The following was posted August 22 on CatholicLane.com.
The Church loves men and women living with same-sex attraction; but she has always defined “marriage” as a life-long, male-female relationship, open to bringing new life into the world. That is her Faith.
As you read that last line, I bet you recalled hearing someone say, “But Jesus never spoke a word against same-sex marriage!” I’ve heard it too, from fellow Christians. The assertion is that Christianity’s two thousand year history of opposition to same-sex relationships has been misguided. (Never mind everything St. Paul wrote on the subject [Rom.1:21-32, 1 Cor.6:9-11] under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.)
Marc Barnes countered this argument from the silence of Jesus in a recent blog, noting how Jesus never uttered a word against rape, suicide, or pedophilia either; but to “assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.” All of those issues, homosexual relationships included, were settled matters in Jesus’ first century Palestine; He would have been wasting His breath. As I read the Gospel passage the other day (Mt.19:3-12, August 17) however, I realized how Jesus’ words do undercut any question of same-sex “marriage” occurring in the Church.
Stay with me for a couple of minutes:
Jesus’ stance on marriage was strong. When the Pharisees asked Him whether it was lawful for a man to give his wife a bill of divorce He responded, “The Creator ‘made them male and female … a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ … So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mt.19:4-6).
The apostles were stunned when He went on to say that only death could dissolve a (valid) marriage, and how anyone who divorced and remarried lived in adultery. “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry!” (Mt.19:10 ) Jesus didn’t back-pedal; they had understood Him just fine. That was marriage in the Kingdom – marriage as it was before humanity’s Fall. Jesus knew it would be difficult, “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted” (19:11).
Pay attention to what Jesus said next: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (19:12). A man’s ability to be united to his wife, sexually, was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a) birth defect, b) castration, or c) a vow of celibacy; then marriage was not his vocation.
The foundation of Jesus’ whole argument is biological. Unless “a man” and “his wife … become one flesh,” there is no valid marriage. For Jesus, and for anyone committed to His teachings, it is impossible to speak of a “Christian same-sex marriage.” Jesus’ words rule it out absolutely. The parameters for marriage between Christians, the parameters for a sacramental marriage, have been set by Jesus and cannot be changed. “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away” (Lk.23:33)….
To read complete post, click here.
Jesus destroyed two cities and all the towns and villages near them because they were “same sex marriage” cities. So when these sodomites try to run the deception that Jesus never said anything about it, they lie. The motive for their lying is to seduce you into their sexual activities.
JLS, I don’t know what Bible you are reading. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was in the OLD Testament, not the New Testament. This happened in the book of Genesis, long before the Incarnation. Jesus wasn’t born yet. You seem to be bringing beliefs that you had before your conversion to Catholicism into the Catholic faith with you. The men threatened to sexually assault the visitors. This story says nothing about their sexual orientation, we don’t know this. They didn’t want to marry the men, they just wanted to exert their power and dominance over them. It was about power not love.
@Mark – We do not “throw out” what was revealed in the Old Testament. You have also somehow accepted a distorted understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah. God has condemned and continues to condemn homosexual activity. It is clear in the Old Testament and it is clear in the New Testament. St. Paul spoke of it very clearly and forcefully.
Mark, Jesus was, is and forever will be. He is one in three, and was most certainly responsible for the destruction of Sodom. God in three persons, blessed trinity. And we most certainly do know that the city was so sexually promiscuous that they even wanted sexual congress with the angels that had come to Lot. Lot offered these reprobates his own daughters and of course they didn’t want women! Horrible! This is why society protected itself by making sodomy a crime. Look what is happening! Homosexuals started ‘coming out of the closet’…people didn’t want to offend anyone so, okay, people tolerated it. Homosexuals wanted ‘equal’ rights for insurance and taxation benefits, so okay, the government allowed these changes…homosexuals want the Church to marry them and to change Bible interpretation that sodomy is a sin, and that Jesus didn’t find anything wrong with it, (I can hear satan hissing in the garden, ‘You won’t die”) and of course, this will never happen and now people are finally waking up to what it is these people really want. They eventually want a completely homosexual society, and that’s why so much effort is being expended on creating clones and other unnatural methods of creating ‘life’. I suppose this sounds too fantastic and implausible. Well, the thought of two men marrying and being sanctioned by an American president and being allowed to adopt children and even given parental rights of having children OVER the right of the natural parents would have been utterly unthinkable just a few short years ago. Only a bolt from heaven stops them!
Ladies, you need to realize rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction. It is about power and force and dominating another person. This is what the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was about.
Mark from PA: Your post really shows your ignorance of Scripture. How was the world created Mark? When God spoke. Who is the Word of God? Jesus is the Word of God. Although Our Lord did not take the form of man in the incarnation, He is consubstantial with the Father, He is not a creature, but is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and has existed for all of eternity.
You said that Our Lord did not the form of man in the incarnation. I thought that was what the incarnation was. “And was word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.” Explain to me why Our Lord did not take the form of man in the incarnation.
Mark from PA: I accidently put the not. Our Lord took the form of man in the incarnation. This does not negate the fact that you say Jesus was not born yet as a means of saying that what happened in the OT does not identify the Justice of God. The point is, Jesus is the Eternal Word of God and although He had not entered time in the form of man, He is one with the Father. Homosexuality is deeply offensive to God Mark, that is what you are overlooking in your posts. The fact that God allows SSA is does not mean people have to act on those desires for those desires are disordered in nature as you agreed to in another post. To be a Christian, a follower of Christ on has to lead people away from sin and vice towards God and as we can see from the premise of the article, Jesus was NOT silent in speaking of matters of sexual morality. You still seem to want to accept sinful behavior because you neglect to see the importance of saving souls in lieu of making people feel “accepted” for who they are. What is more important, making people feel good and “accepted” or helping them get to Heaven? God Love You.
PA, Jesus always exists, always existed, and was 100% united with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the act of utterly destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for their heinously abyssmal way of homosexual life styles. Maybe Jesus wanted to cut down the number of homosexuals in preparation for His walk to the Cross, so that the sodomites would not muddy the waters as they prefer to attempt all the time.
MD, you state that homosexuality is deeply offensive to God but that is just your opinion. You have no way of knowing that God is offended by people having a homosexual orientation. As I have stated before if homosexual persons were offensive to God he wouldn’t have them here. Yes, I think it is important to make people, especially young people feel accepted and good and it is wrong to make them feel rejected by God and offensive to Him.
God hates homosexuality, and destroyed two cities full of homosexuals, namely Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Ten Commandment Law given Moses, and developed by God through His people, God prescribed death for homosexuals. Because of this fact, there simply was a dearth of sodomites around Galilee at the time of Jesus’ Advent; thus, no point in reiterating the Law in that and many other respects. There were no homosexuals in that milieu to address. But Jesus of course is the figment of the imagination of PA, and we have to reject the real Jesus and accept the phony idol that PA calls Jesus … right?
@Mike in PA – God hates no one because we are all children of God. However, God condemns behavior such as homosexual sexual activity, God also condemns heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage. The point is this, we cannot have it our way and say that it is also God’s way because it is not. To do so so is dishonest. We cannot accept what is condemned by God so that homosexuals feel accepted.
The type of negative rhetoric used by this article is crafty. It is written by someone who does not know what faith in Jesus Christ is. The rhetorical style interprets according to an agenda, and it stretches its interpretation towards sodomy.
Thank you JLS I agree! This article is a disgrace and brings confusion! Truly evil to even have published it!
Abeca, many of us have to deal with subtle demoniacs and crafty perverts who are always ready to spring like serpents if they see any vulnerability. This type of article makes for good practice in spiritual combat. I understand your situation with your children. Hopefully they will always have plenty of barrier between them and the enemies of God; however, most children will never be that well protected. We need to learn the wiles of the devilish and how to defend ourselves and others against their attacks. There are various ways, such as: This afternoon, I got out my small vial of holy water and splashed it in the sign of the Cross several times on and around the door of one of my house tenants while he was off at his job. The smell similar to burning matches seemed to be coming from around his door … very odd. It more likely floated in from outside, but I couldn’t tell, and all these old precautionary spiritual warfare flags popped up in my mind. Thus, I simply threw holy water at the possibility. I wondered if he’d come home and then scream and run off down the street when encountering the holy water … but, no, he actually behaved a bit better than usual. Hey, I’ve got quite an array of formiddible input working on this situation. We want to see this dude make a clean break from his life of crime and long prison terms. I’m giving better than even odds. Why mention it on this thread? Everybody knows that decades in the prison system does not tend to develop normal gender identity. He’s trying though. I’m hoping he’ll find a way to rise above his crafty survival skills. Jesus left the 99 to round up the 1 … or something like that in one of His parables. That is this type of situation.
The article is anti-sodomy.
Well, I never thought I would see the day that abeca called an article standing up for the Christian belief against gay marriage “a disgrace” and “truly evil.” I’m proud of CCD for publishing this Christian response that negates the argument that Jesus didn’t say anything about gay marriage.
k, your feigned shock at the rest of us is wearing a tad thin. Try for a little composure. ;o)
I’m not feigning shock. I don’t understand why someone who is usually the most adamant against gays have a problem with this article. It is against gay marriage. I honestly don’t see why she reacted the way she did. But I should not have posted what I did. It is a comment section and I should not have commented on her comment. I should have just said the second line. Too often I have commented on others’ comments and I should not do that. It is rude of me.
k to help bring you to light and clarity, I was criticizing it on the words and the way it was written…I read it and felt it kinda added a little bit of confusing message, the tone was modern and unstable to me. That was my take, but I do not attack anything that is against the redefinition of gay marriage but sometimes i notice in Catholic articles and writings, that they seem to have a tone of something that add a tad confusion. I actually felt that there was no need for such an article to open that as a debate. Just to clarify…
I repeat I actually felt that there was no need for such an article to open that as a debate. Just to clarify…
Thank you for your explanation. The article does address only gay marriage and not gay relationships. Also, I have never heard that line about Jesus not saying anything about gay marriage but obviously it is used in certain circles so if you meant that CCD didn’t need to bring that up because none of us fall for that kind of stuff, I see your point.
That was a very good response!
There was no need for Jesus to speak about same sex “marriage”.
The Jews, whom Jesus was speaking to, already understood very, very clearly the prohibition on homosexual behavior and that it was an abomination to God. St. Paul, however, evangelized to pagans who needed to be told what was sinful in God’s eyes and so he did mention homosexual behavior among other sinful acts. Would anyone in this country 50 years ago have ever thought we would be having this conversation at all? Not likely. It’s because the religion of secularism has replaced God in many lives and homosexual activists have decided to redefine marriage and speak for an entire Nation.
There was no need indeed Mary. Good comments Mary!
Our Lord did say to his Apostles and by ordination, their future followers, “whoever hears you hears Me”, so the statement he never said anything ABOUT SODOMY is completely VOID!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
First the question posed is stupid as same-sex marriage was never heard of until recently and the homosexuals did not have a platform to push their immoral death-style onto the unsuspecting neighbors and quite apparently, according to St. Paul, many of them repented and became normal people once again. Also, the word homosexuality only started to appear in the Bible around 1980ad. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!! +JMJ+
I’m very concerned about the quote at the beginning of this article. The catechism does not state “The Church loves men and women living with same-sex attraction;…” The statement is totally incorrect and leads some CalCatholic readers (and you can guess who they might be) to find a new acceptance for “same-sex attraction”. In reality this is “same-sex lust” and if two same-sex individuals are “living” with this, the implication is that Church finds it acceptable. No, No, NO!. This article should be removed from the CalCatholic site!
Laurette: I am also concerned about the supposed quote that was also supposed to be Christ’s words in the section that is titled “Jesus’ Stance on Marriage.” Notice the word “valid’ in parenthesis. I’m sure Christ did not mention the word valid in front of the word marriage. This is an open door statement for an annulment.
You are absolutely right. Thank you for your post.
The wording on this article is simply today’s views not at all biblical! Good comments RR
RR, good catch on that one. The word “valid” is in parentheses. It is added to the quote.
Laurette, that was an editing error here. The original article quotes CCC 2358. The article is anti-gay marriage.
Excellent observation, Laurette. That is a subtle syntax, so subtle I’d call it a sintax even. It is similar but way beyond the restraints of Vatican II speak. I wonder how it got past the clerical editors.
The reason that there are no “quotable quotes” of Jesus AGAINST same-sex unions (who would like to call it marriage) is because it wasn’t an option in those days. People who had same-sex inclinations, and lived out those impulses, were outrageous, like they are today, and to mention something like that would be to give credence to the ridiculous. We tend to try to be nice to misguided people these days, it’s been forced into our culture, so that wrong is right and vice versa. We all need to take on the armor of Christ, gird ourselves with the Truth and then speak it. The unspeakable should not be spoken of, but if the question arises, speak the Truth about it. Same-sex attraction is a horrible vice when acted upon, and those who would struggle against it and win that fight, God bless them. If they give in to it, sorry but that brings condemnation, not because I say it, but because God has said it, and has acted upon it, and we know when and exactly where. That should not be questioned, but confirmed. Homosexuality, and living a life of homosexual obsession is an abomination against God, period. If you would like it to be otherwise, talk to The One who made it True, and get over it. It’s not going to change, and never will change. Period.
He didn’t have to say anything. Homosexuality itself was addressed in the Law of the Old Testament. If not mistaken, Jesus accepted the Law.
Bottom line, the Church speaks for Jesus the risen Christ. What the Church says is what Jesus Says. “I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it” St. Ignatius of Layola
Looks like the Jesuits have moved forward with this absurdity.
The first time I heard that line “that God made them that way so he won’t punish them” was from a Jesuit Priest from Loyola giving a talk to Catholic employees of Hughes Culver City!
That statement made me really search for an answer.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
The answer to that sort of thing is the “mystery of iniquity”.
What we have of what Jesus said about marriage is mild compared to the reviews of Jewish law on the subject by 1st century Jewish historian, priest and Galilean general Flavius Josephus. Check it out in his books “The Jewish War” 66-70 A.D.-( includes the truly shocking history of the destruction of Jerusalem, the siege of Masada, etc.) and “Against Apion Book 2”. Most of our current legislation would have brought death to its followers. “Most” meaning our current laws allowing abortion, acceptance of adultery, anything and everything about homosexuality, etc.
Here is the actual text from the Catechism.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
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.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”: One thing this rose colored glasses CCC fails to mention is the threat to society by the homosexual movement and that this threat must be defended against. Has anyone noticed how watered down a lot of the rhetoric in the CCC gets? How much it fails to address? You find a lot more from Scripture and other Doctrinal readings than from the CCC.
All human beings must be treated with respect.
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (CCC pg 5)
Letting gays run things is disrespect in the worst way, Ted. Respecting gays is to always inform them that their behavior is not allowed; it should be criminal with prison time. That would be one respectful way of getting the message across to them, and also at the same time excluding those who commit sodomy from society is an act of respect for children. Jesus tells us that it is better they die than to offend the little ones. Children come first, Ted, not gay people. The Pope is right, keep gays out of the seminaries and clergy … because doing so respects God and children as well as everyone else.
Fortunately for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay American citizens, it is NOT the job of government to uphold the Bible, or what Jesus may or may not have said or meant. It is the job of government to uphold the Constitution. And unless the 14th Amendment applies only to people who are heterosexual, there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have come to take for granted.
Marriage is not a right; it is a privilege. The Law of the Land is that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. It is homosexual activists that seek to redefine it! I repeat, the United States of America recognizes marriage only between one man and one woman and most States have already taken care of having amendments to make sure it doesn’t change within their state. The people have spoken but it is unfortunate that homosexual activists do not respect the will of the people. I call your attention to Prop 8 in particular.
CCC: ” 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.
This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. ”
Advocating Sodomy (gay-marriage) is evil.
When it comes to property rights/ownership, insurance beneficiaries, wills, powers of attorney for financies and heatlh, etc, etc marriage is not and has never been required.
Tax incentives are to help those who intend to procreate for the good of Society.
Gays are not lawbiding, Chuck. They break the highest laws of all, God’s law. Your religion obviously is Americanism and not Catholicism. You can have it. The United States law was founded on Christian traditions, and gay lifestyles have no place in it at all.
Do the benefits that gay couples and straight couples get have to be paid for in any manner by single people? Do we singles have to pay more taxes for what the government isn’t getting out of straight and gay marrieds? If so, then we are the ones being discriminated against because we are single. How just is that?
As a married woman my cost for health insurance is increases becaude the plan insurance for same sex couples. Two people of the opposite sex who live together are not given the same option of being co-insured. That being said, this is a moral issue and we are not a country totally devoid of moral decision making. As long as we are a Nation that includes acknowledges God we as citizens can say we are opposed to same sex “marriage”. The framers of the Constitution would be horrified at the thought of recognition of two people of the same sex being married.
Short of Eternity in Heaven, it is foolish to expect perfect justice.
I too am single, but I don’t consider laws that promote the good of the God given family to be unjust, get over it!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
All single adults who are not gay should have their wages doubled because they are not married.
Well, that would help out single mothers, JLS, but it would also discriminate against married men and women. If a man got married does that mean that his wages should be cut in half? That would really discourage people from getting married.
Good point, PA.
A citizen can marry under certain conditions. They may vary from state to state. If you meet those conditions, you cannot lawfully be denied. In some states (38) it is in their constitution that one of the conditions be that the couple is one man and one woman. The state also regulates the age at which marriage can be entered and what blood relations are prohibited from marrying. Many couples choose not in involve the state in their relationship at all.
Chuck, the Founding Fathers would have been appaled at what you just wrote, and you know it, but some of you continue to try to deceive people.
Chuck Anziulewicz says: August 27, 2012 at 12:52 pm: “It is NOT the job of government to uphold the Bible, or what Jesus may or may not have said or meant.”
strangely enoyugh, this reminded me of the following catholic newservice tidbit from africa:
Zambian bishops oppose proposed clause on ‘Christian nation’
LUSAKA, Zambia (CNS) — The Zambian bishops’ conference has opposed a proposal to identify Zambia as “a Christian nation” in the preamble to a new national constitution. A statement from the bishops’ conference submitted to the Constitutional Review Commission said that “a country cannot practice the values and precepts of Christianity by a mere declaration. In the preamble, the declaration that Zambia is a Christian nation should be omitted,” the conference said, adding that a country cannot practice the values and precepts of Christianity only with a declaration. It said the principle of church-state SEPARATIO0N must not be lost, adding that Zambia is a MULTIRELIGIOUS country.
[emphasis added by yours truly…]
OK Max… do you have a point? FYI, you don’t have to respond to every post, Max. How about bringing something to the table when you comment.
Before the liberals got control of our Courts, it was not law abiding to participate in acts of sodomy! It was indeed a crime punishable by Law!
When you face God, you will find out that it is stll a Sin Crime in His eyes!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Do homosexuals not have the same rights as the rest of us? Gee, the last time I checked, they were human beings just like the rest of us, subject to the same rights and restrictions. Bestiality, pedophilia, homosexuality et al, are not related to human rights but to sexual orientation and have always been considered out of the norm. You can play those tired little sick word games but to people of sense and perception you sound like a ninnyhammer. It’s actually not just bizarre how convoluted your ‘argument’ is but rather scary that anyone can think this way and still be allowed to vote and have a drivers license.
Actually Dana they have more rights than the rest of us…they are a protected sexual identified race in California. So that is what California is setting a tone…as if they were their own race….They have more rights and are protected by law…more than religious freedom.
JLS wrote – “Respecting gays is to always inform them that their behavior is not allowed; it should be criminal with prison time.”
wow, JLS, you are first in line to form the new catholic version ogf the taliban!
what about adultery – the stocks, perhaps?
and cheating on taxes – having a hand or two cut off?
JLS, you could even get naming rightson your new movement, maybe something fun likke THE VATICAN/TALIBAN?
No, max, just getting back to where society functioned better … and which the Church promoted. Or do you believe that Church doctrine is evolving and now it is pushing gay power?
max, what do you fail to comprehend about “sodomy is the consequence of sin” (St Paul)? Gay institutionalisation is the bottom of the barrel of iniquity, max. It is the result of all the other iniquities.
JLS, there is a lot more to it that. What is the sin that it is a consequence of, do you remember? And what are the other consequences? Jailing gay people won’t help. You almost understand the times. (Romans 1)
Anon., sin is sin. Sodomy is the result of sin. I’ve discussed your question countless times on this site for years. Now, finally, for the first time, a blogger actually notices the issue. The repeated pattern told in the Old Testament account of the development of civilization leading up to the Advent of Christ depicts this: That when adultery and idol worship become common, then the next step and the last step before destruction is sodomy. Sodomy is the consequence of sin, the punishment for adultery and idol worship. When a society hits that stage, it is already on its way to destruction. But not to worry, Anon., because history shows that sometimes this destructive movement takes several centuries. You’ve got plenty of time since the western civilization has only begun this slide to Gomorrah. But, of course then, we really do not know if this present slide will go fast or slow, or even possibly be intervened in some way (not that intervention is the responsibility of the bishops … oh no, not that … poor things … how could God pick on the bishops by telling them to become holy, and then doing this through the Pope, of all humiliations, having to endure such a command from a fellow human being … oh the chagrin of it all).
I have not been reading this site for years. You seem to understand the sign of the times. Read Romans 1 again. You understand much but it is not adultery that it is a punishment for. Idol worship? Yes but something else, too. Knowing God and not worshipping him and not thanking him.
Anon., did you read the part of my post where I introduced the context of Scripture where you can go to see what I’m referring to? Your post indicates you’re on the right track. When you say that it is more, such as not knowing God and not worshiping Him and not thanking Him … well, of course. But ask yourself how a civilization where the lack of this has become prevalent is described historically and also prophetically. When you can ask this, then you will be ready to move into the Old Testament to find out. What I described briefly is a repeated pattern that has no rival — Not knowing God and not worshiping or thanking Him manifests in adultery and idol worship, which then leads to sodomy on the civilizational level. Present western society is awash in idol worship and adultery, and lately we’re witnessing the consequence of it which is sodomy.
Yes, and maliciousness, greed, ill will, envy, murder, bickering, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, hatred of God, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, ingeniousness in wrongdoing and rebelliousness toward parents. “One sees in them men without conscience, without loyalty, without affection, without pity. They know God’s just decree that all who do these things deserve death; yet they not only do them but approve them in others.”
JLS, Max does not have a sense of the hideousness of sin. You don’t burn witches if you don’t believe witches are real…but does that make you ‘enlightened’? You feel the pain and ugliness sin brings and the wounding to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary, but when a heart is inured to sin, it’s impossible to feel the disgust and indignation and sadness. It’s almost a litmus test. A sure cure for a hardened heart is time spent in front of our Lord getting a ‘eucharistic adoration’ tan. Bishop Sheen spent an hour every day!
Wise words indeed!
I have discussed the refusal of sodomites to see the Truth with many orthodox priests and bishops.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Wow Dana! What an incredibly beautiful statement. Kenneth is right. Wise words indeed! Dana, In fact, those are the wisest words that I have ever seen written on CCD. May God bless you for sifting out all of the foolishness and hitting a bullseye on the core of the matter called the ugliness of sin.
I loved your wonderful recommendation for a *Eucharistic Adoration tan*. This lets everyone know how a wonderful sense of humor can be used to bear good fruit instead of misusing an incredibly God-gifted sense of humor to consistently deflect attention away from the hideousness of sin. It is a litmus test Dana. Bishop Fulton Sheen certainly did recognize the hideousness of sin and he had such a Christ like love for all sinners. Just a few moments spent with Bishop Sheen and the well established facade of the sinner would be completely removed. I am sure that the sinner saw the reflection of Christ’s face looking back at him as a result of those daily visits to the Tabernacle. This most venerable servant of God is a gift to the Church THAT JUST KEEPS ON GIVING!
“By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Matthew 7:16-17 Douay Rheims Catholic Bible
The very good fruit of our poster named Dana bears repeating!
“You feel the pain and ugliness sin brings and the wounding to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary, but when a heart is inured to sin, it’s impossible to feel the disgust and indignation and sadness. It’s almost a litmus test.”
A heart hardened by sin no longer even realizes when they are sinning. A heart hardened by sin will excuse the sin or even glorify the sin. A heart hardened by sin will endorse the sin of another and even congratulate the other for sinning so effectively. You can see this in the abortionist and in others who spill blood. You can see this in the promiscuous and in others who put their neighbor’s souls at risk. You can see this in those who murder and maim the body, the mind, the spirit and the soul of their neighbor. A Christian always loves his neighbor, always looks for the good in his neighbor, always seeks to help his neighbor.
Rather, max, I see it as renewal.
To answer the question posed in the title of this article – Jesus was very clear that marriage was between one man and one woman.
This just one more reason that the Faithful must read the Bible – especially the New Testament, so they can counteract silly and false statements.
If reading the Bible for a minimum of 1/2 hour, there is a plenary indulgence attached provided all the other conditions are met.
The title of the original article is “Was Jesus really silent on same-sex marriage?” and it says just what you said.
I would like to add that if you do not actually have an insurance policy or you do not belong to any group insurance, you could possibly well gain from seeking assistance from a health insurance agent. Self-employed or people having medical conditions commonly seek the help of one health insurance brokerage. Thanks for your post.