yawn, another blog about sex on a Catholic website.  wake up people, you’re wasting your precious little time.
www.comepraytherosary.org

JohnN:  “many of these people (but not all) are homophobes”
——
Why are you piddling around catholic websites calling people “homophobes”?  If you refuse to accept Catholic teaching on sodomy or Catholics who bear witness to same, you’ll need to take up your gripe with the source of catholic teaching:  Almighty God.  Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21)

Sodomites are naturally subversive; look at what they did to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Scratch a liturgical year, reveal a sodomite.

Sodomites allowed entry into Seminaries eventually become ordained and then work as sappers to undermine condemnation of their pederastic vices with the result we see in the ecclesiastical praxis of the past fifty years.

It has gotten so bad that Pope Benedict XVI’s rules for admission to seminaries guaranteed we’d have pederastic priests for the foreseeable future for hose qualifying for admission to seminaries include sodomites who have worked at a local rent-a-rear outfit (sodomite professionals) and those who have even been sodomites involved in drug trafficking.

One has to support the Traditional Orders for they do not succor sodomites.

Dear Lisakaiser. I was sort of surprised to read you consider yourself a sodomite. That was a refreshing bit of realism. Thank you.

The rate of sexual disease, drug use, and violence, amongst males sodomites is infamously elevated when compared to normal men -especially normal men who are virgins when receiving the Sacrament of Marriage and who remain faithful to their vows afterwards; that is, normal Christian men are not destroying their bodies and souls as are the sodomites.

You are, of course, correct in your observation that the sodomisation of America is essentially complete but that will prove to be a pyrrhic victory - enjoy it while you can -  and good luck explaining your behavior and your sodomitic agitprop when you appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ.

If only America had a POTUS who was like Putin…

I am not Spartacus,

Wow, what silly comments.  First of all, gay women have lower STD rates than straight people or gay men.  Secondly, straight people give each STDs—even married straight people.  What does “naturally subversive” mean???  That not everyone is buys into your kind of bigotry, hatred, intolerance, unfounded and illogical fear??? 
And wow, “hootenany liturgy??  Guess what, the 1950s are long gone.

You sound like an aging bigot—the kind of bigot that is dying out.  Younger people have no clue why bigots oppose marriage equality.  The voices of hatred already lost.  The forces of love, justice, equality, compassion and inclusion have won.  Two more states have recognized marriage equality.

Sodomites are also adept at infecting other sodomites with diseases and they are naturally subversive and then there is The Hootenany Liturgy by the sodomite, Rembert Weakland, so, I think referring to them as mainly portraying pederasts on TV is selling them short

“there are those who have a right as citizens who disagree with your definition of marriage”.
that’s no problem in your church.

May I also point out that Sean Hayes’ new show is doing badly in the ratings. Even the gay folks who you think have a one-track mind are not watching his show. We’re too busy living our lives, dating, getting married, working, enjoying friendships, raising children. And all of it without any help from Hollywood or the Catholic Church. That seems to bug the conservative “Christians” who inhabit NCR web blogs. Oh well, get used to it.

John Wayne made over 70 westerns…is that all he was good for? Sean Connery played 007 numerous times…guess that’s all he’s good for. Gene Kelly: what’s up with all those musicals? Guess that’s all he’s good for. Clint Eastwood always playing Dirty Harry, or some other character that’s very Harry-like. Guess that’s all he’s good for. Why do straight actors like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood always play straight guys? Guess that’s all they’re good for.

Man, the NCR really, really, really loves to play the gay card with sophomoric arguments like this one. Slow week, guys? Try reading or listening to the current Pope and then get back to us about “judgment” and all that.

It’s fairly outrageous that Jesus Christ himself said so little (anything at all?) about gays. I’ve read the Gospels thoroughly and he basically seems to have ignored gay issues altogether, which is hard to understand as I type this in 2013! The media in its wisdom devotes millions of column inches to gay issues, surely the most important theme of our time.  Even our elected politicians are working overtime to address age-old discrimination.  Given all this, it would have been nice if Jesus had thought to say something as well.

Instead, we find him spending whole parables and discourses focusing on the need to love God above all things/ loving our neighbour as ourselves, forgiveness, God’s redeeming mercy, compassion, rejecting sin, seeking salvation, hope, the importance of faith which can moves mountains, responding to graces, the immortal soul…all very interesting I’m sure but what possible relevance do they have to the gay community, which (so we are told) surely cares only about..well, being gay? 

AJ, while you continue to explain the Church’s position on marriage, why not offer some criticism of the remarks made by some “so-called” Catholics. I understand the Church’s position on it and don’t agree with it at all. However, I do respect it’s opinion as well as your own. Regardless of the marriage question, the main issue is that many comments are attacking LGBT people and this article doesn’t really make much sense.

But seriously….“Are there some valid objections from homosexual defenders under this article? Yes, there are; as an orthodox Catholic, I admit it. The claim that some comments and articles may be homophobic probably has some truth to it.” Why don’t you address this. And there are articles that DO contain homophobic messages. Why not call them out instead of lecturing on your definition of marriage. It’s a two-way street. You must defend LGBT people from discrimination and take a stance on marriage. Isn’t this Catholic teaching? As I previously stated in a comment, many people don’t recognize or even act upon this at all, as displayed by some disgusting comments on this article.

^ Couple of mistakes: should read “... love that is *not* born out of self-pleasure”
also “Can they be attracted to something they’ve *never* come into contact with?”

Are there some valid objections from homosexual defenders under this article? Yes, there are; as an orthodox Catholic, I admit it. The claim that some comments and articles may be homophobic probably has some truth to it.

However…

I will tell you that we Catholics (including gay orthodox Catholics) do not appreciate nor respect the backlash and intolerance we receive simply from opposing same-sex marriage. There is loud and significant number of people on the same-sex marriage advocating side that proclaims anyone who opposes same-sex marriage as being guilty of “hatred”, “bigotry”, and “homophobic”. To these “if you don’t agree with me you’re a bigot” people, we know not whether to laugh at the hypocrisy or cry at the sincerity. If you want to know why we believe what we believe, allow me to offer an extremely brief defense:

I could write multiple books about why we don’t accept it, but the first and foremost reason we don’t accept it is because the foundation of marriage is procreation. Procreation and the raising of healthy children is the primary function of marriage, at least that’s how we define marriage. Procreation is not possible between same-sex couples. Furthermore, as data substantiates, children are better off when raised with a mom and dad- especially *their* mom and dad. The mother and father play equally important roles in the raising of a child. If a child is raised by two dads, he is deprived of a mother, which is a grave tragedy. If a child is raised by two mothers, he is deprived of a father, which is a grave tragedy. We believe in purity of heart and innocence, love that is born out of self pleasure, and virginity. Therefore, we consider abstinence the highest expression of love, and since homosexual sex can never produce children, it renders the sex act to nothing but pleasure, and thusly to us cannot be condoned.

The primary argument used in favor of same-sex marriage is the fact that homosexuals are “born” that way, or more accurately, they have no control over their same-sex attraction. You might be surprised to learn then we acknowledge without discrimination that people who suffer from same-sex attraction do in-fact have no choice in it whatsoever. However, people are not “born” gay. Not only has science not proved this, but there’s also a relatively simple proof against it; if someone took one-hundred males from birth and placed them in an environment that had no other males whatsoever, and they proceeded to live their life surrounded by nothing but females, would there be any men in the one-hundred who were attracted to other men? Can they be attracted to something they’ve come into contact with? Something they’ve never even seen besides themself? Not likely.

Ironically, the argument that people have no control over who or what they are attracted actually winds up as an argument against gay marriage. If someone is going argue that gays should be able to marry because they have no control over their sexual desires, then that person should, if they are consistent with their own logic, also conclude that pedophiles- who have no control over their attraction to children- should be able to marry consenting children. Activists who proudly proclaim that they have no control over their homosexuality are turned dead silent when someone claims that he finds himself sexually attracted to horses (which, along with other types of zoophilia, is a real disorder; and to once again disprove the “born that way” claim, one wonders if they would still be attracted to specific animals if they were raised in an environment that didn’t expose them to those animals). If people can’t choose their sexual desires, why are the cries not being made for these people? Why are they not being made for pedophiles?

If you have taken the time to read this and better understand our position, then congratulations! You have earned our respect and appreciation for not just dismissing us as “bigots” without even attempting to hear our side. Most of us do actually care for homosexuals, and a few more of us may even apologize for unjust maltreatment they’ve received. We acknowledge them as equal in dignity before God. But we do not accept gay marriage because the natural law is that the male body is designed for the female body, and procreation- a fundamental component of marriage- is only possible between man and woman, and we profess this to be the best way to raise a healthy child. We also believe in striving for innocence and cleanliness of heart, while not indulging in lust that is unproductive. Homosexuals can be saints, if they follow these guidelines of true love and sacrifice. Some have suggested St. Aelred of Rievaulx was homosexual, and if he was, that makes no difference on his sainthood; if anything, it makes it all the more glorious, as he was a strong teacher of virginity among the unmarried and chastity even among the married.

So perhaps we can attempt to find common understanding of the other, instead of flinging around the terms “bigot” and “homophobe” to describe anyone who does not hold to our opinion.

If you have a right to get married, there are those who have a right as citizens who disagree with your definition of marriage.

Nope Joe. Those who disagree with you have the same rights as you to campaign for what they want, as much as you do.

There are plenty of non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

Well if you want to prevent a marriage you want to prevent a marriage. Your church campaigns against certain marriages. If you use a religion to justify that your are not allowing others religious freedom. Pretty simple.

Joe,

When did I say, that others do not deserve religious freedom?  I simply said, that pressure is going to build up on those who do not want to host gay marriages or have objections to them, not just churches but individuals too.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

“How would you know about Jesus of the Gospels if it was not for the magisterium of Catholic/Orthodox churches that decided what books were inspired?”

there are others who read and interpret the bible. There are others who deserve religious freedom too not just catholics.

Joe,

If you read my earlier post I called this article unjust discrimination and pointless.

Joe,

How would you know about Jesus of the Gospels if it was not for the magisterium of Catholic/Orthodox churches that decided what books were inspired?

History like the Bible is a story of sin and redemption.

For the record I am in agreement about civil marriage, but people who disagree with you are citizens who have a right to express their views and petition their government.

My concern is that once this is the law of the land, they will come after the churches, like it’s happening in the U.K.

Will you take a stand then?

“or Christians truth is mediated through a person, Christ, and is encountered in history.”

Yet with catholics it’s the magisterium and quite a history it’s been indeed. 

“people get so emotional about a church they do not belong to.”

Well mostly when a church inserts its definitions of others into a political campaign. And they get so emotional about other people’s families. Even when a gay guy gets an acting job it’s grounds for a snarky article. I’m not sure what this has to do with your religion but anything to poke fun at I guess.

eness,

Pope Francis doesn’t think about doctrine as a set of absolute truths. In an open letter to an Italian intellectual and nonbeliever, Francis admitted his reluctance to speak of “absolute truth,” not because he was a “relativist” but because for Christians truth is mediated through a person, Christ, and is encountered in history.

In Christianity love is a person, not a concept or idea.

eness,

First of all, this post would qualify as unjust discrimination and is pointless.  It’s however interesting to see, how
people get so emotional about a church they do not belong to.

“Homosexuality as an identity - meaning it is inborn, normal and natural (at least to anyone who matters, and that now includes the majority)”
-
Prove it Jerry.  And seriously—“Anyone who matters”?  Can we say hubris?
-
“Before that, it was considered a “choice.”  But the scientific community learned the errors of its ways.”
-
Yeah, by having their meetings disrupted and their speakers shouted down.  Because tolerance.
-
That’s all, folks, for now anyway.  I’m tired.  Ciao.

Pat: regardless of what other silliness may be happening in this combox, I think a point can be made about calculatedly provocative titles.  It feels a little like a cheap trick, although admittedly one that works.
-
Typecasting is an unfortunate phenomenon and the bane of many an actor. It’s possible that this has to some extent happened with him (it is not just about how many or what genre of films you’re in, it’s also what average Joe or Jane *remembers* you being in).

Lisa: please accept correction, lovingly offered (and forgive me if this is a lengthy post).
-
1) I am aware that there are gay couples with children in their homes.  As a rule they cannot both be biological parents, unless by way of some highly experimental and probably prohibitively expensive technological intervention.  To say that *they* have biological children is a half-truth.
-
2) On Hell—what do you suppose Jesus was talking about when he spoke of a wide gate and a narrow one, or it being preferable to be maimed than enter “Gehenna”?  What of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in which Abraham tells the latter that he could not physically cross the boundary even if it was just to?  Does your Bible have those parts redacted? Strange!  ;)
-
3) “Fear of punishment should have no place in a loving relationship with God”
First of all, I have a mature relationship with my dad now, but when I was little, fear of punishment was precisely what kept me in line, safe, and happy—call it unsophisticated, but it worked, as it usually does with children.  At the same time, I never had a real, good reason to doubt his love.  The prodigal son is an appropriate passage here, as are the verses that tell us that whom God loves, God disciplines and chastises.
-
4) On Jesus not being Christian: well think about it, is Buddha a Buddhist?  I’m not sure it is possible for someone to be the worshipper and the object of worship at the same time. ;)  In all seriousness though, it is not hard to trace the origin of what we call the Catholic Church (even if it picked up that name later) biblically and historically straight back to the apostles and to Jesus himself.  He called Peter the “rock” upon whom he would build his church, to whom he would give “the keys to the kingdom.”  He instituted the Eucharist and conferred the authority to forgive sins in his name.
-
4B) To clarify your other point, the Church does not teach that no part of any other religion is true and good.  However, the Church has what we call the fullness of truth.  It’s like looking at a face and seeing only parts—nose, ears, lips—as opposed to seeing the whole face (there are some people who literally experience this problem; I love reading Dr. Sacks).  Also it is quite clear, biblically and logically, that being a “good person” is a minimum requirement.  One writer, I can’t remember who, put it well when he said “Should I imagine that heaven is reserved for mediocrity?”  We are not meant to be just “good people,” but saints!
-
5) On consent: one thing Jesus condemns very clearly and obviously is adultery.  What was his problem?  Did the Lord of the universe not   realize that whatever occurs between consenting adults is A-OK? ;)
-
6) On works of mercy: there are spiritual ones, not only corporal ones.  Among the spiritual works of mercy are instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner.  The others are cool too - you can find them online in Catholic Encyclopedia.
-
7) On Pope Francis: (as usual, I say this with a smile) you might want to read the whole interview, again more carefully if you have.  How could this be the same Pope Francis who excommunicated a dissident Australian priest?  And yet, it is the same man.  Mind = blown

JohnN: How good of you to concede that not *everyone* who reads the Register is a bigot—just most of them (based on “one or two” comments per thread, as you said)!  Sheesh.  Once again you are not here to argue in good faith. 
I will address one thing before pleading pearls before swine: Biden, Pelosi, etc. have been corrected abundantly.  They have rejected it.  Any harm done by the “unhealthy” idea of factions in the Church—which by the way is reality—will be eclipsed by the harm done to people who see that they can espouse the positions they do and get away with it.

Lisa,

Is there anything else you ever think about?  It’s like your obsessed.

Bravo to the State of Hawaii.  It is the 14th state to now legally recognize the right of gay people to marry.  The forces of love, justice, equality, inclusion, compassion continue to win and advance!  The haters continue to lose because their position IS based on hate, ignorance, irrational fear, bigotry. And because of that fact, they will continue to lose!

Although I prefer social engineers, I suppose propagandists is a good a word as any.  In the end however, social deconstructionists seems much more apt.

The propagandists are out in full force as usual.

@JohnN: I brought up Kievan Rus and all the others because you were claiming that Christian “persecution” of gays was not rare or of brief duration—I listed all the places whose laws you would have to know in order to generalize like that.
-
I’m sorry you didn’t understand that when you said “you are spouting nonsense in saying ‘the only places “gays” have been persecuted would be ... at certain (actually very few, and brief) periods of Christian history.’” that you were making this a discussion of the field “all of Christian history as it pertains to laws regarding homosexuality”.
-
I am sorry you do not understand that you can only generalize about fields you have general knowledge of, and I’m sorry that being told so offends you. Maybe if you don’t like being informed about your ignorance of relevant facts, do not challenge people’s factual assertions when you are entirely ignorant of the topic—or, as it appears, of what the topic in question IS.

I wrote: “Sexual promiscuity, whether homo or hetero, is physically and spiritually unhealthy. As with breast cancer, who was talking about Aids in 1960?  It wasn’t until the 80s, after all these anti sodomy laws were tossed and gays flocked to urban enclaves across the US where many indulged themselves to no end that Aids among other STDS surfaced among their populations.”
A relatively small, male population pool, living in close proximity to each other and having promiscuous and interchangeable anal sex with each other in “meat markets”  such as gay bath houses, bars, clubs, parks, etc. resulted in the Aids explosion. Just wanted to be left alone to “do their own thing. Well they did and gave the world Aids! The heteros that are getting Aids are drug addicts sharing needles or females from bi-males, but the great majority are male homosexuals.  Lesbians are far more monogamous and don’t exchange bodily fluids in the same way as gay males when they simulate the sex act. This what the CDC documents. The fact that the MSM doesn’t focus on this aspect of the “gay” lifestyle doesn’t mean it’s not true. Your argument is with the CDC not me. Science has proven that, not my mere opinion. What you expect me and other faithful Catholics to believe is more far fetched than me expecting you to believe that there are physically unhealthy and spiritual consequences in pursuing a “gay” lifestyle as well as any lifestyle engaging in sex outside of marriage.
For other posters slandering R/Cs faithful to Church teaching as “haters” or bigots”: Isn’t it kind of ironic since you don’t seem to believe in sin anyway, other than as a medieval superstition. In your “make it up as you go along world, anything goes”—so why are you playing pope with faithful R/Cs with your silly, whining name calling, supposedly chastising us from your nihilistic pulpit.
What it comes down to is that faithful R/Cs are not going to Hell for you or any others who want us to legitimize their sin and that includes hetero fornicators/adulterers as well. Thou shall not commit Adultery is God’s Law, and it is a mortal sin no matter who commits it.
Did I forget to mention that already in his recent papacy, Pope Francis has ordered the excommunication of an Australian priest (Fr. Greg Reynolds) who actively supported SSM and women’s ordination?
Happy All Saints (1Nov) and All Souls Day (2 Nov)!  Why don’t you take in The Exorcist tonight and experience for yourselves why a film such as The Exorcist still ranks as one of the all-time horror films despite being made back in 1973. It haunts many of today’s viewers for its basic premise that if demons do exist, then a spiritual underworld might also. And if Hell does exist, just who gets condemned there and why?

John N,

The push for gay marriage would not be so successful if the relationship between men and women was not already messed up with divorce, or out of wedlock children etc.

And to accept gay marriage one has to accept all the cultural changes that have taken place over the years, that reduces human relationships to selfish convieniance.

This isn’t a slippery slope. Social dysfunction has made it possible to make a rational argument for group marriages, since marriage is no longer about complimentary of the sexes, or children. Just wants works for adults.

Savvy:  How on earth does being gay or gay marriage relate to children and families with emotional or intellectual disabilities?  Perhaps you see a relationship that I don’t.  Perhaps you would explain it.  Further, when you start worrying about things like ‘group marriages’ in the future I can only guess that you also look for ghosts under your bed at night, just in case….. 
However, all of that being said, I congratulate you on the type of work that you are doing and which is such a service to mankind.  I only wish that I had the wherewithal emotionally to help.

JohnN,

I teach kids with learning and emotional problems.  Their family dysfunction and social dysfunction around them has a bigger impact on them, than their disability.

Gay marriage is a another result of this dysfunction. If two gays can get married, then why not group marriages too? Why discriminate against them?

When nobody can figure out what civil marriage is, this is the beginning of the end of it.

Short-terms solutions do fix long-term issues.

Savvy:  We keep reading that “this is the beginning of the end of civil marriage”.  I would suggest that gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening and probably will happen to conventional marriage.  First, we have widespread divorce -  in my subdivision of 25 homes only two of us are not divorced or remarried couples.  Divorce has a far bigger impact on conventional marriage than gay marriage could ever have.  Secondly, I have two siblings each with daughters who are now in their early 40s -  neither is married but both are living with men partners.  One has two children and no apparent plan to marry.  I understand there are many such partnerships today and the number is increasing.  This has nothing to do with gay marriage.  Thirdly, a recent report from my archdiocese tells me that the number of church marriages is down dramatically over the past 10 years despite population growth.  It would appear, therefore, that young people are shunning church marriages.  Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.  Why, then, do we think that gay marriage will create some end to regular marriage?  Regular marriage seems to be effectively killing itself off without help from gays.  Also, people seem to be getting together for love.  This love may be short lived -  but that is the reason for the original partnership and/or marriage.  Perhaps the same applies to gays of both sexes.  Why should we object to it?  As Thomas Jefferson famously said:  “If it does not pick my pocket nor break my leg…...”

Lisa,

You might be hopeful for baby boomers, but they are losing their influence in the church as much as the trads are. The old establishment on both sides is falling. The emerging church is young, and evangelical in style, but Catholic in substance and teaching.

Lisa,

The test of gay marriage supporters tolerance will be tested by how they treat those who disagree with them.

chris awo,

You are right, but civil marriage in the West has already changed. It’s not longer based on the natural law. And we were asleep all this time. What we can do now is make sure that they do not force their politics on sacramental marriage and not force people to act against their conscience.

Lisa,

Pope Francis is shaking up the left because he does not subscribe to their sexual politics.

He is calling the entire church to conversion.

Yes, Christianity in general has toyed with the right or the left, but official Catholicism is not both.

It’s not about our culture wars or politics.

Lisa,

He is shaking up the left because he does not subscribe to their sexual politics.

He is calling the entire church to conversion.

Savvy,

Marriage is not being reduced to a contract for tax purposes.  Gay people certainly do not see it that way.  Where do you get that idea???  That being said, why should gay people not be able to marry and have the same rights re taxes, pensions, Social Security, etc that straight people have???  Gay people pay taxes, pay into Social Security, pay into pension plans, etc. But please know that in American civil law and in the law of all Western nations, marriage IS a legal contract.  That is why it take a civil legal action, a divorce, to terminate the contract.  And marriage as a legal contract is an ancient concept.

Gay people being able to marry does not “reduce” marriage in any way and does not create marriage as a contract.  For much of human history marriage has been considered a legal contract.

You may reject the “heresy” of left and right Christianity.  That rejection does not change the reality that the RCC and christianity generally has polarized into left and right. 

Savvy, i acknowledge that sometimes Christians will have to live in societies that condone moral evil. But we must never fail to make it clear where we stand on these issues even when we lack the political wherewithal to abrogate such moral evils. We must not condone even the so-called civil unions if it implies in any way the acceptance of homosexual acts.
We might not be able to do anything about them but as Catholics (Christians) we must never accept these abominations.

Jerry,

American citizens who disagree with you have rights too. They have as much of a right to petition their government and lobby like you do. Are you saying that people who disagree with you have no rights?

This is the beginning of the end of civil marriage, since marriage is now reduced to a contract for tax purposes.

BTW, I am not a conservative or a liberal, but like Pope Francis, I reject the heresy of politicized Christianity right or left.

Savvy,

the pope is certainly shaking up the right.  Not certain he is shaking up the left.  And I agree, he is not a PC pope, and I agree that he wants the RCC and RCs to focus on the Torah values that Jesus taught—loving God, loving neighbor, taking care of the poor.  And none of that is easy, its hard!  The feel good stuff is for Joel Osteen.

Don’t count us baby boomers out just yet—there are a lot of us, many of us are not yet 60 (the new 30!) and still have decades to live!

Lisa Kaiser,

The church is not right or left. Pope Francis is shaking up the left as much as he’s shaking up the right.

The Reporter does not represent the church, anymore than the people who want the Pope replaced do.

There is a church outside of both trads and liberals, who are both growing old.

“Pope Francis is not a politically-correct pope,” rather, he is “a
loyal son of the church” who presents the hard truths with a heavy dose of
mercy, said Greg Burke, senior communications adviser to the Vatican’s
Secretariat of State.

The former U.S. journalist, who’s been based in Rome the past 25 years,
gave a behind-the-scenes talk last week to hundreds of benefactors
celebrating the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Patrons of the Arts
in the Vatican Museums.

Francis scores the goals.” “We let the pope do his
thing.”

He said Pope Francis clearly knows how to communicate and his effectiveness
comes from his authenticity.

“It’s not charm. It’s Christian charity, which is a whole lot more
attractive than charm.”

He also said “Pope Francis is not a politically-correct pope, in my
opinion.”

There’s been a lot of spin in the press about what the pope has been
saying, but “I believe the pope wants to get beyond left and right” by
getting people to focus on the Gospels, on God and his truth and mercy.

“He’s a loyal son of the church” who sees its task as being like “a
field hospital” that runs to and helps people who are hurting, he said.

The pope is not advocating a “feel-good” religion of “I’m
OK-you’re OK-Catholicism,” but talks about the truth of the Gospel that
includes mercy and forgiveness.

“The Gospel is not there to make us feel good. The Gospel is there and
makes very practical demands on us,” and one of those demands is to
“tell people the truth and walk with them to the Lord,” Burke said.

Burke said, “the pope’s picture should have one of those warning
labels” on it, much like a pack of cigarettes does, but with the words:
“Danger: This man could change your life.”

http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/de-coding-francis-vatican-media-adviser-offers-10-things-to-know/

John N,

The church has been divided for a long time. This is just coming out in the open now. The issue is those proposing changes are doing so on a political basis or one based on appeal to popularity. Their views have no theological basis.

I aso do not think as a boomer, you can speak for my generation. We do not want a church that is rigid, but we also do not want a feel good one.

We want one that is real and authentic.

While conservatives have a tendency to give into clericalism, and not see beyond it, liberals have one that seeks to destroy all authority.

Us Vs them, is the work of a destructive spirit whether it pits laity against each other or clergy against laity. To think with the mind of the church includes both in union.

JohnN,

I do read the Reporter—which gives me some hope for the RCC.

And yes, you are so right about right-wing RCs and the Pope!!  Francis seems to be making a lot of the right wing (laity and clergy) RCs uncomfortable with all his talk about Jesus and taking care of the poor—instead of beating up on women and gay people!

Lisakaiser:  Again, as a catholic of many, many decades, I agree with you.  But much of what we see here is confined to the contributors to the NC REGISTER and, of course, to the bishops who, because of career opportunities, have to follow the ‘party line’.  There are other catholic publications, such as the NC REPORTER, where one finds reasonable people representing the bulk of the Catholics.  One of the things that intrigues me about the contributors to the NC REGISTER is that for a very long time they have insisted on obedience to the Pope, which is a standard element of Catholic teaching, but now, with a new Pope, there is criticism of the Pope and even sometimes a call for yet another, replacement Pope!!  We do see the right wing here.

JohN,

The idea that gay men exist and that gay men have sex seems to be an obsession with some straight men (and it seems to frighten them!) and it is certainly a theme with some of the men who comment on Register comment threads. 

I am not certain why such men feel the private sexual lives of other people are any of their business, why they feel they have the right to judge, why they feel the need to condemn what goes on between consenting adults.  A lot of right-wing RCs (laity and clergy) seem to be obsessed with sex and with oppressing and hating women and gay people.  Its just weird.  Weird because in the reading the gospels, Jesus does not spend much, if any time, on these topics.  Jesus talks about loving God, loving each other, taking care of the poor, doing what have come to be called the corporal works of mercy. Right wing RCs are just all about the “pelvic politics”.  Perhaps they have not read the gospels.

In addition, mainstream RCs support marriage equality, support the use of birth control, support a woman’s right to choose. Even the Pope has asked teh RCC to move on to to other things—like loving God, loving each other and taking care of the poor (hmmm, where did he come up with idea???) So the right-wingers have even lost the internal debate.

Mike:  You report un unhealthy sex seems to indicate that you perhaps have an unhealthy mind.  Lesbians do not seem to suffer the problems that you list.  Homosexuals have existed for thousands of years (just look into the Bible, for example) and are nothing new -  AIDS was unknown before the 1970s because it was indeed unknown, despite homosexuals being around for thousands of years, and it is not confined just to homosexuals. And don’t forget the illnesses that heterosexual people get which, until modern times, also resulted in nasty deaths. Your comments about homosexual people having numerous partners is, first, grossly overstated, and, secondly, is no different to what happens in the heterosexual community - just check with Mr. Berlusconi or Magic Johnson or Hugh Hefner.  The sexual performance of King Henry VIII or Louis XIV might also impress you.

Posted by savvy on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 8:49 PM (EDT):Jerry,

Tom hit the nail on the head. Homosexuality as an identity is a recent concept.
* * *
Yes, you and Tom (I didn’t read his post) are right.  Homosexuality as an identity - meaning it is inborn, normal and natural (at least to anyone who matters, and that now includes the majority) - is a “new” concept, meaning it has been accepted at truth for the past 40 years.  Before that, it was considered a “choice.”  But the scientific community learned the errors of its ways.  There was a time when being left-handed was considered a “choice.”  I recall the days when the good sisters in parochial school would whip the hands of south-paws because being right-handed was “normal” and composing with the left was viewed a a wrongful “choice.”  People like you and Tom (again, I didn’t read what he wrote) want to live in the “good-old-days” of sexual identity being a matter of choice beyond the “normality” of heterosexuality.  I don’t know you, savvy.  Maybe you also believe it is inbred rather than a choice, but I imagine with you being a conservative Catholic, you would view it as “disordered.”  Okay, fine, view it as such.  I view anyone like you who makes the choice to believe in gods and other sundry things as superstitious nonsense.  Believing in that stuff is a choice - you weren’t born believing it - you chose it.  I don’t know the circumstances of why you did but if it helps you then more power to you.  The thing is, savvy, keep it to yourself.  Don’t tell me who I can or can’t marry or exercise any other civil or constitutional right because of it.  I don’t care what your god thinks.  If it has a problem with two gay men or two lesbian women marrying in a secular nation, then let it deal with that problem.  It doesn’t impact you one iota.  You let your god deal with its own insecurities and if it demands that you work to deny or destroy my civil and constitutional rights then you and I got a problem.  How would you like it if I said you conservative Catholics should not be allowed to be married?  Oh, then you’d scream “religious liberty!” 

lisakaiser:  A very good commentary.  I, too, was wondering why some of those writers here, presumably men, seem to think that homosexuality is restricted to men.  Billy Jean King and Navratalova come to mind as prominent female representatives.  I also know two young women friends who married a few years ago in Canada and are now raising two adopted children in a very happy family.  We wish them well.

What a silly article from pat Archbold.  He must have bored one day or wanted some attention or wanted to stir the pot re the RCC and gay people.

First all Sean Hayes has played straight men in movies.  Secondly he is the executive producer of Hot in Cleveland ( sitcom on the TVLand channel).

As per usual, there are lot of ill-informed comments about gay people. Curiously, the hateful comments about gay people are all about gay men.  The RC haters of gay people do not seem to realize that there are gay women in the world (who by the way have the lowest incidence of STDs—lower than straight people, lower than gay men).  So it seems being a gay woman is a good thing!  Also, the RC haters of gay people do not seem to realize that many gay people are parents, have biological children.  Gay parents have straight and gay children, straight parents have gay and straight children. 

The RC haters of gay people seem to really focus in on hell—as it it were real!!!!  Hell is just superstition, something the hierarchy hopes the ignorant and gullible will believe so they will pay and obey!  Also, if you have to be frightened of hell to live a good life, then your faith must be really weak.  One lives in relationship with God because God love us, because it is the right thing to do.  Fear of punishment should have no place in a loving relationship with God.

Also, the RC haters of gay people, are all about imposing RCism on everyone.  God is the God of diversity (just look at God’s creation/god’s ongoing creating).  God’s love and grace are given freely to all—not just RCs.  One odes have to be RC to be a good person,l to be loved by God, to live in relationship with God.  Jesus was not RC or even Christian.

Savvy:  First, I agree that all the traditional organized churches are losing members, some faster even than the Catholic Church.  And, indeed, at least one that has accepted female priests and gay marriage is losing perhaps faster than anyone.  My ‘solution’ is not that we should just accept female priests and gay marriage and contraception since any sudden change in those doctrines/dogmas would in itself cause consternation and trouble.  Many of the contributors to the NC REHISTER, for example, would have heart failure.  My suggestion, not a ‘solution’ since that is too broad a word, is that the Church and the contributors to NC REGISTER should drop the ‘obsession’ with these items (as mentioned by Pope Francis) and not propose and discuss them so vehemently and try and make the Church more welcoming, including accepting (without suddenly putting out a joyous welcoming mat!) gays, etc.  They are part of our community and making life difficult for them or failure to say ‘please come to our church, we want to see you there’ gives the Church a rather grim and rejecting face.  The current fight against contraception in the health care plan despite its obvious use by so many Catholics is just one example of the face of the Church not even being in synch with many in the pews.  The next thing that occurs to me is that religious groups that are prospering, even though they represent only a small subset of the population, are the mega-churches and the TV ‘churches’.  Even many ex-Catholics participate in these.  They tend to make their service more interesting and have enjoyable speakers -  something that few Catholic priests can emulate.  They still espouse some of the Catholic opinions on abortion and contraception, etc. but these matters do not take such a high profile.  The bottom line for me is that people today do not want to listen to ‘rules’ and admonitions about Hell -  they want to be encouraged and made to feel a part of an inclusive social environment.  Finally, we see here in the NC REGISTER too many writers demeaning other Catholics who, they believe, are not catholic enough for their tastes.  This includes demeaning many of our politicians such as Biden/Pelosi/etc.  If the public which includes people who are lapsed Catholics or perhaps suspicious of Catholicism sees these Catholics being demeaned by other Catholics this leaves the unhealthy impression that Catholics are divided among themselves -  which we are today.  We live in a world where personal freedom (hedonism, if you will) has become paramount and inter-personal communications allow ideas and information to be spread rapidly and group friendships to be formed remotely without knowledge of homosexuality or of religious beliefs even being an initial part of that relationship.  We cannot change that set-up.  Let us live with it, make use of it and be a part of it.

Sodomy results in death. If not Aids a weakened immune system that can lead to other diseases that can hasten death. That’s from the CDC.  Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that it violates the divinely created natural law, it is a mortal sin, and that the wages of sin lead to spiritual death. So just who’s persecuting who when anal sexers (and the heteros among them as well) just might be giving each other a death sentence every time they get the urge to pursue this unhealthy (CDC) and sinful (Catholic Church) inclination. Let’s not forget that the CDC also tells us the typical person with Aids is a promiscuous male homosexual who has had scores if not hundreds of sexual partners. Sexual promiscuity, whether homo or hetero, is physically and spiritually unhealthy. As with breast cancer, who was talking about Aids in 1960?  It wasn’t until the 80s, after all these anti sodomy laws were tossed and gays flocked to urban enclaves across the US where many indulged themselves to no end that Aids among other STDS surfaced among their populations.

chris awo,

I was okay with civil gay marriage on the grounds that it was a civil issue, but would not tolerate the church accepting it, because there is no theological basis for it.

Now, it seems to be that this fight is not going to stop with civil marriage. They want to force their politics on everybody.

JohnN,

The entirety of the Catholic community, is not just American, is my point. The church is not governed by the latest poll.

As for people leaving, churches that have accepted gay marriage like the TEC, are in rapid decline in the Western World. Your solutions are not working, in keeping pews full.

What’s going to help is getting back to the basic Christian message, that we are all sinners in need of redemption, as opposed to endless arguments on culture wars or politics on both sides.

This is what Pope Francis, means by obsession.

  Hi Q,

  Please elaborate.

  Thank you!

Rich,
Your assertin is absurd .

If it is desire—rather than biological complementarity between those who have reached the age of puberty –- that is the cornerstone and fundamental condition for marriage, is it not discriminatory to exclude anyone whose desire is different from your own?

Jesus welcomes us all provided we approach him the a spirit of humility; a spirit of repentance and a spirit of penance. Because as king David said,
“the fear of the Lord is holy, it will last forever” and he also said, “who can see his own errors?” (cf Psalm 19)
In other words the pro-gay crowd should acknowledge, at least, that they may be wrong. Therefore their prayer every day should be - O Lord keep me away from sins of ignorance; keep me away from sins of presumption; lead me along the right path according to your holy will. May every sexual desire not according to your holy will be destroyed in Jesus’ name.
This is the way of the people who love the Lord Jesus

chris awo:  Chris, for thousands of years the prophets of doom have been forecasting disaster based upon their view of the then current state of morality.  The prophets in the Bible never left the subject over 1,500 years and yet the Jews have still survived and 2,000 years ago Cicero gave his famous speech “O tempora! O mores!” but the Romans lasted another 450 years.  I think we will survive and, who knows, Jesus may well welcome us all (or perhaps just you).

It was the Lord Jesus himself who said, “many are called but few are chosen” (cf Matthew 22 v 14)

JohnN, if the same-sex marriage train has left the station then it is heading for only one place : the precipice. All sensible people should jump off, NOW.

Tonguetied, most of the negative comments are coming from people who oppose homosexuality. Please read Tom in Az’s comments, because you are the one being ignorant of the situation. Your comments are disgusting. this is a Catholic page. Your comments do not reflect respect at all.

A perfectly innocuous article that cogently asks a valid and compelling question; Is This All Gays Are Good For?

What response do we see from the gay crowd?  You’re hostile, you’re judging, homophobe!

Certainly there is a disconnect between how homosexuals are portrayed as witty and affable in Hollywood, on TV and in the media.  The truth is, all I experience in reality is negativity, abuse, and hostility.

More and more, I have no other choice than to conclude, contrary to the fictional media portrayal, is that in reality, the only things gays may be good for is negativity, abuse and hostility.

As a follow-up to my previous post, we frequently read in these columns criticism of ‘liberal priests’ and of priests ‘since Vatican II’ who do not preach against homosexuality and, as a result, it is said, the congregations have not ‘got the message’.  But another question that might be asked, instead of attributing this to ‘liberal priests’, is why priests have not taken the more determined route advocated by Chris Awo on this subject.  It could well be that the priests in dealing with their local flock realize only two well that people are leaving the Church and that this type of fiery sermon, while it might please Chris Awo, could well contribute to even more people leaving.  Where would that leave the Church?  It would indeed be smaller as the previous Pope once suggested.

Chris Awo:  We hear your statement repeatedly that the Church needs to state its position more firmly -  basically so as to frighten people to change their ways so as to be in communion with the beliefs of the Church.  But, Chris, who is going to listen to that and, among those who do listen, how many will believe it as opposed to those who will just shake their heads and move on to other things?  Feelings and attitudes to homosexuality have changed over the years and gays now get acceptance and do not have to hide away -  just ask Senator Portman or Mr Cheney or even Mr Gingrich all of whom now keep quiet on the subject.  Do you think those three gentlemen are seriously going to tell their children or siblings that they are definitely going to Hell?  People are now beyond being frightened by other people, such as you or some bishop, saying that they are doomed to Hell.  The threat has become meaningless however much you believe it.  Accordingly, I would suggest that getting the Church to state its position more firmly is just like preaching to the choir.  As I said in some other posting, the gay acceptance/gay marriage train has already left the station.  Quit wasting breath running after it!!

Enough of the culture wars.
The real issue is we Catholics have not stated clearly, and insistently enough, what will happen to practicing gays who don’t repent. It is one thing to be a sinner struggling to overcome sin, it is another to be in denial about the sinful nature of homosexual acts, and it is worse to set out to change or obfuscate God’s laws about homosexuality.
The fact is anyone who does not get on his knees, repent his sins (daily if necessary, and it is more often than not necessary) and ask for forgiveness in the name of the Lord Jesus is done for and headed for a very unpleasant place.
[P.S. that includes all of us - we are all sinners.] For example, St Augustine of Hippo spent his last days praying the penitential psalms of David.
Catholics have to begin to tell people very clearly the consequences of not having the spirit of repentance when it comes to sin.
We should preach with a nice smile and a soft voice, but carry a big stick. That big stick signifies where no Catholic should be and is where no Catholic wants his fellow men to be.

Tom in Az:  Tom, you have an awful lot of words and seem to want to ramble all over the outskirts of the world.  If you want to use the “Kievan Rus’ to prove some point here -  good luck to you.  The issue is whether the gays suffered persecution and we may as well focus on the western world which is the home of Catholicism and the Christian religions.  Of course they suffered persecution.  In the U.K., for example, Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for homosexuality in 1897 and Alan Turing, the man who led the U.K. based wartime code breaking group, was prosecuted for the same offense in 1957.  The law allowing prosecution for homosexuality in the U.K. was not repealed until 1967.  In the USA thirty states had laws allowing prosecution for homosexuality until 2003 when they were all repealed by the Supreme Court as a result of the Texas case.  How on earth can any intelligent being suggest gays were not persecuted when places like England and much of the USA had laws on the books allowing prosecution and imprisonment for homosexuality?  Surely the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for a personal and private action is persecution?  Ramble all over the world as much as you like, Tom in AZ, but focus upon what we can see and experience within our own lifespans.

By they way-
why is it not worthy of a catholic column when a thirty something heterosexual actress goes from one sitcom playing a thirty something heterosexual woman to another sitcom playing another thirty something heterosexual woman?

Is this just to poke at gays?

“Thoughts lead to actions lead to habits lead to character.  And whether you are an atheist or a Christian, it is clear that “gays” are prone to depression, STDs, and a deficit of progeny.  Not a good path.
But the worst thing they do is teach the young to be their catmites. “

Wow
that’s loaded. and a flaming slur. If this is how you treat your gay children it’s no wonder they have problems.
I’m amazed what people say and call Christian.

@JohnN: As I said “actually very few, and brief periods in Christian history”, in what way is your SINGLE example contradictory? Firstly, I said “few and brief”, not “long ago”, so how does the recentness of the case constitute me “spouting nonsense”—or have any other relevance to my point, which had nothing to do with remoteness in time? Besides, you are aware that the first anti-sodomy statute in the US dates from 1827? 176 years is not a long time relative to the history of Christianity. And the one in question in the case you cite dated only from 1973—it was only 30 years old when it was struck down in 2003. 30 years is brief even by the standards of Americans, who think “beyond living memory”=“ancient history”.
-
And seriously, you are obviously an American who thinks your country’s quaint local customs constitute the entire patrimony of the West. Tell me, do you know what the laws regarding homosexuality were in medieval English Common Law, or the law of the Saxons prior to the conquest? How about French Common Law, or the Civil Law Philip IV replaced it with? Do you know what they were in the Civil Law of the Holy Roman Empire? What about in the laws of the Apostolic Kingdom of the Magyars? How about Byzantium? What about Kievan Rus? Among the Maronites, Copts, Chaldeans, Serbs, Bulgars—assuming they lived by their own laws and not those of their Turkish conquerors? Quickly, tell me what were the laws regarding homosexuality among the Spanish, the Basques, the Italian city-states, Christian Scandinavia, the Four Kingdoms of Ireland.
-
All of that, of course, leaves to one side the question you are begging—do laws against sodomy, which do not result in death, constitute “persecution”? The Mexica garrotted lesbians and rectally disemboweled gays. The Jews and Muslims stoned both. That is my criterion for “persecution”. Laws against a form of mutual masturbation that accomplishes nothing but colonic trauma and the spread of disease do not constitute, on their own, “persecution”, unless the penalties they impose are over-drastic—especially since many laws against sodomy were laws against all sodomy, regardless of the sex of the “passive” partner (the one that was replaced by the law struck down by Lawrence, for example—they changed the law to a ban on homosexuality to let heterosexuals enjoy bowel trauma and massively elevated risk for STDs).

Exactly JohnN. It’s absolutely disgusting. On both this site and others, I’ve seen authors of articles respond to comments they support, or attack ones that offer differing views. When people stand up to the bigotry expressed in some of the comments, the authors don’t say anything. This always happens, and I mention it to many people. It is clear where they personally stand on LGBT people. They say that they care, yet they don’t do anything to combat discrimination and untrue remarks.

Savvy:  You challenge my statement about the hostility to homosexuality and gay marriage being irrelevant to most in the Catholic community.  Polling seems to show that Catholics split on this subject in the same way as the US population at large.  Since even 60 million of the 77 million reported Catholics in the USA do not even bother to go to Mass on any regular basis the polls are not hard to believe.  I appreciate that a majority of the readers of the Register will probably be against homosexuality and gay marriage -  but they represent a very small portion of the Catholics in the country and even of the Catholics who do attend Mass.

Pat Archbold:  In my original comment this morning I said that some of the comments published in the REGISTER are “straightforwardly bigoted”.  Just look at some of the comments in this thread.  Are not the attitudes expressed here the attitudes that are diminishing the Church in the eyes of the world, particularly in the eyes of the young?

Mark, it’s pretty clear that his word choice was very poor. He should have said that it would be more enjoyable to see Hayes play various roles other than a gay man in a sitcom. That would have been sufficient. Pat went further, so I’m afraid you are the one who is misunderstanding the situation.

Tom in AZ:  Again, Tom, you are spouting nonsense in saying “the only places “gays” have been persecuted would be the Islamic world, among the Mexica (“Aztecs”), among the ancient Jews, and at certain (actually very few, and brief) periods of Christian history.”

How about the gays arrested in their private bedroom in Texas?  That was in VERY modern times.  Texas law had to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

If gays stop paying to have (overwhelmingly poor) women treated like brood-sows by the surrogacy industry, stop stripping the follicles from (overwhelmingly poor) women’s ovaries for IVF, stop funding the creation and destruction of hundreds of embryos in laboratories so they get the one that meets their “consumer preferences”, stop forcing surrogate mothers to abort children when they change their minds about wanting the child they PURCHASED—then I will stop referring to you as “slave-trading butchers”, because when you stop slave-trading and butchery, then obviously the term will no longer apply.

Pat’s article was very well said, but from the comments one infers few people understood him.

Jerry,

BTW, my statement was not about what the majority thinks, but it was a response to JOHN N on how the church does and what constitutes its majority, that he seems to be misrepresenting.

Jerry,

Tom hit the nail on the head. Homosexuality as an identity is a recent concept.

@Tom in Az

“...you slave-trading butchers have no right to act self-righteous to anyone.”

Wow, someone’s pretty biased against gay people. Such a lovely catholic response…

Sean actually did some straight roles - his best was as Jerry Lewis in a TV movie.  He was spot-on perfect for that role.

“Eons of persecution”? Actually, Jerry, granting for the moment that all who commit homosexual acts count as “gay” by the modern definition (which is by no means certain, the idea of “homosexual identity” is late-19th century and virtually unknown outside Western Europe till well into the 20th), the only places “gays” have been persecuted would be the Islamic world, among the Mexica (“Aztecs”), among the ancient Jews, and at certain (actually very few, and brief) periods of Christian history.
-
Meanwhile, homosexual acts (again, leaving the question of whether that constitutes a “gay” identity) have been considered prestigious by the ruling class in ancient Anatolia, some of the Canaanite cultures, ancient Greece, ancient Rome under Greek influence, Neo-Confucian China, Japan and Korea under Chinese influence, and among the Postclassic Maya. All of those civilizations except the Maya valued homosexual relationships EXPLICITLY because they were misogynists—why would you want to be in love with a “mere” woman?—and the Maya so their aristocracy’s teenage sons could sexually abuse their slaves without producing potentially troublesome illegitimate heirs.
-
People who engaged in homosexuality have indeed been involved in a great deal of persecution…but they’ve mostly been the ones inflicting it, on women and slaves. And given the involvement of modern gay couples with third-world surrogacy (which is almost always tantamount to human trafficking), you slave-trading butchers have no right to act self-righteous to anyone.

Thank you for this article! Funny how the ones who are promoting gay culture are the very ones who relegate homosexuals into a certain stereotype and therefore are limiting their potential. A person is more than his sexuality and to be obsessed and equate one’s personhood with his sexuality is a perversion of the proper ordering of things.

†
If this doesn’t make it clear that TV is a vehicle for Satan’s memes, I don’t know what does.  Anyone who lets his kids watch TV is guilty of abuse. 
†

A catamite is the one who “plays the woman” in the disgusting act by which buggerers define themselves.

Gay is as gay does.  The “gay” became that way because he opened himself up to sin.  One sin, building upon another from childhood through pubescence creates an edifice of depravity.  Thoughts lead to actions lead to habits lead to character.  And whether you are an atheist or a Christian, it is clear that “gays” are prone to depression, STDs, and a deficit of progeny.  Not a good path. 

But the worst thing they do is teach the young to be their catmites.  This is double depravity. 

May God change their hearts. 

†

We gays have become a “powerful minority,” savvy - that’s true.  Finally, we’ve become powerful after eons of persecution.  We’re claiming our rights and are convincing people that we are not “perverts,” “child-molesters,” “security threats,” or, as your religion states, “disordered.”  Now the powerful majority are agreeing.  You are being pushed out of the majority.  Does that frighten you?  Good - it should.

mort salzburger,

I agree!!

What an absurd article. The fuzzy reporting of one person’s experience it touted as what an entire group of people is “good for”? All the nonsense and irrational hysterics are why the rest of the world thinks we catholics are looney. Learn to make a real argument.  A helpful argument. Otherwise be quiet. It is more helpful.

JohnN ,

Appeal to popularity does not work on moral truths, and sensus fidelium is universal agreement on these issues by both clergy and laity. So you are wrong, that this is irrelevant in the Catholic community. It’s more like it’s a powerful, minority that is pushing this.

As one commenter poster, Mr Hayes has been producing when not acting. That is fine, but I think there is more to what Mr Archbold is presenting here. 
In Will and Grace, Mr Hayes was paired with Eric McCormack, a straight actor (married for 16 years to his wife Janet) who played a gay man. This gets to Mr Archbold’s point, Mr Hayes can only play gay male roles. His talented is limited where as actors such as McCormack or Eric Stonestreet (Cam in Modern Family) play convincing gay men all while being straight in real life.
Convincing others that you are something than you really are takes talent. To demonstrate his acting talent, Mr Hayes would be better served by taking on some straight roles and convincing those skeptical of his talent that he does have some depth. 

JD:  Are you perhaps suggesting that “same sex marriage” has nothing to do with homosexuals?  I always thought the two were closely related!!  Then, of course, your final words (i.e., Two men marrying each other is absurd, whether they are gay or not.) illustrate an opinion that is now irrelevant in much of the western world, including much of the USA and even within most of the Catholic community apparently.  But, of course, it is your opinion.

“Funny thing, Catholics, who are routinely accused of being anti-gay are taught to see the whole person and to avoid unjust discrimination against those with same-sex attraction.”

While the catechism states this, it’s not often practiced. Where was Cardinal Dolan this summer when there were several assaults on gay people in NYC this summer? He made public press statements against gay marriage when it was put to a vote, but nothing to condemn anti-gay hate crime. It’s pretty disgusting to say that the Catholic Church does care, when its officials don’t.

“....the original adverts for the show did not present his single father character as a gay man and I wanted to see him without all the flamboyant accoutrement. But it quickly became clear that his character was also gay. I was disappointed.” Seriously? you were disappointed because he was playing a gay man?

by the way
why does the author ignore Hayes’ producing credits. If you look at his IMDB page he’s been working quite a lot.

“Is this all gays are good for?”

You church has not left very much for gays to participate in.
“Funny thing, Catholics, who are routinely accused of being anti-gay are taught to see the whole person and to avoid unjust discrimination against those with same-sex attraction.”
I don’t recall networks claiming that gays are gravely disordered toward and a threat to society. If that’s what you call “seeing the whole person” I’d rather have cliche humor (hetero or homo-both happen) on a TV I can change channels any day.

Interesting column, Pat.  Maybe Hollywood is only interested in the homosexual lifestyle, and doesn’t care about the actual individual person.  The popes, the church, teach about the difference between the lifestyle and the person.  There is a genuine and recognizable distinction between the two (someone said sin and sinner).  Also, the disagreement with Amazon (is it Amazon or Jeff Bezos or both?  is there a distinction?) is about supporting same-sex marriage.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality or homosexuals, directly.  (i.e., Two men marrying each other is absurd, whether they are gay or not.)

Pat:  You say “Hollywood could learn a lot from the Catholic Church.”  What, exactly, do you expect Hollywood to learn?  Don’t forget your audience is not the ‘Catholic Church”  -  it is the readers of and the commentators in the NC REGISTER and judging by so many of the articles and comments that we read here many of these people (but not all) are homophobes.  Yesterday your colleague Sarah Reinhard wrote a rather childish article basically promoting a campaign against buying from Amazon because that company supported the gays.  She got immediate support.  One or two of the comments, however, were straightforwardly bigoted, as they fairly often are elsewhere in the columns of the REGISTER.  Accordingly, what message, Pat, should Hollywood take from the NC REGISTER?  Don’t forget that this actor apparently had a good and presumably profitable time in a past series and now Hollywood has given him another.  Is that good or bad?  What would the Catholic Church or many of the readers of these columns do with a “gay”, even a stage one?  Teachers at Catholic schools, for example, are being fired for being gay.  And please do not launch the canard about the difference between the ‘sinner’ and the ‘sin’  -  how do we know the one without the other?

Wow!!! A blog on the topic of gays this late in the day and no one has responded; not even the defenders of all things gay? Perhaps the the central theme is far too poignant to those who see any and all gays as only gay, nothing more, nothing deeper, just tools for the gay agenda.