The following is from a March 27 posting on canon lawyer Ed Peters’ blog site.
No matter which way the US Supreme Court rules in the “gay marriage” cases before it the international debate over the definition of marriage will continue because that debate is, at root, about matters beyond a civil court’s competence, things like the nature of human beings and the fundamental good of society. Because we Catholics are and will surely remain major participants in such a debate we should be clear among ourselves as to what our Church teaches in this area. I offer as a primer (I stress, primer) toward such better understanding my position on the following points.
1. The Catholic Church teaches, through its ordinary magisterium and with infallible certainty, that marriage exists only between one man and one woman. CDF, “Considerations” (2003) passim; CCC 1601-1608; CCEO (1990) 776; 1983 CIC 1055 § 1; Rite of Marriage (1969) n. 2; Vatican II, Gaudium et spes (1965) 48; Pius XI, Casti connubii (1930) 6, 20, 23; Leo XIII, Arcanum (1880) 5, 24; Matthew XIX: 4-6; and Genesis II: 21-24. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical authority ever supporting any other definition of marriage.
It is possible that this teaching is proposed as an object of belief (credenda, per Canon 750 § 1, doubt or denial of which assertion would be heresy under Canon 751 and thus sanctionable under Canon 1364 § 1); at a minimum, however, the Church proposes the man-woman assertion as necessarily to be held (tenenda) in order “to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith” (Canon 750 § 2), rendering those who “obstinately reject” the assertion liable to “a just penalty” if, having been duly admonished, they refuse to retract (Canon 1371, 2º).
2. The Catholic Church has the right and duty “always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.” 1983 CIC 747 § 2; CCC 2246.
3. Catholics who promote “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1369 for gravely injuring good morals.
The situation of Catholic politicians lending support to “same-sex marriage” is to be assessed as above, with special attention being paid to the heightened responsibility that civil servants have to protect the common good. CDF, “Considerations” (2003) 10; CCC 2235-2237, 2244; 1983 CIC 1326 § 1, 2.
4. The Catholic Church would regard any attempt by persons of the same sex to marry, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, as null. CCC 1603; 1983 CIC 1055 § 1.
5. Catholics who attempt a “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1379 for simulation of a sacrament. Moreover, Catholics who assist others toward attempting a “same-sex marriage” cooperate in the bad act of those others, which cooperation is liable to moral assessment in accord with the usual principles applicable to cooperation with evil and, under certain facts, according to the canonical principles applying to cooperation in crime per Canon 1329 and/or scandal per Canon 1339 § 2, etc.
Catholics who have attempted a “same-sex marriage” or who have assisted another toward a “same-sex marriage” can be reconciled morally under the usual conditions by sacramental Confession (Canon 959) or by a ‘perfect act of contrition’ per CCC 1452; they can be reconciled canonically, if necessary, in accord with applicable law.
+ + +
Regarding CDF’s “Considerations” (2003).
Some are wondering whether the 2003 CDF document requires Catholic opposition to any civil attempt to accord same-sex couples, qua couples, any, let alone many, of the rights of married couples. I think the CDF document does not make such a demand on Catholic consciences.
Consider: having thoroughly and completely and correctly rejected the claim that same-sex couples can marry, the CDF document, to underscore, I suggest, its rejection of that claim, would not even countenance use of the phrase “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” or “homosexual marriage”, and instead referred exclusively to “homosexual unions”. Now, however, a decade further into this debate, the distinction between “same-sex, or gay, or homosexual marriage” and “same-sex, or gay, or homosexual unions” is more commonly recognized, with the latter category (“unions”), insofar as it limits itself to civil consequences for certain living arrangements and does not attempt to redefine marriage itself, being a possibility to be assessed in accord with prudence, while the former category (“marriage”) is, as a matter of principle, to be universally and indeed vigorously rejected.
In short, notwithstanding the 2003 CDF language, civilly sanctioned “homosexual unions”, as that term is understood today, might or might not be objectionable depending on the terms of such recognition, but civilly sanctioned “homosexual marriage” can never be supported by Catholics in good conscience.
To read original posting, click here.
Well, canon law is the easy part; the hard part is finding someone to enforce it.
Skai good one…..
It is up to each one of us to remind Bishops (and Priests) that it is their responsibility to uphold Canon Law, – or they are being disobedient to the Magisterium.
Quote the following to them if necessary – – –
“Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed.” Per the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES” 1983. – Pope John Paul II. (See Vatican web site.)
Note: there are some things in Canon Law that is the responsibility of each of us.
One of them includes (but is not limited to): Under Obligations and Rights of ALL the Christian Faithful – ” 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
You can count on two hands the number of U.S. Bishops that actually even try to enforce Canon 915!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Indeed. Did you watch Michael Voris today on Cardinals Wuerl & Dolan trying to outdo the other in accomodating being nice to those wanting same sex unions? He’s the strongest voice speaking for sanity, Church teaching and common sense these days. Gee, that must be why the Archbishop of his diocese made him discontinue using the word Catholic in his tv’s title.
Michael Voris (of Church Militant TV on the internet) is correct. The “Dolanites” within the Church must be exposed.
In addition, Cardinal Dolan and Cardinal Wuerl do not support Canon 915 and/or Canon 1399 in disobedience to the Magisterium. This means that they do not care about Sacrilege against the “Real Presence” or sending Souls to Hell due to Scandal.
Both Dolan and Wuerl support the Church of “nice” for earthly acceptance. Unfortunately the secular media does not understand that they have no power or influence outside their own Dioceses.
Whether a relationship is a “marriage” or merely a “union” shouldn’t be the State’s competency at all — That is the proper domain for the Church(es). The State, by democratic process, should set terms for how “unions” are formed and dissolved, and what rights the partners have to their mutual children, possessions and medical decisions.
It seems quite possible that the Church could have shaped attitudes within the broader culture if 10 years ago had it promoted the rights of gays and especially the recognition of “same-sex unions” as then-Cardinal Bergoglio advocated in Argentina. It would have been consistent, honest and clean to advocate for human rights for everyone and at the same time defend the Church’s role in defining its sacraments. By instead opposing all legal recognition of same-sex relationships, the US Church effectively cut itself out of the debate, and now we have as a result that the definition of “marriage” is controlled by democratic process, and another rancorous front is opened in the Culture Wars .
Maybe the best remaining option now would be for the Church to come up with a new word for “marriage” and copyright it so the state can’t redefine it!
Brother Francis, hi. I’m a bit confused in reading your comment. Do you want the Church to “promote the rights of gays”?
If so, the Church is not going to do that because she speaks in unison with St. Paul in his various letters about sexual (and other) sins. Namely, sin cannot be accepted, in general, because sin wounds the body and soul of the one who commits sin. How can the Church, our mother, tolerate that which wounds her children? She wants, as St. Paul did, all sin, including disordered sexual sin, to stop. Full stop. Only then can a state of grace be maintained. Isn’t a state of grace and thus the “inheritance of the kingdom of God” the one and ultimate goal of this entire existence on earth, the existence that could end any moment by the particular judgment? So: “the rights of gays”: why would the Church call behavior identity, and then promote that mistaken identity? To do so is to chain a soul to his sins. The Church promotes the rights of each and every man because he is made in the image and likeness of God. She does not promote the “rights of gays” because she is not trying to support sin. She is not going to equate behavior with identity. She is not going to even use the label “gay”, which chains a soul to his sins. How did our Lord, addressing the woman caught in adultery once her accusers had gone away, choose to refer to her? Did he begin his question to her, brimming with true charity, with the label “Adulteress…” or “Harlot…” or “Sexual one…” or “Oversexed one…” or “Lesbian…”? No. She may have done any or all of those behaviors, but she was none of those things. She was a woman, a creature, made in the image of her Maker. So He called her “Woman…” People are not their sins. The Church knows this. All flesh must come to Him with our burden of sins. The sins vanish into the abyss of the fire of His Sacred Heart and thus into forgottenness. The soul remains, finally free.
If I misunderstood you I apologize. May God bless you.
PS the Church does not want to be the sole mistress (where to refer to “proper domain”) of marriage. The Church has always worked in tandem with secular governments regarding marriage. She is not going to bring marriage “in house”. This is too much to flesh out in a comment field, though.
Yes, Brad: I want the Church to promote the rights of gays. That’s “secular speak” for “ensure the dignity of all people.” Other commenters here have extrapolated wildly from defending rights to approving or fostering behavior, but they aren’t the same thing at all. Ensuring that all people’s civil rights are respected and all people have dignity has nothing to do with encouraging one behavior or the other.
“…why would the Church call behavior identity…” Behavior is not the same thing as identity, nor does protecting rights or defending dignity create an identity; we are called to defend the person who has the identity. Some men have more feminine tendencies, some feel attraction to other men, and that may be obvious to others no matter how they outwardly act on it. Likewise, some women have tendencies or attractions that may be obvious to other people no matter how they act on them. Homosexuals and transgender people haven’t created their identity; everyone else has.
Francis, does this mean that you want the Church to tell people its OK for them to commit sodomy for their adult lifetime and then go to Hell?
Do you want the Church to tell people that we co not care about their eternal Souls?
Do you want the Church to state that there is no right and no wrong, rather than what is in Holy Scripture?
God gave everyone a free will. No one is stopping adults from living together or forcing them to live a chaste life in private. They can have joint property, make friends beneficiaries, etc. They do not need marriage.
Governments have no business legalizing sodomy.
Phil: You comment ignores the difference between promoting civil rights and telling people one behavior or the other is “OK.” Civil rights aren’t just for “good” people; they are for everyone.
It is true that in primitive societies the way to tell someone their behavior is “not OK” is to insult them, spit at them, cast them out of society, take away their dignity. This, however, oversteps the limits of Christian charity. Christianity is much more developed and intelligent, and has more constructive ways to teach the truth.
Sodomy is not a civil right
Yes, you have not given any specifics as to what you define as a civil right? Can you list what you mean when you say civil rights?
I’m disgusted with those who promoted the right to homosexual lifestyles…that’s gross…defies chastity, defies God and His natural law.
Francis – you are way off base. No one is spitting or taking away anyone’s dignity. Sodomites take away their own dignity by their own base and degrading actions.
Pay attention to the words of a great Christian, read the words of Saint Paul in 1 Cor 5:11-13, and in Rom 1:24-32, and in 1 Tim 8-11.
I’m glad to hear that you aren’t spitting, and I’m surprised that gay-bashing is invisible to you. Insults and misuse of language are always wrong, even if you don’t understand why a term might be insulting to someone who is different from you.
Just in case y’all missed it from the paste-in I posted as a new comment below, the pope’s written words to this topic are more strident than mine: “We condemn the spiritual harassment that happens when a minister imposes directives, behaviors, requirements in such a way that deprive the other of freedom.”
Please show us where Cardinal Bergolio, now Pope Francis encouraged same sex unions. You and he should know darn well that such civil unions are just a way to break down the door to sodomite marriage.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Of course I can’t show you where the Pope encouraged same sex unions. Nor can you show us where I made such a claim! What I wrote, and what the Cardinal wanted the Argentinian Church to support was “recognition” (that is not the same as encouragement) of same-sex unions.
By the way, repeated use of the pejorative term “sodomite” is an exemplar of the way in which some “christians” deny gay people their dignity.
Ahem, so where can you cite where the Cardinal wanted recognition for same sex unions?
Francis, that is the point of using the “s” word. Some people view gay people as less than fully human and they drive the point home by using that term.
“SODOMITE”is in the NEW TESTAMENT.
Sodomy is a mortal sin.
Mark from PA, are homosexuals disgusted with their own actions? Or do they just want everyone to deny TRUTH, so they can pretend their sinful actions are normal and good?
CCD thank you for your obedience/faithfulness by having this article on here and helping many understand with clarity what the church teaches…..expect another donation from us soon. God bless you.
Chesterton didn’t fear for the family, but for society if it disregards the family.
Question to Mr. Peters:
If the Court presumes to equate our Matrimony, the Queen of Sacraments, with Sodomy;
Can we not regard the action as having abrogated the terms of the civil rite, rendering what was formerly a mirror or echo of the essential Sacrament, now a ludicrous parody?
Co-Author with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George of “What Is Marriage”, Heritage Foundation speaker Ryan T Anderson, rather unilaterally “debated” some of this question with CNN’s Piers Morgan and Suze Orman, the latter living an active homosexual lifestyle in a “committed relationship” spanning more than a decade.
(YouTube “Piers Morgan Suze Orman” to see the full episode; the video has been removed from the LifeSiteNews article “Must-see video: A marriage expert’s masterful handling of Piers Morgan” by Rob Bluey Thurday, March 28, 2013.)
Mr. Anderson refers to the fact that in all fifty states, religious institutions are legally capable of performing [counterfeit] “marriage” ceremonies for people of any lifestyle persuasion; therefore, why is it necessary that government attempt to alter the definition of authentic, natural marriage?
In light of the universal availability already of this “marriage” parody, why should we continue to legitimize the civil rite, if the Court so unwisely equates it with a civil abomination?
Should we not turn the tables and stop suffering the tax-code marriage penalty?
Can we morally go through civil divorce en masse?
Catholic politicians and judges, other public persons, and others who obstinately support, vote for, promote, or encourage “same sex marriage” must not be permitted to receive Holy Communion – Canon 915 and/or Canon 1399.
They are heretics and schismatics who give scandal.
All Catholics must adhere to Code of Canon Law – “Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed.” – “APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES” – Pope John Paul II. (See Vatican web site.)
Code of Canon Law can be found in entirety on the Vatican web site.
I don’t for a moment doubt the author’s bona fides with regard to canon law, but he seems to miss a huge point. If civil “unions” may be acceptable, but civil “marriages” result in severe consequences — when the difference between them is non-existent, then why, oh why, did Jesus die on a cross for us? To separate those in “unions” from “marriages”, even when all the other facts, benefits, and obligations remain the same? Really?
You didn’t answer my question to you that I asked three times on another thread. Perhaps you missed it in all the clutter of back and forth responses. Can you answer it now on this new thread seeing how this question is now hard to miss?
I’d like to know about your overall view of homosexual activity. I’m particularly interested not so much in theory but in the real world. You see I spent over thirty years living as a homosexual before I came back to the Church five years ago. My own experience with homosexual activity is that it is a strongly destructive force in the lives of otherwise good people. I cannot fully describe how harmful homosexual actions are. I am also fully aware of the tendency by other people with SSA to whitewash and to outright lie about the reality of the homosexual experience. What you think about the nature of homosexual actions and the spiritual effects of such actions?
In short do you agree with and live by the words of the CCC that “under no circumstances can (homosexual actions) be approved?”
MarkF: I agree that that is what the CCC says. I disagree with your contention that homosexual “actions” (whatever that is supposed to mean) are strongly destructive.
I’m sorry you spent 3 decades on a self-destructive path, and I truly hope you are happy and content and close to God. But I think it is dangerous to take a single person’s individual experience and paint an entire group of people with a single brush. Perhaps you were in with a bad crowd. Perhaps you did things that were not true to who you are, or adopted bad habits that were not really part of your sexual orientation. Perhaps you did not see your sexual orientation as “of God” and a vehicle for a lifetime of love and commitment. I don’t know if any of these are true. You can tell us yourself.
All I know is that there are very many people who feel shunned by the church because of their sexual orientation. Cardinal Dolan spoke just this past weekend on national television about how poorly the Church speaks to and about homosexuality. The ironic thing is that most gay Christians who feel shunned by the Church often feel an intense closeness to the God who calls them to himself. It’s too bad this Church can’t welcome us, bring us closer to the font of salvation, and proclaim the Gospel along side us.
Real gem here, YFC: “I’m sorry you spent 3 decades on a self-destructive path, and I truly hope you are happy and content and close to God.” Lotta heart evident in this tiger tears sentence!
Homosexual acts – when there is no repentance with a firm amendment not to commit these sins again – send Souls to Hell for eternity.
If anyone believes that going to Hell is not destructive – guess again.
All sexual acts outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) are mortal sins, not just those committed by homosexuals.
Dolan missed his opportunity to teach the truth on national TV.
For the answers to:
“Is the Catholic Church unfair to homosexuals?
What does the Church teach?
Why does it oppose gay-marriage?
Can homosexuals get to heaven? ” – – – on the internet see the answers to questions #9 on – – – “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
FYI – Cardinal Dolan does not actively and publically promote the reading of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” by literate persons within his Diocese.
MIKE, the problem with saying that all sex outside of marriage is sin, not only the homosexual sex is that it is extremely more difficult for homosexuals to repent than for heteros to do so … extremely harder.
MIKE Skai is right on that one plus sex outside of marriage between a man and woman do not defy the natural law. Homosexuality does. That is when one has to understand why the CCC needs to be more clear on that. The sin of sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is not to be compared to the gravity of homosexual activity…lets be clear on that one.
“I agree that that is what the CCC says. ”
In other words you disagree with what the Church teaches. I guess I’m confused as to why you don’t boldly say that you oppose what the Church teaches. Can I ask why you seem to be afraid to openly take on the Church’s teaching? You hide your beliefs but you hide them poorly. We can tell what you believe and to be blunt, when you do this it comes across badly, as if you’re trying to fool people. That causes a lot of the anger that I’ve read on here.
I have to add that if you reject what the Church teaches on any point relating to salvation that you are not in full communion with her. In such a state you should not present yourself for Holy Communion. I’m also sure that you do present yourself for Communion, just like hundreds of thousands of other people who are using artificial contraception, are having extramarital affairs or whatever else they are doing. You are not alone in your dissent. But you are in very bad company by doing so your soul is at stake.
The question is how much do you trust in God? Jesus asked the rich man to give up what he had in order to follow him but the young man refused. You are doing the same thing by clinging to your dissent on this issue. Everyone has their own cross to bear, not just people with SSA. Following Christ is not easy. That cross means death at its most profound level. Our own path on this way is filled with stumbles, falls and rest stops along the way. I suspect that we share a similar pastoral compassion for people caught up in SSA. I get repelled by some of the comments on here too.
These internet forums are often not a good way to engage someone. Can I suggest to you that you talk openly to a priest from Courage or from some other solidly orthodox group about your problems with what the Church teaches on homosexual actions? The Church is clear about this: under no circumstances are these actions to be condoned. The Church deals with us where we are. No one is expected to be perfect from the start. That’s what confession is for. But right now because of this fairly strident dissent on such a key issue you are not in full communion with the Church, just like all too many other people are. You’ll be better off getting this off your chest with a good priest.
SO YFC should the Church change its sexual and moral teachings so you feel more welcome? Do you want homosex acts to be blessed? so you can pretend you will make to heaven while you are committing an act crying out to heaven for vengeance?… You sound exactly like Archbishop Weakland who complained in his book that if the Church allowed for homosexual to engage in sodomy he would not have been in a position to be blackmailed by his gay lover… The arrogance of gays is beyond belief
Gee, Mark, do you suppose your question might be too direct and difficult to obfuscate and turn into a murky dissertation in response? I noticed the other pro-same-sex-do-to-me-i’ll-do-to-you-oh,baby supporters avoid answering, as well. Why do you suppose that is, MarkF? A real conundrum.
LOL, I gave up trying to figure that one out years ago. I just accept that most of what I get back are poorly done sleights of hand, dodges, waffles, spin, playing the martyr and stories about being in the third grade. It’s exasperating. It’s funny. But after giving someone a few fair shots at real conversation, I just lose interest and don’t respond back. In these situations I strongly believe that it’s best for all not to respond.
@Francis, Pope Francis when he was Cardinal in Argentina didn’t support or advocate for “homosexual civil unions”. It was the supposed fantasy conversation of a homosexual activist claimed to have with then Cardinal Borogolio. Pope Francis now or before as Cardinal in Argentina didn’t, doesn’t approve or support sodomy. In fact he will be removing the filth of the Homoheresy mafia out of the Church. Be warned! It is comming real soon!
And how exactly, Susanne do you know this?
Awesome, Susanne, awesome news!!!
Nobody says Pope Francis “supports sodomy.” Legal recognition addresses the fact that some people enter into committed same-sex relationships, despite powerful social incentives not to do so.
By the way, use of the pejorative phrase “removing the filth of the Homoheresy mafia” is an exemplar of the way in which some “christians” deny gay people their dignity.
@Francis, the Homoheresy mafia is what they are called. Just like one would call a group of heterosexual males being sexual predators having either consensual sex or commiting rape, a “sex posse gang”. One describes homoheresy as hosexual men in the church that are priests, bishops, and cardinals who commit acts of sodomy with one another. They cover up for each others sexual acts intimidate and persecute heterosexual seminarians and priests. They work in seminaries, chancery offices and even in certain Vatican departments.
Some of these men have the job of gatekeeper. They keep information from reaching proper authorities. As in the case several years ago of a priest working as a undersecretary “gatekeeper” for the Vatican Congregation for The Clergy who was caught soliciting male prostitutes.
Francis, there is no “dignity” for anyone covering up or making excuses for this filth whether homosexual or heterosexual.
I agree with the main point here, that there are a lot of priests and bishops (Roger Mahoney to name one) who clearly support what I call the homosexual ideology.
However I do think that words like “homoheresy mafia” is counter productive. There are pro-homosexuality priests. It is heresy and they are like a clique in the Church. All true. There’s just got to be a better way to reach past the choir and to reach others who are willing to listen.
Please choose your words more carefully.
@MarkF I didn’t come up with the name, a Fr. Oko, Phd. came up with the term. You should read his report. Words like homosexual, heresy, mafia, etc.. I guess are not politically correct with some posters in here. I say too bad. I actually think it is the most decent and accurate term to call such a group rather than using some foul words to describe them. If you are not listening now you will never listen. I don’t think they even would listen if Satan himself appeared to them and told them he is the one behind the homo-heresy mafia. Heck they probably would accuse him of not being politically correct. But he would be delighted in their response.
Susanne you are correct…so no worries.
Maybe you misread what I said. I agree that there are groups of priests and bishops within the Church who support the pro-homosexuality ideology. I read Fr. Oko’s report and I agree with it.
My problem is only centered on the choice of certain shorthand phrases, namely condensing two words into one such as changing “the homosexual ideology” to “the homoideology” and so on. One, it’s not that much of a savings in time to just stick with the phrase “the homosexual ideology.” I use that phrase all the time myself.
You are hurting our cause by using a term that sounds like a childish slur and you know just what I mean. Even more worrying is your attitude of saying “too bad” when this is brought up. Teaching on this subject is tough enough. Why make it harder by using a phrase that will turn off people when you can use a different phrase that means the exact same thing?
My only problem with Fr. Oko’s writings is that he centers his criticism only on the lack of correct teaching on homosexuality. I think it’s worse than that. We never hear from the pulpit a word about artificial contraception. We don’t hear a word about cohabitation and so on. The problem is wider than just a homosexual clique within the priesthood. We have priests and bishops of all inclinations who don’t want to rock the boat, fearing a drop off in the collection plates no doubt.
Can you show us where you heard that Card. Bergolio supported legal recognition for same-sex couples? I’m not doubting it out of hand. I’d just like to know more.
I do recall his vocal opposition to same-sex marriage in Argentina and how the President of Argentina verbally assaulted him in the press for doing so.
I was thinking of a NYT story, titled “On Gay Unions, a Pragmatist Before He Was a Pope”. He didn’t advocate this with the intention to promote homosexual behavior, but to co-opt the Kirchner government’s drive for same-sex marriage. Surely you’ve heard of this?
Before you say “this can’t possibly work,” read the more recent story titled “Pope Francis forces Argentine political about-face.”
I read the Yahoo! article about how the Argentine president has moved to publicly embrace the new pope but I can’t for the life of me find any policies that she’s changed. She seems to be jumping on to his new celebrity status and that’s all.
There’s a parallel here in America where we see left wing politicians, none of whom are friendly to the Church, falling all over themselves to support the pope. I can’t explain this but it’s hard to find a down side to this. If the pope is liked by politicians – even if they do not understand or support what he stands for – that’s not bad for the Church.
The left is clutching at straws. This is how I’d categorize this story about civil unions. The source for the NY Times story is Sergio Rubin who the Times says is his “authorized biographer,” but they do not say how that Rubin knew about the proposal for same-sex civil unions. I’m not saying that I know that this story is false just that time will tell. The character of Francis will become more evident in time.
The real issue for me is will the new pope be vocal in his support of marriage and for Christian morality. I’d like to see a strong pope take on weak kneed bishops in this country and to lead the bishops to fully proclaim the Christian view of the nature of human life, i.e., to speak out against artificial birth control, abortion, homosexuality, all of it. I have yet to hear these topics – save abortion – ever mentioned from the pulpit.
By the way I’ve enjoyed reading your posts because you don’t play word games and are here to talk. I appreciate that a lot.
Active homosexuals do not have dignity
You are right and Francis is wrong. To vote for homosexual and lesbian marriages or partnerships is to give one’s approval to sodomy. That no true Christian or even Jew according to the Torah (Old Testament) can do. Two single people of the same sex only have the right to leave their property, the power of attorney for their health care, etc. to anyone they want. That can be easily done most of the time by going down to any office supply store and getting the papers and filling them out and having two witnesses sign them and having a notary public notarize them. My husband and I did that for our own healthcare. Another option is having an attorney write them up. We did that with our will. If we had to do that, they can too. The price for all that is very nominal. If they would stop all this nonsense about homosexual “marriage”, they would have plenty of money to do those things, and we would not have to spend our money fighting against having to keep from giving our approval to sodomy, and the money could be used for the truly poor.
There is a big difference between “giving approval” and giving legal recognition of objective reality. This is a question of personal and institutional boundary awareness (search on “personal boundaries” or “individuation” for further explanation if this doesn’t make sense).
Even the Church recognizes legal separation and divorce, but that doesn’t mean the Church approves. The fact that most Americans approve of remarriage after divorce does not mean the Church approves of remarriage after divorce. In this case, the objective reality is that same-sex couples sometimes commit to each other. That these couples should have a right to support each other, inherit property when one dies, and make medical decisions for each other is not the same as approving their private behavior, no matter what it is. We cannot evangelize the world unless we open our eyes to see it, then respond.
Your suggestions about having a lawyer draw up legal papers would require additional cost that most couples don’t have available, and it does not address issues like inheritance and tax laws.
Your concept that “they would have plenty of money” suggests that throwing money at their issues would solve them, and utterly abandons those who don’t have the money.
Wrong, Francis. Wrong.
Francis, I think you’re half right there with regards to accepting the realities that exist. But I ask you to go a bit deeper into the reality of what homosexuality is, using the mind of the Church, the gospels and the Spirit.
The reality of homosexuality is a dark one. Commitment usually means something else than life long monogamy. I’ve said this all before so many times that it doesn’t bear repeating now. I’m curious as to how you see this.
You seem like an honest person on here, which is why I’m engaging you. I really do appreciate that given the situation on here with so many pro-homosexual posters on here who feign that they are in agreement with the Church when they are in fact hostile to her. I really don’t mind disagreement as long as there is honesty about who you are and where you stand. So who are you? Are you a guy with SSA? What’s your relationship with the Church? A curious onlooker? A fellow Christian from a Protestant denomination?
In that spirit, let me ask, would you want civil unions for homosexual couples to include the right to adopt as a couple? Would you be in favor of banning the truly nightmarish practice of women selling their bodies to produce children for homosexual couples? Would you be in favor of extending the tax breaks for owning a house that married couples get to homosexual couples?
Note that most of these practical issue arise solely because of leftist government policies. No one should have to pay an estate tax. The estate tax is unfair at its core. That government now selects some people (bereaved spouses but not bereaved children) to be exempt is the secondary unfairness. Proponents of same-sex marriage decry the unfairness of the estate tax when it comes to them but are silent when an adult child gets saddled with a massive tax bill after he has quit his job to care for a sick parent. The fundamental unfairness is the estate tax as a whole. Most of the financial problems that proponents of same-sex marriage want to solve could be solved by adopting free market, conservative principles to all.
But to get back to my original point, I’d be in favor of making it easier for any couple or group of people to own property jointly or to name who has visitation rights in a hospital. But a Christian cannot support civil union laws that allow for adoption, for the creation of children in the laboratory by artificial means or anything like that.
Since you’re curious: No, not SSA, and never been abused by one. I have been married almost 30 years. My wife and I are 100 percent faithful to each other and we raised our children together. I am an engineer, and have daily interacted at work with people of various LGBT colors — all four of them, at one point or another in my career. My experience with is that the majority of seriously messed-up people I know aren’t any one of L,G,B or T; they tend to come from abusive homes where there was violence, alcoholism, incest, etc. and their issues are not their “fault.”
As for relationship with the Church, I was an altar boy for about 5 years, never experienced any inappropriate action by any priest. I have always been Catholic, am active in my parish, and have served as parish council member, lector, EMC, helping with parish service. I’m more involved than most. I have a very close friendship with a priest who is my confessor and teacher, and friendships with other priests.
I know that “Canisius” wrote about horrific experience being raised by two women, and I know one man who was so violently abused by his mother I am inclined to believe what Canisius writes. I am not inclined to believe that the abuse he suffered is more prevalent in woman-woman households than in man-woman households. In most situations I am aware of, it is the father who commits physical abuse.
I believe our society will function best if same-sex couples have the same legal rights as “traditional” couples, especially the right to inheritance, tax breaks, medical access. As for adoption, standard practice places children in homes which ethnically are “most like” them and where they are statistically most likely to thrive. The logical extension of that practice means that same-sex couples will not have “first choice” of adoptable babies, but it is hard to justify giving single parents preference over same-sex two-caregiver households.
However dark your experience with homosexuality is, denying legal recognition to same-sex couples won’t illuminate that darkness.
I may face paying some estate tax because my mother is older than 99 percent of all people. I don’t want to pay the tax, but I can’t understand why the estate tax is “unfair” unless you refer the practice of very wealthy families tax-sheltering property to avoid the tax entirely. It doesn’t apply until the entire value of the estate is substantial (hence I don’t anticipate paying very much). A much more severe tax I face right now is paying for her daily care; insurance, medicare and state support pay zero toward that.
As for mothers being paid to produce children for same-sex couples, I am not terribly familiar with that. I would favor banning any payment to a woman for having children, beyond her medical expenses. This is on the principle that a mother does not naturally want to give up her children, and any such payment puts her in moral jeopardy.
Francis, thanks for your last post. It’s good to know where a person is coming from.
Wow, as far as you not hearing a lot of the same stories that I have heard from other people with SSA, I have to say that I’m not surprised at all. And you shouldn’t be either.
White people know or at least suspect that black people talk differently when they’re alone. They probably say things that white people don’t want to hear. Maybe you’ve had that experience where you walk into an all black group and they get silent. Then they switch gears and start to talk again, but the kind of talk that’s fit for a white person to hear. The same thing is true to an even much greater extent with homosexual people.
Part of homosexuality is covering it up or just keeping very quiet about it. But I’d say that there’s more to it than that. I am pretty sure that you as a straight person would still get a very edited version, even if you had the nerve to ask. You’re sure not going to get a lot of sexual details. Put it this way. If you get only the basic details from a straight friend you’re going to get even less as an outsider to homosexuality.
But I’ve noticed something else and that is that I only get the full story myself when the conversation is phrased a certain way. If the conversation is about my own beliefs about homosexuality (that it’s not all that great, lol) then what I hear is the whitewashed, sanitized, ready-for-Oprah version. If the conversation is about how bad life can be in general, that’s when I hear the really hard stuff.
I also used to get the full story when I was sexually active. One person said on here that I represent only one person’s perspective but that’s not true. I’ve talked to thousands of men with SSA over the years. Back in college I used to counsel guys and was really active in the whole gay rights thing. Even then I noticed that something was very wrong and the pattern hasn’t changed at all.
No straight person is ever prepared to hear the amount of sex that goes on or the amount of kink that’s common. This site will censor me if I try to detail it. I heard some doubt from one person about something I’ve said a few times on here, that is that every single gay guy I knew who had custody of his teenage son either had sex with him or talked about wanting to. I stand by that. These were friends of friends, people I’d meet over at someone’s house, or guys I met from on-line places who never had a last name as far as I can tell. I am not saying that all guys with custody of a son do this, just that all the ones I met talked to me about it. I’ve met or talked to so many guys who were molested by their fathers or step fathers. Usually they want to repeat the abuse by seeking out an older guy. The single biggest chat room on gay.com was the one called “Father/Son.”
What about the state of affairs with straight people? The difference is one of quantity and quality. Let me make an analogy. Sex outside of marriage was not unknown in my parents’ generation. It existed. One aunt of mine had her six kids by three or four different men and that was in the 1930s and 1940s. But things are different now as we all know. The amount of kink and the amount of sex in gay life today is as different from str8 people as str8 people of fifty years ago are different from str8 people today. Or to borrow another analogy from black America, when white America has a cold, black America has pneumonia. If str8 America is a sexual mess, then homosexual America is light years worse. After years of thought I’d put it this way. Every gay person I’ve got to know is either massively kinky, massively promiscuous or massively isolated and lonely. Or they’re a combination of those.
I’ve come up with a way of describing it that sums it up well. Homosexuality is a dark force in the lives of otherwise decent people. You – and any other str8 person – you don’t get to meet or see their homosexuality. You see the decent part. This makes it hard for you to see the real nature of the beast.
YFC said something on another thread that I wanted to expand on. He said that people with SSA often feel close to God, to which I’d wholeheartedly agree with. This is a very tough life overall. It’s filled with a lot of pain, loneliness, isolation, disappointment and fear. God is closest to any of us when we’re down, even if we don’t see or hear him, even when we’re not in the Church or even not Christian. I suspect that people who are suffering with being transgendered are in even more pain, and in their pain they have an opening to God that disappears from us when all is right with the world. “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” and “It’s harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom…” People with SSA can know God, especially in their pain that comes with it.
I’ve also known gay people who have taken care of a dying partner, usually from AIDS. I’ve yet to hear of one person who abandoned a partner due to AIDS. I knew one guy who was only with his partner for a few months when he found out that the other guy had AIDS yet he stuck with him for ten years. But I’d say that this is their own decency at work, not the influence of their sexual drive. I separate out the person from the sexuality. The person may be fine but their homosexuality is always their weakness.
But I’ve also met and talked to other people, people who have let their consciences get so darkened that they border on demonic. And make no mistake about it, homosexuality can be the royal road to Hell, faster and worse than out of control heterosexuality. Both will lead you there. Just one is faster and harder to escape from. These people also hide it well. They look and sound normal on the outside. Jerry Sandusky ran a charity and was nationally known, yet he molested dozens of boys, including his own son.
What’s of concern to me on this site is the prevalence of what I’d call gay theology or the gay dissent. I hear it from YFC, Mark from PA and others. Homosexuality is at the cornerstone of their beliefs. They defend it over all else, and as the analogy of the seamless garment goes, when you tear one part of it the whole garment unwraps. They never are in dissent on just this one issue. It spreads. Their bad theology prevents them from full confession. It prevents them from fulling understanding what God wants from us as men and women. It replaces male and female with just one sexless gender. The gay ideology stunts development and hardens the heart. I consider this to be far worse and far more damaging that the actual behavior, though the behavior being so against God leads to a hardened heart. The behavior feeds the theology and the theology blocks grace. People with the gay theology defend and promote their dissent as if it was their real religion, which in fact I believe it to be.
I met one guy who told me about his homosexual satanic rituals. He had an altar and everything. When asked, he told me that all homosexuality is a pagan religion. He also said that most active homosexuals didn’t see it that way.
When I came back to the Church a few years back I attended Mass every day for over a month, all the while refraining from communion. I knew that I didn’t accept all of what the Church taught and I wouldn’t fake it or fudge it. While I was in this state of uncertainty I talked with many homosexual people who attended Mass and went to confession. One told me that he shopped around for a priest who was “gay friendly” and who didn’t tell him to stop all his homosexual activities. One wonders what this priest said to str8 people too. Another guy talked long and hard with me about how I could be sexually active and still be in the Church. Our conversation was interrupted when he got a knock on the door. It was a young guy. My friend referred to this guy as his “semen dump” but he didn’t use the word semen. He said that his role was like a garbage dump for semen. Once he was done he said he’d kick the guy out. No talk, no relationship, just a receptacle for semen. He said this before going to Mass.
I did not want to swear off sex believe me, yet I did not want to be such a hypocrite. Setting aside the last example I didn’t want to knowingly change what the Church teaches just because it’s hard, even though I know that many people, gay or str8, do. This is what the so-called gay Catholics on here do. Notice that they are loath to admit that they know that they are in a big conflict with what the Church teaches. I was either going to enter the Church honestly or not at all. That made all the difference.
This is too long already, so I’ll cut it off here.
Very few people are able to present their own experience as clearly and without blaming as you did in your comment of 9:17.
I can’t resist putting together what you said about the “Father/Son” topic and what I hear from friends (male and female) who were abused by their fathers and uncles. Among my friends, none have spoken of abuse by a gay man who was “out.” It was (in this admittedly small sample set) always a man in a position of trust who cloaked his real intentions.
Doesn’t it seem that, rather than being primarily an issue of how we sequester or express disapproval of overtly homosexual behavior, the fundamental problem of evil here is violence perpetrated through the generations, mostly by men and sometimes by women?
Francis that is irrelevant…what MarkF pointed is what he has observed personally. MarkF is right on the money, he said nothing wrong. We know who really are the enemies of the church and it is those who have false compassion and who disobey God’s natural law.
Regarding the 2:56pm comment… I presume you don’t mean to say that understanding the problem of evil and the perpetuation of violence and molestation through the generations is irrelevant to what the Church teaches. What did you really mean? And, where did I say MarkF said something “wrong”? His perspective is blunt and highly informed.
Francis, thank you for giving us your background. It is always interesting to hear people’s individual histories. We learn from this. I know a lot of Mark F’s story and am thankful that he shares it with us here. In some ways I agree with him and in other areas not. I think it is important that young people be protected from abuse. It is hard for me to understand why some of this stuff goes on. I agree that many gay youth feel a closeness to God. I think this is part of the reason why so many priests are gay. In high school, when a lot of the boys are interested in chasing girls, many of the gay boys (especially those not sexually active) are interested in faith, spirituality and religion. I do have a concern that Catholics that make fun of gays, call them names and encourage violence against them could drive young men, such as I have described, out of the Church.
Susanne, if you’re right, it can’t come too soon for many of us. There certainly would appear to be an URGENT need for that to take place. And it’s been urgent for a long time now, especially since so much of the “filth” referred to by former Pope Benedict was first brought to light by the author of “Windswept House” at least 20 years ago. The same author, by the way, referred to a “coup” of sorts that took place in June, 1963, possibly in the same book referred to above, or a subsequent book, that was led by agents of Lucifer himself, and directed from some location in the southern part of the U.S., SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, possibly. I think Pope Paul VI was in the seat of Peter, then, and outside of his papal masterpiece, “HUMANAE VITA,” he was inclined to be kind of a weak Pope. Some within the Vatican were inclined to take advantage of his faltering leadership. Now, does this situation still exist today? I have no clue. I pray not. But this persistent infighting between various factions in the Vatican certainly doesn’t bode well. But haven’t these contentious quarrels over Papal hegemony kind of always been around there? Think the Borgias, and one of the worst of them being “elected” Pope. And what of the United States, “land of the free, home of the brave?” Have we as a nation got off scot-free? With the kind indulgence of the editors here, I’ll get to that in another post. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE.
Markrite, you talk about a coup of sorts led by agents of Lucifer. But this is from a work of FICTION. It sounds very interesting but people need to remember that it is a product of a man’s imagination.
Sorry, Mark from PA, but I DID SAY that the satanic incident was either in “WINDSWEPT HOUSE” or a subsequent book. Well, the ‘subsequent book’ is KEYS OF THIS BLOOD”, by Malachi Martin, and DEFINITELY is NOT fiction, as Martin has written it. It refers to a VERY real happening, pretty much as I decribed it, but was further referred to by those in the know in the Vatican as the “SUPERFORCE,” that is, the PRESENCE in the Vatican that was/is demonic. You can google all this for yourself, if you wish to know the truth. I just hope and pray that it was long ago weeded or exorcised OUT of the vatican. Does anybody out there know any more of this occurrence? GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
Markrite, from what I have read of that book, it seems to be somewhat anti-Catholic. Mixing Catholicism with the occult in a book could be problematic for many readers. If a person who isn’t Catholic and doesn’t like Catholics reads a book like that it could tend to make the person even more prejudiced against Catholics. So I wonder if a book like that could be harmful to someone’s faith.
So, by the same token, PA, you’d call the Pope Emeritus “anti-Catholic” also, because he has pointed out that there is a serious amonunt of “filth” in the Church, and in context this means in the episocopacy, ie the Vatican. This “filth” refers to the gay movement and its participants.
Skai, Pope Benedict XVI never said that homosexual persons were filth. That is your opinion. Perhaps he was referring to priests that sexually abused children (boys and girls). It is obvious that you consider gay people to be filth but you don’t know if the Pope considered them as such.
PA, fiction literature is not necessarily deceptive literature, as you deceptively imply.
Welcome back, we missed your wisdom on this matter!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mark from PA,
I knew Fr. Martin, he did not write fiction but fact. He lived and worked in the Vatican for some time. He used fictitious names but that does not make his work fiction. When he mysteriously fell down those steps and died, he had been preparing a new book that would no longer have used fictitious names. When I asked his good friend and mine, Fr. Charles Fiore why he, Fr. Charles, did not finish the book, he told me “Ken, I would but it was not yet in any manuscript form. Fr. Fiore was an accomplished author, priest, and Theologian.
I pray some day you will repent of your support for this lifestyle.
Kenneth M. Fisher
Wasn’t it the Jesuits (Malachi Martin was a Jesuit) that made threats against him and he found protection and given an independent status apart from the Jesuits from Pope Paul VI? And now we have a Jesuit as pope. Interesting.
To paraphrase what I said last week on a different thread, they’ve had Moses and the prophets. If they won’t listen to them they won’t listen to the legalistic language of canon law.
A lot has been said on here to the effect that a good Christian can oppose homosexual actions but still be in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples. They argue that civil law is different from religious laws, and so it is. But that misses the point.
The real question is what do we think about the nature of a given moral issue. The way I see it, if you believe that abortion causes the death of an innocent human being there is no way that a Christian can not be opposed to legalized abortion. If however you don’t believe that the unborn have as much right to live as anyone else then that assumption can lead to the support of laws that legalize abortion. For me the key part is how the person understands the nature of actions in question.
So when I hear a Christian say that they support civil marriage for same-sex couples I know that deep down they think that homosexual actions are no big deal. If a person believed that homosexual actions are dangerous to mind, body and spirit there is no way they would support civil marriage for same-sex couples.
I could write more but I’ll let it sit like this for now.
Correction, that middle paragraph should read “If however you don’t believe that the unborn have no right to live then that assumption can lead to the support of laws that legalize abortion.”
It’s just a way to get their foot in the door MarkF… like the gambling casinos and lotteries being approved because they promised to be a major source of income for schools. Yeah, right. Our schools and communities are sooooo much better now because we have tasteless gangster run casinos everywhere and many people are gambling addicts now, risking everything for that big pie in the sky that’s sure to come in. Whatever they call themselves and whatever their motives are, whether it’s same-sex couples, pornographers, prostitutes or crime syndicates, they’re all brothers under the skin… they want their way for their own benefit and to hell with society, families, or the future of this country.
Most “gays” never want to hear how destructive, perverse, or disordered male on male sexuality is…it is a true shock to a person’e sensibilities when you analyze just how revolting and twisted this sexual activity is…sodomy is the primary conduit for the “aids” virus…if that is not terrifying enough, it is a grave mortal sin…a sin so heinous that “it cry’s to Heaven for vengeance…
Actually, this is not true. Most HIV is spread through perfectly ordinary heterosexual sex. Please be accurate.
YFC, why do you believe everything you read in gay publications such as the hiv stats?
Skai WRONG again. i read UN docs. If you want to ignore HIV in Africa, go ahead and spread falshehoods.
Anonymous, that’s what I posted … “gay publications” aka UN publications.
As usual, you continue to spread prevarication, the way a farmer spreads manure! That is a lie!…In this country the amount of HIV has been spread primarily by homosexual men, having multiple partner’s and having unprotected sex, sodomy to be exact! A perversion so revolting and shameful that it cry’s to Heaven for vengeance! Statistically speaking, in this nation only a very small % of this dread disease has been spread through heterosexual intercourse. After promiscuous “gay” men, the second greatest known vector for this disease is through IV drug abuse, then through blood transfusion and platelet transfusion and lastly through heterosexual contact. The majority of HIV cases in Africa were due to men in West Africa and into the Congo, having sexual relations with “green monkeys”…this is a paraphilia called zoophilia…homosexuality is also a sexual paraphilia and sexual anomaly…and it is the primary vector for the transmission of the HIV virus…shocking, positively shocking!
“Most HIV is spread through perfectly ordinary heterosexual sex.” If “ordinary” means you and your spouse are life-long faithful to your marriage, not so much!
I am not so sure that most cases of HIV come through heterosexual sex. It seems that a man can get the HIV virus from a woman only with difficulty. Women do not spread AIDS to men very much. Men are the ones who spread AIDS.
Look at the CDC’s numbers on AIDS in America. AIDS is still a disease of IV drug users, homosexual men and the women who have vaginal sex with these men. Only a tiny percentage of men get HIV from women and any reasonable person has to assume that some of this tiny percentage of men are lying about their homosexual contact.
The New York Times did a story on July 20, 2009 citing the respected medical journal The Lancet that AIDS in Africa is much more linked to homosexual contact than previously thought. It turns out that African men are not truthful about their homosexual conduct.
If AIDS was easily spread from women to men we’d see tens of thousands of straight men with AIDS. But we don’t. AIDS in men who are not IV drug users or who are not the receptive partner in homosexual conduct are almost unknown in America. But a disease like the HIV virus works the same way in America as in Africa. The conclusion, as The Lancet found out, is that AIDS in Africa is largely a disease of homosexual anal sex and IV drug use. If you remove IV drug use and male on male anal sex, then AIDS almost disappears, i.e., if men don’t get HIV first, they can’t spread it to women and women don’t spread HIV very much.
This is not politically acceptable in the West to many people who have an inordinate attachment to the ideology of homosexuality and so it gets ignored.
I never heard of people getting AIDS from green monkeys. From what I have read a large number of men in Africa got AIDS from sex with prostitutes. A lot of what Mark F said above it true. I don’t know if a high percentage of men with AIDS in Africa got it from IV drug use. I think that is more the case in Western countries. A man is not as likely to get AIDS from a woman as a woman is from a man. The rate of AIDS is highest in Africa and a large number of the people with AIDS are women who got AIDS from their husbands. So male promiscuity has had a damaging effect on women. The number of women with AIDS in Africa is larger than the number of men with AIDS there.
Supposedly there is a whole lot of shakin’ goin’ on, and therefore there should be HIV cases that I know … but I don’t. The proportion of gays among the total number of people I’ve known is almost insignificant … not even in the category of percentages. So, I wonder where all these HIV heterosexual cases are located. I mean, I’ve resided in mega cities and in semi rural and suburban regions … so far I have not heard of any neighbors, co workers, church people, or anyone else that I run into who has HIV. Hmn, maybe I’d best check the conspiracy theory sites to see if they are casting doubt on the size of the HIV population yet. Maybe it’s mostly hype?!
Skai, most women with AIDS are heterosexual. In Africa the rate of AIDS is higher in women than in men. Most men with AIDS in Africa are heterosexual.
Wow who are getting their facts from? The homosexual Blog? Well anything connected to gay rights groups are always wrong and propaganda.
I responded to this comment before, but it was rejected by the editors. Could it have been because Abeca is a donor to this site? Do donors get preferential posting rights here?
What is worse is that my post pointed to the objective error in Abeca’s post. the World Health Organization is the source of data. According to WHO, a quarter of Africa has the HIV virus. In the US, 3/4 of 1 % have the virus. Inother words, a smaller percentage of LGBT people in America have the virus than straight people in Africa.
CCD Why do you censor the truth?
Jean-Baptiste Tavernier you speak the truth…I agree.
@Peter, because I met with him right after he was elected Pope. Seriously though, the only reason Cardinal Bergolio is the Pope is because Pope BenedictXVI resigned due to the Vatileaks scandal aka Homoheresy mafia in the Church. Pope BenedictXVI due to his advanced age felt he didn’t have the stamima to clean the filth that has entrenched itself in certain offices in the Vatican. First and formally the job is for Pope Francis to do it. He was given the 300 page report and met with Pope Emeritus Benedict in a private meeting. I am certain he will start real soon to clean house. He knows he will have to stand before God one day and give an accounting of his life and particularly his office as Vicar of Christ. I am sure good and faithful Catholics will also encourage him to do so. That is how I know Peter.
Do tell Susanne. How did you meet Pope Francis? How intimate was the meeting? Were you alone with him and for how long? What exactly did you ask and what did he say?
Really? I was being sarcastic. But if I do get a chance to meet with him I have a few things to say about the state of the Church in southern California coming from some personal situations with prelates that have been officially documented. I would write a letter as I have done with the last two popes, but he needs to remove the homo-heresy mafia “gate keepers”.
The “lavender mafia” at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo thought they would rule the roost as well…and drive out all the straight, traditional Catholic seminarians…these perverts and the filth that brought them in are the ones who are going to be outed!…if they already have not been…chicken came home to roost!
Those Catholic lay persons and those Catholic politicians who are advocating for same sex union, are charting a course of “spiritual ruin and destruction” for themselves! If you receive communion whilst contriving to assist others in this depraved and repugnant lifestyle, you also are forbidden to receive the Eucharist!…You compound your state of mortal sin, by receiving whilst in a “state of mortal sin”, compounding the gravity of this sin… and committing a grave sacrilege as well…
Jean-Baptiste, have you ever considered that the gays might prefer doing all that destruction and stuff? Your tone suggests that you’re trying to communicate to them on the shame level … but, they have no shame. Most of them are “shame-opathic”, which is like sociopathic but only on the level of shame. They can’t feel shame any more, as their consciences have become “seared” ie erased by the fire of sin. Have you ever noticed that the gays do not want people to stop trash talking them? But what they do fear is divine light and the Word of God, and also St Michael the Archangel. There are other Saints they fear also. What is it about Saints that they fear? Probably because Saints are able to convey not just the words of Truth, but Truth altogether. The Pope Emeritus called the bishops to become holy … otherwise their words would be hollow even when they quote Gospel verses. Bishops who vainly think they have down time away from the Gospel are doing nothing less that telling God that His domain is limited and is not powerful or authoritive enought to overshadow all of their own lives. Otherwise they would not always excuse themselves by saying that they are only mere men and cannot help sinning.
“seared…erased by the fire of sin”…Skai, beautifully stated…I get sickened reading the inane and vile prattling of YFC…I need to stop responding to his “pro-gay rhetoric”…
That is one of the best things you’ve written here, Skai, about the downtime and thinking that God’s dominion is limited. I’ve found that if God is not in it, it isn’t worth doing anymore. Some books I used to enjoy seem to be so pointless now and it’s the same with music or art. I think this principle is true for ALL of us, not just bishops. That was a real wow post you wrote. Thank you! I almost missed it.
Jean there are some here who advocate gay rights and still receive Communion. They support church defiance on church teachings. They show no respect for our Lord in the Eucharist because they still receive him and preach that they are good Catholics in good standing…..it’s a disgrace.
Because of accidental or purposeful misleading info being posted by some individuals who purport to be “Catholic”, – – – all Catholics and interested others must have and read:
1) Catholic “Bible”;
2) “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”;
3) “Code of Canon Law (Annotated)”;
4) GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal);
5) and make use of the VATICAN web site.
For Church links to the above go to the Vatican web site, or for direct Vatican links go to: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
…And all of us are supposed to have and read this before baptism or before confirmation?
I recently spoke with a “gay” couple… both men were hiv positive, and both were unfaithful to the other… both were infected, due to promiscuity with other homosexuals… they did appear healthy, both were on anti-viral therapy!
Gays are notorious for also seeking out gay men, who are also HIV positive…in order to indulge in this revolting perversion, without “fear” because both are infected!…they can still transmit the disease, when being promiscuous with those who are not infected…shocking, positively shocking
The shock of it might be an indicator why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Skai, I read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is school many times. In truth this story doesn’t really address gay people. Rape is an act of dominance, power and control. We don’t know the orientation of those that threatened the angels. If a heterosexual man rapes another man this does not make him gay, it just makes him evil.
The book of Jude. Jude warns the Church that “admission has been secretly gained (to the Church) by…ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness. Now I desire to remind you…just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. ..Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.”
2 Peter 2, “But there were also false prophets among the people (of the OT), just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies…Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories, If he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
2 Tim 4:3 “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
Everyone should read the entire book of Jude, the second chapter of 2Peter and 2timothy 4. They are admonitions against ungodliness and also teach the proper response of the righteous. Thank you for reminding us of them, MarkF.
PA, you fail once again to persuade that the gay agenda’s modernization of the Sodom and Gomorrah event is valid. God destroyed those cities because of the unnatural lust that every last inhabitant indulged in, and did so to make an example of what will become the eternity of souls who do likewise.
I note with some consternation that some of you object to the word “sodomy”, or any number of its derivatives, as if the word itself were a pejorative. If it is used in the Bible, I see no reason to refrain from using it, for the sole reason of sparing the tender sensibilities of sodomites. It is what it is! Sodomy is a sin that cries to high Heaven; it is the very definition of an abomination. The sexual practices of sodomites are filthy in every sense of the word. Reading a description of what takes place within the so-called “gay” community is revolting.
A lot depends on how you expect to be held accountable when your soul faces the final judgment. Here are two scenarios; which do you think is more likely:
God: “I see that you repeatedly insulted some of the people I love by calling them evil things, demeaning them and justifying terrible abuses against them. You gossiped with your other pious friends (some of whom also acted out their same-sex attractions in private though you didn’t know it). You did this even though you knew that using the authority of My Name in this way, you would further alienate them from Me, who are their Creator as well as yours. Why did you do this?”
God: “I see that you bore witness to the values of chastity and charity by your example as a faithful spouse, a dedicated parent and a reliable friend, even to people I created who acted out their same-sex attractions. You could have insulted them, calling out their evil and tried to force them to do what even I couldn’t make them do. Why did you not act out My Wrath upon them?”
Are these the only choices?
I do not like or use words like homo-heresy. But those words never killed anyone either.
Worse still are the serial posters here who mock the truth with feigned indignation and whose sole goal, whose sole god is their own dissent.
These people are cowards for pretending to be in full communion, all the while working to subvert the Church to confirm to their own dissent. 2 Peter and Jude were written about them.
MarkF, you are going into violation of the 8th commandment by attributing an evil motive to those who may be innocent. Also, the writing from which the term homo-heresy comes never defines what homoheresy is. The writer’s thesis is that heterosexual priests are responsible for looking the other way while a tiny minority of homosexual clergy (who he assumes will always act out in sinful ways) developed a network (the homomafia) to protect themselves. The main point of his paper is that heterosexual priests need to rat them out. There is no acknowledgement of heterosexual abuse of minors or adults. He admits in the paper that his thesis is based on his own speculation based on incidents he is aware of and others that he has read about.
I don’t think that the main point of that article by Fr. Oko was to have priests “rat out” homosexual priests. I think his main point is that:
– there are large numbers of homosexual priests and bishops
– that they are largely very much in dissent from Church teaching
– that they feign allegiance all the while setting up programs that promote dissent
– that their real allegiance is to the homosexual ideology and other forms of modernist dissent
– that they were responsible for 90% of the child abuse scandals
– that they have been shielded from prosecution by other homosexual priests as part of a clique
– that this clique uses its influence to make sure that all promotions to bishop and cardinal are of priests who are homosexual or who support the pro-homosexual ideology
– and that as a clique in powerful places they work to thwart the reforms to the Church that we all want.
Now, given this situation I don’t think that anyone would say that to act against such a clique is ratting anyone out.
The existence of this situation would take a book to cover all of it. In fact all of the information is out there in public, scattered over many newspaper articles and web sites. But isn’t it odd that the very people on here who deny this also are the same people who promote dissent on here in support of the homosexual ideology?
I don’t have the time or space to write such a book, but lets take Roger Mahony as an example, a very bad example at that.
Roger Mahony placed known homosexual child molesters in positions of power, shielded them from prosecution, used millions of dollars that belonged to the diocese just to cover up his own tracks, dragged this all out so long that he cannot face jail time because the statute of limitations has passed, created and supported a climate that promotes the homosexual ideology (among other dissents as well), attacks good and solid priests and nuns for opposing him, and voted just this year in the conclave to elect a new pope according to his obviously lacking conscience.
Out of curiosity, what current situation in the Church made Pope Francis speak out the other day against people within the Church who are still covering up the abuse scandal?
I tried to start a discussion on this paper in a February 22 article but nobody responded. I don’t think this accurately presents what is in the paper.
If you don’t like my choices, write your own scenario. Or, if you think my scenarios are unrealistic, I’d like to hear how you you think the discussion might be different. :-)
Of my two scenarios, the first represents what I guess might await the insult-hurlers. The second one represents what I guess some other commenters might guess awaits me when my time comes.
The Lord and I will obviously have a lot of other topics to discuss, but I think this topic of charity will be one of the less uncomfortable ones for me.
As for dissent, I’m not convinced that everyone who is disobedient is necessarily a dissenter, nor even unworthy to claim a place in the Church. If we didn’t have disobedience, there’d be no need for the sacrament of reconciliation.
Francis, I think I’m writing my own scenario in my posts on here, or at least I’m trying to.
I too make a big distinction between personal behavior (what you call disobedience) and dissent. The main distinction is that people in dissent do not confess their sins because they don’t believe that what they did was wrong. Dissenters also love to sow confusion by writing in public.
The kind of dissent that we’re talking about here would be someone who writes in public that:
– the bible was written by man and contains many errors that do not have to be followed
– writes in public that there are good ways to practice homosexuality that are morally acceptable to the Church
When called out a dissenter will feign ignorance, play the victim, accuse others and will change the subject all the while obstinately persistent in spreading dissenting and heretical ideas. Again Roger Mahony and others come to mind.
I’ve noticed that dissenters like to cover their tracks by using the word Catholic as a cover (I’m thinking of the National Catholic Reporter, Catholics for Choice, etc.) They also love to play the martyr when they’re called out, and most of all I’ve yet to see one stop based on them realizing their mistakes.
That last situation should make clear how they should be dealt with.
Perhaps he will say to you, “Francis, how come you did not defend the Truth of my Church or worse mixed lies with the Truth in order not to offend and to be considered ‘with the times.’ Why did you attack my Faithful servants who were defending my Church by being truthful and who I love?”
Hogwash, Francis. Jesus used terms to describe people such as “your father is the devil”.
Anton, my objection to that word is that it is used to insult and dehumanize people. What did I have to do with what happened in Sodom? It seems to me that some people use this word to drive people they hate out of the Church. People here use terms like homo-heresy and homo-mafia. When I was young I was taught that as Catholics we were brothers and sisters in Christ. We were called to be a welcoming Church. It is painful to me that name calling and intolerance are driving young people away from the Church. When I was a young person I felt welcome in the Church, I was never exposed to such name-calling and hatred. I never felt like I was an abomination.
PA, there is a homo-heresy that is well entrenched in the Church, you are just unable to admit to it. Tell me PA, why should the Church welcome people whose main goal is to undermine its teachings and cause souls to go astray? Those who cause others to go off the path of righteousness are not brothers in Christ…
The Lord teaches us, PA, that we indeed all have something to do with the “sins of our fathers”. Sin and its consequences reach down the generations even to a hundred generations (which is symbolic for reaching indefinitely through all these ages of mankind).
I have never seen anyone object to the use of the word sodomy. It is the word sodomite that is objected to. It is arrogant and disparaging and brings sympathy to the gay agenda. The Church uses the term homosexual persons. Homosexual persons are given a trial that heterosexual persons do not understand. When people stick to the Church’s teaching, there is little discord.
Not only does the Church use the term “homosexual persons”, but sodomites. I just now used this term and I’m part of the Church; therefore, the Church does indeed use the term “sodomite” to refer to the abominable people who persist in the sins of same sex activity both outwardly with their bodies and inwardly with their hearts. The Church has the responsibility to rescue these lost souls from the dregs of society because these lost souls are the results of societies gone to the devil. Jesus came to save, not to condemn; society has already been condemning itself, and the only way to save it is for the Church to force a stop to its sins. The main sins today of society are abortion, sexual license and idol worship. As society takes up more and more of its own debauchery, then more and more of its members will turn to homosexual practices. There are only two ways to deal with this problem: one is to outlaw the debauchery, and the second is to manifest the holiness of God. That is why the Pope Emeritus called the bishops to become holy. If they refuse to do so, then there is no way to stop society from destroying itself.
When I see someone use the word sodomite I think they are self-indulgent and immature. I think that they probably do not really practice the True Faith but just want to appear as if they do. I think this because it seems as if they enjoy being cruel and they want to seperate themselves from this group of people that they despise. They do not wish to acknowledge that in God’s eyes their own sins may be worse. I understand that some people may be using the word because they use a King James Bible or Douay Rheims and they are steeped in that old fashioned language. You can tell if they use other biblical words and phrases. They acknowledge their own sinfulness.
I proudly use that word sodomite, and ALL OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG………….
That was a good one!
Sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a MORTAL SIN.
For those who do not repent and make a firm purpose of amendment not to commit the sin again – Hell is Hell whether homosexual sins or heterosexual sins.
CCC: “2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices. ”
CCC: “2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations – even transient ones – they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.”
CCC: ” 2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality. “
Getting back to the article – please read: “APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES of the SUPREME PONTIFF POPE JOHN PAUL II for the PROMULGATION of the NEW CODE OF CANON LAW” (1983) on the Vatican web site.
Note the sentence with the word “MUST” – – – “Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed.”
There are no options for Bishops, Priests, Nuns or Laity if they are going to be obedient to the Magisterium.
Bishops (and Priests) enforce Canon 915 and 1399 by those who are obstinate and scandalous in their mortal sins. Read 1 Cor 5:11-13.
To the topic of what Pope Francis thinks of same-sex marriage, from ncronline.org, “Book co-written with Argentine rabbi sheds light on Francis’ views.” The following paragraphs are pasted verbatim from the article. Francis’ co-author is Rabbi Abraham Skorka, an Argentine biophysicist and rector of the Latin American Rabbinical Seminary in Buenos Aires.
Argentina legalized same-sex marriage in July 2010. Skorka says the issue was handled in a way that did a disservice to the profoundness of the analysis the topic deserves. “There are already many same-sex couples who live together who deserve a legal solution to questions of pension, inheritance, etc., that might fit into a new legal model, but to equate the homosexual couple to a heterosexual couple is something else,” he said.
To serve its people, Bergoglio says, religion has the right to its say over certain topics in private and public life. “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”
“We condemn the spiritual harassment that happens when a minister imposes directives, behaviors, requirements in such a way that deprive the other of freedom,” Bergoglio says.
Francis: When gay marriage is forced on the rest of us by the state, will you support the coming efforts to make the Church bless so called same-sex marriage? Whose side will you be on? Your liberal, “tolerance” filled world or that of the Church found by Christ? I really want to know where liberals will come down on this one.
You’ve left it ambiguous, what you mean by “gay marriage is forced on the rest of us by the state.” Obviously, nobody can be forced to marry anyone against their will.
Do you mean when same-sex couples can get a marriage license and be married by a Justice of the Peace, a ship’s Captain or a minister? That’s already here, in several states and a few countries. Under our constitution, it is up to the individual states to say who can get married in that state and who can’t. States set their own ages of consent, their own health requirements, their own standards excluding close-relation marriages, their own divorce laws and so on. It will get messy when a couple can claim married status even for federal purposes if they live in one state, but not in another, but that’s the legal world; so be it.
Does “forced on the rest of us” mean when same-sex couples can successfully sue any Church including the RCC for the right to the sacrament of holy matrimony or to be otherwise married and remain in full membership? There’s no precedent for anything like that and I cannot imagine any US government dictating to a church who can join or not. No state can enforce a sacrament because sacraments have no secular value. Furthermore, churches have a right to define who their members are and what sacraments they can receive.
I’m not sure what you have in mind with “coming efforts to make the Church bless so called same-sex marriage” either. If these “efforts” come from within the Church there is no need to “takes sides”: You and I have no responsibility to make decisions for the Church as a whole. It is up to us to accept the Church’s teaching.
I’ll take that up. This is all forced on the rest of us when the laws are changed to erase the words husband and wife, replacing them with spouse 1 and spouse 2. This is forced on all of us when kids in schools are forced to be taught that homosexual actions are healthy and good and to be opposed to them is to be bigoted. This is forced on us when kids will have text books that say that marriage means whatever two or more adults do and to say otherwise means you get a lawsuit, physical threats and harassment. This is forced on us when the students at Christian colleges are refused student loans because their schools teach marriage and the Gospel, now labeled as bias and hatred. This is all forced on us when orphan kids are adopted by homosexual couples over a married couple. This is forced on us when we have groups pushing to revoke the tax exemption status of churches that don’t toe the homosexual line. This is all forced on us when Catholic Charities and other groups are forced to close because they cannot abide by the new customs that endanger children. This is forced on us when the Boy Scouts are coerced to allow homosexual men around teenage boys, and not the average homosexual man but the lowest kind who volunteers to spend his free time doing a sleep over with sixteen year old boys. This is forced on us when a priest I know at the GW University Neuman Center in DC is threatened with legal action for preaching the gospel.
You say that there is no precedence for forcing a church to conduct a same-sex ceremony. You mean YET, don’t you? A few short years ago we had no precedence with the imaginary claim that homosexual marriage was ordained in the fourteenth amendment. But that doesn’t stop this crowd. Our whole recent past is one unprecedented set of changes forced on us. These same groups have forced the weak churches in Denmark to bend down to the homosexual demands. They are required to marry anyone who asks, and in Canada you can be arrested for teaching the Gospel.
Wake up. These people won’t stop, ever. Destroying marriage is just step one in their plans to queer the world.
MarkF, I do have to agree with the homosexual advocates in that it is heterosexuals who are just as much to blame in the deterioration of our culture. Re-reading Romans 1, I see that Paul is not just writing about ‘sodomites’ but all who have forsaken God…(vs.28-32) Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them….”
In other words, that pretty much sums up what’s going on in government, schools, and everywhere else in this society. Everyone wants to please himself. It is complete and utter selfishness and this homosexual fixation you’re all displaying here is truly just one very small part of a tsunami of corruption, immorality and despair. For ex, the Fed. Comunication Com. is going to drop restrictions on nudity, using four letter words etc. on television, the Church is being attacked on all sides, the supreme ct. is voting on another social issue to which they have NO RIGHT to determine in the first place, as they did in Roe vs. Wade, and to me, all of this rotteness has such a superficial urgency about it.
I keep thinking, who’s behind this? (besides satan, of course). It seems so orchestrated to keep us from seeing a larger threat and you’re all getting so bogged down in these male vs male contests that you’re all losing sight of what is going on in a much larger scale.
Dana was that necessary???
Yes, Francis. You and the rest of us must accept the Church’s teaching that marriage is only between one man and one woman. :)
We are not to recognize or approve of the mortal sin of sodomy.
The powers of State will be used to coerce the Church to make it bless so called same sex marriage. How? The State will scream discrimination and go after the tax exempt status, then it will deny any federal monies to Catholic Schools and institutions. The fight is coming Francis, you will either stand on the side of the secular liberal or Christ and His Church.
Francis, your theology worships the state and puts the Church in the position of ineffectuality, aka lukewarmness, which Jesus spits out of His mouth. So obvious why God is allowing the Church to have such abhorent and meaningless leaders lately, what with the laity preferring abomination over morality, and ideologies such as your reflections that lead to nowhere but further infamy. Don’t you recall from Church teaching that there is more that Catholicism does following the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven, for instance the descent of the Holy Spirit Who unites with the faithful and authorizes and empowers the Church to conquer the sin of the world and re-create creation towards God’s will for it. Jesus tells us plainly that it is God’s will that none should perish but have eternal life; yet, your ideology would have the Church retreat into the basement and hide while the rest of creation goes to hell.
You raise some interesting questions there.
What do you think that the future pope meant by not wanting to restrict the freedom of others? Because those words are similar to those who support abortion. That sort of argument is at the core of the pro-choice movement. But we know that the pope is not pro-choice for abortion. I wonder if he didn’t write more that about this that isn’t on here.
Civil unions are interesting because no one can tell what they are. I would oppose civil unions that give the right to adopt children, grant tax benefits and survivor benefits that are usually restricted to married couples, or any other monetary benefits usually associated with marriage. But civil unions that share property and allow for hospital benefits? Why not?
You said that you think that granting civil unions would thwart claims for marriage. That hasn’t been the case in practice where it’s been tried. This whole issue has nothing to do with benefits. The issue exists to queer society from top to bottom.
What sort of civil unions do you want to see?
I would also like more insight to the questions you put in the 4:19pm post, but we probably have to wait until the English translation of the book comes out April 30.
As for “thwart claims of marriage” I think it’s too late for that. In all US cases I know, the public debate went straight from “no-no-no” on unions or marriage to “yes” on marriage, with few moderate voices in between. We went from refusing to acknowledge that there’s a rights issue for committed same-sex couples to “marriage” being the only solution that safeguards their rights.
If the choice were up to me, holy matrimony would be a sacrament, and “unions” of any kind (and their legal consequences) would be a civil matter. I think the Church should “own” the sacraments, and the State should “own” issues of property and medical rights. But then again, the choice is not up to me and that is definitely a good thing.
Francis, your view rejects Jesus’ Great Commission, that the Church must disciple the nations. Now how is the Church going to disciple the nations without pulling out all stops to persuade the nations to conform their laws to God’s law? Do you recall from Catholic teaching that God became man and continues to dwell among men … continues to influence them … through the Church particularly? Why, Francis, would you put Jesus in a box in the back room and hide the light of God under a bushel basket?
Some more to the topic of how the pope sees gay rights, again from ncronline.org, an article “Who Francis may be, based on who Bergoglio was.” The following are verbatim from the article:
Guillermo Villarreal, for instance, is a veteran journalist who covered Bergoglio for the Catholic Information Agency of Argentina, a church-sponsored news service.
He told me that during the six years that Bergoglio served as president of the bishops’ conference, from 2005 to 2011, he had an impressive record in being able to broker consensus, losing only one vote over that span — a disagreement in 2009 and 2010 over how hard a line to take against Argentina’s gay marriage bill.
According to Villarreal, Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer of La Plata, Argentina, was the leader of the hawks, while Bergoglio supported a less confrontational line. The issue wasn’t whether to sign off on gay marriage, but how incendiary the rhetoric against it ought to be, and whether the church could signal support for other measures to protect the civil rights of same-sex couples.
Thank you for the information, Francis. I am inspired by the humility of Pope Francis. I see in this his striving for holiness. I hope especially that he will be an inspiration to people in Latin America and also Latinos here. I pray that the drift of many Latin Americans and Latinos out of the Church can be stopped by the actions of our new Pope.
“I am inspired by the humility of Pope Francis.” Yes and I sincerely believe that Pope Francis would be inspired by the humility of Mark F. for removing the false mask of homosexual-ideology. MarkfromPA you accused Mark F. of making up stories such as the one being reported below. MarkfromPA, I thought that you wanted children to stop being victimized and harmed. Masking the homosexual-ideology does harm children. MarkfromPA, Do you think that these young boys are all lying too?
Google My Daily News: “Gay couple who adopted nine boys accused of repeatedly raping and molesting sons, as case heads to trial after shock decision to turn down plea.”
Mydailynews.com (6 minutes ago) Apr 7, 2013
Catherine, Mark F has mentioned here several times that friends of his admitted to having sex with their children. My question for him is in how many instances was he concerned enough to contact Children’s Services to make sure that the children were protected. He said he knew these people personally and was close enough to them that he discussed this with them.
Catherine, I checked out the story. It is horrible. The abuse of any child is criminal and a tragedy. I have read that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 8 men were sexually abused as children. When I was a young person I wasn’t aware of such things. I hope that we are doing better now in protecting children than in years past.
Mark from PA,
These were not friends of mine. I never even learned their last names.
Now can you answer my question as to whether you would let a homosexual couple that already has adopted nine boys adopt two more boys?
I am not asking about this particular couple. I am talking in general, about future homosexual couples. Would you let such a couple adopt more boys, given no allegations of abuse, and a history of them only wanting boys to adopt?
Isn’t the real question here why the State let a homosexual couple adopt nine boys and not one girl?
And an open question to any and all: If you were the state adoption case worker and the only thing that you knew was that a homosexual couple had already adopted nine boys and no girls, and they wanted two more boys would this concern you at all?
Sould it even matter whether the couple was “homosexual”? A man/woman couple who’ve adopted 9 boys and want to adopt two more of them ought to at least trigger a look-see to understand what they’re up to. The US has far more hyper-dominant men married to submissive women than men married to other men. If such a bully has the inclination, there is nothing to stop him from acting out as a pedophile.
Giant red flags were really waving weren’t they? These state adoption agencies have placed themselves into circumstances that will make it very difficult to publicly admit that they are also responsible for sending these children into harm’s way. Many in our society have become very enamored with the false front or mask that is put forth. People will say, “Look how happy they all seem to look for the camera,” while behind the scenes the rapid downward spiral of an unnatural progression of evil is taking place. History is repeating itself with the crumbling of a society that rejects God. Look at the re-opening of that Pandora’s box of many of the same old evils that have been let out in our modern day culture of accepted sin.
Sister Lucia of Fatima warned the world that if people did not repent and turn back to God that the world would be swept up in a wave of “diabolical disorientation.” We have artificial contraception, legalized abortion, adultery, pornography, divorce, couples living together in sin, a federal judge mandating that the morning after pill be placed out on the shelf for any age girl to use, same sex adoptions and same sex marriage. We also have many wars. These are all the consequential punishments for many different sins. Our society has become so very blinded that in many of these circumstances, these evils are referred to as “progress” or a good. Our hope is always in Jesus Christ who was crucified for all of our sins and in the Magisterial teachings of the One True Church that he founded.
These innocent children who are being adopted by same sex couples and the boys and girls who are daily murdered for the sake of convenience in abortion mills are the greatest sacrificial victims. These children are the most helpless pawns in our tug of war culture. We will be faced with either choosing God and eternal life or choosing to promote the culture of sin and death. We will always have God’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail and Our Lady’s comforting words, “In the end My Immaculate Heart Will Triumph.” Meanwhile the battle for souls rages on and one of the greatest ways to enable evil is by remaining silent.
There is nothing new under the sun. There will always be rebellious individuals who have bought into this great lie and they foolishly think that there is such a thing as brokering a consensus deal with Almighty God. God will not be mocked! Man also planned a consensus of evil in Sodom and Gomorrah and God laughed.
Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen
Actually I was inspired by previous Pope Benedict’s humility
PA, a while back I had suggested that the State allow for civil unions and not call a union a marriage until the union had procreated. This would effectively limit marriage to heterosexuals. I thought it was the lesser of two evils. You said that was against Church teaching, yet now you seem sympathetic to something along this line. Why the change?
Francis, your quoting of the heretical and schismatic “National Catholic REPORTER” (ncronline) means absolutely nothing.
But your promotion of it, does tell us where your feet are planted.
The REPORTER has been banned from using the name “Catholic” since 1963, but continues to commit FRAUD to dupe unsuspecting and uncatechised Catholics.
The REPORTER refuses to adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, and is in violation of the Code of Canon Law.
Well, Mark, actually I would be concerned. That is a lot of children for two people to be raising. Assuming that no abuse is involved, I would wonder how much individual attention the children would get. I don’t think I would approve of having a girl live in that household with all those boys and no mom. You said that all the men you knew that were raising children either had sex with the boys or wanted to. Now you are saying that you didn’t know their last names? Were you talking to drunks in a bar who were talking nonsense? I find the whole thing totally creepy and disturbing. My friends don’t discuss their sex lives with me and I don’t ask people about things like that.
Do not believe anything you read in the “National Catholic REPORTER”.
They mix truth with lies, and fact with fiction.
They love to cause confusion.
Mark from PA, if you are a Christian and love your Neighbors you will want them to get to Heaven. This means evangelizing and discussing those things that will send them to Hell – for the sake of their immortal Souls.
Does anyone now wonder how the abuse scandal in the Church went on for so long? Or how this case happened where a homosexual couple adopted a series of only boys and no one said anything till the predictable happened?
The thing being protected here is the homosexual ideology, not the children. They protect their ideology above all else, and no matter what the evidence.
These situations have happened because certain people are the ones to volunteer work for the Church. These things happen because the same sorts of people gravitate towards government work where they can and do spread their ideas. These situations happen because people of decency and common sense stay home and leave the work to these certain kinds of people. These people have no shame and feel no remorse. Indeed they blame everyone else and play the martyr when exposed. Look at Roger Mahony for example. But they can only win when people of faith do nothing and it’s going to take more than writing to change things. So we all share in the blame.
Writing on here is easy. To change the situation in the Church and in government is going to get loud and messy, because these sorts of people are not going to leave on their own. Five years reading the same old homosexual – leftist party line on here proves this. A commenter on here named Francis raised an interesting pair of situations, the second one being where people of faith chose a path of resignation when faced with these situations. This is how these people win. Most people do not like confrontation and will give in the demands of the shrill and persistent forces that are squarely against the Church. And so the leftist, pro-homosexual forces win by default. They also win when the only weapon in our arsenal are insults and words like homo-heresy or sodomite. Words like this, though accurate, turn people off. The English language is rich enough to say the same thing but with words that engage people, not turn them off.
What does the state pay these false parents for each child they take in? $1500 per month per child??
Throughout the USA, all persons can legally choose who they want to be beneficiaries, and have power of attorney over financial assets, medical decisions, and name anyone of choice as an Executor in a Will, not to mention purchasing homes or cars together, etc., etc.
There is no reason for any Government to approve same sex marriage, unless they want to promote sodomy, and give other people’s children to homo-sexual couples.
The Old and new testament are explicitly clear when it comes to homosexual activity, e.g. sodomy…it is forbidden…it is a gravely disordered sin…it is a “sin that cry’s to heaven for vengeance”…in fact 2 cities in the Old Testament were destroyed because the depraved denizens of these cities were steeped in this sexual corruption…Sodom and Gomorrah, names synonymous with perversion and sexual depravity…