corrected what the predominant thought was regarding homosexual relations.  To say something differently is non-sensical and an historically anachronism.  You’re only fooling yourself if you believe what you’re saying because you have no basis arguing from this perspective.

By the way, The Acts of the Apostles claims that the Jewish Christian couple Priscilla and Aquila had recently come from Rome to Corinth when, in about the year 50, Paul reached Corinth,[11] indicating that Christianity in Rome had preceded Paul. While the church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to them from Corinth, about AD 57,[12] he greets some fifty people in Rome by name,[13] but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul’s two year stay there in chapter 28 of Acts, about AD 60-62. Church historians consistently consider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero,[14][15][16] in AD 64 such as after the Great Fire of Rome which, according to Tacitus, Nero blamed on the Christians.[17][18] The tradition that the See of Rome was founded as an organized Christian community by Peter and Paul and that its episcopate owes to them its origin can be traced back only as the second-century, with Irenaeus,[19] but there is no conclusive evidence, scripturally, historically or chronologically, that Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome.

In other words, though the Catholic Church claims it was founded by Rome there is no evidence either historically or scripturally that the Catholic Church was ever headed by Peter or that it was ever Peter’s church.

You argument that Jesus never mentioned what the Church considers to be the greatest of all sins because he agreed with the prevailing Jewish cultural beliefs that homosexuality was wrong and therefore felt there was no need to discuss is ridiculous. Jesus discussed every other aspect of Jewish culture in great detail. I suppose Adam failed to mention dinosuars because everyone knew they existed, so there was no point in mentioning them, right?

You are so deep in your blind faith that you cannot see the forest for the trees. You, my friend, are a moron.

Grant,

If you keep repeating it’s ridiculous it’s not going to make any argument more ridiculous.  Are there historical facts that back up what you believe God believed in during the time of Jesus that would lead you to believe that He thought homosexuality was morally correct?  You can ignore the historical cultural realities of that time if you choose to do so but you can’t make things up like you’re currently doing.  I won’t insult you since I don’t believe in using that line of thinking.  It works well for those who can’t make an valid argument with supporting evidence.

What was culturally believed in that time has nothing whatsoever to do with what God feels or believes. Jews also didn’t believe you should mix fabrics, or that a man should shave his face or a woman cut her hair. Do you think God believed that? The Jews believed many things that God did not tell them to believe. That is part of why God was so angry with them all the time. The fact that culturally Jews did not approve of homosexuality has no bearing on what God believes or said.

“What was culturally believed in that time has nothing whatsoever to do with what God feels or believes.”

Yet Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, leaving the Jews who did not support it to continue their belief against it.

“The fact that culturally Jews did not approve of homosexuality has no bearing on what God believes or said.”

Yet Jesus didn’t say anything about it, which clearly makes the case that there was no need to say anything because it was obviously understood to be against God’s will.  You yourself make an argument against homosexuality with you’re saying!  Grant, I understand you don’t agree with the Church, you’ve clearly stated it above, but I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere here arguing the way you’re doing it.  I’ll let you have the last word since it’ll probably make you feel better.

Grant, many years a go a survey was done of obituaries in homosexual publications.  They found the average age of death was only 38 years.  Maybe the church has a point?  Maybe there’s more to this then meets the eye?

No doubt, the Catholic church has had many foolish leaders, but it always snaps back and the fools are purged, one way or another.  Even Christ had one bad guy (Judas) with him, so why would you expect a church with over a billion people to be perfect?  Any way, through 2,000 years, the teachings have remained unchanged. Fornication, divorce, abortion, same sex relations, euthanasia are all sins because they cause physical and emotional harm to us and the ones around us - whether we care to admit it or not.

I suggest you Google, “The Didache” and read it.  It was written by Christ’s own handpicked guys (the apostles) and it’s contents are completely consistent with current teachings.

I will pray for you.

re: “God and Jesus never said anything about homosexuals…”

um, anybody remember the 10 commandments?  You know, the one specifically about “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” ??? Exactly what do you think adultery means? It means, precisely, engaging in sexual relations with someone you are not married to and since homosexuals can’t be *married* (the current battle is over legal recognition of a relationship, not establishing marriage), this commandment would include them. —Side note, there was no same-sex marriage 2000 years ago, so the definition of adultery would have been understood by everyone.

Adultery is not sleeping with someone you are not married to. It is sleeping with someone other than the person you are married to when you are married.  There is quite a huge difference. When an unmarried woman sleeps with a married man, only the married man is guilty of adultery.

Grant,

Seriously, you are so far off from the truth I don’t know what to do but to pray for you. I would think you could be a troll, except for the fact that I have known others like you who seriously believe what they think, so I won’t call you a troll yet.

May I lovingly recommend that you read the book “TRIUMPH, by H.W. Crocker” which describes the church throughout its 2,000 year history to give you a perspective of what the Church actually is?

Only after getting over from the deep resentment you have towards what you THINK the church is, will you be able to have a respectful discussion us.

I see you hate what you misunderstand, but if only you understood, you would not hate, you would love.

Maybe that’s why I get along with how any legitimate atheist thinks. They just say Jesus was making stuff up, and have no fear in saying that. Just as I have no problem in saying that I don’t believe one can reincarnate into an animal depending on how one lived one’s life. A serious atheist simply chooses not to believe in him, which is man’s own free choice.

But…for those who believe in what Jesus had to say:

DO YOU REALLY SEE JESUS AS A RABBI AT A WEDDING IN BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN OR A WOMAN AND A WOMEN???? REALLY???????? DO YOU REALLY THINK JESUS WOULD OFFICIATE A WEDDING IN BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX, SAY MAZEL TOV AND CONGRATULATE THEM????? REALLY??? DO YOU SEE JESUS MAKING WATER INTO WINE AT A WEDDING IN BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX?????????? REALLY???????????????? DO YOU SEE JESUS TELLING THEM, “OK HAVE A GREAT HONEYMOON, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY OH WAIT, YOU CAN’T SO JUST GO AND INDULGE IN YOUR PLEASURES AND FANTASIES FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES BECAUSE GOD WANT’S YOU TO BE HAPPY WITH WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY!!!!!!! REAAAALLLYYY?????????

If not even the effeminate Greeks, or the Romans had such a legal arrangement, what makes you think Jesus would be ok with that? This is the same Man who said THAT THINKING SEXUALLY ABOUT A WOMEN THAT YOU’RE NOT MARRIED TO IS TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ADULTERY! Imagine that! Just thinking about it!!!! And yet he would be happy and glad with two men or women getting married with each other.. pffftttttttttttttttt

If you unbelievably think this, then clearly you are not acquainted with the Man who was so radical that he got CRUCIFIED and whose followers got PERSECUTED and MARTYRED for the sole fact of repeating what he would teach. Clearly you believe in the fake Jesus of Bill Maher: The hippie Jesus who smelled flowers, made drum circles and lived and let live.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE (although not at first because you have to die to yourself and years and years of media indoctrination…but then eventually you will indeed be freer than you could ever imagine and I say this out of love!)

May God Bless you with truth and light!

abimopectore, so basically you are saying that God finds a man who shaves to be an abomination or a woman who cuts her hair to be an abomination becasue Christ did not say anything about that so implicitly he was saying that he approved of that practice? And further eating shrimp or lobster or scallops is an abomination, because Christ didn’t say otherwise? You might want to get a copy of Leviticus and be very careful. You are undoubtedly going to hell if you have a BLT or eat fried shrimp or shave.

Thanks abimopectore for clearing all of this up for us. We kind of thought,. as Christ said that the old law had passed away, but you are here to tell us that he reinstated it by saying nothing.

I was a bit surprised at how swiftly Leviticus was hurled out there in response to Thymezone’s challenge. I mean, no one believes anymore that a cotton/ramie top consigns the wearer to hell. Or enjoying a shrimp cocktail. So OT God really meant the man-lying-with-man thing, but not the mixed threads thing? And no worries about pork barbecue? Lesbians, you’re in sexy, ambivalent territory.

Christian believers, I’d drop the Leviticus stuff. No credibility. Leviticus is so very obviously a smorgasbord from which you pick the stuff you like and reject the stuff you don’t. “That stuff about punishing working on the Sabbath with death, scratch that. But by all means keep the prohibition against men having sex with men.”

So on to grapple with Paul, self-proclaimed representative of Jesus. Yep, never met Jesus in the flesh, but knew exactly what he meant. A fabulous public relations guy. Hated same sex sexual relationships and had strong feelings against women speaking out or taking leadership roles in worship. What a conundrum. Who can figure out this strange personality? It cannot possibly be that Paul had same-sex attraction that tormented him along with a strong distaste for women having positions of power. Nope, couldn’t happen.

I never said that Jesus made anything up - I said the Catholic Church made a lot of stuff up - which it has - but that is not saying that I do not believe in Jesus. To say the Catholic Church is Jesus is blasphemy. The Catholic Church has committed and continues to commit horrible atrocities against mankind. To say they are God on Earth is a joke at best. God is not a pedophile, nor does he spend billions protecting and hiding pedophiles. Sorry but facts are facts.

Why is it so hard for non-believers to own up to themselves?

Since you don’t believe in the church, then in what do you believe? In what the bible says about Jesus? News flash! it was the CATHOLIC church who compiled the bible. So if you don’t believe the Bible, or the Church that compiled it then…

Are you a Saint, like Paul, who has seen the risen Christ in person?

If wonderfully so, please I beg you to ask our Lord and Savior what he thinks about homosexuals, and then come and tell us ;)

BTW: Jesus’ own church had a Judas in it, so that means that 8% of Jesus’ own ministry was bad. So, according to your reasoning, not even in Jesus’ own ministry will you believe!

OWN YOUR CHOICES!

Just get a clue that the Catholic Church is not God or Jesus on Earth and they are not the be all and end all of God on Earth to people who are not Catholic. We have a problem taking the word of a pedophile priest as the word of God. Even the last Pope felt that after he died Satan would ascend to the Papacy as he has with Ratzenberger.

Mr. Devereaux, may God have mercy on your trolling soul.

“For what is foolishness to God is considered wise by men, and that which is weakness to God is considered strong by men.”
Grant, I DID tell you the words of Jesus establishing Peter as the authority of his church on earth. The evidence is pretty straightforward, from Peter being the first in authority among the apostles (Peter is named first in the lists, Peter generally spoke for the apostles, he first preached to the crowds post-resurrection, he worked the first healing, Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren, Peter is given the flock to shepherd—wait, there’s more.  An angel announced the resurrection to Peter, the risen Christ first appeared to Peter, Peter headed the meeting to elect Judas’ replacement, he received the first converts, he led the first council, announced the first dogmatic decision . . . and there’s still more). to Christ renaming him at their very first meeting—a highly symbolic move in ancient Jewish culture—and not just any name, but Rock, when in the OT, only God was called rock.  It was not a proper name.  to Christ promising Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven—keys being an ancient symbol of authority, wherein the holder had free access to and authority over the city.  Thus Peter was given the keys to the heavenly city itself.  Christ specifically told Peter to feed his sheep, and it was for Peter’s strength that Christ prayed, so that once he was strengthened, he would be a guide for the others. (Sorry, this is all out of order, but it’s just so overwhelming!)  And there’s still more, if you have the eyes to see.
As for Peter not being in Rome, well, even if he wasn’t that doesn’t negate Christ’s institution of Peter as the head of his church. But even if he did make it to Rome, there must have been a period of time before the connection to Rome was established.  But luckily for you, there is historical evidence that Peter was in Rome, and that he was its bishop, and hence the pope.  William Jurgens THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS includes 30 references to this question (Tertullian [200AD], Clement of Rome {70 AD] Ignatius of Antoch [110AD] i’m paraphrasing now), basically proving that the early and universal position of Christianity, from the earliest Christians on down, understood that Peter came to Rome and died there, having established his See and successor (the next bishop of Rome) in the primacy.  No ancient writer ever claimed that Peter ever ended his life anywhere but Rome.  Additionally, archaeological excavation has taken place on Vatican Hill, finding early inscriptions on a tomb, indicating Peter’s remains were inside (see THE BONES OF ST PETER by Walsh for a scientific account).
I agree that there are absolutely sinners in the Church, and unfortunately, some are in leadership positions and have done heinous things.  Many more have not.  But the messenger is irrelevant to the truth of the message.  Christ promised to establish his church upon Peter (upon this rock . . . the keys to the kingdom, etc—CHRIST’S WORDS) and to protect it from all error (the gates of hell shall not prevail . . . the holy spirit will guide you into all the truth—again, CHRIST’S WORDS).  Christ does not fail.  And it must be painfully obvious that the Bible does not interpret itself—simply look at this discussion. 
No, Jesus didn’t leave behind a book, he left behind a church, who he protects from doctrinal error: the Catholic Church.  This means that even though individual Catholics might fall away from his teachings, with tragic consequences, the Church never will. 

My comment was not That Jesus did not leave Peter in charge of his church, nor that Peter died in Rome, but that according to both history and scripture, there is absolutely no identification that the Catholic Church was Peter’s Church or that he was ever present in the Catholic Church in Rome at all. Even though Paul knew Peter, there is no mention of Peter when Paul arrived in Rome at the Church, nor is there mention later when he dwelt there for more than two years.  So if Jesus left his church in Peter’s hands, the Church which became the Catholic Church is the Church that Paul presided over which has no record of Peter ever being there.

Just one last thought: the Bible points to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)—not itself, and certainly not individual interpretation.  God bless, and good night.

Just because Paul never mentioned something, it’s not true?  As I just stated, Paul DID say, in his letter to Timothy, that the Church was the pillar of truth.  Why do you dismiss that?  And there IS evidence that Peter was in Rome—EVERY ancient voice that talks of Peter connects him to Rome!  The fact that Paul does not talk of Peter proves nothing.

Peter was in Rome, I said that. What I said was he was not in Paul’s Church which became the Catholic Church. That of course would mean that the Church that Christ left, Peter’s Church is not the Catholic Church. Just stating fact. Not that this is hugely significant, but the Catholic Church is more Paul’s Church than Peter’s in fact and actuality.

@Aaron: I’m sorry for your parents’ unhappy marriage, and the resentment it has produced for you. I understand, and I feel for you. That said, the onus for making a good decision in a life partner is always going to fall on the parties entering into the marriage. And, unfortunately, it’s never going to be perfect because we’re all human.

As for the ease of getting married in the Church, I was amazed at the “hoops” we had to go through when I married my wife (I was raised Baptist, and there were no hoops at all). Pre-Cana? What was THAT? I couldn’t believe how involved it was! It wasn’t a cure-all. We talked to a priest, who gave us some bad advice as it turns out (but that’s another story). We filled out a scan-tron that any fool could’ve dodged the tough questions on. We met with a very nice and non- spacey Catholic couple several times. It took a while.

I can’t say the Pre-Cana process made us failure-proof. On the contrary, I’ve been a pretty poor husband at times. But it wasn’t the fault of the Church or anything someone else did wrong. It’s on ME. As I see Catholic marriage prep, it’s something that can’t hurt but that has the potential to help. I do wish it were more involved, but our clergy is stretched to their max in many parishes as it is. Time, sadly, isn’t unlimited.

Bottom line, we all must take responsibility for our own actions. You can’t force people to exercise sound judgment. Catholic marriage, as defined and promoted by the Church, is not at all diminished by any couple’s personal failings.

Grant- you seem to have missed my post where I explain that Jesus did indeed speak out against homosexual sex here: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:54 PM (EST). Yet you continue to claim that no one has shown where He did speak out against it.

Posted by Grant Devereaux on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:27 AM (EST):

Peter was in Rome, I said that. What I said was he was not in Paul’s Church which became the Catholic Church. That of course would mean that the Church that Christ left, Peter’s Church is not the Catholic Church. Just stating fact. Not that this is hugely significant, but the Catholic Church is more Paul’s Church than Peter’s in fact and actuality.>>

Grant- it is NOT a FACT- and for 2000 years Catholic Christians have never differentiated between Peter’s “Church” and Paul’s “Church”. They are one and the same- Jesus’/God’s Church here on earth. Others have given you resources to learn about Church history. Until you read what the very first, early Christians believed and did, please do not make broad, sweeping, and dare I say, dogmatic, statements that are factually misinformed.

Grant, 85% of the abuse cases involved priests with junior high school aged young MEN.  This attraction to young men is so common that in the homosexual world, there’s a term for it - “chickenhawk”, I believe it is.  But, you won’t acknowledge this unpleasant truth because it will just confuse your world with facts. Apparently these priests wrestled with a same sex attraction.  They were homosexuals.  What else would you call a guy who desires young men?  The Catechism is correct, a same sex attraction is disordered and this is just one more example of why it is so.  While this is very, very sad, what is even sadder is that there’s so many lost souls out there, like you, who not only promulgate this lifestyle, but come up with every conceivable ignorant argument to support it.  And, you do this even after many have lovingly laid out all the facts and resources to help you.  God help you, my friend.

Grant Devereaux said, “For all of those who have cited Leviticus to show me where God spoke on homosexuality - Leviticus were the rules set up by Rabbis, that included not eating pork or shell fish, not shaving your face or cutting your hair. These were not rules handed down by God, they were rules made up by men for men. Similarly, citing Paul’s words in Romans is not the same as citing Jesus’ words. Paul never knew Jesus. He was speaking from his own prejudices.”

St. Paul meet Jesus in person and that was testified to by the Apostles. Ceremonial requirements of the Old Testament were no longer a requirement of the new covenant. St. Paul however did preach on the moral requirements of the Old Testament, just as many here point to the 10 commandments.

As far back as the 100’s AD:

The theologian St. Irenaeus wrote in his book, AGAINST HERESIES: “We must obey the elders in the Church, who hold the succession from the Apostles…who with the episcopal succession have received the sure gift of truth. As for the rest, who are divorced from the principal succession and gather where they will, they are to be held in suspicion, as heretics and evil-thinkers, faction makers, swelled-headed, self pleasing.”

St Ignatius, writing in A.D. 110 refers to the KATHOLIKE ECCLESIA (the Universal Church)...

Enough with all the nonsense already!
This is written just so people are not confused by all the ‘opinions’ some post on this page.
@world to say “consubstantial” in that mind numbing “pledge of allegiance” aka The Nicene Creed.  Nonsense, the ‘Creed’ as the name suggests is a statement of belief, not a ‘pledge’.
@Constititional provisions such as the Establishment Clause (the government cannot approve of any religion-based version of marriage without violating that clause)  nonsense, the Church also says; Thou shall not kill. Does that mean the government cannot outlaw capital punishment?
@make a Constitutional defense for the idea that government can tell you whom you can marry ... whom of legal age and outside of your immediate family. Real nonsense from the way the question is posed. First they say we can’t make an argument that the government can tell us how to marry Then they quote laws the government made about marriage… e.g. can’t marry kids and family!
@ In other words, though the Catholic Church claims it was founded by Rome there is no evidence either historically or scripturally that the Catholic Church was ever headed by Peter or that it was ever Peter’s church.
nonsense, the Church never claimed to founded by or in Rome, the Church is founded by and on Jesus.
@Why then has the church made this (homosexuality) its one main focus. Nonsense, this is just one of the many teachings of the Church.
@ what (homosexuality) the Church considers to be the greatest of all sins…
Nonsense, the Greatest of all sin is the Denial of the Holy Spirit, from which there is no salvation.
@Even the last Pope felt that after he died Satan would ascend to the Papacy as he has with Ratzenberger.  This is totally false, it is beyond nonsense and it is an insult. 
@Peter was in Rome, I said that. What I said was he was not in Paul’s Church which became the Catholic Church.  Again pure nonsense, Paul states in one of his letters; “I belong to Paul or I belong to Apollos… I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? …  I am thankful that I Baptized none of you … lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name…”

It seems that some just make things up on the fly to sow confusion. They never site sources, they read our book (the bible) and then try to tell us what We Wrote. Such non-sense!
There’s more we could point out, but it think most has been covered by Ioannes and others. Thanks to Erin for pointing out that there are ‘scientific accounts’ to counter such nonsense.

Pat, great article. This hits the ball out of the park.  I feel the same way as you expressed when I hear ‘Talking Heads’ say we are losing or we are like yesterday’s Segregationists. Let’s keep fighting for our Catholic beliefs.

Toleration is the intolerant is bigotry in itself.

Hmmmmm..

Sister Magdalena of the Cross -The devil’s saint for 40 years & her escape from an evil pact through extraordinary repentance

The November 24, 2011 prosecution of the false Italian mystic, Mother Ebe Giorgini, foundress of the religious movement “La Pia Unione di Gesù Misericordioso”, once again brings to light the importance of careful discernment when it comes to mystics, visionaries and the like, and calls to mind the incredible life story of the false mystic, Sr. Magdalena of the Cross (1487-1560).

The renowned Franciscan nun who made a pact with Satan
Sister Magdalena of the Cross (Magdalena de la Cruz) was born in Córdoba (Cordova) in Andalusia, Spain in 1487. Named after the mystic St. Mary Magdalene, the one whom Church tradition remembers as the great “..sinner from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons.” (Mark 16:9), and who was also known for her extraordinary repentance. As for herself, Magdalena of the Cross too would one day become an extraordinary mystic, and later a repentant sinner, doing severe penances for her sins. Not even the great Saint Teresa of Avila would ever have as much prestige across Spain in her lifetime as Sr. Magdalena of the Cross! Her (apparent) outstanding piety and the miracles that she performed were known throughout Spain, and even much of Europe. So much so, that even the Emperor Charles V, the sovereign ruler of the Roman and Spanish Empire asked for a piece of the habit of Magdalena of the Cross to wrap around the future Prince Philip II at his birth, to give his royal son the “assistance of a living saint from birth, to envelop him in Divine grace.” Incidentally, prince Phillip II later became the King of Spain in 1556.

Little Magdalena’s first vision
But for now, little Magdalena is just 5 years old, and she is already known in town for her remarkable devotion, which is out of the ordinary for a girl of her age. Not long after her fifth birthday, she is praying in Church when she hears music of remarkable sweetness. Then a beautiful young man, with thick, black hair appears to her, wearing a mantle so brilliant that she has to close her eyes. Hearing the story, some believe it to be Jesus. News of this event spreads throughout Córdoba, and many want to see little Magdalena.

Sorting out the heavenly apparitions from the demonic ones
The difficulty that we will now have in sorting out Magdalena’s early life story is that as with all the mystics and their mystical graces, there is often the influence and appearence of the demonic along with the heavenly apparitions. Like in the case of the Biblical Job, God allows the devil to tempt and even attack the mystics, to test their faith, love and devotion. This is the case with most every mystic. And with Magdalena, the task of discernement of her obvious mystical gifts and graces is even more difficult in her early years, because there definitely was a period where Magdalena demonstrated authentic piety and deep devotion, with the sincerity and simplicity of a child. But we know that she made a pact with the devil, so there must have been a point where the heavenly apparitions slowed or even ceased altogether, and the diabolic apparitions took over.

But for now, little Magdalena is living a simple life with her family who were poor artisans, and while Magdalena remains of exemplary modesty and conduct, the visions continue, one after another, and as time goes on this attracts the attention of many; so much so that one day she flees her home to take refuge in a nearby cave, where she once again falls into ecstasy. When she awakens, she discovers that she has been miraculously transported back to her bed by her guardian angel.

Miraculous cures
Soon, a person whom she believes to be Jesus appears to her and asks her to somewhat moderate her asceticism, so as not to compromise her fragile childhood health. He informs her that a great destiny awaits her, and that she will need her strength. She flies to the church to thank Jesus and on the way meets a man with a severe limp who asks her to lend him her hand to climb the Church steps. He has hardly climbed a few steps when he stands erect and with great surprise and excitement he dashes through the whole town crying out that he is healed!

Magdalena herself goes into Church then falls into a deep ecstasy. Soon, someone comes in looking for her and realises that she is seeing a vision. Looking closely at her eyes, she sees in the reflection in her eyes the heavens and what seems to be the Holy Trinity surrounded by the Communion of Saints. Soon afterwards, like Jesus after the cure of the blind man, Magdalena is subjected to all sorts of interrogations to discover any subterfuge, none of which can apparently be found. Not long afterwards, a mute person also allegedly receives his speech through her intercession.

Magdalena attempts to crucify herself
In 1497 at the age of ten, Magdalena is already quite beautiful, and in her purity she is very cautious to hide herself under long black dresses and skirts. Even so, she still finds herself too beautiful, and one day for penance she tries to crucify herself on the wall of her bedroom. She starts by nailing her two feet, then her left hand. Blood flows, and she faints from the atrocious pain. Her flesh tears and, falling heavily onto a chest, she breaks two ribs. Her parents call the doctor and he bandages all of her nail wounds, yet she is burning with desire to suffer terribly for the reparation of sins, and she repeatedly takes off the bandages, so as to suffer more. But this soon makes her very ill.

On Easter Saturday, 1497, Magdalena is bedridden and seems to be dying, probaly because of infection from the wounds of her failed crucifixion. At midnight, she lets out a great scream, sits up on her bed, once more rips off her dressings, saying that she is healed. She says that it is Jesus himself, who has just appeared to her and has cured her.

A prolonged fast and her first Holy Communion
Three months before her First Holy Communion, Magdalena seemingly stops eating. The pleadings of her poor parents make no difference; she fasts right up until the Sunday of her first Holy Communion, surprisingly without losing her healthy appearance. On the day of the ceremony, at the precise moment of consecration, she lets out another cry and prostrates herself for a long time. When she exits the church, she explains that the Lord Himself put the Eucharist in her mouth, without her needing to approach the priest.

Wounds seemingly heal overnight and the story of two stubby fingers
At sixteen, Magdalena contunes to astound many with her apparent extraordinary devotion and her remarkable desire to make reparation for sin. Many see her as a living saint- for who else but a saint could do such extraordinary penances? When she whips herself to bleeding point while doing penance, her wounds are miraculously healed the next day to everyones great surprise. She is healthy, and everything about her seems wholesome, except two fingers which have not grown like the others: at sixteen, they are no larger than the size of a child’s pinky. Some say that these two fingers are those that Christ touched one night in her childhood, during an apparition.

Magdalena becomes a Franciscan nun
In 1504, at age 17, Magdalena at last obtains what seems to be the great desire of her life: to become a Franciscan nun- a spiritual daughter of St. Francis and St. Clare. Because of her reputation for holiness, she is joyfully admitted to the Franciscan convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels in Cordova (Convento de Santa Isabel de los Ángeles), and she soon edifies and inspires the admiration of many of the nuns.

There are however some “red flags” though. She is seemingly not too discrete about her spiritual life and merits; she inflicts severe mortifications upon herself, carries a heavy cross all around the convent, kisses her companions’ feet, and she seemingly stops eating completely, apparently living only on Holy Communion. All of these facts are cause for some concern, but she does seem very devout and is willing to do even the most menial and unwanted tasks, so her “extravagances” are for the most part downplayed, at least for now.

After a few years as a postulant, in 1509, at age 22, she already has a reputation for sainthood, and because of this it is thought prudent to let her take her vows alone. The event is greatly anticipated and well prepared. All of the nobles seek to obtain a good place in the church and to add even more glory to the great day, the Archbishop himself has his throne covered by a dais of richly embroidered velvet.

At last, the day of the ceremony arrives. Magdalena will now be known as Sister Magdalene of the Cross, in memory of the heroic crucifixion of her youth. The ceremony begins and she comes forward and kneels outside the sanctuary, and waits to hear the Cardinal’s speech. But rather than exhort the novice to the practice of christian virtue and piety, as is usual, he publicly asks her for her prayers and protection in support of himself and the diocese.

The miraculous dove
Afterwards at the Kyrie Eleison, something very remarkable happens: a dove, which seems to descend straight from the high catherdral ceiling, catches the eye of everyone. The dove lands on Magdalena’s shoulder, and seems to speak into her ear. Afterwards it ascends up to a parapet, and remains there as if watching until the end of the ceremony. Afterwards it flies outside of the Church and those who run out to follow it see it rise almost striaght up, and for so long, that the sky finally seems to close over it. The news of these events spread like wildfire across the country and even spills outside its borders.

As the weeks and months progress after her solemn profession, Sr. Magdalene de la Cruz (as she is know known as) soon exhibits extraordinary faculties. Without ever going outside the walls, she seemingly knows many things that happens in Cordoba and elsewhere, particularly in the neighbouring Franciscan convent, and also in the aristocratic and noble homes in Cordoba. As in the past she continues to go into ecstasy often, and if she happens to be out of her cell while doing so, her companions carry her to her cell then withdraw discretely. Sometimes their curiosity gets the better of them and they listen not far away and often hear a gentle muttering of unknown words and also moans of suffering too.

Her fame continues to spreads across Spain and abroad
As can be expected, the gossip around all of these remarkable events swells and continues to spill outside of Spain. Correspondence floods the convent; people from all over petitioning Magdalena of the Cross for her prayers and spiritual help. Generous donations pour in also, and Magdalena’s convent is buzzing like a beehive with activity.

Magdalena’s prophesies
It is at this time that another prodigious mystical gift of Sr. Magdalena appears: she can seemingly predict the future. In 1515, she announces the death of King Ferdinand for the following year, which comes to pass as foretold, and also the regency of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros over the kingdom of Castile. In sign of gratitude, Cardinal Jiménez has a beautiful vermilion ostensory given to her, which increases the admiration and devotion of her fellow sisters and others even more.

A unexpected and remarkable pregnancy on the day of the Annunciation
On March 25, 1518, the day of the Feast of the Annunciation, Magdalena discreetly tells her Abbess some news which fills the pious woman with great confusion and perplexity—Magdalena states that on the preceding night, that is, the solemn Vigil of the Annunciation, she had conceived the child Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus Magdalene of the Cross, the shining light of the convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels, is pregnant.

Forseeing the enormous scandal that such news would inevitably provoke, the Abbess orders Magdalena to keep absolutely quiet about it for now, while she prays for guidence as to how to proceed. As the days pass, the Abbess discretely watches Magdalena and, after a few weeks, she is obliged to bow to the obvious evidence, for Magdalena’s abdomen is noticeably rounding out, and the moment is going to come when they will no longer be able to hide this “work” of the Holy Spirit….or of nature?

The nuns are divided concerning Magdalena’s alleged miraculous pregnancy
The nuns are all informed of the situation, and soon the convent is divided into two camps. On the one side, there are those who doubt the miraculous conception, some perhaps because they feel a hidden envy for Magdalena. Others because it is such a extraordinary thing that has never happened outside of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that would point to such a second birth of Jesus into this world.

At this point most do not yet actually doubt her sainthood, however all these extraordinary things are without a doubt cause for careful discernment. And then there is all the generous donations that have been flowing in in honor of the “living saint”, and the countless individuals who request her intercession and prayers…all of this tends to relegate the other sisters to a lesser position in the convent, and causes them to feel somewhat inadequate in their spirituality and the practice of virtue. Certainly many of them accuse themselves of jealousy to their confessor, and must have harbored some envy towards her. And so to some, for various reasons this supernatural pregnancy appears inconceivable, most importantly because such a miracle is not announced in the Holy Scriptures.

On the other side, there are those, also numerous, who say that God works in mysterious ways, and that the Most High has been pouring all sorts of extraordinary graces on his humble servant for many years. Understandably they cannot fathom how she could have possibly stained her purity; she who is so seemingly devout and pious, and besides she never leaves the convent grounds. To that, the doubters reply that she receives her confessor alone, and also that the bars on the convent fence are so widely spaced as to allow the passage of a much more cumbersome being than the Holy Spirit.

However, a vow of silence is agreed upon by both camps, however some cannot help themselves and soon the extraordinary news is spreading through all of Cordova and abroad. But how does Magdalena respond? She treats all of the news and insinuations with absolute and complete indifference.

Seemingly even more devout in the practice of virtue, she redoubles the severity of her penances, walking barefoot on pieces of broken glass and lashing her back and shoulders with instruments of severe mortification, along with wearing a rough cilice discipline.

The Archbishop orders a medical examination of Sr. Magdalena
Hearing the news, the Archbishop of Seville sends three experienced matron “midwives” to examine Magdalena. Having very carefully examined her, they announce that while it is indeed true that the nun is pregnant, it is also very much a fact that her virginity is completely intact and unquestionable. Prayers of thanksgiving explode in all the churches and throughout the land, and inside the convent the doubters and gossipers are reduced to utter silence and penances for their apparent doubts .

On Christmas Eve, 1518, Magdalena confirms that she will very soon give birth. A little house at the end of the garden is prepared for her, for in a vision her guardian angel recommends that she give birth alone, so as to suffer more without any human assistance. Magdalena remains locked up in the little house for three days, during which time the whole community remains in prayer. The story that Magdalena tells when she comes out is absolutely prodigious.

She relates that during Christmas night, at midnight, she gives birth to a magnificent baby who radiates so much light that she can see as if it were high noon. The cold air of her chamber is suddenly miraculously heated and the divine child doesn’t suffer at all from the cold.

During this time, strangely Magdalena’s hair begins to grow very fast and, from crow black that it was, it changes to the brightest blond, with its long length allowing her to swaddle the infant child in it, and keep him warm in the softest of tunics.

As proof of the miracle, she cuts a few of her blond curls before her hair turns back to normal. The nuns then compete for a few of the miraculous hairs to keep as precious relics.

Continuing with the story of the remarkable birth, Sr. Magdalene de la Cruz states that on the morning after Christmas she found herself alone, the beautiful little child gone, but with her breast chapped from suckling him, along with all of the stigmata of recent delivery still on her body. Soon the matron midwives are sent again to check on the veracity of these facts and to verify that Magdalena’s virginity has not suffered from the event. A solemn ‘Te Deum’ is then sung in the cathedral and donations flow in like never before. But in truth this entire event was orchestrated and perpetrated by the devil, in particular by two demons named Balban and Patorrio, as we will soon discover…...

A few people continue to gossip, however, so in an attempt to put a definitive end to the calumnies an exorcist monk arrives at the convent one morning, while the nun is in ecstasy. He approaches her and pushes two long needles in her body, one into her foot, and the other into her hand. The needles penetrate deeply, yet Magdalena remains perfectly insensitive to them, without any reaction whatsoever, which confirms in the minds of many that her ecstasies are authentic. When the needles are are withdrawn, a little stream of blood flows from the wounds.

Her fast from food is subjected to a stringent test
In spite of this proof, Sr. Magdalena is subjected to another test, this time concerning her abstinence from food; a fast which she allegedly has been carrying out for eleven years. For, it was being insinuated that certain novices were secretly bringing her food.

So the Abbess then requests that a vigilant guard of two monks from the nearby Franciscan monastery be positioned at the entrance to Magdalena’s cell with a 24 hour watch; the two monks taking turns with others in a rotating schedule. Additionally, she even orders that the window shutters of the chamber be nailed shut. After a few days, it is discovered that Magdalena has suddenly disappeared. They look for her everywhere, and soon find her in the completely opposite part of the garden, asleep near a fountain. The monks assure the abbess that they have not relaxed their surveillance for an instant. For her part, Sr. Magdalena reveals that it is Saint Francis himself who transported her to this place. Of course nobody is able to give any explanation for this prodigy, and it is concluded that this is but another miracle in the extraordinary life of Sister Magdalena of the Cross.

A Cathederal is built in greater part through the donations given to Sister Magdalena
At this point, Sr. Magdalena now has a greater prestige than the Abbess herself. She is consulted for all the major decisions that need to be taken by the community. Her advice is even sought from outside, by great and small alke, and soon Magdalena and the other nuns who have befriended her are better informed of what is happening in the city than the Archbishop himself.

In 1523, the Archbishop is in need of a new Cathederal, and because of the abundant donations sent to Sr. Magdalena her convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels is the richest in Spain, and is able to furnish by far the greatest part of the money needed for its construction. Because of this, Sr. Magdalena is consulted on the new cathedral’s appearance.

Sr. Magdalena de la Cruz is elected Abbess
And so it is that for twenty-nine years Magdalena’s notoriety has grown in proportion to her alleged virtues, and she has led an existence which, although full of sometimes astounding events, has contributed for the most part in a positive way to the convent’s enrichment through her practice of virtue and the apparent signs from heaven which inspire the faithful. Always seemingly pious and disposed to sacrifice, she inspires and fascinates the Spanish high clergy, and many feel that she should have a higher position in the convent more suited to her merits. It is suggested that she should become the Abbess, since as time passes the current Abbess is becoming infirm. In a show of alleged humility, Magdalena protests and she uses her poor administrative abilities as a reason, stating:
“Let them elect Sister Isabella of the Holy Trinity instead.”

However, many of her fellow nuns want her as abbess so much that, on February 17, 1533 Magdalena is elected Abbess, in presence of the Order’s Superior, by forty-four votes as opposed to the seven given to Isabella of the Holy Trinity.

The new abbess Magdalena encourages severe mortifications and penances
With Magdalena now in charge, in the beginning life in the convent hardly changes, except Mother Magdalena seems to have a strong penchant for the practice of severe penances, and she exhorts her religious sisters to do likewise. In doing so, the new Abbess sometimes provokes very difficult scenes.

And so it is that during Confession the sisters, by hypocrisy or fear of too difficult penances, now usually only accuse themselves of small faults. Hearing of this, Mother Magdalena enters into holy wrath which soon causes unspeakable fear into her sisters. She orders them to admit to more severe sins, and the poor nuns become frightened by the severity of the abbess. Some burst into tears, and there are a couple of others who astonishingly go into a sort of semi-possession, rolling on the floor and arching their bodies, before slowly returning back to normal.

To reprimand the more guilty ones for their alleged spiritual weaknesses, the Abbess orders some to crawl on their knees in the refectory and make the sign of the cross with their tongues on the shoes of all the assembled nuns.

Soon, the confessions of the nuns are more to Mother Magdalena’s liking, supposedly revelaing the sisters true state of sin. Penances are now measured to the alleged gravity of the faults, for according to Abbess Magdalena, it is necessary to totally expiate sins, and to succeed in this endeavor the common cord whip disciplines are replaced with iron tipped ones.

As for the manner and the times in which the discipline (ie- scourge or lash/whip) should be applied, the Abbess modernises it. Before, when the occasion came for extreme penance and use of the discipline (ie -scourge or lash/whip), the candles were extinguished, so that no one else could see the nuns who chose to use this form of severe mortification. It was the nuns own choice to do so, and it was done in darkness so that no one might know who is choosing to discipline themselves. This is to preserve the nuns humility.

But from now on, Mother Magdalena orers that the candles are to remain lit, and the nuns are given all the necessary time to openly whip themselves in the performance of bodily mortification and penance, in the full light and prescence of the other nuns. According to her, the sight of the self inflicted penance should be an encouragement for all of them to likewise do the same, or be exposed to the indignation of others, along with provoking interior feelings of inadequacy and spiritual weakness and discouragement amongst many of the nuns. Knowing that Mother Magdalena was being guided by the devil at this time (which we shall soon see), it is assumed that these exraordinary penances were an attempt by the devil to instill spiritual pride in some of the nuns, and discouragement and despair in others

Gone now are the “little penances” consisting of begging food from each table; for according to Mother Magdalena a soul with pride can submit to that easily enough. For acording to her it is severe mortification which is the salt of true penitence. The nuns are now encouraged to remain on their knees on boards garnished with rounded iron nailheads; they are encouraged to wear cilices or belts with small iron spikes pointing inwards and are encouraged to stretched out in doorways so that the others nuns can walk upon them and some wear a crown made of thorns. Yet these extreme severities seemingly do not harm the outward devotion of most of the community to their new Abbess. She is twice re-elected with the majority of the votes. No one dares, it seems, to question her authority and power within the community.

Mother Magdalena relaxes other rules of the Order
Yet, surprsingly, the abbess Magdalena of the Cross relaxes some long-standing rules of the Order that have exsisted for centuries. This of course causes concern first and foremost amongst the other Franciscan communities in her order, and also with the Archbishop and the priests within the local Church itself. Yet, as in the past, her reputation for holiness goes before her, and she is allowed to relax many rules of the Order within her own convent.

St Francis allegedly appears to her, and dispenses her from Confession
Not only does Magdalena on the one hand encourage severe penances and mortifications, and on the other hand she relaxes some of the rules of the Order, but now apparently because of her “saintliness” Saint Francis, the founder of her Order allegedly appears to her one night and dispenses her from having to go to Confession in the future.

And for the confessions of her fellow nuns, she explains that it is an insult to them to be separated from their confessor by a grille. In her opinion, they are to sit face to face with the confessor. This causes quite a stir amongst not only the sisters, but also with the priests themselves, as such a practice is unheard of throughout Catholic Spain at that time.

Additionally, Mother Magdalena of the Cross authorises the sisters to no longer fast on Fridays “so as to be able to support even greater mortifications”. It is the belief of many of her fellow sisters that this great reform of the Franciscan Order that she is undertaking will bring new prosperity to the convent, and to the Order itself. It is no wonder then that within a couple of decades the great Spanish reformer and mystic, the Carmelite St. Teresa of Avilia would face such heavy opposition to the reforms that she was endeavoring to instill within the Carmelite Order in Spain only a few short years later.

Soon afterwards, Mother Magdalena states that on the previous evening, a dead woman, (presumably a soul from purgatory?) had come to confess to her. She immediately wants the young nuns and novices to confess to her at night in her cell. This most recent innovation of course causes even more murmurs and doubts, particularly from Isabella of the Holy Trinity who still hasn’t forgotten being beaten by Magdalena in the 1533 elections, and on whom Magdalena (as Abbess) has inflicted the severest humiliations upon ever since.

Mother Magdalena receives the admiration of many top dignitaries
Yet, amidst these troubling new reforms and directives from Mother Magdalena, the admiration that she receives from the greats of her time seem to easily blunt any criticisms– for Queen Isabella of Spain herself sends Mother Magdalena her portrait and beseeches Magdalena for her prayers, and also the Archbishop of Seville often writes to her, and in his letters he calls her “the happiest creature in the world”, presumably because of all the alleged heavenly graces that she supposedly receives.

The noblest ladies, while pregnant and nearing their deliveries would send the layette to be blessed by her, as did the Empress Isabel before the birth of Philip II. When, in 1535, the Emperor Charles V was starting from Barcelona for the expedition to Tunis, he sent his banner to C6rdova that she might bestow on it her blessing. Cardinal Manrique, the inquisitor-general, and Giovanni di Reggio, the papal nuncio, made pilgrimages to visit her, and it is said that even the pope sent to ask her prayers for the Christian Republic, although it should be said that this was often a common practice of the time for prioresses such as Mother Magdalena who were considered devout, for since they were in charge of their respective convents, the pope and the high prelates would often request their prayers in union with the sisters in their convents, for the benefit of the Church or their local dioceses.

The doubts about Mother Magdalena begin to mount
And so it is that the revelations and prodigies that direct and guide Mother Magdalena seem to cause her to make decisions that are more and more contestable and disconcerting. And now once again she reveals more troubling revelations one morning:

“The Holy Virgin has appeared to me and led me about the corridors last night. She smiled at you, Sister” and then gazing at one of those who had been opposing her “but she only gave a long look of scorn to you.”

Understandably, these revelations strongly displease those who are the victims. Their protestations join those of the families who, outside, see their daughters refused entrance into the convent, because for example one of their ancestors were perhaps Jewish. Mother Magdalena of course receives her information from the Holy Virgin Herself, but in the families, indignation and anger provoke the growing attitude of doubt concerning the supposed heavenly guidance recieved by the abbess.

The 1542 elections bring a surprising result
During the next elections for abbess, Mother Magdalena receives only a handful of votes, and Isabella of the Holy Trinity is elected by a large margin. In reparation (and perhaps some retaliation for her own humiliations?) that same evening, she obliges Magdalena to make as many signs of the cross on the floor with her tongue as there are tiles in the refectory.

In the middle of this, Magdalena the former Abbess falls into ecstasy. Always when this would happen in the past, the sisters would carry her to her cell. Now, she is left where she is in the refectory for a good part of the night. After the “ecstasy” she finally returns to her cell on her own.

With doubts continuing to mount, Magdalena is again suspected of receiving food clandestinely, as she is still said to be fasting on a daily basis for over thirty years now.

Add to this, one day, a little iron box containing Communion wafers is brought to the Abbess. This box, found under Magdalena’s bed, seems to prove that the miracle of spontaneous Communion, repeated many times in the past, has been just a trick.

A demonic presence is detected
In 1543, she falls gravely ill. This seems a good occasion for the Abbess to oblige her to make a general confession of her entire life. But at the moment when the confessor puts his stole on in preparation for her confession, Magdalena immediately goes into convulsions. The priest suspects a demonic prescence, so he sends for a doctor whom he knows to be also well versed in the spiritual life. He examines Magdalena and notices that during one of her ecstasies, Magdalena’s eyes do not remained fixed, which is one of the distinctive marks of real ecstasies. However, he stabs her with a needle and obtains no reaction. But when he wisely dips the needle in holy water, Magdalena lets out a moan. This immediately draws suspicion and concern that Sr. Magdalena may be infested or even possessed by a demon.

As time progrsses, Magdalena’s illness continues to get worse. Seemingly out of character, she is now worried, and often asks the doctor to keep her informed on the evolution of her illness. One December day, she hears:

“You are dying. You will not see another Christmas.”

Greatly anguished, Magdalena suddenly twists on her bed and then rises up and lets out mysterious words:

“1544!...The forty years as announced!; I am a cursed dog! Take me to Hell!”

Then she falls back into her bed and begins uttering revolting blasphemies before suddenly being taken from her bed by an inisible force and held in mid-air. She then falls heavily onto the bed several times, but apparently without hurting herself.

After some reflection, the Abbess decides to have a very old and experienced priest, Rev. Don Juan of Cordova called in, and she asks him to examine, and if need be exorcise Magdalena immediately. Not long after visiting Magdalena the old man looks at her and orders:

“I order you in the Name of Jesus to leave this poor woman and dare to say your name!”

The demon first lets out a terrible cry in which the name “Balban” is recognised. Later during exorcisms it was discovered that another demon named “Patorrio” was also influencing her. The demonic laughing intensifies and the words uttered are horrible. The demon glories in all the disorder that he has been able to cause over so many years in the convent, and swears that he will return…

Thus the Rev. Don Juan of Cordova is able to establish at least a solid case of demonic infestation, and perhaps even possession, and the news spreads first among the nuns, and soon afterwards amongst the clergy and townsppeople of Cordova, and later throughout the whole of Spain. The following day however, the Provincial of the Franciscans goes in person to the dying nun’s bedside. He remains there for several hours and receives a complete confession, of which he says nothing.

Yet all those who meet him afterwards notice that he is carrying a very heavy burden, a frightful secret; a nightmare which has been a whole lifetime; the lifetime of the “saint” Magdalena of the Cross, the diabolic Abbess of Cordova.

Sister Magdalena of the Cross admits to a 40 year pact with the devil
Next, an Inquisitor is sent to investigate the thorny matter by the express order of Cardinal Juan Pardo de Tavera, the Primate of Spain. He is much younger than the Rev. Don Juan of Cordova and he inspires her with confidence. She reveals to him that the beautiful dark-haired young man who appeared to her at the age of five was in fact the devil. He had promised her fame and the respect of everyone, if she would consent to obey him always.

It is also satan who leaves his mark by touching her two fingers which from then forward stop growing. And it is also he who teaches her the subterfuge of the wafers, and he assists her with the simulation of ecstasies. Her cries in the night are in no way inspired by the ecstatic love that she has for the Creator, but by the demon’s evil caresses.

Upon hearing such disconcerting admissions, the Inquisitor is horrified and almost instictively he makes the sign of the Cross upon himself. Immediately, Sr. Magdalena starts to insult the priest with vile and abhorrent words. She then begins to roll around the floor in her cell, and bites anything she can, while striking indecent poses and mimicking the vile copulations that she has performed with Balban for nearly forty years.

Because he is an experienced Inquisitor, the good monk had asked the older, more experienced nuns to stay in the corridor to write down the fallen Magdalena’s words, so as to be able to document and later serve as witnesses. From here, Sr. Magdalena de la Cruz’ case is well documented and quickly prepared.

The Exorcisms of Sister Magdalena begin
During the extended course of interrogations that were part of the ongoing exorcism during which Balban is very reluctantly dislodged from Magdalena, it is discovered that the most wicked and hideous means were used to undermine Magdalena’s soul as a child. It was believed that he originally chose her because she was in fact very pious and devoted to God, and so in his terrible wickedness he earnestly sought to despoil God of one of His favorites. But, we shall soon see how God wins triumphantly in the end.

During the ongoing exorcisms it is learned that when Magdalena became a young adult, the demon Balban ceased to appear to her as a beautiful young man, as he had been doing since she was age five. One night, when the young girl was waiting for him as usual, he presented himself to her in the form of a schimmering mist which condenses and takes the form of a very tall man with long hair, who radiates a reddish light.

She cries out “Jesus”, but this, of course, greatly displeases Balban, who lifts her with his burning hand and drops her on the ground. She is then forced to contemplate this horrid creature who now rises before her in a horrible metamorphisis, from a man into a vile beast.

The infernal creature is repulsive and the possessed nun describes in horror his wide, flat nose, his twisted horns and his toothless mouth. He commanded her to immediately become his wife, and he assures her that she will not lose her virginity, and he promises that her apparent sainthood would only grow in measure with the supposed unimaginable pleasures that she would enjoy with him. Lacking in spiritual fortitude; vanquished, Magdalena then gives in, and it is again the dark-haired, and very attractive young man that she now receives in her.

Next she confesses that it was also the devil who came to feed her in secret, and that she had really been pregnant by him. She had been told by him that she risked nothing if she followed his instructions. It was to play a joke by troubling the minds of the nuns and the Spanish clergy and laity that he had made her pregnant with an montorous caterpillar, which escaped from her body with a loud wind that famous Christmas night, before changing into Balban, and re-possessing her with unprecedented vigor.

A few holy and well known individuals were not fooled
And so it is that the whole of Christendom discovers with horror that she of whom most everyone thought was God’s most-beloved, was in fact the most-beloved creature of the devil. Yet some of Sr. Magdalena’s contemporaries were not so easily fooled by her false mysticism, like the great St Ignatius Loyola who was incredulous and in 1541, it is said that he severely reproved Martin de la Santa Cruz, who endeavored to win him over towards Sr. Magdalena, for accepting exterior signs without seeking for the true interior ones; and the great St John of Avila (who is soon to be declared a Doctor of the Church) was also very sceptical and, when he was in Cordova, he was discreetly denied access to her.
Sr. Magdalena of the Cross becomes like her namesake, St. Mary Magdalene and deeply repents of the demons that were possessing her
As the Scriptures relate, Jesus had cast out seven horrible demons that were possessing St. Mary Magdalene,(Mark 16:9) and she became known as the great, repentant sinner. Tradition tells us that she spent the rest of her life in a cave making penance and reparation for her manifold sins, and she became a most extraordinary Saint. In fact, Jesus chose St Mary Magdalene to be one of the first witnesses to His glorious Resurrection, as Holy Scripture tells us.

The judgement of the Religious Tribunal
As for the once renowned Sr. Magdelena de la Cruz, now fully exorcised and free of the demons Balban and Patorrio who are forced to reveal that they are leaving forever the body and soul of the possessed woman, she is then judged by the religious tribunal on May 3, 1546.

The Grand Inquisitor of the religious tribunal is Cardinal Jimenez, now the Primate of Spain, appointed by Isabella of Castile herself, and it is because of this that Magdalena is transferred to the Alcazar prisons to be further interrogated.

The demons Balban and Patorrio receive the majority of the blame
Sr. Magdalena is now sixty-one years old and she is extraordinarily repentant for all that she has done and she begs the court to put a rapid end to her torments and deliver her to the purifying flames. The judges however decide otherwise. Because of her great age, her sincere confessions and the quality of her repentance her deserved sentence is greatly mitigated. And rightfully so, they consider her to be a pitiful victim of the demon and perhaps they remember well the days of her glory when they too had exalted in having what was belived to be such an extraordinary saint in their midst. And so the inquisitors place a large portion of the blame on the demons Balban and Patorrio, most especially Balban, and not so much on Magdalena herself, since she was just an inexperienced youth when the demon(s) began influencing her. In short, they feel that as a youth Magdalena was heavily intimidated by the demon, so they conclude that her culpability is greatly lessened because of her age at the time.

The Catholic church relies on the principle that divine works are eternal and infinite. Those of the demon, on the other hand, are always limited in time and space. If Magdalena confesses, it is because, in 1544, her pact with the devil has arrived at its end. It is fear of Hell, as she says herself, which precipitates her revelations. And it is also God who in His infinite love and mercy inspires all of her admissions, and inspires and guides her deep repentance. And it is God who assures her that she will live if she confesses. She would become even more a heroine in repentance than she was in false virtue and fame.

So the judges decide that Sr. Magdalena is to be led to the scaffold with a gag in her mouth, a Spartan cord around her neck, and a candle in her hand. She is to remain exposed there for all to see for the time period of a High Mass, and that she should then abjure her manifold errors. For three months, she must keep her face exposed and cannot wear the black veil, and she must always walk last in all of the movements of convent life.

She abjures and repents in tears, in front of the Cathedral that she had had raised thanks to her deceptions in union with the demons Balban and Patorrio. She is also ordered to go to a different Franciscan convent in Burgos, where she lives long years or repentance and expiation without ever falling again into the slightest error.

At a young age, Magdalena succumed to a great pride and a false demonic promise that offered her prestige and power. But the great and small of her time were all later sure that her final deep humility and repentance had made her quite worthy of Paradise. Sister Magdalena de la Cruz died in 1560 at the age of 74.

Today, the name of this Sister Magdalena of the Cross is all but forgotten and her remarkable story is practically unknown. However, the great lawyer and writer, Maurice Garcon, for whom Magdalena is an important historical figure, documents how she was in fact very well-known throughout Christendom in the 16th and 17th centuries, and how many of the theological and demonological treatises make precise and detailed references to her case. In fact during this time period the many facts presented in theological books concerning demonic influences are illustrated by the statements and documents drawn from her trial.

And it is from the transcript of her trial that Maitre Maurice Garcon drew up his remarkable book on her life, using the transcript from her trial. Louis Pauwels used Maitre Garcon’s book (among other references) for his resume of Sr Magdalena’s life.

According to him there are only two copies of this very precious manuscript in the world, one in London and the other in Paris.

The important lessons learned through the extraordinary case of Magdalena of the Cross
Magdalena had arrived so high in her reputation for sainthood that she had been the counseller of kings, emperors, and above all, of the great Church dignitaries. Yet the trial’s conclusions about this are very interesting. The outcome of the long and detailed trial by the judges concludes that in the end the only real dupe in this affair is the devil, himself. His subterfuges have turned against him: by intimidating and perverting Magdalena, he has in the end only reinforced the faith of the people, and she who had been submissive to him for so long, gloriously escapes from his wicked rule in the end, through the power and mercy of God. And Truth overcomes the devils lies and the deceptions that he inspires through his demons.

For those who study the lives of visionaries and the mystics of the Church, Magdalena’s extraordinary yet fraudulent mystical life replete with numerous alleged supernatural and mystical gifts that almost perfectly mimic the ones given to authentic mystics should serve as a very grave warning of how the devil can ape and mimic God’s works, and can be exceedingly convincing while doing so. For as we see in the case of Sr. Magdalena, he was able to decieve even Cardinals, priests, theologians and others who were very experienced in the mystical life and spiritual matters.

The root cause of the ongoing deception: The necessity of spiritual direction and obedience
The important missing element which allowed for the ongoing demonic deceptions in the life of Sr. Magdalena was the absence of a priest spiritual director to guide and discern her alleged mystical gifts and supernatural graces. Obedience is the “litmus test” of the Church, and it seems that Sr. Magdalena was never subjected to obedience to a spiritual director. Had she been, the demonic deceptions would certainly have been detected much sooner. Mystics and visionaries should always be guided by a priest spiritual director, and it should always be the priest who directs the mystic, and NOT the mystic who directs the priest. A priest spiritual director represents Christ and His authority within the Church, and therefore mystical and supernatural graces should be subjected to this authority to help discern their authenticity.

For sure another one of the spiritual lessons is that all that glitters is not necessarily gold, and the devil does not counterfeit tin or copper, or even silver—-he seeks to counterfeit gold. So we need to be very careful, with the help of God, not to be misled by his phony deceptions.

-May Jesus inspire, guide and protect us, and may the Blessed Virgin Mary cover us under Her mantle. St Michael the archangel, defend us in battle!

For those interested, I have written an article on judging visionaries and private revelations here.

The important that is to own your orientation and be honest about it. My husband of 19 years was a wonderful person, accepting of all persons, kind to children and animals.  But he wasn’t kind to me.  While I thought we had a good marriage, he was out seeking others.  Eventually he squandered all our retirement savings.  Toward the end, he presented himself to me as having a nervous breakdown and ‘had’ to go every weekend on day trips.  I sat home, praying and worrying about his safety.  All the while, he was romancing someone else.  The deceit and lies, not to mention I’m left broken and penniless, led to me having a breakdown.  My plea is that whoever you are, be honest with your companion.

All these comments:  what have you accomplished?  Nothing.  Neither side yields an inch to the other.  Here’s advice:  turn off your computer.  Get out in the world and DO SOMETHING POSSITIVE!  Yammer, yammer, yammer, it’s all for naught.  Egos stroking themselves.