….In a recent article for America, Cardinal Robert McElroy wrote, “It is a demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral animus toward members of the LGBT communities.”
What McElroy either doesn’t understand or ignores is that any animus is directed not at gender-confused individuals, but at the destructive ideological movement that has captured their minds and, in many cases, damaged their bodies. As a Cardinal, he is obliged to uphold Church teaching on sexuality. Yet, he is saying, in effect, that young people should feel free to reject those teachings should their conscience or experience tell them otherwise.
Since McElroy suggests that those who disagree with him harbor some “demonic mystery” in their souls, what are we to think of a prelate who disagrees with God’s plan for human sexuality?
After all, as Saint Paul says in his epistle to the Romans, God’s plan can be clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:19-20). Tellingly, the first creature to express displeasure with the plan was a demon. In the Garden of Eden, the serpent suggests to Adam and Eve that they should follow their own inclinations rather than God’s plan.
After accusing God of lying, the serpent then proceeds to tell a colossal lie: “when you eat of it [the fruit] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God” (Gen. 3:5). In short, you will no longer be only a creature, you will be a creator.
How can Adam and Eve have fallen for that? That is certainly a mystery (cf CCC, 309ff), but it is a perennial temptation. Gender-confused people are being told, in effect, that God has made a mistake—that He has put their soul into the wrong body, and that they have the right to recreate themselves according to their own desires.
As for guidance, they can rely on their conscience. In McElroy’s scheme of things, “It is conscience that has the privileged place “over Catholic teaching.
But, as a result of original sin, conscience doesn’t always work as it was meant to. It can be darkened and weak. A conscience has to be formed by parents, grandparents, teachers, clergy, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit.
What McElroy seems to have in mind is not the Christian notion of a well-formed conscience, but the humanist notion that conscience is some sort of natural inner compass that works better without the interference of Church or society.
This view of conscience can be seen more clearly when we look at the work of Fr. Martin, perhaps the most prominent pro-LGBT Catholic on the planet. In Martin’s view, “conscience” is really just another word for “feelings.” If a certain behavior makes you feel good about yourself, then it is good for you. For Martin, the important thing is not to do good but to feel good.
For example, although the Church teaches that a “same-sex marriage” is sinful, Martin once told a homosexual person who was about to be “married,” “your love is beautiful.” A common theme in Martin’s writings is that God loves us as we are. That’s true in a sense. As St. Paul states, “while we were still sinners Christ died for us “(Rom 5:8). But, as Scripture and Church teachings make clear, God does not love our sins. Rather, He wants us to change our sinful ways. God wants us to transition, but not from male to female or vice versa, but from a state of sin to a state of grace.
By contrast, Fr. Martin’s approach is reminiscent of an old radio advertisement for the Unitarian Church: “Come as you are; we don’t want to change you.” His message to the LGBT community is that they are “beautiful”, “wonderful” and “special.” One gets the impression that God is not only pleased with LGBT persons, but also pleased with their behavior — so pleased that he gives them an exemption from the rules.
A few years ago, in a video posted on YouTube, Fr. Martin claimed that chastity is not required of people of the LGBT persuasion. Why not? Because, said Martin, “For a teaching to be really authoritative, it is expected that it will be received by the people of God.” However, he continues, “the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives has not been received….”
McElroy thinks that those who reject the transgender agenda are the victims of some kind of “demonic” influence. But the opposite seems more likely. The transgender agenda seems much more in line with Satan’s agenda than with God’s. In Genesis, Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve comes immediately after a statement of God’s intention for men and women: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24)….
God’s revelation should never be judged by the “signs of the times”. Misguided ideologies contradict what God has revealed about our human nature.
Noteworthy is that both Pope Francis and Cardinal McElroy have used similar phrases like “demonic” in reference to their perception of Catholic laity. I also find McElroy’s repeated rebukes offensive. The “visceral animus” he talks about is not flowing from us, the laity, but rather from his own enmity which perhaps stems from an underlying personal guilt.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
See? It’s happening. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez are going to introduce gay unions into Catholic belief and practice.
We are called to love all people. Loving a person means desiring they go to Heaven. Sodomy is the way of the devil and not of God. Our Lord revealed to St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, how much this diabolical sin offends Him:
They [the homosexuals] not only fail from resisting the weakness [of fallen human nature] …. but they do even worse when they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but is disgusting even to the devils themselves whom these depraved creatures have chosen as their lords.
For Me this sin against nature is so abominable that for it alone five cities were destroyed by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear their iniquity ….
It is disgusting to the devils not because evil displeases them or because they find pleasure in good, but rather because their nature is angelic and flees upon seeing such a repulsive sin being committed. For while certainly it is the devil that first strikes the sinner with the poisoned arrow of concupiscence, nonetheless when a man actually carries out such a sinful act, the devil goes away.
God loves everyone. He desires that they all go to Heaven but he does not force them to.
I do think that Cdl. McElroy has bought into the lie that disagreement with the LGBT lifestyle is hate. People who hate are automatically condemned right out of the box and have lost all standing as moral commentators or contributors. People who love, by contrast, deserve front row seating at the debate table and have the only true standing as moral spokesmen. And who are those so blessed? Why, those who speak words of love to the LGBT crowd, esp. Fr. James Martin and Cdl. McElroy. These words of love are words of affirmation that they needn’t change, since for them Church teaching doesn’t apply. Because, said Martin, “For a teaching to be really authoritative, it is expected that it will be received by the people of God.” However, he continues, “the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives has not been received….”
I take this reasoning as a personal insult. As a 72 year old single man, single my entire life, I have been called to a required celibacy in the same way as the LGBT crowd. Now I hear Fr. Martin telling his flock that this teaching need not apply because it is not popular. That is, if you don’t like it, you can ignore it, or words to that effect. So a lifetime of sacrifice in deference to the honor of God is reduced to take it or leave it personal choice? Are all God’s commands thus to be considered?
Dan – You have applied the principles of your faith, and I commend you for your lifetime of fidelity.
“It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Matt. 10:15). The sodomites and gays will experience more mercy on the day of judgment. Remember that.
Gosh, it’s almost like being homosexual is to be a more privileged and superior human being. Why didn’t God just make people gay right from the beginning, in that case?
So it’s God who makes people gay?
“The sodomites and gays will experience more mercy on the day of judgment. Remember that.’ says the leftist who thinks sin does not exist… they will burn with the rest of them
Who said sin does not exist? Did Jesus say that? Did someone here write that? Who? Point him out. What Jesus is saying is that it will be more tolerable for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for those who reject Him and His apostles. Translate that to today…it will be more tolerable for theLGBTQ people than for those who today reject the Pope and bishops because they continue Jesus’ and the apostles’ ministry. Remember that.
That is not what Father Martin said.
Imagine a group of Christians who, oh let’s say, judge.
That teaching has not been received well.
If you remind Christians that they will be judged as they judge, they reject it.
Does that mean that it is OK to judge?
No.
To not what he said July 13, 2023 at 3:52 pm: I have had to read and reread your post and I hope I understand it. If I don’t, please tell me. Your point is that Christians who judge and who are reproached for this without any success are showing that they reject Jesus’ words. His teaching is not well received. But this rejection only serves to validate Jesus’ command not to judge, or to say it another way, the rejection of His words does not invalidate their claim on His followers.
So the principle here is that the rejection of a moral standard does not invalidate the standard, or the poor reception of a standard does not invalidate the standard.
If I have understood you, and by extension, Fr. Martin, then the fact that the claim of chastity falls upon LGBT people has not been well received, does not invalidate the claim — if this is what Fr. Martin argues, then I must agree with him.
Please advise if I have misunderstood this matter.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html
To be very honest, Fr. Martin knows right where the lines are and does not cross them.
It’s the Actions of active LGBT people that are demonic, get it right Cardinal. See how these homosexual apologists in robes and miters twist things?
No God does not love us as we are. If He loves us as we are, there is no need for repentance of any kind, no need to change, no need for a confessor, priest, rabbi or minister or savior and certainly no need for a Cardinal Mc Elroy nor a Fr. James Martin. But God does loves us enough to call us to holiness — to become holy like He is holy.
Did you miss the whole dying on the Cross thing?
No, but clearly you missed the whole go and sin no more thing.
While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. By your logic, Anne TE, Jesus did not love us when he sacrificed himself upon the altar of the Cross.
Of course, Christ loved us while we were yet sinners. That is the scandal of the cross. That is why He was rejected by the Jewish hierarchy in the first place.
Oh, please, you misinterpreted my post. You ignore the very fact that Christ called Matthew the tax collector away from cheating his county men and into being an honest man, he called Zacarias away from his sin also and into making restitution for the evil he had done. He told the woman at the well to go and sin no more lest something worse happen to her. The Lord did not leave those he called to wallow in the gutter they had made of their lives. He called them to holiness as he calls us to holiness.
YFC thinks Christ expects nothing of us, for him and the rest of the syndicate, do not believe in sin, so they see need no repent nor do they need Christ’s mercy, they honestly believing they are getting to heaven by default.
“No God does not love us as we are. If He loves us as we are, there is no need for repentance …” I think YFC is correct in that God loves us but not our sin, which He hates. God cannot unlove because He is love. But you are right–that love requires repentance because God is perfectly righteous as well. His love is not inconsistent with His detestation of sin. We may have trouble loving the sinner but not the sin, but not God, for Whom love and rectitude are in perfect harmony. The old Puritans in New England, typified by Jonathan Edwards, taught that God hated sinners since He was provoked by their sins. The sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God reflects this view. But it is not Catholic.
You are mixing up Bible stories.
But that does not get us into heaven without our cooperation. “Fatih without works is dead,” as St. James said in the New Testament. Luther wanted to take the book of James out of the Bible. There is no such thing as “once saved, always saved”. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling as St. Paul said.
Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 679
“He is saying, in effect,”
Means he did not say it.
Means you are interpreting it.
Means you are wrongly interpreting it.
Means you are adding a meaning that you want it to have.
Cardinal McElroy has always upheld Church teaching on sexuality.
Cardinal McElroy teaches that sex is for marriage and that it is profound, not casual.
No, these sly, slithering serpents have a way of communicating things implicitly. They won’t say explicitly that they believe there is nothing wrong with gay sex because church politics don’t permit them to say that yet. But they make themselves clear nonetheless.
You make McElroy sound like he is some sort of apostolic hero for upholding very basic doctrine on sexuality and the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Anyone who reads this combox knows that the animus is directed at persons and the ideology.
That seems like an old quote from when people started to attack Fr. James Martin but I can’t get to the link without hitting the paywall.
I looked at the video that he talks about in the next to last paragraph. He did not say that chastity is not required of LGBT people. The quote is accurate but then he says “So what do we do about that?”
Jimmy Martin says things without explicitly saying them. He loves to claim that he has never challenged church teaching about gays. He does everything he can to undermine that teaching, but — he is correct — he has never challenged the church’s teachings about gays explicitly in so many words.
The devil is more sly than to state his meaning directly. Now, understand that I didn’t just call Jimmy Martin the devil, but you see what I did with my words? Martin and McElroy and all the gay-affirming clergy do the same thing with their words. They imply, which communicates sufficiently albeit indirectly, and it leaves them with enough wiggle room for plausible deniability. No, I did not say that Jimmy Martin is the devil. See?
I was able to get to the first couple of paragraphs of the article and the whole thing (errors and whatevers) seems to be rooted in the idea of having an inclusive church.
Now I agree that God’s Will is to have everyone in His Church.
To me, the way to do that is to teach the value of the Catholic Church, of the Eucharist, of the Sacraments not to imply that things are OK that are not.
i worry more about bread-crumbing and telling people that they can be married or have kids by IVF or whatever else is OK that is not OK
He’s talking about the culture of exclusion again,
“Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.”
The Catechism of Trent
No. That is the problem. Instead of dealing with what they are actually saying, people say they mean something else.
I see a slippery slope too but you are at the bottom telling people to stop sliding when you should be at the top holding on to them.
Those who have been baptized and have not committed a mortal sin are in a state of grace. Also those who have committed a mortal sin and received absolution is sacramental confession.
Why lie?
There is plenty to discuss without the lies.
Lots of heterosexual people leave the Church over its sexual teachings, too.
What happens?
They get married, have kids, get their kids baptized, start coming back to Church.
Do they change their beliefs that are contrary to the Faith?
Some. Probably. Maybe.
What happened? When they want to get married or get their kids baptized, they go and talk to a priest and the priest is non-judgemental and is welcoming and they continue to attend. And every week the priest talks to them and their kids and makes them feel welcome.
It is no longer about any teaching and maybe it never was.
Except they aren’t coming back to the church for baptisms and marriages anymore. Used to. Not anymore.
You are right that for the majority of Catholics it’s not about adhering to teaching. It’s about performing the religious rituals that good people do. The church is just a religious social club for most Catholics.
But it’s a dying club.
Parishes are not welcome wagons or places to make you feel good. That’s Disney land. Parishes are places you come together as a community to encounter God. Sometimes that means struggle or being told the truth that you may or may not agree with. Making you feel welcome comes down to emparting the truth with kindness, not giving you a doughnut and saying “glad you could make it.”
If you are telling gay people, or straight people that they can get into heaven by not having sex, you are misleading them.
If you are telling trans people that if they don’t transition they will get into heaven, you are misleading them.
One enters the kingdom of God through baptism.
If you are an adult, you will need to profess the Catholic Faith to be baptized in the Catholic Church.
There are programs at your local Catholic Church to instruct you in the Faith.
Anyone can become Catholic.
While it is not necessary to be Catholic to be baptized, the Catholic Church has the fullness of revealed truth..
And that truth includes the intrinsic evil of gay sex.
And a lot of other things.
Correction- The Catholic Church is the one True faith-period.
I do not think it is a demonic mystery of the human soul why some people have an animus toward LGBTQ people.
My experience is that they are unkind, unloving people.
These are the kind of people who throw their kids out of the house.
They always have a problem with other groups too.
You should invite some of them to the chancery and just listen while they talk to each other.
If they wouldn’t shove their gayness in my face everywhere and try to force people to accept their perversion, things would be different. The church and the parish is not the place to promote gay ideology. I’d feel the same about KKK people trying to shove their racism in my face and trying to form KKK ministries in my parish. Hey, let’s be more welcoming to the KKK because God loves everyone. Do you have an animus toward Nazis? Well, then you know how we feel. And we’re justified in feeling that way, just as you are justified in feeling animus toward Nazis.
I never even think about Nazis.
Father Mike Schwartz has a video about why we lie. He is talking about why we lie mostly about ourselves. To make ourselves look better than we are, to hid something, to get out of doing something we don’t want to do.
I think there are many more reasons that people lie.
He does not discuss why we lie about others. Sometimes we lie to make others look better than they are. Sometimes we lie to make others look worse than they are. But why?
You want others to be deceived about them but why. If you lie to make someone look better than they are, you might want to protect them from some consequence of their behavior. So does it follow that if you lie to make someone look worse than they are, are you trying to get them to have to experience a consequence, a rejection, a punishment for something that they did not do?
The Catholic Church has always taught that harming someone’s reputation is a more serious sin that theft of goods.
Sorry, Father Schmitz
Looking online, they have a lot more supporters than critics.
McElroy has argued that Communion should not be denied to pro-abortion politicians because to do so would weaponize the Eucharist and be counterproductive. He also apparently believes that infallible Catholic doctrine should not be upheld against the desires of gays to change it or their refusal to live by it because to do so would weaponize doctrine. McElroy doesn’t preach the Catholic faith. He preaches wokism.
I don’t know whether the first sentence is true but it is something I could verify.
The second sentence was word salad.
The third sentence was a lie.
The fourth sentence makes no sense.
Sorry. Bad me.
More and more the church seems to me to be straying from Christ.
Remember how before about the year 2008 every Democrat politician paid lip service to marriage being between one man and one woman? But all the gays knew they were lying and voted for them anyway. The politicians were just saying what they had to say at the time to get elected by middle America. Then a few years later they all suddenly ‘evolved’ on the issue, which just meant it was safe for them to admit they supported gay marriage without losing their chances to be elected. But all along they supported gay marriage even though they denied it.
Church prelates are doing the same thing. They are saying they support marriage as between a man and a woman and oppose gay unions, but the day will come within three years when you’ll see a tidal shift among clergy willing to admit publicly that they support gay unions, which they currently support secretly. They will ‘evolve’.
I live in San Diego County. McElroy is an embarrassment. I personally don’t know of anyone who has a visceral animus toward members of the LGBT communities.
Well Stephanie, there are plenty of people who live in these commboxes who have visceral animus toward members of the LGBT communities. Stick around, you’ll soon see.
Guilty as charged… “They’re here, they’re queer and they are coming for our children” they admit themselves, YFC the animus has been earned, but then again your syndicate uses sin of pride as it motto.
Keep your sexuality to yourself at all times and no one will say a word. Proclaim it on the streets and in the schools and we’ll have a problem with you.
What does that say about you?
Lots of people like gay men or women, and enjoy working with them – and may never know that they are gay. Ever thought of that? And unfortunately– you cannot please everyone! There will always be petty people who dislike you if you are overweight, underweight, have an enviable figure, are too dark-skinned, too light-skinned, are Asian and “too smart,” are an intellectual, and labelled a “nerd” or a “geek,” dress in enviable, expensive, fashionable clothes, dress in dowdy, “un-hip” clothes, wear glasses, are a Democrat or a Republican, are a fantastic, enviable business success, are a shameful failure in business, are a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Evangelical Christian, etc., or if you have a disability and are in a wheelchair, or have a speech impediment, or have Down Syndrome… the last goes on and on… or even if you have a hairdo or a car that they don’t like… YFC, you cannot possibly please everyone. Just be proud of yourself, live a good life, according to Christ’s teachings, be kind and good to others– and good people, with good Christian beliefs and values, will sincerely want to be friends with you. The rest don’t matter.
YFC, long ago, there were some nice people who happened to be homosexuals, that I and others knew, and enjoyed working with, and dealing with. These men all grew up in either Catholic or Protestant churches, with good Christian morals taught and expected of everyone. You had to grow up quickly, know your morals ans manners, and know your limits on things– and put up with those limits, and make up your mind that that’s the way it has to be. Live with it. Then, figure out what you want to do, your profession, and get going in a good life. No more years of adolescence, no baloney. And no special privileges, just get going, live your life, and do your best. At that time, divorce was a big “no-no,” for Protestants as well as a flat “no,” for Catholics. There were strict expectations in the churches and in society, for everyone, basically. Sometimes it was hard. Sometimes marriages and families endured very difficult circumstances. Anyway, you just had to be mature from an early age, do your best, and that was that. No “playing around” with goofed-up psychologists, there were very few, at that time. No excuses for sin and corruption. If you sinned, you sinned– no baloney! Excessive drinking and partying, womanizing, premarital sex, adultery, gay lovers, or whatever– if you sinned, you sinned. Deal with it. Few people would lie, and say that premarital sex, adultery, womanizing, excessive drinking and partying (no drugs in those days), or cheating at the office, or having gay lovers– was “acceptable,” and not a sin. That is the big problem, today. Since the 1960s, many people have become immature, babyish, immoral, refusing to grow up, call a spade a spade, accept realistically, the truth of what is morally right and wrong– and develop a strong backbone, and try your best, to live right! No excuses. Homosexuals, like anyone else, can live right. They don’t have to tell anyone that they are “gay.” Forget that, live right, according to God’s laws, and things will go pretty well for you, as for anyone. The Church can help immensely! Call the police, if you are ever harassed– or, just avoid stupid bullies. Life is a challenge, in this “vale of tears,” for everyone.
And don’t go to the gay bars where the cops come in and bash you with their batons.
And don’t tell anyone you are gay because people know and talk and laugh behind your back.
Or they may try to lobotomize you.
Or throw you out of your church.
Hide and live a lie.
You know, the good ol’ days.
Better to keep controversial stuff in your life to yourself. Whatever you are dealing with, is nobody else’s business. And do not expect all the world to gladly accept and approve of the sinful gay “lifestyle.” No way. Lead a good, clean lfe, keep to yourself, follow God’s laws. Parents deserve peace of mind, and to know that their churches, schools and neighborhoods are safe for kids. The world does not revolve around you and your problems.
That is very old fashioned and completely phony.
Nowadays, people value honesty and authenticity.
You do not have to pretend to be perfect.
No. To lead a good life is your only choice. It is a big responsibility! It has nothing to do with fashions of the day– old or new. You must answer to Almighty God for all your thoughts, words and actions. Your Eternal Destiny is at stake. So– repent, and follow Jesus! And don’t “play games” with God! He knows your every move!
You may have learned, “the hard way,” as a child — that it is definitely not smart, to blurt out every little thing, to
anyone and everyone. Be discreet, be smart with personal information– and information about others, too.
Lots of things should be nobody’s business.
There are some subjects that are very delicate, you have to be careful in discussing these subjects with anyone. These subjects include: religion, politics, sex, money, and race or ethnicity. People often hold deep feelings and beliefs about these and other issues. Best to be careful. These issues should never be forced on anyone. A marriage can break down, a family can fall apart, a business can be shattered, a country can be split apart and end up in a civil war, over these issues. If you are trying to force something immoral on others– such as abortion, gay sex and gay marriage, white supremacy, Black power, Chinese Communism, taxpayer funded abortions, pornography, the LGBT agenda, and Drag Queens in publicly-funded schools and children’s libraries, (etc.) — you are the one who needs to change– pronto!
What about the animus of gays and clergy toward Republicans and conservatives? Most of them can barely contain their contempt for Republicans.
I was in the archdiocesan chancery office way back in the 90s. A gay archdiocesan employee sneered about a pastor he bristled with as being a “Republican priest”. Gays and Democrats hate Republicans and conservatives.
I wonder which one.
As a great priest friend of mine once said..” the girls who walk 8th Ave in Manhattan tonight selling their bodies”, will get to heaven before those monsters in the Chancery offices….
Oh here we go again with walking the streets of NYC. Get rid of your violence.
Cardinal Robert Sarah has been an outspoken critic of Jesuit Fr. James Martin, and many others, who wrongfully advocate the LGBT and gender ideology agendas. He recently reminded everyone, particularly those involved in the Synod on Synodality, that the mission of the Church is to teach, not to listen. He also said that the mission of the Church is not to solve social problems, nor eradicate poverty. She must repeat tirelessly, “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” He also noted that “fear is the greatest weakness of the Church, today.” And Bishop Strickland stated that in regard to the new Synod document– “‘Welcoming’ people to the Church means repentance.”
How come bisexuality (which is the most prevalent of the LGBT conditions) never gets talked about?
The B doesn’t stand for beastiality? I thought that’s why there’s the angled brown stripe in the current/new rainbow flag: for love with animals.
I don’t think bi is a real thing so much as just something cool to claim so you can be different because you can still be hetero but have this cool bi queerness vibe among your friends and it makes for a good pickup line with the liberal ladies who are all freaky these days and into that stuff. It’s the benefits of queer identity while remaining hetero and without having to really act on being bi or part gay, which for most guys would be pukingly gross.
It is actually women who claim to be bi more than men.
8% of adults have had sex with both sexes but most of them do not identify as LGB..
11 % report same sex attraction.
Over half of those identifying as LGB are bisexual.
This is about an article that is 7 months old.
ur older than 7 months so r u irrelevant?
Is it irrelevant? I did not say that.
Then why make the remark? What were you implying?
I was not implying anything.
It was really just a note of fact.
The author said it was a recent article and it is not a recent article.
Not that it is irrelevant.
It probably is the first of the three articles that McElroy wrote.
The second one is the one where he lays out his proposal for a change in the discipline of the Sacrament of Holy Communion, proposing that anyone in mortal sin could receive it.
This article was written about gay people and this author interprets it in the light of the current media craze about trans people.
I would have to re read the article but it is the one where he lays the groundwork by talking about cultures of exclusion.
I think we should obey Jesus who said “Fear is useless. What is needed is trust.”
This is totally fear driven.
All narcissists aren’t evil.
But if they are, the people they target are the only ones who really know what they are like.
Tell the truth. Tell only the truth.
Whatever happens is what is supposed to happen.
You cannot read minds.
You cannot read intentions.
You infer intentions based on your fears.
Deal with reality.
Stop trying to distort reality into something you can deal with easier..
Everybody wants to declare themselves faultless while highlighting or even inventing faults in others.
I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh.
Galatians 5:16
I read an article online that talked about how annoying the whole “build a bridge” things was.
The author said “You do not need to build a bridge. We are already Christians.”
I read another article by a young man who went to a Jesuit high school and talked about he was treated-the looks, the body language- of people when he sat in front of a rainbow flag as part of the LGBTQ club at the open house. (he is not gay but he identifies as queer-and the fact that I needed to tell you that says everything.)
Another criticism, the author is confusing because I think he is using the word “sexuality” when he actually means ‘sexual identity.”
People with issues about their gender are on a spectrum and this condition is co-morbid with many other conditions, but they are finding a strong correlation with autism spectrum disorder.
The Church has condemned ideologies that say gender can be changed or that children can be taught that they can choose their gender.
The magisterium of the Church has not addressed the treatment of individuals.
Some bishops have strongly said that individuals should not “transition.” (Most trans people do not go so far as to surgically transition.)
Most diocese have instituted policies for their schools on uniforms, bathrooms etc which align with traditional thinking on this issue.
Fr. James Martin, S.J. is teaching us things we never knew before about Scripture and Catholic morality. He ranks up there with the greats. I believe he will be named the first Jesuit doctor of the church and surpass Aquinas for his influence on Catholic theology and faith.
People thought Aquinas’ writings were suspect during his life too. They came around and realized he was right. Same will happen today with the trads and their suspicions about the current magisterium and its supporters.
“… I believe he will be named the first Jesuit doctor of the church … Fr. James Martin is a very smart man, a good writer and enjoys the favor of Pope Francis, to be sure. If you are right that Fr. Martin has unearthed truths hidden until now from Scripture so as to serve up a new Catholic morality, that would be of course extraordinary. But then I have to ask, why didn’t we know these new things until the advent of Fr. Martin? What are these new things? If I might guess your answer, would it be the full inclusion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and other aspects of life that put persons on the periphery of the Church and are traditionally excluded? If your answer is even a little in this direction, then yes, this is new. You won’t find any of this in the present Catechism. But why is it new? Because until Fr. Martin came to the fore, the Church was certain she could not sanction behaviors associated with the “alphabet people,” based on her understanding of Scripture and Tradition. If Fr. Martin by his advocacy could change 2000 years of Church teaching, he would probably would be recognized a Doctor of the Church, and maybe even a miracle worker. More likely however, he will find his contributions to Catholic morality far more modest, but he will have good standing among his fellow Jesuits for trying the sail the Barque of Peter in a 180 degree course change.
Fr. Martin is not advocating for the change of any Church teaching.
“Same will happen today with the trads and their suspicions about the current magisterium and its supporters.” The Angelic Doctor never supported the affirmation of mortal sin, like this current crowd of perverts…
It would be more likely that Archbishop Lefebre be declared a saint than James Martin.
Not in the church of Vatican II
[…] Robert McElroy is concerned about the demonic in your life: “It is a demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral … See, it’s not sodomy that’s demonic, it’s people’s opposition to those who glory in, […]