This isn’t about not treating them the way they desire. This is about failing to treat them the way the Catholic Church requires us to.

And yes, people are dying. ISIS has been executing people on accusations of being gay, too. Is it “keeping a balance” to only acknowledge one of the varieties of people they’re murdering and not others? If the murders of Christians is relevant (which it is), then the murder of gay people by the very same organization is equally relevant, isn’t it?

Florian, there is an expression about “Beating a dead horse!”  In other words, haven’t we hashed this particular topic to pulp!  Isn’t the “bottom line” what we read in the CCC #2357-59—quoted more than once in the Comments—clear? Yes, Seems to me ‘tis time to put this topic to rest.  (I’ve stopped posting—and reading for the most part, but for this…Bye!

@Malachi

I do not see discrimination against gays in my community so it is not of great natural concern to me as it is to you evidently since you seem to see it everywhere.  I DO see real misrepresentation about the true teachings of the church with respect to the gay community in our media however.
My greater concern in terms of discrimination is with the disparagement of the RCC by members of the gay community and the homophile media in portraying the RCC as discriminatory against gays for its failure to embrace gay marriage and objectively mentally disordered sexual behaviors.  How do YOU demonstrate against the false witness applied to the church by the media and by the gay community is the question I was getting at?  Who do you take to task in that culture in the same way you do the RCC in representing generalized discrimination against gays?
You can only show those around you, a small audience, that you do not discriminate against gays (the people I know already do that) but how do you address the larger gay community that it is abusing the church by its failure to mention that the church actually requires fair treatment of everyone.  How do you correct the obvious damage that has been done to the RCC in the homophile world.  Dwell for a while on the abuse the church gets from the misrepresentation of the media and members of the gay community.
I was asking you (and not asserting you do either way) to clarify whether YOU feel opposition to gay marriage and sexual behavior is in any way discriminatory against gays because that is what is being presented in the larger homophile community.  I would expect that you would be just as impassioned in defending the church from that ignorance and misrepresentation as you are in asserting that members of the RCC regularly discriminate against gays out of ignorance of their own church’s teachings?
My concern is with the condition of the poor, disabled, and downtrodden since the gay community appears to be thriving quite well at this time. The former are being fleeced by the later which seeks spousal “marriage” benefits.  Those benefits are paid for with taxes and through the living costs of the poor to provide gays with an economic nest feathering.  How about saddling up and charging out against that mistreatment?

Feb. 6th…you know I wish we could get off this topic about gays being treated badly, not with the respect and affirmation they desire.  People are dying, a 26 year old Jordanian pilot was set on fire and the act of barbarism was filmed so his parents and loved ones could watch, could hear his screams of agony!  ISIS continues on the march, beheading, raping, burying alive little children - targeting Christian children who refuse to deny Jesus though threatened with death…when they refuse, they are butchered in front of their parents…let’s try to keep a balance here.

I figured I should reply to the last sentence separately, since it evidently needs dramatically more emphasis. Notably this is exactly the paragraph I was saying so many times does not get taught enough to Catholics, so the fact that it isn’t as fresh and clear in everyone’s mind as the part about homosexuality being intrinsically disordered (which is on the SAME PAGE of the Catechism I might add) demonstrates precisely the inconsistent education on the subject I was calling out.
But here it is, copy/pasted directly from the Vatican online copy of the Catechism (including the paragraph number so you can easily look it up yourself in your home copy):
“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
The number of Catholics who are totally unaware of the third and fourth sentences of that paragraph is unacceptable.
-
And don’t think I didn’t notice your attempt to subtly change the meaning of what I said to something you would have an easier time replying to. I’m only defending my actual statements, not the ones you feel like attributing to me.
You were criticizing my choice to frame the argument particularly around how gay people should be treated. I pointed out the Catechism does exactly that same thing and I was actually choosing that approach BECAUSE of the Catechism.
Then you tried to move the goalposts so you could claim I was somehow saying non-gay people shouldn’t be treated with as much respect, etc. after I reply.
But sorry, that ain’t gonna work. I am still referring specifically to the framing of the education even if you want to change it to what is being said IN that education.

Dryden01,
Not only did I never claim that those assertions are never made, I clearly said I disagree with such assertions and already explained how I try to teach them otherwise.
-
But I’ll say it again. I teach them by SHOWING rather than telling. I show them that I don’t engage in unjust discrimination. I show them I disapprove of unjust discrimination. I show them that we actively rebuke other Catholics that engage in or do not object to unjust discrimination.
And I know they can see it when I do it because I don’t make the kinds of disrespectful arguments that make gay people stop listening. I respect them enough to listen to their concerns first as a show of good faith, too.
-
We don’t need the media to teach everyone about the true nature of Church teachings. If we’re living them, they will see it for themselves. If we’re ensuring all of our own are fully educated on the subject and acting properly on that knowledge, any false claims will be just as blatantly ludicrous as the claims all Catholics are satan worshipers. Sure some conspiracy theorists will believe what they want, but we can’t force them to see reality anyway.
-
Here’s the thing, about those anecdotes, though… all of mine were from different people in the same community. A community I don’t even have that much interaction with. But when I do talk to them, almost all of them have a similar story of some kind.
And when we are talking about injustice, even one instance is unconscionable.
But hey, I would provide you some statistics, except that where I live, a majority of forms of unjust discrimination don’t actually have laws against them. Given that they are actually grounds for lawsuits in your city/state, I am absolutely willing to believe it happens less there than it does here, where no infrastructure exists for even recording the number of complaints, and because it isn’t against the law anyway, no taxpayer resources are expended on investigating.

@Malachi

A point I was trying to establish is that the media and many in the gay community DO assert that the RCC’s failure to endorse homosexual behaviors and gay marriage IS indicative of anti-gay discrimination.  I was hopeful of learning of YOUR view of their assertion and I sense you have some reluctance to outright tell us your view.  Do YOU deny that the media in general and many gays in particular take that view and what do you tell them in defense of the RCC if you hear that?  You might educate them by writing letters to the editors and, perhaps, by carrying a sign and handing out leaflets at the next gay pride parade. 

The reason it is important is that if the media cited the nuance, it would educate EVERYONE, not just RCC members on the true nature of the church teachings. It would reinforce and encourage the policy for everyone.  Failure to do so is an issue of the media and gay community bearing false witness by telling only half the story, mostly for anti-RCC political benefit.

Additionally, your assertion of the attack on a gay person is anecdotal as is mine that I find NO discrimination against gays in the Archdiocese of Seattle and most regions.  You need to relate statistical instead of anecdotal proof that members of the RCC regularly discriminate against gays to the point that the RCC needs to change its teaching mechanisms.  I cannot prove a negative but do asset gays are treated more than fairly here.  It would be helpful to this discussion for you to cite where in the Catechism, gays are emphasized for special attention in this regard. 

Dryden01,

Well said…You can’t go wrong with the CCC…and reading it once or only using it for reference doesn’t cut the mustard. We must make it part and parcel of ‘WHO WE ARE’ especially as CATHOLICS…!!!

Thanks for the reminder…!!!

Dryden01,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church sees fit to frame the issue specifically in terms of treating gay people in particular with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. I’ll defer to their approach, thanks.
And nobody said gays are more important. If anything the reason to specifically try to be respectful, etc. to them is the same reason we feed the hungry. They’re in a fragile position.
-
I single out the Catholic Church because Catholics are responsible for the actions of the Catholic Church. We aren’t responsible for Mormons, though we can try to show them the right way.
Our Church is our responsibility, and the optimal way to show everyone else right conduct is to DO IT OURSELVES, wouldn’t you agree?
Nor am I responsible for gay people in the media, I can only try to show them that I am actively trying to prevent any genuine harm that might be done to them.
-
I don’t even understand where you’re getting the idea that I think disapproval of gay marriage is unjust discrimination from. I’ve never once said anything to that effect. Why should I have to clarify something that was never in doubt, except based on things you assume I believe but I never once said and would actively dispute if you presented them to me?
The only things I referred to as unjust discrimination were matters of secular business and basic human dignity.
Not once did I ever say anything in favor of gay marriage or same-sex partnerships being recognized as valid by the Church, or anything like that. You just assumed that.
-
Again, the Catholic Church SPECIFICALLY states that gay people IN PARTICULAR need to be shown respect, compassion, and sensitivity. (Not that anyone else shouldn’t be, but if it’s important enough for the Catechism to call it out in that context specifically).
And I intend to instruct the gay community that they are wrong by showing them how Catholics are truly called to behave and by publicly rebuking Catholics who violate that. When they see that even Catholics defending them from mistreatment, when they see that we openly instruct our own that injustices and abuses of gay people (in particular, because that’s who I’m instructing) are intolerable to us, they will realize we are trying to help them, not hurt them.

@Malachi
The point I hope to get through to you is that you need to frame your criticism of the church for what you see as its failure to stress the message about treatment of others within the context of EVERYONE and not just merely gays.  Gays are no more important than any other sub-grouping of humanity don’t you know?  Frankly, I do not see any problem with treatment of gays by members of my local Archdiocese so I cannot understand why you single out the RCC and not even try to implicate poor imagined treatment of gays by the Baptists, Evangelicals, Mormons, Etc.
On the other hand, once again, I do see where the church is regularly criticized nationally for failure to embrace the gay sexual preference and gay marriage, inferring it as a sign of anti-gay discrimination by the RCC.  We must be defined, evidently, as homophiles and anti-gay simply because we oppose gay marriage.  This IS abuse of the RCC by gays and their media panderers and is just as real and destructive as the abuse of any gay individuals you know;  wouldn’t you agree?  It is abusive to gays as well since its purpose is to drive a wedge between the church and gays and is designed to slur, defame, marginalize and invalidate the RCC publicly before the entire nation.
After your custom I would seek common ground:
Please clarify at this point in time for everyone whether you agree that the RCC’s disapproval of gay marriage and gay Sodomistic lifestyle behaviors is abusive and discriminatory toward the gay community. 
Please clarify at this point in time for everyone whether you agree that the RCC’s disapproval of gay marriage and gay Sodomistic lifestyle behaviors is abusive and discriminatory toward the gay community. 
Please clarify at this point in time for everyone whether you agree that the RCC’s disapproval of gay marriage and gay Sodomistic lifestyle behaviors is abusive and discriminatory toward the gay community. 
Finally, since you wish to instruct the church on how and when it teaches respect and dignity for ALL individuals, not just merely gays, explain how you will instruct the Gay community and its media homophiles on their willful misrepresentation of the teachings and morality of the RCC with respect to gays?  That needs more attention to my mind.

Good, stay away.  What we need are Catholics who understand our Catholic faith and support it, come what may.  Celebrities who are more concerned with their huge salaries or avoiding “controversy”, do everyone a favor by making plain their allegiance is to themselves and self-preservation, and not to God or the Catholic faith.  Thanks for bowing out guys, you created three open slots, which will hopefully be filled by people who put faith ahead of mammon or public image.  Legatus, hold the line.

Also, you do absolutely have the right to free association, but you also, according to the Catholic Church, have the responsibility to avoid even the APPEARANCE of unjust discrimination against gay people, and refusing to hire them (or people you assume are) as waiters or cashiers or the like definitely qualifies.

You have the right to commit lots of sins. Free will and all that. You still have the responsibility not to.

(I suppose I should clarify I’m using the general “you” not referring to any one person in particular or making accusations)

Dryden01,

No, again, I find fault with the specific Catholics who act in violation of the Church’s command to treat gay people with respect compassion and sensitivity. Those people should not be left free of rebuke just because they are among a group that behaves better than them.

I also find negligence (probably not intentional) with those who’s responsibility it is to educate Catholics on how to behave in accordance with Church teaching when there are Catholics who are unaware of those Church teachings.

You’re trying really hard to paint me as blaming all Catholics even though this isn’t even the first time I’ve clarified that that’s not remotely the case. Maybe if I say it three times in a row you’ll catch it.

I’m not blaming all Catholics for the harmful behavior of some Catholics, only the ones committing it.
I’m not blaming all Catholics for the harmful behavior of some Catholics, only the ones committing it.
I’m not blaming all Catholics for the harmful behavior of some Catholics, only the ones committing it.
I’m saying there is a failure in education when Catholics are unaware of Church teaching, and the responsibility for that education falls on Catholics alone.
I’m saying there is a failure in education when Catholics are unaware of Church teaching, and the responsibility for that education falls on Catholics alone.
I’m saying there is a failure in education when Catholics are unaware of Church teaching, and the responsibility for that education falls on Catholics alone.

-
“As to parents who disown their child for acting on their gay behaviors, children are regularly disowned for a variety of reasons and, percentage wise, you are trying to portray things like it is commonplace, even more than for the other reasons. It is not.”

I made no statements about frequency, only that it happened to a young man that I helped shelter while he was getting back on his feet and while his mother was making threats of violence against anyone he associated with and actively trying to prevent him from receiving financial aid so he could go to college and get back on his feet after they kicked him out of the house with only what he was wearing the night he came out to them.

@Malichi
So you find fault with Catholics because of the actions of some Catholics and Catholics who faithfully observe the teachings of the church do not get a pass from responsibility for the actions of others. Evidently in your world only Catholics oppress gays by the sound of things.  Seems like you have made a group guilt association/assumption by singling out Catholics for criticism. 

By your logic we cannot absolve the entire gay community for bad behaviors because we find fault with the behaviors of gays like Jeffrey Dahmer, Perez Hilton, the Act-up crowd that disrupts masses, NAMBLA priests associated with the gay community, gays that spread HIV/AIDS knowing that they are infected…..

It sounds like you have a lot of work to do educating your gay community to change its ways to me.  You must teach it to respect Catholics and be sensitive to their beliefs regarding sexual morality and behaviors they object to.

As to parents who disown their child for acting on their gay behaviors, children are regularly disowned for a variety of reasons and, percentage wise, you are trying to portray things like it is commonplace, even more than for the other reasons.  It is not. At the same time,  I would surely force Perez Hilton out of my house if I were his parent; wouldn’t you?  The only parents I know who forced a child out of their home did so because he was stealing from the home in order to pay for drugs and would not get help and not because he was some sort of bath house “bottom man.”
I mostly jury people on the results of their behaviors and suggest that you do so as well.  BTW, I would have no way of knowing you are gay apart from seeing you act out gay behaviors.  I am free to reject you if I do not like your behaviors and you cannot criticize me for my right of free association for doing so.

What makes me proud to be a practicing Catholic is the way Legatus treated Misters Baier, Sinise, and Coors, by respecting their rights and decisions to withdraw from speaking, whereas it would not be unthinkable that other groups, including some purporting to be Christian, may have demonized these very respected gentleman for withdrawing…!!!

Oh, I forgot one thing:

If your son is suicidal and you don’t to absolutely everything in your power to help him overcome the mental illness causing it (almost all suicides, at least in Western culture, are committed by people succumbing to mental disorder)...if you simply rebuke him or turn him away from the household to “not be an enabler,” you aren’t loving him at all.
You’re throwing them to the wolves.

Likewise if you kick your child out of the home for being gay. If someone is self-destructive, distancing yourself from them is not loving them or helping them, it is helping to ensure their self-destruction. Just standing there and rebuking them is likewise not loving them, it is just accelerating their fall into the darkness as it teaches them not to come to you for support.

Dryden01,
In response to your comments to Raymond, too often people use “hating the sin” or “loving the sinner” to excuse not showing true respect, compassion, and sensitivity to these people.

I can tell someone a difficult truth in a compassionate way and help them to learn it.
I can also tell it in an adversarial way, which will drive them away and make them unwilling to listen to any other message I say.

Like if someone is obese, you can let them know in a respectful and sensitive way that you’re concerned about their health and would like to help them.
Or you can just call them fat and say they must have terrible eating habits and self control.

Even if the latter is technical truth, it’s not an acceptable way of conveying that truth.
Gay people likewise are frequently told the truth in a way so disrespectful and insensitive and devoid of compassion that they simply stop listening. The guilt there is on the person who failed to show respect, compassion, and sensitivity as much as on the gay person, because the former had a real responsibility to not only tell the truth, but to tell it in a constructive way that would encourage the gay person to listen.

Dryden01,
I am not making a generalization. I am not objecting to all Catholics because some don’t follow it.
I am objecting to the ones who don’t follow it. They shouldn’t get a free pass merely because someone else ISN’T committing the mortal sin of Scandal.
-
“I have often heard these points reiterated from the lips of our local Archbishops over a period of 2 decades now.”
Then clearly your Archbishop is doing an admirable job.
Every Catholic you know might be aware of that passage of the Catechism, but by my measure, about 1 in 8-ish here will outright tell me I’m lying when I say such a passage even exists.
Just because it’s good in your state doesn’t mean it isn’t bad here.
-
“If you see a lack of education, the fault also underscores the need to educate and prevail upon the gay panderers in the media who ignore or otherwise deliberately neglect to mention that aspect of the church’s teachings.”
Even when I mention it to fellow Catholics I’m often told outright that I’m wrong or lying.
Regardless, it is not the responsibility of Non-Catholics to provide Catholics with a Catholic moral education. That is our responsibility alone.
-
In my experience, when I’ve asked gay people why they think the Church is discriminatory, it is not moral admonitions that drove them to their positions.
It’s (the minority of) Catholics who refuse to hire gay people for non-religious jobs in public businesses in secular industries. Or who beat them up when they were young. Or who instead of simply refusing to rent an apartment to a gay person, instead accepted fees and security deposits and the like and just kept pushing the move-in date back again and again every week indefinitely so they don’t have to return the fees. Or their parents, who kicked them out of their home with nothing but the clothes on their back right before winter and then went on to actively sabotage their son’s attempts to get back on his feet and get an education, to the point of stalking and making credible threats of violence against him and his friends and roommates once he got into college without them.
Those aren’t hypotheticals. Those aren’t friend-of-a-friend stories.
Those are things that have happened directly to people I have met and talked with.

@Raymond: A condition for full participation is not the same thing as a condition for being loved.  Love seeks the ultimate well-being of the other, regardless of the benefit or sacrifice of the one who does the giving.  To withhold full participation is not to withhold love.  To withhold full participation, in this case, would be for the purpose of bringing to the mind and heart of the one who refuses to see the seriousness of his situation to a place of recognizing sin, and to a deep awareness of the urgent need to repent before God.  That itself, is an act of love.

What Malachi said regarding how his friend was treated actually brought tears to my eyes because I witnessed the same treatment of gay teens when I was growing up.  I didn’t like it because I happened to be a sensitive person.  I loved the Lord and didn’t understand why people would be so cruel, even though I didn’t relate to that particular struggle.  I also had a dear friend who was gay and I loved her and wanted to maintain our friendship, regardless.  It was then, and is now the CHURCH’S RESPONSIBILITY to teach its members how to treat others (though we are not excused even if we are not formerly instructed by the Church; we’re aware, innately when we’re being cruel Ro 2:14-15).  Whenever the Church—whenever we—turn a blind eye to those who harm others, we are not innocent; we are guilty of sin ourselves.  The prophets throughout time were ostracized, even killed for saying what the Lord wanted them to say; but they loved Him more than their own lives, and they did His will.  The Church must speak the truth in love, in season, and out of season, as the word of God commands.  However, in these times, I think it is difficult to speak against the sin of homosexual activity (and every other sin, really) because those who do are accused of being judgmental, hateful, bigoted, etc.  And so rather than risk being misunderstood or criticized, I think, largely, we as a Church, are failing in a different way—lacking love—shirking responsibility to lovingly guide all people to Christ.  If we love those with same sex attractions and treat them with love and respect, some will be attracted and return to us, for sure; but there are those who will not return no matter how we treat them because they want approval and affirmation, and nothing less.  And that we cannot give and be loyal to Christ.  That we cannot give and truly be loving.  So, we are, at that point, at an impasse.  But we have Christ to help us; and we have the Holy Spirit.  We have His love.  We have His wisdom if we turn to Him for help. Theresa told us about Mark; she demonstrated true love for him; she was also loyal to the Lord.  I pray that we all may find that sometimes difficult, but loving way.

“Every Catholic I know understands the necessity of treating others, including gays with respect and dignity and they do so.”

Welcome to the No True Scotsman Fallacy Club.

@Raymond

“Love the sinner: hate the sin” is a common expression we have all heard.  The love for the sinner IS unconditional and the hate for the sin is also unconditional:  one does not need to balance out the other and logically cannot.  The sins are destructive to the sinner and/or others so it would not be logical to unconditionally allow the sin although we unconditionally love the sinner.  There is nothing wrong with the approach and we are consistent beyond gay behaviors.  We also oppose the sins of abortion-murder, murder, adultery, fornication and pedophilia; all similar behaviors as destructive as the gay lifestyle has shown to be.  We ask people to avoid those behaviors but it doesn’t require us to hate them for failure to do so.  650,000 deaths in a very small community the size of the gay one means the behaviors that led to the deaths need to be unconditionally criticized wouldn’t you say?

Is any of this difficult to understand?

Politically correct secular relativists and many in the gay community oppose the church simply because it does not condone the sin which is based on destructive behavior.  Love for the sinner is unconditional nevertheless.  You may unconditionally love your child but you cannot allow their self-destruction if you do and must not be an enabler of bad behavior to prove you love your child unconditionally?  Would you provide your son with the rope to hang himself and later explain your action as an expression of your unconditional love for him? 

From the article:
“Church teaching on homosexuality is about unconditional love and dialogue, contrary to accusations leveled by critics, the group added.”

The Church teaches that individuals who have same-sex attractions may participant fully in the life of the Church, *provided they do not act on those attractions8. That is a condition that is placed upon those who have those attractions. Not unconditional love at all.

@dryden01:
“The politically correct regularly display a characteristic implausibility in ignoring reality in favor of a non-existent world they wish existed.”

I believe you and your other RCC defenders are ignoring the reality of the Church’s conditional love in favor of a non-existent Church you wish existed.

@ Malichi,

When you say “Again, I repeat that my problem is that too many Catholics aren’t following that teaching because they were never TAUGHT it.” you are making an invalid and ridiculous generalization; most DO actually follow it.  Every Catholic I know understands the necessity of treating others, including gays with respect and dignity and they do so.  I have often heard these points reiterated from the lips of our local Archbishops over a period of 2 decades now.  In Seattle, where there is a very large gay community, the church provided meeting space in the past for the gay’s “Dignity” group to hold its meetings on church property.  The call for respect and decent treatment of gays has been a regular theme for as far back as I can remember but doesn’t go both ways actually.
If you see a lack of education, the fault also underscores the need to educate and prevail upon the gay panderers in the media who ignore or otherwise deliberately neglect to mention that aspect of the church’s teachings.  Instead, gay activists regularly seek to marginalize and invalidate the RCC, seeking to characterize it as being discriminatory against gays for not accepting gay marriage and gay sexuality in order to defame it as I have pointed out.  It is astonishing that you do not see this as happening and are not equally concerned in the least about addressing that fact. 
Perhaps gays need to be instructed by the media and the gay leadership that the RCC doesn’t establish its admonitions against the gay lifestyle in order to oppress gays but to protect gays from themselves.  They also should be instructed not to bring recrimination against those Christians, Jews, and Muslims, who, with good conscience, oppose gay “marriage”  and sexual morality.  I know you are not going to pretend that this has not happened as it is unlikely that you recently fell off the back of a turnip cart.
At this point in time, I am questioning your entire account of the situation with your friend.  You seem to be a gay whiner rather than someone seeking a constructive dialogue between gays and the religious community to benefit both. 

I’d just like to point out that in the example of my friend, which I have referred to previously, the fact that a loyal, devout, faithful Catholic who experienced (but fought) same-sex attraction, who did not even consider himself “gay,” who was following every lead he could find on how to remove that unwanted attraction so he could be straight and raise a family…in other words, everything anyone in the Catholic Church says a person with same-sex attraction should try to do…the fact that he was physically beaten on multiple occasions because the attackers perceived him to be gay…
That is not the only tragedy in that situation.
The fellow Catholics who assaulted him were endangering their own souls. Not just for attacking someone, but also through the sin of Scandal.
When they taught him that he was in physical danger when in the company of other Catholics his own age, they committed a mortal sin.
The Catholic School administrators who turned a blind eye to the assaults committed the sin of Scandal when they taught this young man through their actions that the Church hierarchy would abandon their responsibility to protect the students in their care.
They committed it again when they disregarded even the formal complaints by his parents, and again when they showed they would only consider investigating the attacks when his attackers left an encounter with injuries.

There were far more souls put in jeopardy than just the young man who began to doubt the Church he loved so deeply when he was betrayed so painfully by its representatives.

If we are concerned with the salvation of souls, it is our responsibility to educate people that these kinds of situations are absolutely, without exception, utterly unacceptable by condemning them loudly and educating people to prevent them from happening in the first place.

Dryden01,

I have been specifically pointing out a specific item of Church teaching.

“They [men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

That’s directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, word for word.

“do not single out the church for the behaviors of any of its members who do not follow its teachings.”

Again, I repeat that my problem is that too many Catholics aren’t following that teaching because they were never TAUGHT it.
That is fundamentally a failing of the Church, because NO ONE but the Church is responsible for the Church educating its members in its own teachings.
Any harm caused because of ignorance of practicing catholics of that teaching is at least partially the responsibility of the Church for failing to teach its own members the conduct expected of them.
You might assume that those people knew the teachings and ignored them, but as I’ve said more than once, in my experience, one in every four or five Catholics is totally unaware of that passage from the Catechism I quoted, and about half of those express outright disbelief when I tell them about it, at least until I link them to the appropriate page of the Vatican’s online copy of the Catechism.

I’ve personally known lifelong every-Sunday Catholics who went through Catholic education in school who insisted I was absolutely wrong when I quoted the Catechism to them on how they are to treat gay people. Outright told them that Catholicism taught differently than what the Catechism says.

That is a BLATANT failure of moral education within the Church.
-
Nobody said anything about the Church endorsing the gay lifestyle or gay marriage. How about you respond to things I’ve actually said instead of things you assume a pro-gay activist would say after also assuming (incorrectly) that I am one such activist.
Saying they need to be treated with compassion isn’t pro-gay activism, it’s citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
-
I did not object to y’all telling me what to do, I objected to the attempts to handwave away the responsibility to condemn unprovoked violence, especially when the victim is a devout, practicing Catholic like my friend. I objected to the insistence that the demonstrable failures in the moral education of members of the Church is something that should just be disregarded.
-
The reality I suggest YOU embrace is that you will never get them to listen to your advice if they never see you objecting to violence against them. They will never return to a Church that does not make it clear that it will protect them from unprovoked violence, even if the alternative is diseases.

@Malachi
“At the same time” is another way of saying the word “but” and when I said that to you my meaning in that instance was not well understood by you.  Gays are no better and no worse than anyone else and deserve the SAME treatment as everyone else.  That is why I rebuke bad behaviors of gays as well as of those who offend against gays and when you point fingers to members of the RCC I point them back at the gay community as well.  My suggestion is that you do the same thing and also apply your attention to the failings of the gay community because there are many. 
I treat gays like any other person so what I am saying is that gays are logically irrelevant outside of being another part of humanity and the entirety of humanity, not just gays, need to be treated fairly by everyone.  My finding is that gays are treated no worse than anyone else by the RCC and the corollary is they shouldn’t be treated any better simply because they are gay.  I would not treat ANYONE badly, including but not solely limited to gays and rebuke bad behaviors toward other people from any quarter.  If you feel a need to instruct the RCC regarding its treatment of gays then cite specific items of church policy and do not single out the church for the behaviors of any of its members who do not follow its teachings.  Do not anticipate that the church will endorse the gay lifestyle or gay marriage and do not allow others to disparage the church for its failure to do so as “discrimination” against gays.
As to telling you what to do, is that not what you are admonishing us about to begin with?  My thought was that gays are often their own worst enemy when their behaviors appear beyond the well crafted and carefully manicured image the politically correct love to portray of them.  The reality I suggest you embrace is that the RCC didn’t kill off 650,000 gay HIV/AIDS victims; the gay community did.  It did it through its promiscuity and sexual wantonness.  It seems to me that if you wish to help the gay community, you will focus on its propensity to continue with new cases of dangerous STDs, including HIV/AIDS. 

Florian, you are correct: 10-15 years ago, when my brother came to visit (from 300 miles away) he brought a friend with him. They stayed the night; I said something to my brother (I don’t recall precisely what) about one of them sleeping downstairs and the other upstairs….My brother, however, chose never to come to my house again. He did come (alone) to visit a few times over the subsequent years—but stayed at my aunt house (3-4 miles away)—where I went to spend time with him (and my aunt) while he was in town.  Please do continue to pray for the repose of his soul…. Thanks!

Florian, I’ll assume you were replying to me…
“That is not the way but I will say again…while you seem to be sympathetic to the cause of gays what about the radical homosexuals who destroy businesses, who demand that everyone not only accept their life style but approve it?”

I haven’t said anything about trying to destroy businesses or forcing people to approve of actions that violate their religion, but I’m completely against such actions.

Nonetheless, it is a responsibility of Catholics to treat gay people with respect and compassion. Period. There’s no free pass if they’re angry or aggressive gays. There’s no free pass if they’re disrespectful. The only way Catholics will convince gay people to consider what they have to say is by proactively showing respect and compassion and openly, vocally, condemning mistreatment of gay people—and loudly enough that gay people see and hear it, not just in private, not just among other Catholics, but in the public arena. Gay people have heard all the declarations of the Church about how they are sinning, but even many Catholics aren’t hearing the Church’s teachings for how straight people must treat gay people, so it’s not a surprise gay people haven’t heard it either.
-
“What about gays like [Perez] Hilton…”
I’ve heard more gay people say they think he is terrible than I’ve heard of straight people even demonstrate they know who he is. I think that qualifies as them actively distancing themselves from him. Holding all of them responsible for the actions of a person they themselves condemn is at the very least disrespectful because it’s not paying enough attention to what they’re saying to realize they disapprove of him just as much as you do.
-
I’d like to present the suggestion that when you find yourself adding “but” to the end of “No one should be attacked,” it might be time to stop and think a few minutes longer before revising the sentence. Even though I’m certain you weren’t intending the way it came across, it will help in the long run if you are aware that that comes across as presenting a rationalization to a lot of people.
Not condemning you or anything, I know what you meant to say. I just want you to realize how it could be misinterpreted so you can avoid misunderstandings.

Sorry in advance, Florian, I had to break up my response because it’s difficult to reply to a 600 word post in under 400 words while trying to quote the parts I’m replying to to maintain clarity.
-
“Malachi…what do you mean that there should be teaching in the Church on how to treat homosexuals with love and kindness”
I mean that there are many adult Catholics who are shocked and astonished when I tell them what the Catechism says about how Catholics must treat gay people. Not the love and kindness part, but the respect, compassion, and sensitivity part.
Many Catholics, probably about 25% of the ones I’ve discussed the subject with, are ENTIRELY unaware of that passage in the Catechism even though they are well educated on the paragraph right above it.
When so many Catholics are unaware of a specific teaching of their faith, and when I have many times heard homilies dedicated to why homosexual acts are sinful and why the Church opposes them, I have never once heard a homily teaching the remaining 98% of the congregation what THEY need to know about how to act regarding the subject. Not a single Mass I’ve attended has ever brought up the call for “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” toward gay people, even though in the US there are probably more Catholics wholly unaware of that particular passage in the Catechism than there are gay people of any religion who are unaware of the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexual acts.
-
“so instead of complaining about the few who hate the gay life style and attack gays - go out and stand with those who are doing everything they can to comfort and care for homosexuals with AIDS”
This isn’t an “instead” situation. This is an “also” situation.
“Instead” suggests we shouldn’t be objecting to those who attack gays. Even if that’s not what you meant, it’s what those words say, and it’s how gay people will hear it.
If gay people saw you condemning the people who attacked them, they would view you as a person who will defend them, rather than as someone who is an enemy. It will build incalculable amounts of trust…plus it will affirmatively put to rest the mistaken belief that Catholics aren’t concerned with the well being of gay people (even the vast majority of them who don’t have AIDS).

Dryden01,
Who asked for a dissertation? Who asked for mea culpas?
You said you “will” rebuke them “at the same time” as I rebuke the people you objected to.
“Will” is future-tense, and especially when combined with a conditional statement like that, suggests that at such time that you observe me rebuke those people, you would rebuke the ones I objected to.
To clarify my response, I was reacting from a position of “Seeing someone say they will rebuke something isn’t the same as seeing them actually rebuke it.” Though I realize in retrospect that was assuming bad faith a bit, so I apologize for that.
I don’t need to “explore” any “realities,” however. Any abusive violence is absolutely unacceptable period and all deserves to be rebuked. I’m not ignoring those actions. I am speaking to Catholics, therefore I am focusing on what actions Catholics can and should take, not ones that would only serve the as rationalizations in that particular conversation.
The actions Catholics should be taking toward gay people and the actions Catholics are improperly taking toward gay people are fundamentally more relevant to a Catholic audience because they are matters of Catholics acting. Issues in which Catholic teachings are not being taught sufficiently is relevant to a Catholic audience because they are matters of Catholics acting.
Furthermore, I am not disparaging the RCC at all, I’m simply saying that there could be some improvements in terms of educating Catholics on Catholic teachings. Teachers are fallible, I don’t expect them to be perfect, but I do expect them to try to improve.
Besides, if Catholics were practicing the teaching of treating gay people with respect and compassion more universally, gay people wouldn’t have such objections with the Church.
Who are you to tell me what I need to focus my efforts on when you seem to be actively shirking the Catholic Church’s requirements for how you are to treat gay people?
Perhaps YOU can draw on the actual teachings of the RCC, namely “They [gay people] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” to reach out to them with any measure of success instead of, to use a metaphor I’ve heard a few times, “shouting at the lambs to get back in the flock instead of leading them home gently.”

lisakaiser;
“Gay people are no more immoral or sexually promiscuous than straight people.” REALLY?? I can show you MANY studies/statistics that prove your statement wrong. Can you cite any proving this statement (about the “Gay” community) correct??

Jan. 30th…please stop ‘reporting’ that Catholics are turning on gays - I doubt very much that the majority of those who go after gays are Catholics and I would say that a very tiny portion of the general population go after gays…which is still too much.  No one should be attacked for any reason. That is not the way but I will say again…while you seem to be sympathetic to the cause of gays what about the radical homosexuals who destroy businesses, who demand that everyone not only accept their life style but approve it?  What about gays like Paris Hilton who publicly humiliate others as he did to that lovely young Christian woman…what about those gay men who perform unnatural sex acts in public places?  The majority of homosexuals do not define themselves by their sexuality…only a minority of radicals do.  The majority of homosexuals don’t flaunt their life style ... again, no one should be attacked but radical gays are often vicious and hateful…even to other homosexuals who are not radical enough.  Malachi…what do you mean that there should be teaching in the Church on how to treat homosexuals with love and kindness…that has always been the teaching of Christ and the Church…but, as Jesus Himself said, once forgiven, go and sin no more. That teaching is for heterosexuals as well.  As for the woman whose homosexual brother died…I am sorry for you.  Of course you loved him!  And I’m sure he knew it and that it was a comfort to him.  And of course you welcomed him into your home…but I’m sure you would not have given a bed to him and his partner for the night…separate beds, yes; just as a mother would not allow her daughter to sleep together with her boyfriend in their home.  These moral standards apply to everyone…many ignore them and there is a great deal of ‘casual sex’ today…but you don’t hear those people demanding that everyone accept that ... it’s what they do; in fact, those young women and men who choose not to engage in sexual activity until they are married are often ridiculed…no one should be attacked; we should help each other to be the best we can.  Men having sex with men is unnatural - but if that is what they want, then they are free to act that way - but do not demand that others pat you on the back and say ‘well done’ - and homosexuals should stop attacking those who do not accept their life style..it goes both ways.  I have a dear friend who is homosexual - but he himself is not at peace with this and I found him in tears one days and I put my arms around him and said to him: “I love you Paul; you are worthy of love. No matter what, I’ll always be here for you.”  Paul sensed that his desires were not natural and he went from partner to partner…in the end - well, AIDS is a terrible disease and we must have love and compassion for all who suffer from this.  Mother Theresa of Calcutta cared tenderly and lovingly with those dying of AIDS - the Catholic Church, as I have said before, does more than any other organization to help victims of AIDS.  I have a friend who opened a Hospice to honor Mother Theresa of Calcutta and she takes in AIDS patients and cares for them…so instead of complaining about the few who hate the gay life style and attack gays - go out and stand with those who are doing everything they can to comfort and care for homosexuals with AIDS…there are so many of them!!! peace.

In sum: “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8) We need a few Archbishop Sheen-s around!!!  But, today, our Churches would be even more empty!

@ Malachi,

It seems you missed where I said I WOULD rebuke (another way of saying I DO therefore) rebuke violence against gays from ANY quarter.  At the same time, I wasn’t expecting that you had a need for me to do a complete dissertation on the subject (it is self evident is it not?) and solicit profuse mea culpas from an inferred to be rabid RCC heterosexual establishment to soothe your angst.  The fact is, more gays abuse gays than are bullied by heterosexuals and you need to explore that reality as well.  I consider the proliferation of STDs in the gay community as violence by gays against other gays and they far exceed any instances of bullying in bringing death and ruin to the homosexual community.  You yourself may or may not intend to disparage the RCC but my finding is the gay community leadership, and its panderers in the media, regularly do.  Their most likely motive is solely because the church doesn’t accept gay sexual behaviors and morality. Why would it when the outcomes are so obviously destructive?  What is it about this simple fact that makes it difficult for EVEN YOU to understand?  You need to focus your efforts on protecting the gay community from itself because it obviously is its own worst enemy.  You will save more gay lives by taking your community to task over the growing levels of STD pestilences it releases on itself you see?  Perhaps you can draw on the actual teachings of the RCC to approach that goal in a constructively productive manner?

@lisakaiser
I never said that AIDS/HIV was limited to the gay culture alone but in Africa there are cultural beliefs that enable the spread of AIDS/HIV. It is the culture that facilitates the spread and the gay American culture WAS and continues to be an ideal moral Petri dish as the results disclose.  Many African tribal men believe that if they have sex with a virgin, they will no longer suffer from the disease while others practice the same sexual activities that gays do as a birth control mechanism.  STDs in other cultures logically proceed from adultery and fornication do they not?  Fact is that from a single French airline steward who introduced it here, we found the launch of AIDS/HIV killing over 650,000 gay males in a relatively short period of time.  This rapid growth in the spread illustrates the gay lifestyle IS a promiscuous lifestyle does it not? There are other STDs that are more common among gays and their incidences ARE rising.  Consult a Google search of gay STDs and see what comes up.
From the CDC:  Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States
Here’s another from my suggested Google: The CDC data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.  Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php#vW6EZfaBIvWG7Ih8.99
My point is that the STDs come from sexual behaviors which are driven by sexual moralities and the church cannot be forced to embrace those moralities regardless of the LGBT demands that they do.  When I cite these facts I should not be attacked for a perception I am singling out only gays.  At the same time, I rarely see heterosexuals attacking the church for its failure to embrace adultery and fornication.

@Malachi:  Yes, I think there should be teaching in the Church in how to treat our gay brothers and sisters with love and kindness.  I think there should also be a proclamation of the word of truth, not only to those who are gay, but to all of us who struggle against sin of any kind.  But honestly, my experience isn’t that we’re hearing things against any one group or another at all; my experience has been that we’re not hearing any clarion call to anything—period.  For whatever reason, I think it has been mostly left up to us alone to study God’s word, pray, and draw near to Jesus, in which case, He promises to respond by drawing near to us (Ja 4:8).  One thing I think is so important to remember is that we do always have Christ who was Himself a victim of the sins of others.  And the scriptures tell us that because He suffered unjustly, he is able to sympathize with our sufferings (He 2:18: 4:15).  Judas, of course, was motivated, at least in large part, by greed.  And when Jesus’ brethren handed him over to Pilate, the scriptures reveal that Pilate, “. . . knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.” (Matt 27:18)  This happened because so many had begun to put their faith in him, and the leaders, of course felt threatened, saying, “Look, how the whole world has gone after him!”(Jn 12:19) So they plotted, seeking out false witnesses.  Lies, greed, defamation of character, envy—all these things led to Jesus’ death, yet, amazingly, I have never once heard even the slightest admonition against any of these things that damage and even kill victims of such sins—but even worse—will ultimately eternally condemn those who commit such things and stubbornly refuse to repent, rejecting the grace and mercy and goodness of God.  Sometimes, I think we are trying so hard to be liked and accepted that we forget about the ultimate well-being of others.  So while I whole-heartedly agree that we must always speak the truth in love; we must always remember that it is only in speaking the truth, in the Holy Spirit, that we are actually loving others.

dryden01,

AIDS is not a disease found just among gay people.  It is also a disease found straight people and had its origins among straight people.  In Africa, India, Thailand, AIDS is very much a disease found among straight people.  Sexually transmitted diseases in general are found among straight people.  For thousands of years before antibiotics straight people died of all forms of STDs.  Let’s not pretend that AIDS is a unique STD or that STDs are unique among gay people.  Africa is being decimated by AIDS among straight people, leaving behind thousands upon thousands of children orphaned by AIDS—because their straight parents died of it.

And let’s be clear about another fact: lesbians have the lowest incidence of STDs.

Gay people are no more immoral or sexually promiscuous than straight people.

Dryden01,

I didn’t say anything about the Catholic Church, or any church, accepting “the gay lifestyle” or promiscuity or alternative “sexual morality” or any of that. I’m asking why, when the time comes to ALSO condemn the people treating gay people wrongly, when it is time to call out the sins others commit toward them, you feel this clearly urgent need to change the subject.

You said you would rebuke those people as soon as I rebuked people spreading misinformation about Catholicism, etc. and I immediately did, because of course I would. Why in the world would I NOT rebuke those things? You’d have to be assuming some pretty awful things about me to expect me to defend that.

But then you changed the subject rather than rebuke violence against gay people as you said you would.
You’ve invested a lot of time in trying to avoid rebuking violence against gay people.

Just tell me: Shouldn’t we be spending at least 10% of the homily time regarding how people need to act relating to homosexuality dedicated to teaching what 98% of the congregation need to know for their own behavior? Wouldn’t it make sense to spend at LEAST that much time dedicated to teaching the most people instead of spending virtually all of it on information that’s only for maybe 2%?
Again, there are rules in the Catholic Church for how gay people need to be treated. Too many Catholics don’t even know their own rules for how they need to treat gay people. That’s not because of misinformation because in my experience it’s never that they’re wrong, it’s that they’ve never even heard of those rules. That indicates a lack of education on the subject, which seems strange considering how much talk the subject is given daily.

Reading the Comments, I don’t think we can count on our priests to talk about the homosexual lifestyle when we come to Mass. To begin with, in my Parish (and I suspect in most parishes) the Sunday homily is, normally, focused around the Readings at Mass.  That would mean the congregation that attends Mass only on Sundays and Holy Days would never hear Ch.1:18ff of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans….It is read during the week, on the Tuesday of the 28th Week after Pentecost and, I suspect, in most Churches the priest’s weekday homily that day—if there is one—would be on the Gospel!  When you also consider that there has been a great falling away from weekly Sunday Mass attendance among Catholics, is it any wonder that the homosexual lifestyle is being affirmed by many Catholics today?  “After all”—so I’ve heard said: “God made them that way!!!”  To which I say: “God did NOT make them that way! Have you ever heard of Original Sin?”  Yes, Jesus died on the Cross and gave us “baptism”—which removes Original Sin, but it does not remove the “inclination” to sin.  Consequently,  St. Paul says: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”(Phil 2:12)  We need to hear the Gospel and Epistle “truths” read at Mass practically applied to our daily LIFE in the homilies!

@Malachi
Dismissing the responsibility of the “victims” for their own plight is not “callous” but serves as a warning to present day homosexuals to avoid the behaviors that led to 650,000 LGBT deaths.  Sexual promiscuity is not a mandate for present day “victims” any more than it was for the 650,000 that died.  If you examine the information from the CDC, you will find NEW cases TODAY of HIV/AIDs and other diseases peculiar to the homosexual lifestyle have risen substantially even after all the education and dollars lavished on the gay community regarding HIV/AIDS.  Let it be acknowledged by you as well that it was the gay community itself that initially refused to shut down the HIV/AIDS distribution centers you call bath houses in San Francisco.  The LGBT has always opposed contact tracing, has refused group testing, mandatory self-quarantine/isolation from further sexual contacts, and other standard CDC recommendation for serious and fatal infectious diseases.  Once again, you are trying to pass blame to others outside of the gay community for what it knowingly does to itself even today.  By demanding acceptance by the church of the gay lifestyle and promiscuous sexual morality you are not embracing responsibility for the past, present, and obviously the future “victims” in the gay community.  HIV/AIDS is not a case of the measles: it is a sexually transmitted disease that flourishes in the ideal petri dish that is the LGBT community’s sexual morality.

To Theresa H: Very sorry about your brother Mark’s untimely death. I said a prayer for him. May he rest in peace and may your prayers be answered.

@Theresa:  I’m so sorry you lost your brother, Mark.  I will pray for him, and for you and for your whole family.  May the Lord bless you and keep you and be merciful to you.

Dryden01,
Their actions are on them, our actions are on us. We cannot simply ignore that someone is being attacked merely because that person is occasionally self-destructive, especially when the attackers misrepresent themselves as serving Christianity and its teachings. Such things need to be condemned AT LEAST as vociferously as the way we disagree with the self-destructive behaviors.

Also, blaming the victims of the disease is at best callous, especially when there was a substantial period of time in which efforts were not seriously being made to deal with the disease because the lives it was destroying were those of a particularly ill-liked group. If efforts had been seriously made to deal with the disease instead of just blaming it on “the gays,” maybe people would have begun avoiding the risky behaviors sooner and more, and many more lives would have been saved by the very method you suggested. It was the widespread shunning of the community that left them without the resources to deal with the epidemic, not some “cultural acceptance” that you think was around in the late 70s and early 80s.

I’m not omitting the Church’s position on adultery. I don’t need to mention it. Everybody knows it. I mean EVERYBODY. Nobody is disputing it. It is widespread public knowledge.

What isn’t widespread public knowledge is that the Catholic Church officially teaches that gay people must (and “must” is the exact word used) be treated with respect and compassion.
Somehow there are even Catholics that don’t know that.

Education should be focused on the things people aren’t sufficiently aware of, not on the things everybody already knows.

Debbie,
I appreciate that, thanks.

I generally agree, but I think too that considering how much time we spend discussing and analyzing and educating about this topic, we spend so very little time educating other Christians about how we’re supposed to treat gay people. We spend so much time on how they should act and a vanishingly small amount on how WE should act regarding the subject.

I know the Catechism of the Catholic Church has some pretty clear positions on that subject, ones that blatantly, clearly state that what happened to my friend was absolutely unacceptable according to the Church… but so many Catholics I meet are unfamiliar or even completely unaware of those teachings.

Considering that there are still frequently homilies covering the fact that the Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage for instance—a position everyone is aware the Church holds, even people who aren’t members and don’t know any Catholics themselves—shouldn’t there occasionally be a homily that covers what the other 98% of the congregation should or should not be doing?

Florian,

I am by no means saying all Catholics are doing such things, but I urge you not to mistake not seeing such attacks take place for the attacks not happening. Because they don’t affect us directly, we tend not to be in a position to see them when they do happen.

They, on the other hand, are often in the unenviable position of being the victims of such events, or if not, being part of the same demographic targeted by such incidents and thus placed clearly in the category of potential future victim.
They are far more aware of these incidents than we are, is what I’m saying.

When you say “Instead of focusing on those…” you are dismissing their fear of being attacked as well as our responsibility for educating others that such incidents are absolutely unacceptable.
When you say “Instead of focusing on those…” you are saying their suffering is not a priority.
The reason they are so politically aggressive is because they are, in their minds, simply trying to protect themselves when others will not stand up for them.

...Just like my friend who began to lose faith in the Catholic Church when after not only he, but his parents repeatedly begged the school to protect him, but they never did anything for fear of appearing to support “the gay agenda” and ultimately he concluded that the only way he would be protected was to protect himself by fighting back.
Don’t you think that conclusion, that lesson, influences the way he would continue to campaign against what he perceives as injustice to himself? Don’t you think they would be less adversarial if they weren’t coming from a place of rejection and mistreatment and being ignored when they call out for help? Even the ones who haven’t experienced personal tragedies like that know a dozen more who have.

They are wounded by their experiences, and they lash out in fear of being wounded again. We should have empathy for them, not hostility. Mental wounds take far, far longer to heal than physical ones, assuming they ever heal in the first place.

I have a brother who identified himself as a homosexual and promoted the lifestyle in a Magazine.  It saddened me more than I can say, but I have not stopped loving him and praying for him….In November (last year), he was hit by 3 cars (one after the other) and killed while attending a Bike Ride event that was raising money for AIDs patients….When my other brother brings his ashes down…, Mark will be buried in the same plot with me (ahead-of me—it looks like), next to our mom and dad in our Catholic Cemetery here in Clearwater.  As I grow older…, I keep remembering the Words: “70 is the sum of our years, or 80 if we are strong.” (Ps.90:10)  Meanwhile…, pray for “Mark,” please.

@Malachi
In examining the LGBT demands for acceptance of the gay lifestyle and sexual preference, we must not overlook the threat that gay lifestyles and sexual preferences have on the gay community itself.  We must speak out about the fact that LGBT promiscuity in its sexual behaviors are not only unwholesome to us but present a bigger threat to gay lives than any bullying can produce.
You do understand the distinction that we accept the gay population as worthy of Christian treatment and protection of its civil rights but reserve the right to reject gay moralities, behaviors, and sexual preferences?  Why should we not?
Perhaps you may recall that some 650,000 gay males went to their deaths in the great American HIV/AIDS epidemic and that the LGBT community blamed everyone but itself for its own health problems. All of these deaths could have been avoided with a simple embrace of church teachings about homosexuality. They are a direct result of cultural acceptance of Sodomistic sexuality, gay promiscuity, and gay morality.
The LGBT must learn to embrace ownership of this reality without demanding that we accept the behaviors that led to and continue to lead to the deplorable outcomes to begin with.  Do not deliberately omit and dismiss from your narrative the fact that the church also rejects adultery and fornication among heterosexuals.  It seems the false media portrayal is always depicted as a singling out of the gay community for criticism, discrimination, and “oppression.”
 
Furthermore, according to the CDC, Gays still continue to be more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.  Do not expect the church to endorse these behaviors as the politically correct panderers demand it does
•In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated NEW HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall. With these sorts of outcomes it is not surprising that the church will not endorse the behaviors that lead to these sorts of outcomes.

@Malachi,
I believe what you said happened to your friend truly happened.  Most of us here grew up in a time in which gay people were treated with contempt—and even worse—as you described—they were physically assaulted.  There is no excuse, no reason to justify such wickedness and cruelty.  I think where we’re having trouble coming to agreement is that Christians are beginning to feel forced to agree to participate in things which our consciences forbid.  And all of us are different; we all feel a little differently before God.  Cardinal Burke may believe parents should not invite their gay children, with their partners, home for Christmas dinner.  My husband and I feel differently.  If in that circumstance, we feel that having our son, if he were gay, and his partner for dinner would not be sinful because we would merely be hosting dinner and expressing kindness to those whom we love; we would not be expressing approval of all they do as they live their lives outside our home.  If our daughter lived with a man outside of marriage, we would invite our daughter and her partner to Christmas dinner, even though we knew she was living in a way that our faith forbids.  We do not think expressing love to her and her partner would show approval for that lifestyle choice that we believe is sinful.  Every act of love and kindness, in our view, does not express approval of the lifestyle choices of others.  But the point is that all of us have a different conscience before God.  As Christians, we believe we must in the end, stand before God, and give an account for all that we say and do.  Did we love at all times?  Did we uphold his word?  Were we true to who He wants us to be?  That is, I think, why things have gotten so heated in regard to this issue.  My husband and I may disagree with the Cardinal on this issue, but I know he is being true to what he believes.  He is not violating anyone’s rights.  He is a minister of God, and is upholding the word of truth as he believes it.  He is not forcing anyone to agree with him.  He preaches as is appropriate to his position and authority in the Church.  The question is, can both straight people and gay people respect that others have a right to live in accordance with their religious convictions as guaranteed by our Constitution?  I know what you said is true in regard to what gay people have suffered.  I’m sorry that it did, and I wish none of it ever happened.  I would truly love to see—and be a part of—something so much greater—by being loving and respectful of each other as human beings without having to give in to the demand to agree with others’ points of view.  I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.

Please don’t link all Catholics - millions of them - to an attack on a gay person.  I have never, ever heard any of my friends or any Priest or Bishop speak disparagingly about homosexual ‘persons’ - about the ‘acts’ yes…because those ‘acts’ are against nature - and sexual acts outside of marriage are considered immoral and sinful.  But - that does not mean that the homosexual or someone having affairs, etc., should be persecuted.  We are all sinners, all imperfect; we all struggle to grow in goodness and virtue but fall short often.  As long as we keep trying.  But it would be wrong to say that our sinful acts are legitimate and moral…and must be accepted as morally good by everyone.  There are those who revile blacks and Hispanics and there are some, even now, who persecute Jews…there are haters in every group…but they are in the minority.  There are those who hate Christians and persecute them even to the point of killing them.  Not too long ago ISIS, while on their deadly march, called all families to gather and then asked the children to step forward - (this was a Christian village) - then the ISIS leaders demanded that those children reject Jesus - the children, all of them, refused and were slaughtered in front of their parents.  Instead of focusing on those few who hurt homosexuals…you might want to focus on homosexuals who are demanding, often aggressively, that everyone accept their life style - or else.  And work among them to bring about change…

Dryden01,

So what you are saying is that you recognize that those individuals deserve rebuke, but you will withhold that rebuke that you say it is right to apply until somebody else engages in rebuke you think they should?

Isn’t it better to be the first to do the right thing?

And wouldn’t you expect that given how many Catholics don’t even understand Catholic teaching on the subject, most non-Catholics would simply be wrong out of ignorance rather than deliberate efforts to mislead?
I mean, they’d have to be more educated on Catholic teachings than the members of the Church itself for most of them to actually KNOW the truth well enough to be genuinely considered to be lying.

But hey, I’ll rebuke people spreading misinformation any day. I do, actually. No argument is served by it.

And sure, I guess I could follow through with that second rebuke too, though it seems a little silly to rebuke something that they realized was unacceptable and ejected from their midst nearly two decades ago. If NAMBLA were still really an organization and not just a dozen or two people being vigilantly watched by authorities and who don’t do anything because they know they’re being watched, I’d be actively rebuking them already.
If people were advocating for their presence in gay rights events, I’d rebuke that too.
So far as I can see, it’s all in the past, but were it to come up, sure, I’d rebuke it in a heartbeat.

Florian,

I don’t have the names, because I went to a different school than where it happened, but I do know the aggressors were ultimately forced to transfer away from the school to avoid being expelled.

This idea that gay people being angry when they are turned away from a business is comparable to a celibate Catholic boy who is resisting his same-sex attraction and was praying to overcome it so he could become a priest being beaten by other young men who he saw at Mass every day is ridiculous.
Those are not even remotely comparable. If the latter is mere hate, then the former is maybe a mosquito bite or something.

One of the problems his situation reveals is that Catholics aren’t all being properly taught that harassing or attacking gay people—especially ones who are still Catholic and still abiding by Church teaching, and who don’t even identify themselves as gay—is unacceptable.
I know it’s unacceptable, I know the Catechism says it’s unacceptable. But somewhere along the line, people who aren’t aware of that aren’t being MADE aware of it.

The other big problem it highlights is that the ones tasked with educating them sometimes are reluctant to do so thoroughly because they’re nervous about being seen as “siding with the enemy” for teaching compassion.

@Malachi

Emotional sentiments aside, those who beat a person who is gay simply for that regard are worthy of scorn and rebuke as well as those who lie about the church teachings and policies that assert denial of civil rights is a sin.  I will rebuke them at the same time you rebuke the liars in the gay community for misrepresenting the church policy on gays because the church fails to embrace Sodomistic sexual behaviors.  I will also scorn and rebuke the gay community of the past for providing a marching forum in their pride parades for their NAMBLA contingent.  Will you do that too?

Malachi, Unfortunately many (maybe most?) who call themselves “Catholic” do not practice their faith. Many (maybe most?) schools that call themselves “Catholic” are guilty of the same (especially high schools). My daughter attends one of these schools & very few of the students are truly devoted to their faith & most hold world-views that are not Christian. Unfortunately many of the administrators/teachers are the same or are too “busy” to address the problems or are unconcerned about the souls of the children. I believe your sad story.

Jan. 26th…Malachi - Sorry, I find it hard to believe that a group of Catholics beat up a gay man - if they did then name names - and if they did there are ‘haters’ everywhere…there are haters among radical gays who insist on going to a place they know is Christian and demanding them to assist in their gay weddings…even if the same time of store is right there.  Look at the ‘haters’ among the radical gay lobby whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate as many as possible into the gay life style, even small children.  We should not judge the person, that is true, but if we see actions that are wrong, whatever they are, we know they are wrong and name them as wrong.  If a man is cheating on his wife, that is adultery; if people are living together before marriage, that is not accepted.  Our civil society has many laws that we must obey - if there were no guidelines, no rules and regulations, there would be chaos.  If men want to have sex with other men, that is their business…but please don’t try to force everyone to accept that, or to say that it’s normal and natural because it just isn’t.  However, no one should be attacked or harassed because of this - that is not the Christian way…and the story of Christ forgiving Mary Magdalen is a good example.  After He forgave her, He admonished her to ‘go and sin no more’...He says that to all of us because we all fall far short of what God asks of us…

Dryden01, Marion,

So, when my friend was repeatedly physically assaulted by a group of young Catholic men (young, but adult by Catholic standards, well past confirmation), saying they were going to “beat the gay out of him” when he was still a celibate practicing Catholic as well…

Were they just punching and kicking his “tendencies”? Were they only inflicting bruises on acts he had never committed but they assumed he had? Were their actions not malice and injustice?

Their actions faced no scorn or rebuke. The Catholic private school where the attacks took place refused to investigate until he finally defended himself and the parents of the attackers demanded the school investigate why their sons came home with injuries.
His parents begged the school to ensure their son stopped coming home with injuries, but the administrators were too afraid to be seen as pro-gay to stop actual physical attacks on one of their students.

And before you say it, yes, I am fully aware the actions of those Catholics were not following the teachings of the Church, which require respect, compassion, and sensitivity to be shown to gay people… but many Catholics proudly flout those mandates from their Church. Are we to simply pretend their actions did not take place? Should we turn a blind eye when they create social systems that are permissive to those sorts of violations of their catechism?

Where is the scorn and rebuke for the people who beat him and the people who disregarded their job to stop him from being beaten again and again afterward in their school? Where is the scorn and rebuke for parents who refused to even admit their children were wrong in beating up a fellow Catholic for sins he hadn’t committed and only took action to discipline their children when they were finally, belatedly, forced to to prevent their children from being expelled for violence?

(Word Count 319)

I found myself quoting the entire thing. accusational judgmental assumptions and all out hostility.

You are why gays say the things we do. If what you say is consistent with catholicism it is not a lie to say it is hostile toward homosexuals. You don’t even see your clear contempt for what it is since you somehow manage to call it “love”. If you do not get this you need to print out your statements and seek help from a communications specialist.

@Joe

Some times harsh words are warranted; particularly when confronting lies about the RCC. Tell me where I have stated anything untrue.  My finding is that attacking the RCC with untruths about their views of gays is unacceptable.  The politically correct regularly display a characteristic implausibility in ignoring reality in favor of a non-existent world they wish existed.  If you misrepresent the teachings of the RCC then you will also earn scorn and rebuke.

Disappointed in all three.

dryden
your attitude is obviously hostile and judgmental. Not exactly the love and dignity you claim to present. Not at all really. It’s exactly the attitude that comes your beliefs run amok driving others away.

lisakaiser,

You need to belay your left wing drivel and stop the lies about the RCC and its treatment of the gay community.  Gays are accepted by the RCC and treated with dignity but your disgusting Sodomistic sexual behaviors are not and you need to learn to accept that fact and stop parroting the usual lies.  Many of my Black friends also resent your comparison of the gay agenda to the black civil rights movement and racial discrimination.  As a politically correct stooge, you probably already know that and you should finally put that approach to rest because it is an insult to Black people.  My suspicion would be that you are not only a tedious homophile, but an abortion supporter, in common with your left wing friends and their social agenda.  Let them know, that we will never be content to fund abortion with our tax dollars or our insurance premiums no matter what left wing dimwits spout in support of that.  Subsidizing gay and lesbian living arrangements with spousal “marriage” benefits while poor infants are being slaughtered in the womb should strike everyone, even you, as an indication of a depraved and grotesque culture.  Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a deplorable political scam agenda.

It is a lie of the devil to assert that members of the Catholic Church practice “bigotry” and “discrimination” against people with same-sex attraction. Bigotry and discrimination are acts of malice and of injustice, which are very serious sins, as are same-sex sexual acts serious sins. Catholics do not sin when they uphold the law of God in their own lives, nor do they sin when they support the enactment and upholding of God’s laws within their own country.
.
Nor do they act contrary to democratic principles: the United States is a free democratic republic in which members of all groups are free to express their opinions and to work to enact their opinion into public law. Catholics as much as non-Catholics have the same rights to move the laws and culture in the direction that seems right to them as much as Marxists, Socialists, Leftists, feminists, and anarchists who, although minorities in this country, also have the same rights under the law to try to move the entire nation in the direction of their choice, if they are able to do so.
.
It is by no means undemocratic to vote in a way that is in harmony with an informed Catholic conscience, nor to work to support legal and political initiatives that are in harmony with a Catholic conscience.

dryden01,

Many RCs & Christians seek to discriminate against gay American in the public sphere.  Why should gay people not resist such bigotry & discrimination?  Why should gay people put up with the vicious attacks launched against them, painting them as “lesser”, “other”, not deserving of the same Constitutional rights as all other Americans? The arguments that are used against gay people are the same old tired, disreputable arguments used by people who opposed racial integration.  Nothing the RCC says, does or teaches will change the reality that gay people are made in the image of God, loved by that gay people are actual human beings, with actual rights.  Nothing the RCC says, does or teaches will change the reality that gay people will fight for their rights, will not be herded back into the closet by bigots, will not be dictated to by straight people telling them that they cannot be relationships with each other, that their relationships are harmful to society, etc.  Because none of the stuff that is true.  Those old, disproved ideas are born of fear & ignorance.

In the USA, RC teaching does not determine the law.  Gay people are right to fight against the RCC’s efforts to discriminate against them in the public sphere.

Theresa H,

It is sad that you do not value diversity of viewpoints. Do you speak with & associate only with RCs who agree entirely with your perspective? How do you handle diversity of viewpoints that you encounter in your daily life? Secondly, the Decalogue (10 Commandments) is silent re gay people.  The Decalogue is from Judaism, not the RCC.

At Lisakaiser on Tuesday, Jan 20, 2015 11:07 AM (EST):  Isn’t it amazing, that someone who opposes the Ten Commandments and Catholic teaching in matters of faith and morals is allowed to denigrate these teachings held by the Church on a Catholic web site Discussion blog?  However, I don’t find this enjoyable and wonder how much of this EWTN has to/is going to tolerate?

@Lisakiaiser if you oppose gay marriage, the LGBT community will bully you out of your job as CEO of Mozilla, for instance.  There’s always a chance that Act-up will return to disrupt a mass at your church because you don’t support sodomy.  The LGBT calls for boycotts are also a way of bullying so please do not pretend to be dense and have the courage to face a few facts in defiance of political correctness.  Many individuals and the RCC have a belief that all sexual preferences are NOT equal and should not be pandered to.  The church also does not support a sexual preference for pedophilia, incest, fornication, adultery, and bestiality as well.  The media, for some reason, regularly ignores that fact.  When the APA succeeds in decriminalizing pedophilia (Google B4U-Act) and we oppose them for it will you then find us to be “pedophobes” if we do not buy into that agenda?

” Why would we want to influence anyone to reject the way of life we live—-we enjoy—- and believe is correct?”

Nobody is asking you to.

Debbie,

You have absolutely no proof or knowledge about any “bullying” by the left.  That is entirely speculation on your part. 

It is not bigoted or bullying for anyone to challenge the RCC’s teaching re gay people & gay relationships.  If anyone is bullying anyone it the RCC bullying people.  The RC schools, parishes, & diocese fire gay people for exercising their legal right to marry, the USCCB spends millions of dollars every yr to lobby Congress & state legislatures to deny American women & gay Americans their legal rights per the US Constitution and state law, Cardinal Burke told RCs not to welcome gay family members home, an RC school in Massachusetts wanted to deny a child enrollment in an RC school because the child’ parents were gay. Bishop Wenski of Miami threatened to fire diocese employees if they support the now legal marriage equality in Florida—even if that support happens outside of work, even if it happens in support of a family member.  If the Atlanta fire chief can express an opinion outside his work place, then employees of an RC diocese should also be able to do that.  Legatus wants to work to discriminate against gay people in the public business sphere. The RCC is a major bully of gay people.  It is the RCC that is the true bully.

“Bret Baier works for Fox News so it’s a stretch to think that he is a journalist.”
LOL, I see these propaganda operations the same way. Fox is a propaganda operation. CNN, MSNBC, and most of the mainstream media, including TV stations and newspapers, are propaganda operations. They are owned by certain people, and they are expected to manipulate public opinion in accord with their owners’ interests and directives.
Fox doesn’t want to do propaganda for peace or traditional sexuality – and Bret Baier understands that. If I was a well-known executive working for Coca Cola, I couldn’t just go and promote Pepsi Cola products in my spare time, because that would hurt my employer Coca Cola’s interests.
Fox News’ war propaganda is always “fair and balanced”, the skirts on female anchors are always short, and no Fox employee dared to say a peep criticizing President Obama’s decision to rescind the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One female anchor admitted, when asked, that they are supposed to wear short skirts and show legs (sometimes they flash more than that, into the camera…) - it’s Fox’s official policy. So, hey, if you are a female and want to work for Fox, show some legs. And if you are a newscaster, you better don’t associate with organizations and conferences that want to stop our unjust wars or extol the virtues of Catholic sexual morality.

@florian:  Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. 

@lisakaiser:  You are right that we should stand up against bigotry.  If one doesn’t like something, don’t participate, don’t be a part of it! If you are gay, and you want a wedding cake, go to someone who wants to bake your cake; plenty of bakers would be happy for the business; but don’t try to force a Christian with a different religious view to bake for you, which is what happened to bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein this past year in the state of Oregon.  Don’t terminate the job of a Fire Chief because he doesn’t believe in sex before marriage and writes a book about it; write your own book! Stop trying to police what everyone else believes and embraces in his own conscience before God.  Free speech should be free for all-not just for those with whom we agree. Tolerance is not agreement or approval.  It is being willing to live with others’differences and not trying to force your ideas and practices on others.

Does “gay” mean “intolerant”?

I’m not sure that the three speakers backed away because of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality or because they were threatened by homosexual groups…Gary Sinise does wonderful work for our Veterans and I don’t blame him for not wanting to engage in controversy which could hurt his work with Veterans.  One does not have to speak at Legatus to be a good Catholic. Gary’s primary mission is to help Veterans. That is what he does. As for Bret Baier - I heard that he recently returned to the Church in an active way…as a News Anchor, he too was probably threatened by gay groups and his prime work is to anchor a Fox News program…he is not obliged to speak at a place where a battle might take place…Legatus will do fine and hopefully will be able to engage homosexual activists, which are few in number, and still stand strong. When I worked with Mother Teresa in Calcutta I asked her why she didn’t address the issues that caused the vast suffering there and she told me that it was not her mission and would, in fact, harm her work and might even get her expelled from the country.  Her work was to give the poorest of the poor a place to die with dignity; the rest was up to those God had chosen for that work…no one can do it all.  But we Catholics should not allow ourselves to be bullied by taking down Catholic symbols like Crucifixes and Creches when a few persons make this demand.  But we should pick our battles wisely and well so we will be able to stay in the fight - peace.

Debbie, the Catholic Church is not discriminating against gay ‘people’ - men having sex with men or women having sex with women in unnatural - and the Catholic Church does more for victims of AIDS than any other organization.  The bullies are those who demand that the Church accept their distorted version of sexuality.

Phil,

No one is “suppressing” free speech.  If Bret Baier declined to speak to Legatus, he declined to speak to Legauts.  Someone else is free to accept the invitation for that scheduled speaker’s slot.

Bret Baier works for Fox News so its a stretch to think that he is a journalist.

@Lisakaiser:  You misunderstood what I wrote.  The bullying is coming from the left who often, and I suspect in this case, are pressuring the speakers into cowing to the left’s political correctness in this matter.  If you read my post correctly, I said that if the three men disagreed with the views of their own church, they indeed had a right to renege on the invitation.  The question would still arise in that case, however:  If they were so sensitive about homosexuality, why did they accept the invitation in the first place? Did they not know the organization was conservative and Catholic?  More importantly, each claims to be Catholic, do they not know the teachings of their own Church?  Should we expect each to go on some program soon and deny his faith because he was unaware of the teachings of his faith?  Come on.  Let’s get real.  My overarching point is that I suspect the Church’s teaching doesn’t offend them, at least not that much, since each claims the faith as his own, and since at least one of them has made an appearance on EWTN, a conservative Catholic network that most certainly embraces the Church’s teaching in that particular matter; but that they—the speakers were bullied either directly by the LGBT or by their powerful devotees who threaten, and are able to wreak havoc in lives of public people.  That is bullying.  They do this in order to shut people up, shut them down, control what is said, and propagate their own bigoted viewpoint (I say bigoted specifically because it is the left who tolerates nothing outside of their own little groupthink).  Consider Atlanta’s Fire Chief who was recently fired because of he wrote a books stating his Christian belief that sex outside of marriage is sinful.  Isn’t that his own business—to write and publish a book stating his own opinion.  If you don’t like his opinion—don’t read his book—isn’t that what the left’s been saying for years—until now—until they began to get so much control.  Now they want to tell everyone what to think and what to say or else!  That is persecution.  And it’s getting worse.  Astute Christians recognize it.  We need to resist it, and point out the hypocrisy of it.

Since they were pressured by their employers and LGBTers to not attend the Legatus conference because it’s Catholic, this implies that they should not even attend Catholic church any longer. 

Belief in Catholicism or writing against homosexuality will be regarded as a hate crime, and you will be prosecuted if the LGBTers have their way.

That is where it is headed.

Debbie,

Two celebrities declining to speak at an event whose message they disagree with is hardly “bullying”.  Its their right as human beings.  Because someone does not agree with the Legatus message of discriminating against gay people in the public business sphere, does not mean that the Legatus is being “forced” to do anything. It is the right thing to do to stand up against Legatus & the RCC when they support discrimination, bigotry, demonizing gay people.

Most troubling is that Baier, a journalist, would be so easily cowed by an interest group.  Again, he’s a journalist.  Emphasis on journalist.  Scary things can happen when free speech is suppressed.

What a very strange tone this article takes. I do not understand it at all. Certainly an organization like Legatus, fully in support of Church doctrine and extremely well funded by it’s distinguished members, can have no difficulty attracting paid celebrity guests of the highest order, who would consider their invitation an honor and not the other way around.

It’s called the Gay Mafia for a reason. Father Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski of Poland pointed out that they(the GM) silence, remove, or even kill those who get in their way of promoting the LGBT lifestyle as normal.
It’s a shame these men backed down from giving speeches, when confronted with issues that Legatus stands behind, that would have put them in the crosshairs of the GM…

I’m not sure what ND means when he/she says “....Every man and woman has the inherent right to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate acts, including appropriate and inappropriate sexual acts and sexual relationships. To do so is an act of Love, not hate.”  We never have the “right” to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate sexual acts and relationships;” we have the “freedom” / “freewill” to do so, not the “right.”  There is a BIG difference.  We are not the supreme Lawgiver; we are called to “keep” God’s Commandments. We never have the “right” to do what is always and everywhere wrong.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/speakers-withdraw-from-legatus-event-over-homosexuality-issue/#ixzz3PEgIj8if

This is somewhat sad, but not at all surprising.  Most of us are old enough that we should already know that if a man or woman achieves success in business, in acting, in politics, in sports, or whatever, it really does not mean anything at all beyond the success they have found (however that is defined) in that one narrow field.  If we want role models for our spiritual lives, we should look to the saints, not to actors or businessmen.

I think it was the whole reparative therapy thing which causes more harm than anything and supporting life sentences for homosexuals in Uganda sort of stuff.

“Every man and woman has the inherent right to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate acts”

Yes including those not on your side.

Thanks

Will Bret Baier, Gary Sinise, or Peter Coors ever speak at any event, for any group, if they disagree with some or even one of the premises or beliefs of that group?  Or is this just the standard that has become the “rule” for Christian groups in this country?  We, as Christians, must be agreeable with everything the “world” thinks and believes or the world will not support anything we do; and the world will even ostracize, ridicule, and persecute those who speak at our religious events?  Really?  That is crazy, and the world does not apply this kind of standard to any other group in this country or in this entire world!  This kind of bullying is a subtle form of persecution that the left in this country has begun, and even good men, like these three, are being led like dumb sheep to do stupid things.  The real question is, however, why are men like these—good men—so compliant?  They are all Catholic, are they not?  Do they sincerely oppose church teaching?  If they do, then they indeed have a right to make their voices heard by staying away from the summit.  But if they embrace the Church’s teaching, then why are they complying with the political correctness? Aren’t they adding to the growing problem for Christians in this country?  Would those whom these men fear expect and demand that everyone who speaks at a Muslim event admit that he adheres to every single premise, every single belief and practice of the Islamic faith or refrain from attending and speaking at that event?  Of course they wouldn’t.  That’s the double standard of the left.  So why do we, as Christians, allow them to bully us into these cowering postures—and all the while, others across the globe, more noble, are being persecuted and martyred for the name of Christ.  It’s all just so sad.

They intolerant and paranoid left. They are terrified of being in the presence of people with whom they disagree.  And they probably have a justification for that currently, politicians have been severely criticized for speaking to groups that have opinions that are unacceptable to the left.

..and I’m sure it’s coincidence that the announcement that Gary Sinese was not attending the Legatus convention and the news that he was to star in ANOTHER spinoff of the “CSI” franchise on CBS-TV.

Hollywood is at the forefront of normalizing homosexuality and promoting same-sex “marriage.” Wealthy gay persons in the entertainment industry bankrolled the Obama campaigns

This is an issue of the institution of marriage and ofthe family as the basic cell of society that unites children with their mother and father.

Judges should know that opposites cannot be reconciled.  That’s why we never call a man and a woman opposites. We call them complementary.  But judges call them “opposite sex couples” to accommodate “same-sex couples—-it makes them sound equal—-even though one sex represented in a marriage can never be equal to two sexes represented in a marriage.

The designation “opposite sex couple” is incorrect.  It does not represent a man and a woman—-who are two unique sexes. A couple is two things of the same kind—-“a couple of spoons—-a pair of shoes, etc…

A man and woman are not sexually two of the same kind. You cannot call them a couple using sex as the criteria.  You can call them an engaged couple—-a married couple—-Catholic couple—-red-haired couple—-where they both have the engagement, marriage, Catholicism, and red hair in
common—-but man and woman do not have the same sex in common.  It is abominable, inexcusable, wrong English to make heterosexuality and homosexuality appear equal. 

Unfortunately, even my Bishop has used the designation in his writing.  If you wish to figure it out, an “opposite sex couple is another way of saying “same-sex couple.”  All you have to remember is that if you are a woman—-you can look at two men and call them an opposite sex couple.  If you’re a man, you can call two women an “opposite sex couple.  One sex is
singular—-man and woman are two different sexes—-plural.  The word “opposite” is used by one sex that is the opposite of the other sex in this instance—-it does not call the two sexes “opposites.” 

One would think that all the teachers and professors in this nation would say something—-or the media people who deal with words and their meanings.  The designation is corrupting English and law in too many areas, and strengthening same-sex—-it needs to be stopped.

Every legal document judges and politicians have written using the incorrect corruption of man and woman sexes should be tossed out.  That includes S147999—-the marriage document that made same-sex marriage legal in California banning Proposition 22.  Voters passed Proposition 8 which was also banned and the corrupt document S247999 has again become law. 

Have I convince you?  It’s why they denigrate procreation as though it isn’t important—-procreation isn’t the domain of only religion.  It’s why they claim gender or the two sexes aren’t important. The two sexes aren’t the domain of only religion. 

Those two facts define heterosexuality—-normal, fundamental behavior as opposed to homosexuality—-deviant disorder.

The times in which we live, the culture of death, are steeped in evil. We will see more and more of this. There will be separation between those who follow Christ and those who do not. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but you will know one by their actions. These three men do not act like Catholics, or Christians, only like cowards. Pray for them. Pray for all those out there who are just like them. A line will be drawn. The sheep and the goats will start to separate here before the Lord makes it permanent.

I repeat, this is a battle between heterosexuality and homosexuality.  If they blamed, denigrated and attacked heterosexuality, they would have no support.  But it’s easy in a godless nation to make people hate religion and give their sympathy and support to homosexuality.

It’s time religion faced reality—-that this is revenge on a normal, accepted lifestyle.  It just happens that religion is most vocal in defending the lifestyle.

To Suzanne:

Religion and love of God is not turned on and off at will.  It is part of every moment of our lives.  It is evident in our lives and behavior.  Please try to remember the word “behavior.”

Because you obviously want one rule for some people and another rule for Catholics—-religion.  If you keep up with the news—-then you must know that homosexuals, judges and liberals—-are “forcing” an acceptance of homosexual “behavior”  on every state and the voters who represent religious and non-religious citizens—-people who passed bans in order to uphold their way of life—-marriage between a man and a woman—-heterosexual “behavior.” 

Make no mistake, this is a battle between heterosexuality and homosexuality.  Religion is a smoke-screen.

When God was pushed out of this nation by “Separation of Church and State,” the godless chose darkness instead of light—-they cannot seem to “see” logic and reason.

It is unreasonable—-illogical—- for homosexuals and their advocates to expect heterosexuals—- who have chosen their way of life—- to support an opposite behavior.  Why would we want to influence anyone to reject the way of life we live—-we enjoy—- and believe is correct?

Why would we support something we would never, ever, practice ourselves?
It’s like being Catholic—-we can live and let live, but we would be hypocrites to support Islam or any other religion when our belief is in Catholicism.

If someone their freedom of speech protected they should also understand when someone does not want to be around them.

Many of Legatus’ opinions are not supported in any reality other than their own. Forcing someone to speak at their even it the antithesis of freedom.

At its core is the fact that giving personhood to sexual desire/orientation, which sexually objectifies the human person, is not only a sin against God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, it demeans the inherent Dignity of every human person. Every man and woman has the inherent right to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate acts, including appropriate and inappropriate sexual acts and sexual relationships. To do so is an act of Love, not hate.

Good for Legatus.  Don’t cave!

Some celebrities seek controversy as a building tool for their careers through outlandish behaviors that attract notoriety to them.  The three who have backed away have a concern for the way a controversy might impair their popularity and impede their careers.  At the same time, backing away in the way they did also implies a de facto rejection of the religious principles that the group holds in concert with official church doctrines.  Somehow their reputation is reduced in all of this.  We must remember that homosexuality is a behavior.  Other sexual behaviors like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are sexual preferences that are condemned and we mandate that those with these sexual preferences refrain from them.  The LGBT requires our total acceptance of their behaviors even when we find them to be unwholesome and contrary to the articles of our faith.  As a free people, we should never be required to accept those behaviors we find unacceptable and the LGBT needs to learn the meaning of the word no.

True members of the Church believe what they are called to believe.  Thank God that there are these type of people in the world.  And no it is not a question of being bigoted etc.  It is standing up for what you believe in and not adding various items to the cart just be politically correct.

Isn’t your subtitle “The three high-profile speakers said they won’t participate because Legatus’ support for Church teachings about sexuality” deceitful, considering you encourage active homosexual lifestyle?

That is NOT what the Church Magisterium calls for, and no where is that encouraged in the Catechism.

Here we go again.  The Catholic Church is in for a huge fight coming up.  The Liberal Establishment who is pushing homosexuality down our throats is not going to let up.  It is high time for the church to stand tall and proclaim our teachings unapologetically.  All Catholics should tell the media and the business world, “If you don’t respect our beliefs, we won’t do business with you.”  I don’t do business with Catholic haters.

These three former participants were in-line with Church teaching (and maybe still are).  But something made them pull out.  What?  (The truth, not some sound-bite excuse.)  Whatever it is, it has successfully begun (or continues) division in our ranks.  (Divided we fall, but united we stand.)  To Messrs. Baier, Sinise and Coors, please reconsider your participation and/or your acceptance of Church teaching; don’t let the enemy turn us against each other.

Kudos to Legatus. Hopefully this decision by Legatus to uphold its Catholicism in a respectful, loving, and unapologetic way, will be a shining example for other Catholic professional organizations who may be faced with similar challenges to their religious beliefs. It should also be an example to our Catholic Universities and their Presidents and Faculty, many of whom have compromised their Catholicism in order to gain societal or academic acceptance. The same standard could also be applied to Catholic hierarchy – our Bishops and Cardinals, some of whom seem to faithfully choose public compromise to Catholic consent.

Jesus Christ became Man for the purpose of our salvation. He came to atone for our original sins and to spread His Good Word so that all who heard and followed Him could gain everlasting life with Him in heaven. Christ did not come to score points or make friends or to debate the merits of His Word against opposing beliefs, opinions, or societal standards. And Christ was not ashamed to speak Truth even if this Truth was politically incorrect, caused anger or resentment, was considered anti religious, bigoted or polarizing, or lacked inclusiveness. Christ never deviated or compromised His teachings because the Word of God is eternal and unchanging.

Today’s Catholic Church has lost sight of this simple truth because the Church has seemingly fallen prey to a morally perverted disorientation. One based on an unproven salvation theology of love, likeability, and universal acceptance. A theology that pushes out and deconstructs truth and logic (God’s Law) and replaces it entirely with feel good emotions (God’s universal love for man). A theology that says that God desires salvation for everyone because He loves everyone infinitely. And because God loves sinners infinitely as well, in the end God will allow everyone (or just about everyone) to spend eternity with Him in heaven. This new age thesis ignores the actual words of Christ, the early Apostles, St. Paul, and 2000 years of Church history. And it ignores completely the God of the Old Testament and God’s Law the Ten Commandments. Furthermore it seems to be at odds with a fundamental Church belief - the Triune God. That the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament, and from Both comes God the Holy Spirit. That God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One God. How therefore can the God of the Old Testament have a different set of moral rules from the God of the New Testament?

Today’s Church is truly suffering from a moral disorientation and a crisis of beliefs. On the one side is today’s new age Church, the Church of This World, and on the other side is the traditional Church, the Church of the Next World. Jesus Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church so I’m betting that when the dust settles it will be the traditional Church that is still standing. May God make it so!

Bret Baier has been a guest on EWTN’s “The World Over,” and I’m not sure if Gary Sinise has been as well. I’m confused whether the topic of homosexuality was even part of the program, or just that Legatus supports the church’s 2000-year-old teaching on homosexuality. If the latter, then they should not be seen inside a church or on EWTN for the same reason they don’t want to be seen at Legatus.

One should be proud to be Catholic, not ashamed of what it teaches. If I’m understanding this article correctly, Baier and Sinise are afraid that their presence would be interpreted as anti-gay—which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Gary Sinise is doing wonderful work.  I am so very sorry that these three people either disrespect the teachings of the Church or are afraid to buck the flash mob mentality that seizes on sound bites and ruins careers and sometimes lives.  The twits that tweet have no jury and do no research before they strike and smear. When apologies do come, they are too late. The assassins of free speech are alive and well in the western world. It was a lot easier to identify those that killed Charlie Hebdo.  Just googled Gary Sinise to check the spelling and first thing online is a news article concerning his dropping out of this conference.  He apologizes that he wasn’t aware of the controversial nature—etc. So does he really think the Church mistreats homosexuals or is he afraid of getting the same treatment the recently dismissed fire chief received?

I think we should all be cautious in presuming TV personalities & entertainers share every value & concern exactly as we do. It’s kind of a projection.Many folks in the media are paid to do their job & have an on- screen persona, but we don’t really know what they’re like underneath.
Plus, how many of us would jeopardize their career over canceling a one time speaking engagement? It would take more conviction that most folks have, especially if they have a family to support.
I watch FOX News, but I understand it’s theatre & marketing.

What a wonderful group, Legatus!  The more homosexuality is openly discussed with prayer,and show how we love all men and women, the easier it is to honestly discuss that sin is sin!  Same sex attractions is a tendency that needs to be dealt with honestly and openly.  Sex out of marriage is not to be done no matter who you are living with!

Solution: Don’t invite celebrities to be honored as keynote speakers because they are too attached to human respect and other worldly goods.

I find this heartbreaking.  What did they expect when they agreed to speak at a “Catholic” group function?  Legatus embraces ALL that the Catholic Church teaches. Who did these men think they were going to talk to?  This has given be a new prospective of all of them, I am sorry to say.  They seem to be wishy-washy when it comes to their beliefs.

I don’t know about two of the Media people, but I was very, very sorry to read that Bret Baier will not be involved with Legatus anymore because of their stance on homosexual relationships (“marriage”).  I wonder if FOX News is behind this, but if that would be the case, I would be very sorry over that, too. More and more I start wondering, as I recall the words of Jesus: “When the Son of Man comes do you think He will find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8)  He also told us to “read the signs of the times….” (Lk 12:54ff)  The “world” is swallowing up people who received the gift of faith in baptism.  Jesus told the apostles to “Watch and pray.”  Pray to stay firm in the hour of temptation and the powers of darkness, from the “world, the flesh and the devil!”

Mr. Sinise;
I personally don’t know you nor have followed your career, but through the Catholic/Christian media many have complimented you as a light-source in a very dark Hollywood environment. Well that light just dimmed…

I pray you aren’t beginning the slippery slide of “Cuomo-Catholicism”, where you pick & choose which tenants of the faith to follow. Christ calls us to be like Him, which often is counter-cultural. 11 of the 12 disciples did not die natural deaths. This puts saving our careers (or charitable works) in perspective.

Oh, as a 21 year Navy veteran, I can tell you that your belief in homosexuality as a sin would have absolutely NO EFFECT on your ministry to our troops. Controversy? Give me a break!

I am really disappointed in all three! I am so sick and tired of supporters of the “gay lifestyle” inferring that the Church is bigoted or hateful of them! It is their lifestyle, not the individual that the Church reaches out to help through apostolates such as Courage.
Michael Voris pointed out some time ago how Fox News anchors who claim to be Catholic, are all for the homosexual rights, like marriage.  They should not call themselves Catholic.
I salute Legatus for its role in bringing together these prominant Catholic business leaders who are not afraid of the truth of their Catholic faith!

While I understand the concerns of those who have withdrawn their plans to participate, I see them as just another proof that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality continues to be largely misunderstood and misrepresented in so many forums. As a Catholic who loves the Church and values its teachings, I thoroughly understand that it is because of love that she must speak the truth, being mindful first of all of the eternal consequences to the soul in all its teaching. It is not love to disregard the truth in favor of what is in these times the more popular notion of “tolerance” or “inclusiveness”. Love speaks truth without apology, but with compassion and a clear message of “I will walk with you, I will love you with the love Christ has for you, and I will help you find a way to live the truth. In that way, I hope you will find the path to highest happiness in this life and the next.” Let us not abandon these brothers and sisters of ours, but be ready to be companions on the journey together.

It’s sad that this is a controversial issue, but there is a heavy bias against any opposition to homosexual vehavior and identification, especially in equating sexual desire with race. Any opposition is rejected as being bigoted, and so no dialogue can even begin with people, including sincere Catholics, who disagree, no matter how much love we explain we have for people with same-sex attraction and gender identity struggles. But I have hope as more Catholics with SSA and GID speak up for Church teaching, their witness will reach those willing to listen and trust in God for their happiness.

wish to read comments not make one.

Good business should be because of ethical & legal business practices. To use business to (en)force religious beliefs onto customers and, no doubt, employees then it is not a business to be associated. It is about time that Catholics stop being against all homosexuals, and start educating yourselves (yes, put down the catechism) and learn how to be a better person, and stop be against all Homosexuals, and let them live their own lives-including marrying whom they love (notice no quotes)!!

Three cheers for LEGATUS!!!

Will these speakers never speak at a Catholic event then? Whether Legatus, or some other Catholic organization, Church teaching is Church teaching. Any truly Catholic organization has the same exact beliefs as the membership of Legatus.

These three, Baier, Coors, and Sinese, esteem the honor of men over obedience to God. Controversial? It looks as if in a very short time that Christ’s teachings are raising the same objections now, among His own followers, as they did when He first said “If you love Me, keep my commandments”.

Showing themselves to be true men of true conviction(?)  They wither even in the anticipation of criticism.  Amazing.

We are going to see more and more of this. The “easy” era when traditional Christian morality was dominant in the culture and there were no real social consequences for promoting it - or even being associated with others who promote it - is over.  We are about to find out who will stand with Christ and who won’t. In the end, there are going to be few - very few indeed - who are willing to suffer negative repercussions for witnessing to the faith. There will be very few indeed.

At first they wanted not to be persecuted, then they wanted tolerance, next they wanted approbation and now they wish their deviance to be celebrated while tearing down traditional morality and celebrating the debauched chaos that arise from it.  This is not a culture war to shrink from if we value a civilized society.

Questions of sex tap into the very meaning of life itself.  Why did Pope John Paul II speak of the carnal body as theology? Can an answer lie within the Theology of the Body written by Pope John Paul II?  God’s mystery has been revealed in human flesh.  The body entered theology through the main door.  I would like to explore this further and would suggest others who aspire to virtue do the same.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/gary-sinise-lieutenant-dan

Austin Ruse pulls no punches in his article here.