Please,

Come out to LA and we’ll be angry together…

Wouldn’t dream of arguing.  I live in Iowa, and we are kind and loving and very tolerant here. Bring on the anger, and we will encourage you to do lot’s of damage to yourself with your anger in the name of acceptance.

We accept you and your anger, and see no reason to try and help you, counsel you, or redirect your anger into something healthy that you can live with.  We hope you will find a lot of angry people here who are just trying to quietly live their lives.  And we’re not worried one bit about their souls,or yours, because that has nothing to do with anything. And besides, we have our own souls to worry about.

Did I mention the National
Atheist conference will be held here as well?

“As long as I don’t hurt anyone, I should be as flaming angry as I was born to be, and all you fury-phobes can kiss my grits.”

Correct. And it holds true for the analogy as well.

Loki, are you just trying to stir up trouble? Hey, any idea what happened to Balder? Odin’s wondering…

Such a fitting screen name for the comment. Unfortunately, anger always hurts the one who is angry, so it’s clearly never okay…and that also holds true for the analogy.

By fiat, of course.

“Their” anger makes me angry. Why should I be “forced” to accept gay marriage, and subjected to children being taught as young as early elementary school that homosexual relationships are o.k.? Why in the world is the Archdiocese of L.A. supporting some sort of skewed version of acceptance and integration?

Has anyone in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles ever heard of COURAGE?  Check it out at: www.couragerc.org.

Loki— True, “love does no harm,” but that is NOT because love turns a blind eye or merely “accepts” people as they are.  It’s because love seeks the other person’s GREATEST GOOD, and that is not individual self-fulfillment or even calming an anxious conscience by condoning wrong behavior.  The greatest good is their eternal salvation, and if we condone, ignore, accept or even promote a behavior God has declared ungodly, then we become participators in that sin, for if you see your brother in sin and say nothing that would help them repent, then their death is on your soul. 

We have forgotten, or consciously ignored the fact, that there are 9 ways to be an accessory to another’s sin: 1) By counsel; 2) by command; 3) by consent; 4) by provocation; 5) by praise or flattery; 6) by concealment; 7) by partaking; 8) by silence; 9) by defense of the ill done.

We might “love” a person by not challenging their “living” -style (intentionally expressing it differently), but we don’t really LOVE them if we are indifferent to their salvation—which may very well be lost by continued refusal to repent and amend their lives.  It is true that God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us so much that he does not intend to leave us that way.  And neither should we be content with that—we’re ‘loving’ too many people to their eternal damnation.  And not just on this issue, or the anger issue!

In response to a question I asked him regarding how we can end the homosexual sexual abuse of males of all ages by clergy in the Catholic Church, Father Richard John Neuhaus said that it was easy: do not let men in the seminary who are attracted to males.

I think the same logic can be followed elsewhere in the Church. If those in authority do not want the homosexual agenda to be attempted to be advanced, both in and through the Catholic Church, then we should begin by not putting people in positions of authority, no matter how low a level, that want to advance the homosexual agenda.

The question becomes, are those in authority in the Catholic Church in America opposed to the homosexual agenda, or are they in sympathy with it?

Patrick, sorry to have to do this to you, Brother, but I need you on the show today for this one. Hope you can make it:
Religion, Politics & the Culture. 3:30 pm EDT to 4:30 pm EDT. Radio in southeast Florida: AM 1040 WLVJ. Internet: www.rpconradio.com. Email address: rpconradio@yahoo.com. Facebook: “Dennis O’Donovan” (With the microphone in the picture). Toll free call-in number in the lower 48: 1-866-716-1040.

Isn’t it about time we grow some maturity and become more acutely aware of the number of those among us—within the number of Catholics—who have been made to feel uncomfortable in their home. In fact, there are many who are no longer certain that Holy Mother Church is their home.

Each of us, as sinners, one and all, must step up and welcome them into their own home and put aaway preconceived ideas of what sinners do and no not belong.

To argue that anger and basic sexual orientation are in the same category is to show a basic ignorance about what sexuality is.  I can tell you what it is not.  It is NOT an emotion.

Homosexual teenagers have the highest suicide rates of all demographics in this counry.  How about welcoming them into the church?  IF a change is possible in sexuality at ALL, and I say if because I am doubtful, it will come through love and understanding, not through the denial of the sacraments.

Where’s the love?  There is not a single one of us who is without sin.  Many of us are proud of our sins.  Don’t believe it?  How about vanity?  Pride is part of it’s very nature.  Are you vain?  Do you deserve to receive the Lord?  I would say yes, that, in fact, you need the Lord more than the next guy.  And so does the person whose sexuality is the source of their sin.  They NEED the Lord.  Never forget that Jesus came for the sinners, not for the righteous.

Pax et Bonum, Lizzie! This is the truth that needs to be heard!

Lizzie and G.E., Thank you for adding rational thought to this post.  Ignorance and prejudice are part of the foundation of pride and human identity until humility begins the individual work to cast light on our personal darkness.  When love is proposed as an alternative for interacting with those who are attracted to the same sex it gets twisted into something that is not love and juvenile by those who oppose same-sex relationships.  It reveals an immature capacity for empathy and reliance on human logic to comprehend something that cannot be understood through human logic.  Logic cannot comprehend the mystery of life because logic is finite and it ultimately is flawed.  Healthy logic serves to open us to learn more about the mystery of God’s creation rather than creating dogmas that prevent revelation and harm others.  Healthy logic seeks to awaken rather than seeking to indoctrinate.

To “G. E. Schwartz”, “Lizzie” and others with similar points of view:

If you believe what you have written strongly enough to call in to my radio show and make your points on the air, you and everyone else is invited to do so today, Thursday, March 24th:

Religion, Politics & the Culture. 3:30 pm EDT to 4:30 pm EDT. Radio in southeast Florida: AM 1040 WLVJ. Internet: www.rpconradio.com. Email address: rpconradio@yahoo.com. Facebook: “Dennis O’Donovan” (With the microphone in the picture). Toll free call-in number in the lower 48: 1-866-716-1040.

I say respectfully that if you do not feel you can defend your position in a discussion, then perhaps there is something wrong with your position.

Please refer to my original post above.

All people pass through homosexuality at puberty. Some are caught up in homosexuality and it is called arrested development, a disorder, or it used to be. Now it is called “normal”. One’s body may be cripple, but the soul of man is free to embrace Truth in Jesus Christ and allow the love of Jesus to be our life. Be angry if you do not let Jesus be your all, for you are cheating yourself.

Lizzie and G.E.

It is NOT that we’re saying homosexual orientation is an emotion—it is an orientation or inclination.  It is a feeling in that it is a pull in a direction.  Anger, yes, is an emotion.  Neither of which, an emotion or an inclination, are necessarily a sin.  But they do relate to one another, because while they may be “natural” or “instinctual” or “innate” somehow, how we choose to ACT upon such inclinations is indeed very much our own decision.  We can certainly CHOOSE to refrain from certain bad or unlawful behaviors.  We also can CONFESS our sins and amend our lives - repent by turning away from the BEHAVIOR God declares to be sin and act in such a way as to live the life of disciple.  It is not a matter of not accepting PEOPLE, sinners, into the Church, for that is why Christ came.  It is a matter of saying that our own personal feelings, emotions, instincts, drives, proclivities, etc do not dictate our lives as Christians.  Whether we are by ‘nature’ angry, or have a homosexual inclination, or are pyromaniacs, these things we cannot overcome without counseling maybe but certainly not without God’s grace, but to simply say “this is how I am made, and so I should partake of it and revel in it and celebrate it,” as if God’s law somehow doesn’t speak to us anymore to challenge us to grow and live lives DIFFERENT than the world around us, is to diminish grace to simply an excuse.  Maybe WE cannot change these orientations, but to say that by the grace of God and the support of the sacraments GOD can’t change it or at least give us the grace to control our actions, shows that we are indeed still caught in the snare of the tempter - that is, an unconscious, or conscious, rejection of grace.

Jesus did say, after all, if your eye or your hand causes you to sin, gouge it out or cut it off and enter into heaven maimed and forgiven rather than whole and in unrepentant sin.  What is our eye or hand but something “natural” to us and God - made/given?  We must be ready to accept each other in love, but challenge ourselves and each other to be willing to give up something so inextricably part of ourselves if it means being faithful to God and his Truth - Jesus - the way, the truth and the life.

I know many think I’m uncharitable and unloving, but I’m not… I love everyone enough to know that our eternal destinies are at stake here, not simply my comfort in the moment (ie. this life)

@Lizzie

Jesus indeed came for the sinners.  However, it doesn’t follow from that that we should not seek to stop doing things stemming from our nature which we can control.

A person may not be able to help being angry (Pat’s example) or may not be able to prevent the fact that he or she is attracted to people of the same sex.

However, people certainly can control actions which stem from these things… and that’s the point of his reductio ad absurdum.

To say that “God made me this way,” and I shouldn’t be hindered from acting on this inclination opens up a pandora’s box of similar arguments:  “God made me attracted to (X) and I shouldn’t be hindered from acting on this.”

It would be irrelevant to say “(X) isn’t the same as homosexuality.”  The argument still stands.  Just because a person has a disordered inclination doesn’t give them justification to ACT on that inclination.

Sounds about right. Why not? People can’t see how giving in to the homosexual agenda can harm our children. Why not let people born angry, or shy, or bossy, or whatever be their true selves? While we’re at it, some people are born psychopaths so why not let them get away with murder or rape? Let’s just let everyone do what feels right to them and forget about consequences or what’s moral and immoral. I say go for it! Be angry. Yell until you lose your voice. Blow up! It’s your right to be who you were born to be.

I don’t think anyway is saying sexuality is an emotion.  Sexual acts however usually are the result of an emotional stimulus.  You “feel” attracted to someone and decide to engage in sexual acts with them.  Are you suggesting that we can not resist the urges that arise out of our sexual identity and so therefore they must be what we should do?  If that’s the case then there are a bunch of attractive people walking down the street that I should be jumping on.

Oh and saying “you guys are sinners so stop telling other people they are sinners” is pretty week.  I don’t think anyone here is doubting their own sinfulness.  But you are essentially doing the same thing by telling people here who are calling out sin that they are the real sinners for doing so, and you are above them in holiness for loving people “for who they are.”  Come up with something better than “you are bad too!!!one !!1”

Forgive the Stupid typos… :(

Thanks, Pat! Great post.

The anger that you were born with isn’t supposed to be with you when you grow up. God gave that to you to CHALLENGE you, not to tell you that you should be angry because that was how HE made you. Yes, you may be born that way, but there are things that you can change especially if it is selfish for you to keep that kind of attitude. Society shouldn’t judge you quickly, but it doesn’t mean that you should accept everything in you. You have the power to change. Don’t choose the easy and comfy way ‘coz that way is usually the evil way. Don’t stay mediocre. STRIVE HARD. It’s a sacrifice. Don’t live for yourself alone. Serve others. :P

What gets me is how the only people who we call “perverts” these days are the men who are attracted to girls who are at the peak of their child-bearing years.  Even a 20-year-old boy who had sex with a 15-year-old girl (even if he didn’t know she was that young) is denounced as a “pervert” in newspapeer headlines.  And yet the media promotes encouraging teenagers to try homosexuality (e.g., “Glee”).
Encouraging teenagers to try homosexuality is called “tolerance,” but a boy who has sex with a girl who’s 5 years younger than he is is called a “pedophile”.
(Yes, that’s why I hid my name, because of the “intolerance” of heterosexuality.)

We don’t make up our own version of Christian morality based upon our private beliefs. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that we do not condemn homosexuals. They are free to participate in the Sacraments of the Church provided that they are living chaste lives. The same is expected of a single person. Sex outside of marriage is sinful regardless if it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. We cannot change the teachings of our Judeo Christian beliefs based upon demands for inclusiveness on a belief system that is flawed. We follow Christ and the teachings of the Church and are called obedience.

I wonder how the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,  Transexual) proponents would respond to “I was born this way” when it applies to Pedophilia. I would love to hear their justification of how that differs. Vivat Jesus!

It’s no wonder that venturing to discuss homosexuality in this venue—particularly one without the standard condemnations—makes many here unconfortable. It is also no secret that many who write and speak with charity ion this subject are perceived by many more here as a threat even to faith itself!

But I would ask: Is the initiative to extend authentic hospitality to our brothers and sisters also to be viewed as a threat?

Extending hospitality and welcome might well increase the visibility of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at church, especially if we build safe spaces; craft principled consensus statements of inclusion; increase personal contact with lesbian, gay and transgendered persons by bringing in speakers such as an “out gay priest,” mothers and fathers of gay children and homosexual partners in committed relationships. After all, we all come as sinners, seeking salvation. Isn’t that what we are taught?

I can agree on the need to control our behavior if it is harmful.  As a heterosexual female of the swinging seventies I gave in to every emotional impulse I encountered.  It was encouraged, to be yourself, go with the flow, etc.  As a fifty year old woman I look back at the young woman I was in my late teens and twenties and thirties and I have had regret for my lack of control and self respect.  I see now how stupid it was to surrender to every emotion stimuli under the guise of exploring who I was.  Hind site is 20/20 and I now know our forgiving Creator who it was obvious I didn’t know at the time.  It is good to fight our impulses, it exercises our God given will, makes us stronger.

Thank you, Pat.  Great article.  It does seem no matter what is written, as well as proven, we humans are hard pressed to accept the truth, when it has to do with our weakness, and so much today is relegated to “acceptance”, no matter the behavior, and what the cost is to ourselves, the person/behavior we are “accepting” and society.

Here are two videos by Bishop Sheen on “False Compassion.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXQP3UJnagM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7pKqfhWeo

Conversely, there are a great many men and women who experience opposite-sex attraction—sometimes, quite intensely.  Does this mean they should be “left alone” to pursue whatever desires they want?  That it “won’t hurt anyone?”  (Think adultery here.)  Were they “born this way?”  Is it “nature” or “nurture?”  In reality, why someone experiences certain “inclinations” or “desires” is irrelevant.  What *is* relevant is what each of us does about it.  Simply feeling a certain way in no way justifies acting upon that feeling.  Ever.  Rather, we are called to a higher moral standard, to transcend the temptations that lay before us (and we all have them), and we all need the graces of the sacraments to help us in our daily struggles.  That each of us has certain vices that we struggle with is part of our human nature, but we are *always* called to overcome them.

Any person, in this case, Arthur Fitzmaurice, that goes against church teaching publically; ignoring the Church’s authority on faith and morals. should be removed from the diocesan post with no serverance pay.
Let those who keep pushing their immoral agenda take care of their own!
The only reason why this is all ‘okay’ is people aren’t suffering enough. Notice when people are in war, natural disasters and hardship they have no time to worry about sex agemdas let alone pass stupid rules and regulations. We can love the sinner but hate the sin and we certainly don’t have to pay them a salary, tolerence can only go so far!

Walt Mateja, I think the most common response to your wondering about a “difference” is that adult-child relationships are not consentual while adult-adult relationships are.  But rather than about “difference”, the thrust of The Tidings article is about “integration” and as Mr. Fitzmaurice said, that “We’re all called to full active participation in our church,” whether someone is gay, straight, pedophile, etc.

Tapestry6, I wonder whether it might be rather rash to judge Mr. Fitzmaurice based on a few words in some article that he didn’t write.  You talk of “goes against church teaching”, but the Church expressly teaches against rash judgment: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.”  Who has asked Mr. Fitzmaurice anything?  Did you?  Did Pat Archbold?  Did the writer of the CalCatholic article?  Did anyone who is accusing Mr. Fitzmaurice of wrongdoing contact him?  His contact information is publicly available in The Tidings article.

G.E. Schwartz, the honesty of your last post is much appreciated. By mentioning ‘out priests’ and ‘committed couples’ you make it clear that you do not accept the totality of the Church’s teachings on these matters but want some aspects changed.
Jesus came to call sinners to reconciliation and repentance, not to a warm comfortable place to continue what they were doing before but now with love added.  If homosexual activity is objectively sinful, as the Church says, then committed same-sex couples are not 100% included, until they stop the objectively sinful activity. None of us are, if we intend to keep sinning.  Every Christian has to recognize that he or she has sinned in the past, but they cannot plan to continue to sin in the future.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the issue. Although homosexual tendencies may be deeply set, the behavior is sinful and can in no way be accepted. Read it an give thought to acceptance of the unchanging teaching of the Church.

Following Jesus sometimes requires making sacrafices. We cannot make excuses and say, “I was born this way”. If I’m a serial killer am I to say to myself, “I was born this way” so it is o.k. to justify my inclination to kill?  Of course not! Catholicism is NOT a subjective faith. There is an objective Truth. We know what it is but we just don’t want to ascent to it. That brings me back to making sacrafices. If we truly love God we don’t make excuses, we make sacrafices. We let go of selfishness and move to pleasing God and not ourselves. We may fall along the way, but that is what confession is for.

Chain yourselves to ancient dogma as you wish; I for one will love and cherish and be supportive of my fellow humans regardless of if they love someone of their own sex, both sexes, or whatever. Notice that there are no secular arguments against homosexuality that stand the trial of evidence. I hope you’re absolutely certain in your faith to start condemning others’. And aren’t Christians supposed to be humble? To accept that even the samaritan has good to offer this world and that your bible teaches that it only god’s role to judge?

1. This article really PISSES ME OFF!  (There. I feel better now. Thanks, Patrick.  I, too, and working to embrace my inner rampage.)

2. Mary Da Voe - I don’t want to be uncharitable to you.  So I don’t know really how to put this.  But, I’ve seen a couple of your posts now, and they seem pretty far out there.  This last one for instance.  To paraphrase you, “We all go through a period of being homosexual…”  WHAT?!  Are you smoking something?  really?  Seriously?  that is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.  Does this come before or after our psychotic murderer phase?

Either way, I certainly SKIPPED that phase completely and utterly.  I guess that makes me the crazy one?  I don’t think so - but if so, then great. I am angry, crazy and straight.  Fine by me.

I don’t doubt that being homosexual is a heavy cross to bear while trying to live out your baptismal promises. We all are called to carry our cross no matter how God has created us. Sex outside of marriage is adultery and is a grave sin no matter whom it is commited with. Marriage is between a man and a woman. God created it that way. God has a plan. I question His plan because I may not understand it. It is His plan not mine, so, I follow it as best I can. That means I carry my cross no matter how heavy it is. I may fall under the heavy load, but, I live in hope of the reward to come and being relieved of that cross. I’m not the only one carrying a cross and must help others with theirs along the way. Why would I think that I must change my cross into something to be flaunted before others and lead them into sin, simply because it is the one God gave me?

mmpauly I don’t understand what you mean by

“Why would I think that I must change my cross into something to be flaunted before others and lead them into sin, simply because it is the one God gave me?”

Can you explain it further?

Also as a side question, what if the homosexual in question isn’t catholic and doesn’t wish to convert? Should you still condemn them?

So just because someone was born with a bent to be angry, should we legalize it, promote it and defend it when giving into it is NOT a path to heaven?  Would that be love???

No.

Someone with same sex attraction is to be loved for certain but they are called to celibacy which makes folks howl that anyone should be ‘dennied’ free reign to lust and sex but there it is.

Magdalene,
    You have a lot of conviction that the things you believe are true. I understand that you want to help other get into a heaven you believe in, but not everyone believes in your heaven which mitigates the thread of hell too. At the same time, this is a secular nation and religion ought to play no part in our government. I would love to hear some secular (non-religious) arguments against homosexuality, preferably citing academic sources or non-conflicting interest data gathering institutions, to show why as a nation we should consider homosexuality bad.

Magdalene, do you ever doubt? What if you’re wrong? How would you feel about your treatment of homosexuals if, hypothetically, the catholic doctrine was entirely false?

Loki,
I am Catholic. I believe there is only one God and only one true church and there is no salvation outside of this church. It is not for me to condemn, because it is not in my power to do so. It is in my power to show others an example of what I believe or be a bad example by flaunting my sins and not living as God intended.

Loki - The “dogmas” that you refer to as “ancient” are still binding today. God does not change his “law”. You’re on the National Catholic Register blog. Chances are that you are not going to be reading comments made solely from a secular perspective. Homosexual activity is disordered whether you are Catholic or not.

Mary,
    Can you show that it is disordered from a non-religious perspective?

Loki,
I would think that simple human anatomy would be a good place to start.

If you’re going to make the ‘natural purpose of our bodies’ argument you don’t have to waste your time. That line of reasoning (usually given as god says X part should be used for Y activity only) has been defeated with simple reasoning as well as copious amounts of evidence from the animal kingdom that homosexual activity can be endemic in multiple species.

Are there really no non-religious arguments against it? I haven’t heard of any but maybe you can all help me find one!

Love the sinner; hate the sin.

G.E. Schwartz, all are welcome at Mass and in the Church. Those in a state of sin are not to receive Holy Communion (or any Sacraments other than Baptism or Reconciliation, really). It’s not that hard to understand. Yes, I’ve had to make a spiritual communion from time to time.

Loki, who here has condemned anyone? I condemn homosexual sex, not people with same-sex attractions. Just like I condemn drug use, drunkenness, sloth, etc. Just as I condemn those sins I personally am guilty of…some with disturbing frequency.

Is a person nothing more than their behavior that results from their attractions?

Justifying human behavior as “natural” simply because it happens in the animal kingdom is beyond ridiculous. Such argument could be used to justify anything…rape, murder, cannibalism, etc. Humans are not just any other animal. Our reasoning capacity and self-awareness should be a clue about that.

The obvious non-religious argument against homosexual behavior comes from evolutionary ethics. If we are just highly evolved animals, then there is only one purpose to life and that is to reproduce. Therefore, anyone who engages in homosexual behavior is committing the greatest possible evil. Of course, it is not surprising that atheists are not logically consistent when it comes to this issue.

Lamont,
  The claim that “the only one purpose to life is to reproduce” is wildly outlandish. Have you not considered that one can make their own decisions on what their life’s purpose ought to be based on their wants, desires and needs contrasted with their perceived responsibilities to others and society as a whole?

Even from the standpoint you claim all atheists hold (a tenuous claim at best) having homosexual sex after getting to an age where you can no longer reproduce would be a “morally” (and i use the term very loosely in the context that you set it) neutral act.

I think you might have some ideas about atheists that may not be in line with actuality. I recommend that you go to http://talkatheist.org/ and try asking an atheist what they believe if you’re actually curious about it.

Loki,
So you can create a fictional ‘reality’ to replace the scientific reality. Congratulations! You have deceived yourself and now you want to deceive everyone else. I said you would not be logically consistent.

The fact that you can be so irrational is proof that you have a soul. You should take better care of it.

And where is Archbishop Gomez while his house-organ paper prints this stuff? As I understand it, he’s still out stumping for political concessions to illegal aliens. This man spent nearly a full year as coadjutor of the LA Archdiocese before assuming command two weeks ago. That’s nearly six times longer than the transition periods given to presidents-elect of the United States. Yet he apparently is still unprepared to do anything at all about the rampant heterodoxy in his own shop. I would suggest that he spend less time making speeches pleading for amnesty and citizenship for illegals, and instead use that time combating the dangers to the soul both in the archdiocese and in society. After all, these aliens whose cause he relentlessly champions may find themselves in far greater eternal danger after crossing the border, due to easier access to abortion and contraceptives up here.

I only read the first couple paragraphs, but don’t need to go any further to tell you that you should not be ashamed of your homosexuality. It’s who you are. Embrace it.

Good thinking, Larry. And what are we doing with an Archdiocesan Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics? Is there a separate ministry for the angry Pat Archbold and for the appalled me?

Loki,

Even calling a homosexual relationship a sexual relationship greatly alters the meaning of sex. Sex is only possible between a man and a woman. Whatever happens between two men or between two women cannot possibly be anything like it. It can only be a simulacrum of it, and a very unsanitary simulacrum of it at that. Not to put too fine a point upon it, last I checked the alimentary canal is not part of the reproductive system, but homosexuals don’t seem to grasp this little fact…. There, that’s one non-relgious argument for you.

Beyond that, homosexuals have been, far and away, the primary vectors of AIDS.  In fact, the original acronym was GRID for Gay Related Immune Disorder.  Millions have died of this miserable disease, including my brother, millions have been orphaned by it, and you still want to know what are the non-religious arguments against homosexuality!!! Besides all the destruction of persons involved, and the attendant grief, it has been an enormous burden on the rest of society. Just to take one example, in the last year of his life my brother’s insurance company paid out $300,000 for his meds, a cost that was ultimately borne by every policy holder, and which in turn put medical insurance out of reach for many people, and that in turn brought on Obamacare, the restructuring our entire medical system. AIDS wasn’t the sole cause, of course, but it was a significant contributing cause.

If you respond that AIDS was not caused by homosexual activity, but by the AIDS virus, then I would have to explain to you the details of homosexual intercourse, but that is indecent.

“He who touches pitch blackens his hand” is a scriptual observation, not an argument, and I mention it only by way of succinctly indicating how this miserable phenomenon and discussions about it have greatly lowered the tenor of public discussion and thought. Besides that, discussions about it, and propaganda about it have caused many young people to become unstable in their sexual identity.

Homosexuality is sexual suicide, self-hatred sexually expressed. Other phenomena confirming this in the same population are elevated rates of drug addiction, alcohol addiction and suicide.

Then there is the rampant promiscuity among male homosexuals in particular, which demonstrates the affective immaturity and emotional instability of this population- suggesting that homosexuality is either the cause of, or the result of these defects, take your pick.

Lee Gilbert,
 
I am a microbiology student, and work in a virology lab. There is no action that can create a virus. If you tell any virologist that “homosexual activity” CAUSED AIDS, they will laugh about you for the rest of their career.
 
Just in case you or anyone else doesn’t know how viruses work: they are non-living particles that can’t survive outside of a host. Viruses are passed from one person to another (in this case, through blood or bodily fluids) and they reproduce inside your cells. Nothing you can do sexually will create a virus. I promise. It might spread it, but no activity can CAUSE a viral infection.

Loki - Physiologically a man and a woman are designed to be joined together. Two women and two men are not. Physical evidence of the harm that can be done to the human body when we use our bodies in ways not intended is best demonstrated in the health issues of gay men. Then their is also the issue of gay men altering their attire or demeanor to reflect a more feminine image; the same is also true for lesbians, but they may dress like men. Clearly, there is some confusion about ones identity if someone needs to alter their appearance to look like a member of the opposite sex! I once had two lesbians for neighbors who were raising a child together. The child called one of the women “Dad” because she was the “male” in the relationship. Do you not see these examples as disordered?

Mary M,
  Do you not see how when you say “designed” you presume the existence of your *particular* deity? What about Thor, Vishnu, Ra, Anubis, Etc… what about them? How come they don’t get to have a say in what we do with our genitals? You seem to get to pass some judgement with your various array of vague things like “can do harm to our bodies” without ever actually presenting any evidence as to what harm to whom where is done.

Also, to your final question I answer “No”.

Please do define ‘disordered’ and who ‘designed’ our bodies with some real evidence to convince someone who places value on data and observation over words in a book.

Michelle - Homosexual activity did not cause AIDS but it spread AIDS. Gay men because of their type of sexual activity and because disease can very easily get into the bloodstream are very susceptible to contracting AIDS and spreading it to others.  The human body is simply not intended to be “used” in ways that physiologically are not compatible.

You all make me lol. No wonder gay and lesbian individuals leave the church. You damn them to hell and tell them who they can and can’t fall in love with. Then, you compare their sexuality to falling in love with something as simple as anger or something totally different as pedophilia. Your logic has enormous holes and your words bore deep and leave the GLBT community scarred for life.

That’s really Jesus-like of you, isn’t it? You’re all a bunch of hypocrites. I can’t wait to move out of America.

Gay Heathen,
  Try the coasts.

Loki - I truly am sorry that you are not able to see disordered behavior in the examples I gave. If you think dressing up like a person of the opposite sex is not disordered then I am at a loss at what else I can say to you. My definition of disordered is something or someone who is going against the natural order of things. Society has something called the Natural Law. Instinctively we know when something is not right. Homosexual activity is one of those not right things. Yes, I do believe in God who created man and woman. That is my belief and I cannot provide you with data when I am a person of faith and I believe the things that God has revealed. In the end we all make our own choices. My choice is live the best way I can in the ways that are pleasing to God.

Michelle,

Thanks for bringing me up to speed, since obviously I thought that homosexual activity causes viruses to exist, something like spontaeous creation don’t you see, or the way flint causes fire to exist, for example when we want to heat our caves. But that isn’t the case?

So only the virus causes the AIDS to exist in another person, and the activity that transmits the infected bodily fluids doesn’t really exist as part of the chain of causality that ultimately leads to a person’s death. In other words, the activity without which millions of people would not have died is not causative of their deaths. It’s laughable to think so.

Or am I missing something. Run it by your virologist friends and get back to me, would you. They aren’t the only ones laughing, believe me.

Gay Heathen - Gays and lesbians leave the church because they do not want to live their lives in conformity to God’s will.  No one throws them out; they leave on their own. I have never damned anyone to hell. I am not in “the business” of damning anyone. God alone is the judge. I’m not about to tell anyone that homosexual activity is o.k. when my faith tells me it is not. As a Catholic I very much resent the despicable protests that have taken place inside churches. Do you think that is behaving like Jesus would?  The Church is not the enemy and the Church did not make up the rules - God did. If you disagree with the Church then you disagree with God. It’s just that simple.

Of course, faith. The “la la la la I can’t hear you” of the adult world.

You’re at a loss to what else to say to me because I don’t think the same way as you do, I question, I probe, I seek to understand the intricacies of reality. You see an action you do not like and say it is disordered, even something as mild as cross-dressing.

Please do define natural law and where I can find the rules and stipulations beyond “what we instinctively know when something is not right”. Because I instinctively know believing in something without evidence is very wrong. This is natural law therefore you are wrong.

QED.

Loki - Why do you assume that I do not question? I am a very inquisitive person by nature. As for cross dressing you actually think cross-dressing is mild?  Explain to me why there is no problem with a man dressing like a woman and how you cannot see that there is some confusion with identity? If you are male then why the need to dress like a female? I just do not get it.

Natural law is something that is in written on the human heart. The person living in the bush in Africa knows it is wrong to steal from his neighbors hut or steal his neighbor’s wife. As human beings we have a conscience. If it is formed properly we make decisions that are in conformity with the natural law. If we have poorly formed consciences or no conscience at all then our decision making process is skewed and we make poor decisions.  Homosexual activity is neither unitive or procreative so it is disordered.

According to statistics what percentage of the population is homosexual?  In any given parish community, what would be the percentage?  And what percentage, families?  So, why place so much in terms of resources and outreach on a population which is already politically and economically empowered?

Mary M, if “homosexual activity is not unitive” in at least in some way, then why does the Church talk so much about “homosexual unions”?

Mary M,
 
Straight people get AIDS too, through Catholic Church-approved sexual intercourse. Viruses don’t care about intent. They just infect whatever cells they happen to be around (grossly oversimplified, of course). If you spread the virus, you spread the virus. Straight people can do it just as well and just as efficiently.
 
 
Lee Gilbert,
 
“If you respond that AIDS was not caused by homosexual activity, but by the AIDS virus, then I would have to explain to you the details of homosexual intercourse, but that is indecent.”  You said yourself that homosexual activity causes AIDS. It does not. The virus causes AIDS. You can get it from dirty needles, you can get it from contact with blood - there are lots of ways. There is nothing about homosexual intercourse as opposed to heterosexual intercourse that causes AIDS. Like I said, an act cannot create a virus. Sex that involves sharing bodily fluids is a means of transmission. If you’re going to condemn all gay sex, then you’re going to also have to condemn all straight sex, because they are both excellent ways of contracting HIV.

There is not enough written by those people who have struggled, or do still struggle, with same sex attraction while trying to remain chaste in accordance with the Church’s teachings. All I ever see is polarised dabate which does very little to help those who struggle with SSA.

I struggled with SSA for almost 20 years. Finally, after years of abstinence, God released me from being attracted to other women, to my great shock I should add, as it happened rather suddenly. All I can say is that no matter how hard it is, the best thing to do is to pray, receive the sacraments, and ask for God’s healing and mercy. Help is never far away.

I am now engaged to the most wonderful man I have ever met and although we know there are struggles ahead, we know we can overcome them with the help of God, because He comes first in our lives.

I think the church could do more to reach out to people who possess homosexual inclinations, without diluting its teaching on the matter. I certainly felt very alone in my struggle for many years. However, even if the Church lets us down, God never will if we cleave to Him.

Peace to all.

Reading your varied responses reveals how man always tries to twist God’s Divine Law and Natural Law to satisfy his selfish inclinations and have his way. Most of you are simply defending the indefensible. I will make my contribution by mentioning the following points.  If it is OK to go through life angry because that is your nature and you were born that way;  if it is OK to remain a homosexual because that is where your sexual inclinations lie and you were born that way; THEN it must be OK to remain a child-molester because that is how you are made and you were born that way;  IT IS OK to continue killing because you were born a killer and no one should punish you;  IT IS OK to continue being a thief, because you were born with stealing instincts and stealing is a NORMAL INCLINATION IN YOU.  In short we should do away with all Criminal Laws that punish law-breakers because THEY ARE SIMPLY OBEYING THEIR INCLINATIONS THE WAY GOD CREATED THEM SINCE THEY STATE, AND ARE PROUD, THAT THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY.

My good people, God’s Divine Law does not change nor does Natural Law change to accommodate our self-serving cravings. God does not contradict Himself.  What He has decreed is WRONG REMAIN SO, no matter how vehemently you try to wriggle out of obeying Him. If I was born with one leg, I accept I am not OK because I should have been born with two legs.  Equally if one finds out he has homosexual or lesbian tendencies, one must accept they ARE NOT OK and seek help. Or if they wish to follow Christ, take up their Cross daily and follow Him. But never, ever should we be forced to accept as OK what is intrinsically a disordered sexual orientation.  Or in the case of this Post, it is NOT OK to feel proud that Anger controls your life and force everybody to tell you you are OK because YOU ARE NOT OK.

When we come to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Her Teachings and Doctrine on Faith and Morals, there is no compromise.  All faithful Catholics are fully aware of this.  In our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, one cannot pick and choose what to believe and what to reject. Remember when Jesus told his Disciples that unless one eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks His Blood he will never attain Eternal Life and the Disciples grumbled, rejected that teaching and walked away??  Did Jesus call them back and soften His Teaching to appease them?? OH NO. Instead He turned to his Apostles and asked them whether they, too, wanted to leave Him. In short, God’s Divine Law never changes.  But He has given us free will to obey Him or disobey Him. And He will sort each one of us out, oh very soon, when we stand before Him on His Seat of Judgement where He has the Final Word and the Casting Vote!!!!!

Tara - the Church uses the term “civil unions” not because they have coined that phrase, but because that phrase is used by those who seek legalization of civil unions. The Church is merely responding.

Mary42 - Bravo!

Why don’t we ask ourselves: Is there an active outreach/evagelization team dedicated to those of us who are gay and lesbian and transgendered?

Why don’t we ask ourselves: Does my parish have a well-defined stategy for welcoming and supporting our inactive brothers and sisters who just happen to be gay, lesbian and transgendered?

If we can answer ‘yes’ to these questions then we are truly living out the Gospel and the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

“...you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry”

Love it!!! (love and agree with your column too…)

I remember watching the “Hulk” as a kid…ya, I’m old…

Parish outreach should be consistent with local needs, and sociological statistics can guide in that.  All parishes work to be welcoming and to evangelize, everyone.  No one in the Church wishes to exclude one person or another just because of orientation alone.  But, in terms of the works of mercy and the needs for social justice, as a “minority group” the homosexual lobby is well-financed and politically empowered.  Now the needs of single moms, children living in relative poverty, safety in the schools, helping families to stay together in faith, these are the overwhelming concerns of parish outreach based on sheer numbers and the call for social justice.  Children are not able to speak for themselves, organize, comment on blogs, donate to campaigns, etc to get their needs met.  So just by the numbers and the need, the social justice effort in the Church might look different from the causes favored by media elites.

G.E.Schwartz - Courage is a national apostolate helping individuals with same sex attraction. If anyone is seeking support and encouragement to live a chaste life then help is available. If they are looking for acceptance for their homosexual activity then the church cannot be supportive and welcoming. Here is a link to Courage for anyone that is interested.  http://couragerc.net/

So Augusta and Mary are telling us that we sinners in the church should welcome these sinners as long as they don’t attempt to belong to our particular parish?

This is the same kind of reasoning clothed in action that we fought against in the Civil Rights Movement.

Given this line of thought and action it is truly a wonder that as many African Americans, Hispanics and Chicanos have found a home in Holy Mother Church.

Are you as non-accepting of our African brothers in their mission to re-evangelize our nation… as they serve in parishes where we have an authentic shortage of priests?

GE Schwartz, please re-read above before launching accusations.  Parishes welcome all people, period.  Sorry but no I am not “non-accepting” of anyone.  But with limited resources it doesn’t make sense to push away the real needs of children to attend to a vocal and well-financed political movement interested in promoting the interests of a statistically few.  Our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ have the same needs for the sacraments.  And no one is saying there should be no outreach or particularlized welcome extended.  At the same time just because a group is well financed and politically mobilized (and possibly makes threats) doesn’t mean that we should also then ignore the needs based on sociological statistics of children and families, and especially those children and families who are living with little resources or trying circumstances for a variety of reasons and are less able to voice their needs as a group.  One could argue that precisely because children are not able to articulate their needs, they should be given the lion’s share of outreach and evangelization efforts.

Pat’s original post was focused on a Catholic entity promoting something that is unambiguously against Church teaching.

There is certainly an argument to be made that the Church could do a better job of reaching out to populations that have, through objection to a particular teaching of the Church, feel “left out” or “misunderstood.” 

Whether it be a divorced ministry, a ministry reaching out to those who have chosen to use contraception, abort unborn children, commit adultry (in any of its forms) or any other lifestyle choice that goes against the teaching of the Church, there is most definitely a need for church personnel to respond to and lovingly welcome back those who have walked away.  HOWEVER… a few things must be in place to keep those ministries authentically Catholic:

1) Clear and direct catechesis on the disputed teaching and the reasoning for the teaching.
2) A call to repentance and an offer of the Sacrament of Reconciliation for those who need it (YES, that is ALL of us - and what a great example it would be for the leader of the ministry to be first in line!)
3) Emotional, psychological and practical support for those struggling with inclinations that must be resisted.

Arguing that we are all sinners is valid and completely irrelevant.

Arguing that we should change the teaching of the Church is usurpation of authority that does not belong to us simple commenters. 

Arguing that sinners are not welcome in the Church using only participation in the Sacraments as a barometer for welcomeness misunderstands the nature and purpose of Sacrmaent.  They are not offered to provide a sense of “welcome”, but to be a temporal sign of an eternal blessing offered by Christ.  To quote our catechism, “The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in FULL COMMUNION with the Church” (CCC 1395, emphasis added)  Are children who have not yet received communion “unwelcome” in the Church?  No. 

Bringing it back to the original issue - does the Church have a responsibility to reach out to all peoples, whether Catholics in full communion, fallen-away Catholics, other Christians, other mono-theists or atheists?  YES.  Does this responsibility require the Church to check Her Truth at the door?  NO. 

The quote that inspired this blog is unacceptable within the Catholic Church.  I pray that it is a misquote and that the Archdiocesan ministry holds true to the teachings of the Church it represents.

The purpose of such outreach is for participation in the communion of the church.  Much of the outreach efforts outline do focus on affirming the individual’s refusal to accept the teachings of the Church, whatever the reason, and transmits a message that it is completely fine to continue to refuse to accept the teachings, and even to persist in participating in lifestyle or choices which are contrary to communion in the Church, yet present as an active parishioner.  Again, while there is nothing wrong with outreach to persons in difficulty, it ought not be invested in with disproportionate resources.

When you truly read God’s word, listening to it deeply, you will begin to understand. And that understanding isn’t blindly following a command. The word wants you to listen deeply, let it penetrate your mind, your heart, your whole spirit. When you begin to do that, you will discover you will be taken father beyond your initial understanding. It’s then, like Abraham, that you will be aware, and like Peter and the other disciples in the Gospel, you will understand that, as you are a full human beging with full dignity, so are others as full with as much dignity. You will come into your own, rising up out of your (perhaps unacknowledged) woundedness. And,then, perhaps you will allow others to come into their own.

It seems as though many of you who speak are actually concealing fears of the other, the gay, the lesbian, the transgendered, a fear that what you perceive them to be will somehow “infect” you and yours. And your parish! It seem to be a fear that they are really different from you.

It seems that you are speaking from a poverty in your relationship with God, from that lack of enrichment. You seem to lack a confident assurance that God is leading you. You seem to lack a firm conviction about things you don’t see so you’re not ready to take on this hospitality to our brothers and sisters.

If you authentically follow God and what God is teaching you you will grow a complete, genuine faith, confidant assurance and strong conviction.

Do You feel the same way about prisoners? People of color? Converts from Mormonism? Reverts? Do you feel that it’s great now they’re Catholics at home in Holy Mother Church… but keep them at a distance… because their “weakness” may spread to you? To Yours? To your parish?

Those that have walked away from the Body of Christ have done so because some of us have been guilty of giving them walking-papers!

They’ve been excluded, called disordered. (Many times fundamentalist call Catholics “disordered”. How does that make you feel?)

But God is calling us all. And if we don’t open the doors, many will go where perhaps they’d rather not go. But they will do it because first and foremost they are people of faith. Even if you don’t recognize this, God does!

If each of you would take the opportunity to listen to God (Eucharistic Adoration is a great opportunity!), you might allow Him to speak deeply within your spirit and you may well gain the a confident assurance about the things you hope for and a firm conviction about the things you so far do not understand. Pax et Bonum.

Yet even in so many Catholic places today with much resources invested into outreach for groups who feel marginalized, however they are organized, and despite the welcome extended and constant message to embrace even those who attack the Church or its members, isn’t it true that we still oftentimes fail in treating the littlest one among us who may present in one way, even so small, or another as “different”?  Take a look at our schools.  Are our children loving one another?  Do they look out for each other?  Or are they encouraged to tear each other down even in Catholic circles?  All the outreach in the world to one group or another organized through political interest and we could still be neglecting the essential message of Jesus.  We could all vote in favor of gay marriage tomorrow and yet still mistreat those who “seem” somehow different or weak in our very midst.  Even those who sympathize with all of the most publicized liberal political causes are just as capable of the next person of bigotry, intolerance, and cruelty.

I love your original post, Pat. May I translate it into Spanish and show it to the folks here in Seville, Spain?

Everyone commenting on this post should give up “commenting” for Lent—every year until it sticks for the rest of your life.

A Joy, if you really believe that commenting is a sin, well, goodbye.  And confess that you posted at your next Confession.

All agree that the Church should welcome all and should put into place outreach to people struggling with particular issues.  But, since there is a genocide going on, and there are huge numbers of innocents being slaughtered though it remains legal, perhaps the Church needs to energize and focus its political efforts on that aspect of unjust laws which affects everyone.  People from all walks of life need to participate in this to overcome the shedding of innocent blood.  The days are already here when some advise others to abort their own children if they show some genetic irregularity.  Don’t they have a right to be “born that way”?  Since this is an issue that unites us in our common humanity we should place the greatest amount of outreach and efforts on this political issue.

@G.E.
Thank you for your condescension and calling into question our familiarity with scripture, our lack of understanding, our fear, our poverty of relationship with God, our supposed racism, fear of converts (???? REALLY ???) and so many other broad strokes.  It was an impressive show of insight on your part to be able to discern so thoroughly our wounds, fears and bigotry. 

I was very happy, however, to see that you spend time in Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist.  May I offer you something to ponder the next time you sit with Him face-to-face? 

I suggest you read the 6th chapter of John’s gospel—all the way through.  Read in John 6:53, where he responds to the Jews challenging a difficult teaching, not with equivocation, but with confidence in the Truth.  Read in John 6:66-67 that the Truth may be too difficult for some and that they will return to their former way of life, not because Jesus didn’t want followers, but rather because he wanted followers who actually believed what He preached.  And then go back to John 6:37-39 where our Lord says very clearly that He will not reject anyone who comes to Him and that He will not lose anyone the Father has sent.

When I listen to those words deeply and let them penetrate my heart, my mind and my spirit as you suggest, I see a Lord who offers Himself completely, as the fulfillment of all our deepest desires - as True Food and True Drink, yet does not yield to those only seeking temporal food and temporal drink on account of their weakness.  I see a Lord who offers us the fullness of life, not as we see it, but as is offered by God the Father through His Son. 

Sometimes difficult teachings are filled with powerful grace… when we submit our will to His and not impose our own thoughts on Him.

Mary M, you did not answer my question.  The Church does not simply use the term “civil unions” but specifically uses the term “homosexual unions” and she does so in clear reference to homosexual acts, not mere non-sexual legal arrangements.

Tara -  Here’s a link to a document that speaks to “homosexual unions”.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

G.E. Schwartz - Your remarks are rude and ignorant. Everyone is welcome in the Catholic Church but we don’t come and insist the church change for us. Homosexual acts are condemned. The Church does not condemn people of color, prisoners or reverts. I am a revert myself and I have never been happier in my life since coming back to the Church. We must be willing to let go of pride. If you are unhappy with the position the Catholic Church takes on homosexuality there are churches that will certainly not take issue with it. What I can never understand is the this obsession to condemn the Catholic Church when there are alternative places to go if you feel the Catholic Church’s view does not correspond with your own.  Why this need to Catholic bash?

Mary M, you’re not answering the question.  You’re just passing documents around.  I’ve already read all the documents.  Are you unable to answer the question?

Mary M, also, in regard to your other claim that “the Church uses the term ‘civil unions’”, the truth is that your sexually-oriented Church document doesn’t use that phrase even once.  Instead, if you’re looking for a Church document that uses the phrase “civil union”, there’s the Catechism which says “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions”, and there’s also Pope Leo XIII when he said, “men are by the will of God born for civil union”.

Tara - You say - if “homosexual activity is not unitive” in at least in some way, then why does the Church talk so much about “homosexual unions?” The term homosexual union is a broad term used to identify people of the same sex who seek the same legal or religious recognition of their “union” as heterosexuals.  The word “union” has many definitions including “merger and combination”. When the church uses the term “homosexual unions” she is merely using a phrase that is recognizable but at the same time is in no way inferring that the Church approves of “homosexual unions”. When the church speaks about “union” in marriage she speaks about it as being unitive (another definition of union)and procreative. Marriage is a Sacrament in the church. A man and a woman consent to be joined together and also to be open to procreation.
This is clearly in opposition to “homosexual unions” which cannot be unitive as intended by the Church and procreative.

Tara - You say, “Mary M, also, in regard to your other claim that “the Church uses the term ‘civil unions’”, the truth is that your sexually-oriented Church document doesn’t use that phrase even once.  Instead, if you’re looking for a Church document that uses the phrase “civil union”, there’s the Catechism which says “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions”, and there’s also Pope Leo XIII when he said, “men are by the will of God born for civil union”.

The document I attached was an attempt to speak to your question about “homosexual unions” as you asked and not to “civil unions”

When the church speaks about “civil unions” it is in NO WAY speaking about homosexual civil unions. The Church has never and will never condone this so please stop quoting the Catechism or other resources totally out of context.

Mary M, you wrote, “The term homosexual union is a broad term used to identify people of the same sex who seek the same legal or religious recognition of their ‘union’ as heterosexuals.”

No, your statement grossly misrepresents how the term is used in the Church document you cited, where the term “homosexual union” neither identifies people nor their legal union.  As used in the sexually-oriented Church document you cited, the term is used to refer to homosexual acts.  This fact is made very clear in the following statement from the document: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”

To compare, a legal/civil union between two persons of the same sex is not a sex act, does not require a sex act, and does not recognize a sex act or even a sexual orientation.  Not the state, not the Catholic Church, nor you nor I have knowledge whether persons in a civil union are homosexual or heterosexual, asexual, pedosexual, rubberraincoatsexual or what they do or don’t do in their bedrooms.  Such a matter is non-essential to a civil union.  It is therefore flatly erroneous and deceptive to claim the term “homosexual union” is used to “identify people of the same sex who seek the same legal or religious recognition of their ‘union’”.  Instead, as used in the sexually-oriented Church document you cited, the term “homosexual union” is plainly used in reference to homosexual acts, something which is not intrinsic to, not required by nor recognized by a legal/civil union.

You also wrote, “When the church speaks about ‘civil unions’ it is in NO WAY speaking about homosexual civil unions.”  To remind, the document you cited NEVER uses the term “civil unions” nor “homosexual civil unions”, and if you’d open your eyes, you’d see I too have not said that “civil unions” is speaking about homosexuality.  And importantly, if by “homosexual civil unions” you mean “homosexual unions”, then you are admitting that the Church document you cited is in NO WAY speaking about civil unions and is therefore “totally out of context” with regard to civil unions between persons of the same sex.

Finally, only in your profound ignorance and/or contempt of the truth would you believe I’m “quoting the Catechism or other resources totally out of context.”  Instead, I’m assisting you to see the error of your ways, when you are willing to open your eyes.

Tara - You sound like a very angry person but I’m here to tell you that I don’t need to open up my eyes to anything because I see things as they are and as God intended. You on the underhand are looking through a distorted “lens”. It’s quite clear you do not like the church’s position on homosexuality. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. They are not changing for you.

Mary M, when you can see, you’ll see I’m just like you.  God bless!

Tara - I try and see with the eyes of Christ. I don’t look at anyone any differently because of their skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation. We are called to love all and that is what I see in any human being. Jesus is merciful and loving but we cannot live on our subjective truths. There is an objective truth and it can be found in the teachings of the Church. God bless you as well!

Mary M, when you “find it”, you’ll agree with what I posted.

Tara - I have already found it! He is Jesus Christ and in the Church that He founded.

May you find Christ in others and the world find Christ in you, through your love and service, in your generosity and hope.

@Tara - And may we all find Christ in obedience to the teachings of the Church, letting go of our subjective “truths” and pride, and praying for the grace to live our lives as Christ intended and as the Church teaches.

CCC#2680: Prayer is primarily addressed to the Father; it can also be directed toward Jesus.
CCC#2564: Christian prayer is… wholly directed to the Father.
CCC#2674: Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer.

@ Tara - Regarding your last post - and your point would be?

Today’s Gospel reading is a good one.
John::5-42.It speaks to Jesus’ love for us but He also challenges us to live moral lives.

Mary M, they’re all “good ones”.

Tara - Yes they are all “good ones” but the parables in particular speak about God’s love and care for His children and teach us who God is and what His plan is for us. Today’s reading about the Woman at the Well speaks to God’s invitation to His children and challenging us to examine our lives.

What was your point about the difference CCC references?

Mary M, God is ever speaking His love and care for His children.  And as to your question, ask yourself what was your point in addressing your prayer “@Tara”.  You needn’t post another response trying to explain yourself.  God knows your heart.

I’m curious why there needs be “special outreach” to homosexuals? I mean - I’m quite a thoroughly canalized heterosexual: I never met a temptation I didn’t act on. The culture says my past life was perfectly okay, bouncing from one girl to another. But, by the grace of God, I figured it out: I reverted from the depths of my hedonism into chastity, and while tempted _constantly_, my plan is to go home to God with no further sin, no more using others for my own pleasure. Doesn’t “gay friendly” ministry just feed the narcissism intrinsic to that life? I would have scoffed at “degenerate horndog male-friendly ministry” at the time: it was only truth, unvarnished, that could have had (and would have had) any sort of impact.

Catholic Male - Your post was amazing!

Catholic Male, there’s also a “special outreach” to people like you.  An example of this outreach is found in the Catechism where it says “[Homoesexual persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Also, the Church does not teach that the lives of homosexual persons are any more “narcissistic” than yours and other people’s.

Homosexual Outreach is effective PROVIDED there is a desire to change ones life and follow Christ based upon the teachings of the Church. It should not be a sounding board for demands that the Church revisit its position on homosexual activity. All people should be treated with respect regardless of their sexual orientation! Sadly, there have been some pretty disgusting displays by homosexual activists who claim the Church is discriminatory. I would ask where is the respect, sensitivity and compassion to those of us who are attending Mass only to be disrupted by protestors?

Mary M, if you’re attending Mass only to be disrupted by protestors, you might want to re-examine why you’re attending Mass.  Also, there are of course “disgusting displays” of all kinds, and no shortage of members of the Church who act discriminatorily, so many apparently that the Church felt obliged to add the “special outreach”.  To answer your question, “where is the respect, sensitivity and compassion”, it is found in the heart.

Tara -  Please don’t give me some smug remark about my Mass attendance. Maybe you need to think about why “they” are attending mass. You want to talk of disgusting displays? I cannot think of anything worse than desecration of the Eucharist which was perpetrated by gay activists at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. Is this the action of individuals who have respect and compassion in their heart or are they self-absorbed individuals with hatred in their heart?

“A Catholic male” made the choice in his heart and with his will to turn his life around. That act of the will and praying for God’s grace to live a chaste life is a great start. Being defensive, blaming others, especially the Church,and deluding yourself that engaging in homosexual activity is o.k. is a waste of precious time.

Mary M, I didn’t give you a “smug remark”, and I don’t know anyone who attends mass only to be disrupted.  Are there many who do this and do they get some sort of advance notice of where to go?

As to your alleged protesters, who am I to judge the respect and compassion in their heart?  I leave that to God.  For all we know, they were in a state of grace.

And who knows what choice “A Catholic Male” made in his heart?  Who knows if his life has been turned around or if he’s just making another bend on the same road, whatever that road is?  Anyone can post anything on these forums.

As I said, there are “disgusting displays” of all kinds, and no shortage of members of the Church who act discriminatorily.

Tara - You’re right, Tara, anyone can post anything on these forums. My time is too valuable for this nonsense.

Tara - Your assessments are frightening. You question “Catholic Male” about his conversion but defend the actions of those that chose to desecrate the Eucharist by saying “who are you to judge?”  Are you kidding? We should be willing to speak out against such blasphemy!
If you truly believe that those desecrating the Eucharist were in a state of grace I can assure you that they were not after the desecration. If you cannot admit that the most disgusting display is desecration of the Eucharist then you live in a world out of touch with reality.  If gay activists are engaged in violent protests of the Church then their actions reveal what is in their heart. It is no longer hidden but revealed for all to see.  If anyone refuses to follow the teachings of the Church their refusal speaks to what is in their heart. People turn their life around all the time and what is in your heart is manifested to others. All these excuses for immoral and blasphemous behavior and all the while saying “I don’t know what was in their heart” is ludicrous.

Please reference Sermon on the Mount for how to treat your “enemies” or visit Christ on the Cross.

Mary M, you’re actually talking about YOUR assessment.

It is apparently your accusation that some “gay activists” “desecrated the Eucharist”.  I did not “defend” your accuseds’ actions. And I didn’t say your accuseds were in a state of grace.  Rather, to me, your accusation is vague and as far as I know, unproven.  If you’re talking about an ACT UP incident in 1989, ACT UP denies that they did what you allege.  According to them, it was “a single Catholic demonstrator’s personal protest involving a communion wafer”.  You can claim that’s not true, but the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Even if someone did something objectively wrong with a host, it remains, per Church teaching and as I said, that for all I know the person was in a state of grace.  In the words of Pope John Paul II, “The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved.”  The same applies to judging what’s in the person’s heart.  For all I know his heart was fine but maybe his mind had gone wacky.  I don’t know what he knew, thought, felt, experienced, etc.  I don’t even know who it is, what he did, or even his name.

I’m not the judge of some 1989 incident and whoever was involved.  This is not “excuses” or “out of touch with reality”.  It is reality.

Tara - Here is your statement regarding my comment about gay activists who protest “As to your alleged protesters, who am I to judge the respect and compassion in their heart?  I leave that to God.  For all we know, they were in a state of grace.”  Compassion in their heart?  Are you kidding?  Desecration of the Eucharist is demonstrating compassion in their heart?

Since you are fond of quoting passages from the CCC I’d like to draw your attention to: CCC 2120 “Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.” Tara, this is an objective truth. There are no gray areas when this act is perpetrated. 

We are taught that we cannot judge anyone’s final destiny or the actual condition of one’s soul but we can absolutely say when an action is objectively wrong and mortally sinful!  Desecration of the Eucharist is mortally sinful and objectively wrong! I don’t care if it was one person or a gang of people the action is sacralegious.You don’t even acknowlege that the act is objectively wrong and sinful.  Your only defense is “prove it happened”.

Mary M, I’m not kidding.  It remains a distinct possibility that there is compassion in the heart of a person who believes in his heart that his desparate actions are necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

For you, perhaps you might lack compassion in your heart if you were to throw the Eucharist on the ground while seeing it as you see it.  But sonmeone else doesn’t necessarily see it as you see it.  Someone else, as he sees things, might be lacking compassion if he values a cracker (what he thinks it is) more than the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

You quote CCC#2120 and say “this is an objective truth”.  Yes, that sacrilege is a grave sin is an objective truth, but that doesn’t mean that someone who doesn’t know what he’s doing has committed a mortal sin.  Mortal sin always requires that the person have full knowledge and give complete consent.  If a person throws something on the ground thinking it’s a cracker or he does it because he’s suffering from an impairment of the will such as a mental disorder or side effects of medication, that does not necessitate that he has satisfied these two other requirements for mortal sin.  Full knowledge and complete consent are subjective criteria for mortal sin, even if the matter is objectively grave.  As I do not know the subjective state of another person, i.e. whether he truly had full knowledge and gave complete consent, I do not know whether he committed mortal sin.  Even if he swears to me on a stack of Bibles that he had full knowledge and had given complete consent, I still do not know whether what he claims is true and thus whether he’s guilty of a mortal sin.

And as to “don’t even acknowlege that the act is objectively wrong and sinful”, it remains that I’m not privy to whether in fact anyone really did anything with the Eucharist.  To acknowledge something requires first that there is something to acknowledge.  Perhaps you believe it happened.  Perhaps it did happen.  I do not know that it did.  I wasn’t there.  I didn’t see it.  I’ve read conflicting reports.

Since you enjoy the CCC, here is something for you: “The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our reason and of others.” (CCC#2563)

Just as it is an objective truth that murder is a mortal sin, the question of the culpability for committing a murder depends on whether or not the murderer is sane enough to realize what he did.
Desecrating the Eucharist is objectivily a mortal sin, and if you argue that homosexuals aren’t guilty of mortal sin because their minds are disordered it still remains true that, as in the case of murder, we have the obligation to do all that we can to prevent those insane people from doing what is objectively wrong.

Don Schenk, you wrote, “we have the obligation to do all that we can to prevent those insane people from doing what is objectively wrong”.  Do you mean like in Romans 1 where “God handed them over to degrading passions” and “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper”?  Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Tara - As I said, to desecrate the Eucharist is objectively wrong. Something that is objectively morally wrong is not altered by the fact that someone thinks otherwise. (see below) Their culpability may be diminished but it is still objectively wrong! I would argue that the person knew exactly what they did was wrong on some level because they chose to desecrate the Eucharist knowing full wel that their actions would be the most shocking. What is the most sacred to a Catholic - the Eucharist!

Please consult CCC 1756 - “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” 

So if a homosexual activist thinks they are desecrating the Eucharist to bring about some good, this doesn’t change the fact that their actions are evil.

I asked if you thought descration of the Eucharist is sinful. Please don’t give me double talk that you weren’t there and you don’t know if it is sinful because you don’t know if this actually happened. You either acknowledge it is sinful or it is not.

Regarding your comment - The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our reason and of others.” (CCC#2563). You are once again taking things out of context. What you are quoting is from the section on Christian prayer entitled “Covenant Prayer” You, however, didn’t include the very end of this Covenant Prayer ” The heart is the place of decision, deeper than our physic drives. It is the place of truth, where we choose life or death”

Tara,
I was writing about the descrations of the Eucharist that “Gay activists” carry out; did you have a problem reading my sentences?
As for the sinful acts that “Gay activists” carry out with each other, the Church has an obligation to warn them of the eternal consequences of their sins, just as it also has an obligation to aid them in living lives of chastity.

I offer this email with its unchecked follow-up comment box in the hopes of being delivered from the never ending flood of comments on this topic.

Mary M, as I already said, sacrilege is always wrong.  Nowhere did I say it’s not wrong, evil, immoral, etc.  But for it to be sacrilege, the person must know what he’s doing.

You wrote, “I would argue that the person knew exactly what they did was wrong on some level”.  You’d be arguing with yourself, because I don’t make any claims one way or the other.  Your alleged scenario is all yours.  What I reminded is that for mortal sin, the level of knowledge must be full and consent must be complete.  Nothing in the Catechism contradicts this fact.  And nothing you argue can establish whether the person had full knowledge and given complete consent.

Likewise, nothing in my post said that “if a homosexual activist thinks they are desecrating the Eucharist to bring about some good, this doesn’t change the fact that their actions are evil.”  The issue I was discussing in regard to bringing about some good was whether the person had compassion in his heart.  That doesn’t depend on whether the act is objectively wrong.  The act can be objectively wrong AND the person have compassion in his heart, particularly if the person doesn’t believe that the act is wrong or if he believes the good outweighs the bad.

Likewise, if it’s your contention that the person “thinks he’s desecrating the Eucharist”, that’s your contention.  I don’t say what he’s thinking.  As far as I know, he could be thinking he’s throwing a cracker on the floor, even if he also thinks you think it’s something more.  Just because he might think that you think it’s “the Eucharist” doesn’t mean he thinks it’s the Eucharist.  Also, because I don’t know that there was actually any offender, as far as I know the alleged offender might have not been thinking anything at all.  Instead, he might have accidentally dropped something on the floor, and in the hysteria of the situation, the scene exploded.

You claimed, “I asked if you thought descration of the Eucharist is sinful.”  Really?  Where did you ask that?  I have already stated “that sacrilege is a grave sin”.

And no, Mary M, I did not “take things out of context.”  And no, the section is not titled “Covenant Prayer” (it is “Prayer as Covenant”).  And no, the heart doesn’t change what it is in different contexts.  And no, I don’t have to include every word from every section.  I provided the reference so you can learn more if you wanted to.

Don Schenk, thank you for your clarification.  Without it, it did not appear that you were speaking about “gay activists”, since you had only mentioned “homosexuals” and they are not all “gay activists”.

Now you’ve mentioned “sinful acts that ‘Gay activists’ carry out with each other”, and I’m unsure what you mean by that.  You mentioned “chaste” in connection with that, but “gay activists” in the political sense are not generally considered to be sexual partners with each other, and “gay activists” can be chaste and even promote chastity.

Tara - You continue to ignore what is presented to you and sing the same song over and over again and twist everything to fit your view. I just told you that it doesn’t matter what the person believes about the Eucharist for desecration of the Eucharist to be objectively gravely wrong and I provided you with the paragraph from the CCC.

Your remarks are ridiculous and a waste of time. I am bowing out of this “dialogue” because it is a total waste of time. It is impossible to dialogue with someone who refuses to acknowledge Objective Truth when it is presented to them. You can live in your own fantasy world of what is right/wrong, or in your heart or anyone else’s heart but that doesn’t change a thing about Church teaching being the truth. The Church does not need your validation to make what she teaches the truth. The Church is not a democracy.
God bless!

Mary M, what you presented was not ignored.  It was already incorporated into what I’d been saying.  At least three times now already I’ve said “that sacrilege is always wrong”.  And again, “Nowhere did I say it’s not wrong, evil, immoral, etc.”  You are the one who kept bringing up the issue of what the alleged protestor allegedly believed/thought.  You claim that “it doesn’t matter what the person believes” for sacrilege to be “objectively gravely wrong”, but when sacrilege is defined as “the deliberate violation of sacred things”, it very much does matter what’s going on in the person’s head.  If someone thinks it’s just a cracker, as for example, he has no intention of violating a sacred thing, then where is the deliberate violation of a sacred thing?  Without the deliberate violation of a sacred thing there is no sacrilege to be always wrong.

Tara,
I’m glad to hear from you that some “Gay activists” don’t sin and support the teachings of the Church—and don’t desecrate the Eucharist.  So we’re not talking about them.
You’re talking about the members of Courage, aren’t you?

Don Schenk, no, “gay activists” who may be chaste and promote chastity are not limited to members of “Courage”, nor are all members of Courage necessarily in fact chaste or promote chastity or “gay”.

And as to what “we” are talking about, we have not agreed that we are talking about any “gay activists” who desecrated the Eucharist, or that the person who allegedly desecrated the Eucharist was “gay” and that he was not a chaste person who promotes chastity.  As I stated before, the group ACT UP reports that it was “a single Catholic demonstrator’s personal protest involving a communion wafer”.  As far as I know, neither ACT UP nor the Catholic Church has any rule that all members and activism must be “gay”.

Is there a particular reason that you engage in the unusual habit of capitalizing the word “Gay”?

Tara,
Okay, you’re using the usual liberal excuse that conservatives can’t prove what they say—to a fanatic’s satisfaction.
Can we at least agree that if you don’t follow the teachings of the Church (and admit that you’re a sinner) that proves that you don’t believe in the Church’s teaching authority, and that it makes no more sense for you to insist that the Church should change its teachings then for a heterosexual to demand that ACT-UP change ITS teachings?

Don Schenk, the Church teaches, “Be perfect”.  So you want me to agree that if you, Don Schenk, are not perfect, then that “proves that Don Schenk doesn’t believe in the Church’s teaching authority”?

Likewise, as to a “fanatic’s satisfaction”, the standard of “be perfect” is my standard, whether you call it fanatical or not.

The Church also teaches that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”  If the certain judgment of someone’s conscience is “to insist that the Church should change its teachings”, then, according to Church teaching, he must.  The Church herself does not insist that the published Catechism is beyond reproach.  And when I listen to people, I recognize that often what they’re objecting to is their own interpretation, and that’s what they’re really calling to be changed.  And that’s so whether the subject is “Church teaching” or “ACT UP teachings”.  And so a call for change makes sense to me and to them.

And as to “liberal excuse”, it was the liberal giver of salvation who said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”