Two Yangs Can’t Make a Baby

I got scolded good and proper at the Vatican conference on man-woman complementarity this week. In an article for Breitbart News I named some of the participants in the conference.

I asked around and no one knew there was an embargo on the identities of the participants. Indeed attendees were busy emailing and Facebooking the names and even pictures of the participants in that packed conference room at Paul VI Hall inside the Vatican walls.

I wasn’t the only one who got in trouble. A major pro-family leader received a phone call scolding him because of the way he had characterized the conference in a press release. He said something along the lines that the conference would set the liberals straight about what the Vatican believes about marriage.

Our crime was being off message.

The concern was that the conference would be pegged as a conservative event. It makes sense that the Vatican would prefer it that way. Though organizers included conservatives, it was a Vatican event, sponsored by various dicasteries including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And the Church quite properly is loath to present the teachings of the Church as either conservative or liberal. What’s more, conference organizers do not want to scare away potential allies who might consider themselves other than conservative.

And it is possible that “complementarity” might mean something other than what pretty much all of the speakers at the conference said it means. Almost immediately Daniel Horan published an essay at America scolding the conference for not presenting a diversity of views on complementarity and used the Pope’s own conference talk to make his case. The Pope said, “When we speak of complementarity between man and woman in this context, let us not confuse that term with the simplistic idea that all the roles and relations of the two sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern.” See, complementarity is not a single thing.

Interestingly, many conference speakers addressed this issue pointing out that complementarity isn’t “fixed” or unchanging. The point of complementarity is that men and women fit naturally together but also give to each other aspects of themselves so that the man becomes more like his mate and she more like him. As one speaker said, eventually one plus one equals one.

Still, unless you are willing to fudge Church teaching or at least wink at heterodoxy, something called “The Complementarity of Men and Women” might be characterized as conservative because it not only excludes the same-sexes but also presupposes certain unique male and female ways of being. Exceptions were noted. Janne Matlary, the former foreign minister of Norway, said she never liked playing with dolls. Still, nature allows for exceptions and these exceptions do not change or even challenge the norm.

It wasn’t just the topic that set off alarm bells. There was also personnel. Head of communications was Helen Alvare, a law professor noted for advancing social conservative causes like pro-life and traditional marriage. Speakers included evangelical Pastor Rick Warren, Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, plus Archbishop Charles Chaput, and many others hardly chummy with the Commonweal-National Catholic Reporter-America set. Or the Washington Post.

And so, not surprisingly, on the evening of the first day, the Washington Post pointed out that participants in the conference came from the “conservative side of the spectrum.”

Another fiction, one that is persistent in the man-woman marriage argument, was that the conference had nothing to do with homosexuality. And that is true as far as it goes. Homosexuality was hardly mentioned. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks brought it up.

Sacks, former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, told the story of math-computer whiz Alan Turing, who cracked the Nazi code during World War II, but was later convicted of homosexual behavior and given the choice of prison or hormone treatments to stem his homosexual desires. Sacks said though we should not return to those “dark days” we nevertheless should not cave in to calls to change the definition of marriage.

In fact, besides Sacks and maybe one or two others, in all the long hours and days of the conference and the few dozen speakers, the word homosexual was hardly breathed.

One of the funny things about the LGBT crowd is they always think everything is about them.

Profound narcissism aside, though, the LGBTs know quite well that all this talk of complementarity must necessarily exclude their couplings. Zack Brown of ThinkProgress certainly got it. He tweeted, “I can’t hear about how men and women are ‘complementary’ without hearing ‘gay sex is icky’ … gay people exist, and we are complementary with the same gender. Just ask us! We’ll tell you all about it.”

They even saw right through the Pope. They had such high hopes for him. A particularly odious blogger named Jeremy Hooper wrote, “People keep telling me that this Pope is new and different and more accepting. Only thing? Just this morning, at the big marriage and family conference currently underway in Rome, he gave a whole speech about marriage being only one man and one woman and how his peeps need to resist any other form.” He accused the conference of “attacking my family.”

There are limits to messaging. In the end, everyone pretty much knows who you are and what you are talking about.

It’s true: the conference was one long beautiful meditation on how men and women uniquely fit together and how this is agreed upon across cultures, across the globe and across faiths. It was also about something else.

A soft-spoken Taoist woman lectured on the Yin and Yang, not the two Yins or the two Yangs.

She made it clear that two Yangs aren’t complementary. They can’t be. Two Yins can’t make a baby. Two Yangs can’t make a family. This does not denigrate or demean them or their relationships. It is simply a beautiful truth that was discussed in depth at the Vatican this week. But totally off message.

(Photo credit: Salt and Light Media)

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • Alan Napleton

    Austin,
    Thanks for the great article and clear synopsis on this gathering.

  • lifeknight

    Love the title! So true.

  • joebissonnette

    Austin Ruse got Scolded good and proper but seems no worse for the wear, and that for me is the big take-away. Many thought the Age of the Laity would be a gracious welcoming but have instead found inclusive liberal clerics to be ham fisted and worse.
    More than a generation ago, part of the confirmation ritual was a slap on the cheek as a sign of the persecution which might come with the faith. The practise should be re-instituted, with the added understanding that the faithful might also be persecuted by the Church.
    This should not be too distressing to us. Christ instituted a priesthood of fallen men, not angels, and no one can naively pretend otherwise since the Long Lent of 2002. We are called to be faithful to The Church even when bishops and priests are not, and even when bishops and priests misuse their authority to try to suppress fidelity.
    Of course we should think twice when reprimanded by a bishop or priest, bishops and priests who are their designates are guided by the Holy Spirit in a way that we are not. But after thinking twice we should follow our informed Catholic consciences. To do otherwise would be sinful.
    We should not be over-wrought by all of this. THIS IS THE AGE OF THE LAITY. I will try to be a happy warrior like Austin Ruse because that is what is called for.

    • Hopefully, A Catherine of Siena will emerge to comment on the stench.

  • Austin Ruse

    By the way…in the picture we ran above, an official picture from the event, you can see a man with a full white beard. He is one of the highest officials of the Russian Orthodox Church. You can also see Pastor Rick Warren, no liberal, and just above Warren’s right shoulder is a Shiite Muslim from….of all places…Tehran. This was NOT a conservative event…

    • Tom

      Ah yes, Iran and Russia. What wonderful places to live. Of course, Iran’s “pro-family” culture has produced an open and tolerant society, one that treats woman and religious minorities fairly and justly. And Russia is not at all turning increasingly into a society controlled by a government that owns most of the television media.

      Oh, btw, how are your preparations to move you and your family to Africa going, Austin? I trust you still wish to escape from the violence and savagery of the West to the peace, calm and harmony of Africa? I hear that CAR is very nice this time of year? Or perhaps Northern Nigeria is more suitable?

      • And here come the monomaniacal trolls…. Queue Boiling Frog, M, Jessica Sideways and the rest of the Hee Haw gang…

        • ForChristAlone

          word has been sent out to the homosexual lobby

        • Tom

          Don’t worry, I won’t stay long. I have realised the futility of discussion.

          • ForChristAlone

            hurrah

          • slainte

            Those who come here in good faith to learn about Christ in community with other sinners are very welcome; that includes you Tom.

            • Good faith requires some sort of indication of openness to colloquy, and on a wide range of matters.

              I see no such indication, just the same people who only post when the topic is homosexuality or the author Mr. Ruse.

              Res Ipsa Loquitar.

              • slainte

                IMHO…the door should always remain open; civility costs nothing yet may yield unexpected conversions.

                • When someone walks up to my door, I presume they have good intentions and I greet them with that presumption. That’s civil.

                  Now if I were to see somebody approaching who had previous broken or snuck in, and scrawled insults all over my walls, there is no presumption of innocence. My greeting would be offered from behind my Smith and Wesson .45.

                  The trolls that patrol the internet are merely looking to “jam” Austin and drown him out for daring to question their predilections.

                  Extending a welcome to a known hostile isn’t civil, it’s suicide. Do you see any evidence that Tom came here in good faith?

                  • fredx2

                    It is better to have a commbox where actual exchanges of ideas take place, than the commbox where everyone just says “Yeah, me too”. That quickly gets boring. Everyone should be welcome here and we should be able to beat down their arguments, one by one, with patience and at least a certain degree of grace.

                  • slainte

                    DE, I think we have to recall the words of Holy Scripture:

                    “…17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Romans 12:17

                    I very often guilty forget these words when I am angry…and I do lash back. But Scripture points me in the right direction even when someone is overtly hostile and doesn’t appear to act in good faith.
                    We never know what is causing one to act out and a word of kindness can go a long way to changing hearts. : )

                    • Slainte

                      “I am very often guilty of forgetting these words when….”

                      Sorry for the error-typing on I-phone was not a good idea.

          • TomPaine

            If you offered honest discussion, that would be one thing. Your previous post was mere snark and doesn’t count. The others here aren’t the ones making discussion futile, the trolls are.

      • Margaret in MI

        Tom: not sure what you mean with your reply to writer/reporter? Are you saying that in comparing ‘the west’ to those countries influenced by the darkness of Sharia Law and the violence of teaching ‘strike the neck’ of the non-believing infidels…..that in comparison we should just be thankful the ‘U.S.’ has not lost all our ‘Judeo-Christian’ culture / principles? Or in the case of Russia; we should not be concerned because we still have more ‘freedoms’ than in a dictatorship or a ‘statism’ rule?

        • Tom

          My point, sarcastically put, was that “pro-family” cultures to me seem heavily correlated with authoritarian government, corrupt bureaucracies, and generally unpleasant societies. It is certainly no barrier to depravity like in Russia, so I think idolising “family” is misguided.

          My other comment was a snide remark referencing a previous statement by Mr Ruse that Africa is less violent than the West. I invited him to move there for the sake of his daughters, if he is so sure that the “pro-family” societies that exist there are so conducive to human flourishing.

          • ForChristAlone

            you’re young and have much maturing to do

          • “My point, sarcastically put, was that “pro-family” cultures to me seem heavily correlated with authoritarian government, corrupt bureaucracies, and generally unpleasant societies.”

            Explain Lord Obama then. There is a sociological principle that the more oppressive and regimented the regime, the more libertine the culture, because its a false palliative balm against the violence being done to the culture.

            • Tom

              Ah yes, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Russia are very libertine.

              • You really are an idiot. There is a huge sex-trade and porn industry thriving in Russia, and pedophilia (child marriage) is quite legal in Islamic countries. Everyody knows where the really monied classes from the KIngdom of Saud go to exercise their libido away from the restrictions of Sharia.
                just because they disapprove of your perversion, doesn’t mean they disapprove of all perversion.

          • fredx2

            Maybe you are not yet aware that correlation is not causation. It is nonsense to say that pro family cultures are correlated to authoritarian governments. The only thing that you can say is that in Africa, they have a sound sense of traditional morality that served the West well for many years. This seems to be getting lost in the West, and most also realize that the West has become degenerate in many respects at the same time. Massive pornography, abortion, the sexualization of young people. the constant obsession with sex on TV and movies, and the general overall lowering of moral standards does not bode well for the West.

            • Tom

              Oh please, of course I know correlation and causation are not the same. That is why I used the word. African traditional morality has not served it well; it is 50,60 years since independence, and the place is still a corrupt, vicious, cesspit. That it is so with a “pro-family” culture says to me that being “pro-family” is perfectly compatible with savagery. Conversly, since the West is considered less “pro-family” and yet is still a much more pleasant place to live I take as evidence that a “pro-family” culture is largely irrelevant for having a decent standard of living in an open society. The idolisation of “family” is misguided.

              But, you could be right. Maybe the West will collapse to the level of savagery of Africa in the next 100 years. Perhaps we will start burning witches or eating Albino people etc.

              And, in any case, the “pro-family” cultures that Austin most frequently praises are also those that are increasingly authoritarian and controlling. Most of the Islamic states, Russia, African states, etc etc. Can you give me an example of a nation with a strong “pro-family” culture that isn’t an authoritarian and controlling regime?

      • ForChristAlone

        no more tomfoolery from you

      • Austin Ruse

        Actually, I said that with all its faults, Africa has a stronger under standing of the family than the dominant left culture has in the west. I said we were the third world in regarding the family and they were the first world.

        • Tom
          • Austin Ruse

            Tom, I do wonder if you are in love with me. But anyway, it is books. Africa is the first world when he comes to the family and we are the third. Moreover I would suspect that the violent body count in the United States alone is higher than all of Africa.

            • Tom

              Well Austin, you do hand me easy victories, and that does somewhat endear you to my heart. I am prepared to accept an apology from you now that I have shown that you did say the West is more violent than Africa.

              //Moreover I would suspect that the violent body count in the United States alone is higher than all of Africa.//

              Nope.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

              Again, too easy.

              • Austin Ruse

                Does this include 1.2 million abortions a year? Not including chemical abortions. 50 million since 1973.

                • Tom

                  Ah yes, that old abortion number. So you do think the West is more violent than Africa?

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Does that number include death due to abortion? Or not?

                    • Tom

                      Deaths of the unborn? I would have thought not, since that is not classed as a homicide in the USA.

                      So, do you think that the West is more violent than Africa?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Do you think the unborn child is a human being?

                    • Tom

                      Uh ah, you don’t get to ask all the questions Austin. Answer mine; Do you think Africa is more violent than the West?

                    • Quote:

                      “Don’t worry, I won’t stay long. I have realised the futility of discussion.”

                      It’s already a half past long.

                    • Tom

                      True. But I just can’t resist watching Austin squirm. It amuses me. Indulge me for a short time more, please.

                    • “Tom • 4 hours ago
                      Don’t worry, I won’t stay long. I have realised the futility of discussion.”

                      Liar.

                    • Tom

                      I know, I am sorry.

                    • No you aren’t.
                      Genuine contration would be evidenced by doing as promised, even if it was late.
                      Vandalizing is just another compulsion that masters you and deludes you into thinking you are clever.
                      Narcissism lies at the heart of homosexuality.

                    • Tim

                      “Narcissism lies at the heart of homosexuality.”
                      This may be your opinion, but it does not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is a scientifically unsound claim, and it reflects animus and bigotry that is foreign to all the Church stands for on this issue.

                    • The Church does not make a claim about the specific or primary cause of homosexuality.

                      All of human behavior is unscientific.
                      You apparently have no concept of bigotry or animus.

                      Congratulations on being absolutely correct and wrong at the same time.

                    • Neither was lynching uppity Ni***** at one time.

                      On the contrary, SOMETIMES killing a child in utero is classified as a homocide.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Let me put it this way. Without abortion I don’t know which would be the more violent. But with abortion I would suspect that the United States alone he’s more violent than all of Africa. And it’s specially gruesome because most of the violence in the United States is done against the defenseless innocent.

                    • Tom

                      So, I was correct above when I said you had said (and believe) that the West is more violent than Africa, which you then preceded to try and deny. Again, waiting for an apology Austin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh please, grow up.

                    • Tom

                      Hey, you were the one who tried to deny they had said that the west is more violent than Africa. And it is a serious question; if a “pro-family” culture is so important to you, if you genuinely believe Africa is less violent than the West, less sexualized etc, then I really am asking you why you don’t move your daughters there? After all, rich Russians send their children to the UK and USA for education. Wouldn’t your daughters, under your belief system, have a more moral and upright eduction, and standard of living, than in the evil old West? Put your money, no, put your family where your mouth is, Austin. As it is, you remind me of nothing so much as the socialists in Atlas Shrugged, lauding policies in a nation, but being much happier not living under them.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Because this is my country. I intend to stay and fight for her. My ancestors came here as colonists and fought to establish what has been one of Gods gifts to the world. That she’s been sullied by the lines of the sexual anarchists makes her no less lovable.

                    • Tom

                      Yes, but that doesn’t answer why you aren’t doing the best things for your daughter, and moving to Africa. Indeed, your ancestors left their homeland for a life where they could pursue their religion without interference. So, in fact, you are putting your attachment to the USA above the welfare of your daughters. You consider that moral? You are putting your patriotism about your commitment to raising your daughters in a “pro-family” culture. So patriotism trumps being pro-family? Curious.

                      Do you believe that your daughters would have a better life in Africa?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The wonderful thing about the profamily movement is that we are all having children. And we are all quite confident that the sexual revolution will be defeated, sooner rather than later.

                    • Tom

                      So, you admit you are committing your daughters to an inferior life because of your patriotism?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Good lord. How old are you? You are in the twenties, right? Just out of college? Maybe in graduate school? You badger like a kid. Like I said, grow up.

                    • Tom

                      Just one of those quirks of mine, I like people to be honest. I know that you are not, but I am trying to help you be.

                    • fredx2

                      It you liked people being honest, you would not make the ridiculous leap from Austin’s saying that it was more violent here than in Africa, to the notion that he should immediately move there, and if he does not, it is immoral. That is childish.

                    • Tom

                      I don’t think it is childish. And I packaged it with other aspects of Africa that Austin believes are important. He is choosing to raise his daughters in a more violent society,a less “pro-family” society, a more sexualised society etc. If he really, truly thought those things were the most important, and being a man of means, he should move his family to Africa. That he does not indicates to me that he puts some other factor above those issues, meaning they are not truly the most important and foundational. If I were in his position, and really truly believed what he said he believes, I would not hesitate moving my family to Africa. I would consider it my duty to do so. If being raised in a “pro-family” society is really of the utmost importance, then no other factpe, including patriotism, ought to trump it. Taking this is the extreme, even if his daughters were to catch HIV or be the victim of some violence as is endemic to Africa, that would still be an acceptable trade off of being “pro-family” really is the absolute most important thing.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      you’re kind of from the nyah nyah nyah school of argumentaiton…how old are you?

                    • Tom

                      Because questioning my age is much more mature?

                    • TomPaine

                      Most of your posts belie great immaturity, and other people are trying to make serious points. I think Austin’s question was a rhetorical one designed to point that out.

                    • Tom
                    • Austin Ruse

                      Serioulsy, tom. How old are you?

                    • TomPaine

                      That’s twisting his words beyond recognition. It won’t do.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      And I can promise you this. Africa doesn’t want your crap either.

                    • Tom

                      Unless it is all that lovely aid money, then it just vacuums it up.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well of course Africa needs as much development assistance as it possibly can get. But what shouldn’t happen is that it comes with strings attached to all the nastiness that you and your ilk are promoting.

                    • Tom

                      Nope, Africa can make do on its own. And aid can come with as many strings as we like; it is the benefit of being the ones with the money and power. It also lets Africa know its position – dependent on the generosity of the West. One of the biggest lies of the UN is that the nations there are equals. They are not, they never have been and never will be. But then, that is me speaking as a nasty old paleo-colonialist.

                      Also, I find it interesting that the nations with the “pro-family” cultures are not the most wealthy or advanced? Surely, if being “pro-family” was such a tonic, so important, so vital, then Africa ought to be much richer then it is, and the West much poorer. Almost as if being “pro-family” had no relationship with wealth, success, or technological advancement.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well, actually, Tom, the richest nations on the earth have been the ones that have been profamily like the United States. The sexual revolution is fairly new. And it will end.
                      About strings, sure, strings should be attached but they should not be attached to things that are morally repugnant. Connected to the rule of law? Sure. To sexual immorality? No.

                    • Tom

                      Perhaps, but the African nations have been independent for 50, 60 years. You would think that if being “Pro-family” was so critical they would have got their act together by now. But no, CAR is still a mess, so is Somalia, Egypt is terrible, Mugabe, continued on page 93.

                      I think sexual anarchy ought to be connected, just like religious anarchy, just like dietary anarchy. Also, if they are connected to things like “free speech” and “freedom of assembly” many African nations still fall foul because of their bans on pro-gay speech. Now, I know you support such bans, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You yourself have admitted that the ADF has advised that even the Russian law risks curtailing free speech. Again, you do support that, but it is still an infringement on human rights, Austin. Added to that could be endemic corruption.

                      But then again, I don’t agree with government foreign aid in any circumstances, so it is largely academic.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Ah yes, back to the dietary line of attack. Yawn. Stretch. Yawn.

                      How old are you?

                      Why don;t you say?

                    • Tom

                      Because I don’t consider it relevant. But if you want, I am 28.

                      The dietary line was not about attacking, it was drawing a parallel between the anarchy that we enjoy in that area, that I think ought to be spread to sexual matters. It is already so in religious matters.

                      And I presume “Yawn. Stretch. Yawn.” is your example of mature debate?

                    • “Don’t worry, I won’t stay long. I have realised the futility of discussion.”

                    • Tom

                      Thank you for again reminding me, DE-173. I shall take you advice and remove myself, as I realise now that Austin truly is a liar who will not admit his mistakes, or apologise for them.

                    • It wasn’t a reminder to you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      How old are you? Why are you afraid to say? Im 59. How old are you, Tom?

                    • Paul

                      A country’s richness or wealth is not measured by its materialistic wealth alone. What we need to understand is spiritual wealth is by far more important and the lack of is an affront to God.
                      Look carefully at the US national debt and government debt compared to its GDP, the stats show there is little difference between the US and some of the 3rd world countries.

                    • JP

                      I suppose cultural relativism is now officially dead. Just a few decades ago, the Progressives said there is much we can learn from Africa and the Middle East.

                    • Guest

                      Thank you Mr. Ruse, you took the words right out of my mouth!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Me: Because of abortion, America is more violent than Africa.
                      You: Then why don’t you move there, huh, huh, huh?
                      Me: Well because I love my country and want to stay and fight for it. You: Then you care more for your patriotism than your daughters, huh? Huh? Huh?
                      Seriously, how old are you? Please tell us. I’m begging you. On my knees…huh? Huh? Huh? LOL…

                    • jacobhalo

                      Actually, 36 states call the killing of a pregnant woman a double homicide.

                    • jacobhalo

                      36 States consider it a double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.

              • I remember a particularly screwed up kid that picked a fight with a guy I went to college with, finally the guy had enough and gave him a sound thrashing. As the screwed up kid walked away with the normal declarations of victory, one of the other onlookers said I knew he was confused, but its a whole different thing to think you won a fistfight by pummeling the other guys fists with your face.

                It wasn’t long after that the screwed up kid left school due to his receipt of a perfect GPA of 0.0. You remind me of him.

                • Tim

                  Antisocial. Not Christian. Not Catholic.

                  • Thank you for your opinion. Be assured I will give it all the consideration that your comment history indicates that it merits.

          • Austin Ruse

            And by the way, both facts are due almost completely to you and your friends sexual left. anarchy always inevitably ends up with high body count.

  • JP

    You know name the game is up when the Vatican holds a ecumenical conference on heterosexual coupling. It is almost as if Christians had to convince themselves that the natural order still exists, and that it is still a preference of 97% of all humans. What’s next? a conference in 2015 that reminds people that dogs bark and cats meow?

    And Austin, in light of the disastrous synod last month, the Vatican has determined that “messaging”is a huge thing. The amount of damage control from most Catholic media outlets, blogs and social media for the last month or so (concerning the Vatican’s adherence to Catholic Doctrine) lends me to believe that there is a concerted effort by some central office to clean things up, so to speak. Everyone is blaming the disaster on the media; everyone is ignoring the final document (which still contains the notorious paragraph 52, at the Pope’s insistence by the way). I get the impression that the Vatican is attempting to quiet things down before it drops the hammer sometime late next year.

    • “a conference in 2015 that reminds people that dogs bark and cats meow?”

      I hope so. The one just before this one seemed to insist that dogs should meow and cats bark.

      • Or that pigs can fly….

    • Paragraph 52 is Area 51.

  • GG

    ‘Zack Brown of ThinkProgress certainly got it.
    He tweeted, “I can’t hear about how men and women are ‘complementary’
    without hearing ‘gay sex is icky’ … gay people exist, and we are
    complementary with the same gender. Just ask us! We’ll tell you all
    about it.”’

    There is no such thing as “gay sex”. Such acts are a perversion of the marital act and are demonic.

    • R. K. Ich

      Exactly. It is a form of masturbation, nothing more.

      • Colloquially known as a “circle jerk”.

        • Siwash

          Agree. My sense is that it’s a kind of narcissistic addiction. Certainly once you take the normal male-female dynamic out of sex, the whole thing changes and gets imbalanced and OOC.

          • Underlying this idea is a base idea that everything we do with our genitals is sex. It is not. Sex is a male and a female engaging in intercourse.

            Just because you jumped in a car and got behind the wheel doesn’t mean you are driving. Sometimes you are racing the engine in “park”. You might like how it sounds and feels, but you are still going nowhere and putting useless wear and tear on the engine.

            • Shere Khan

              I could not agree more, you put it excellently clearly,I envy your succinctness in setting out such a clear truth so well – nail hit squarely on the head.

          • Tim

            Let’s not forget that the Church itself does not indulge in such hate-filled language about homosexuals and urges that they should be treated with charity and kindness. What is “off message” is not restating the teachings of the Church. It is the corrosive, antisocial, ugly, demeaning condemnation of homosexuals on this site. Yes, the Church teaches that homosexual sex is wrong. It does NOT encourage contempt or disrespect for homosexuals. Much of what is being written here, in condemnation of homosexuals, is emphatically unCatholic and unChristian. I am not surprised that Austin Ruse got spanked. He is not reflecting the love of the Church.

            • asmondius

              So we should similarly not condemn or disrespect rapists?

            • TomPaine

              Most of what I see here is condemnation of homosexual activity and militance, not of the persons themselves. That distinction is crucial and you seem to get what it means. Sometimes a troll get what he or she deserves for trolling–but generally not for being gay.

      • John200

        Agreed, homo”sex”ual activity is always masturbation, sometimes mutual, sometimes forced.

        I don’t mean to jump you from in hiding, but there is much more:
        1) It is detrimental to the homo”sex”ual.
        2) It is detrimental to the man he is destroying, the partner in this lunacy.
        3) It is detrimental to those who would have benefited if these boys had made sane choices about sex.
        4) Homo”sex”ual activity is expensive to each of us, and to all of us. You see, society as a whole is presented with the bills (many billions of dollars annually) for the negative effects (mental, physical, moral, economic,…) of homo”sex”ual activities.

        We cannot easily evaluate how bad this set of activities is for each of us, and for all of us.

    • Austin Ruse

      Correct.

    • Shere Khan

      is don’t care how cheerful people are, or are not, but I deplore lying euphemisms, and the religion modernism-which is a disease. better to pull three hairs a day from your mother’s head than not to help nature-no-one is born an homosexualist, to become one it must first be perverted.

    • Vinny

      Is “spooning” complementary?

      • It’s not the spooning that’s the problem. Think of the other utensil.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Exactly. There is no complementary within the same sex (you’re just part of the same sex). Like the colors in art class, you need TWO different colors/sexes for complementarity to exist. “God created them in His Image, and male & female He created them” (as Genesis puts it). People who support homosexuality claim to promote “Diversity” but in reality their false version of “diversity” opposes real Diversity in its truest form (a man & a woman joining as one, where such such diversity of sexes even produces a new human being in their joining together).
      .
      The only way two Yangs (or two Adams or two Jennifers) will make a baby in the act of sex is if Yin changes her name to Yang & has sex with a man named Yang. Otherwise, it will never be possible.

  • GG

    A good article, but why were you scolded? What is the logic in not revealing such benign things?

  • jacobhalo

    I don’t understand how there can be liberals and conservatives in the Catholic church. The teachings of the church must be believed if one calls himself or herself a Catholic. The Church isn’t a political party where one can have options of what to believe or not to believe. There are Catholics who are pro-choice. Sorry, you are not a Catholic. There are Catholics who believe in same sex marriage. Sorry, you are not a Catholic. Those in the clergy who believe the above, sorry, you are not Catholics. The Catechism says,” Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith…”

    • Siwash

      exactly. I’m wit you bro.

    • John200

      Once you are baptized, you are a Catholic. The mark on the soul is permanent.

      You have a choice of how you live as a Catholic. You can be:
      1) a faithful Catholic,
      2) a lukewarm Catholic,
      3) a lapsed Catholic,

      4) an apostate Catholic,

      5) a heretic,

      6) a schismatic,

      7-n) You can see there are more options.

      But once baptized, you are a Catholic.

      • jacobhalo

        Is a heretic a Catholic?

        • John200

          Yes, just like anyone else who has been baptized into the faith.

          See CCC paragraph 1272:
          “Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.”

          The effects of baptism are explained in paragraphs 1262-1274.

          The answers to your additional questions are also in the Catechism.

          As you pointed out, Option 1 is the only one worthy of a human being, made in the image and likeness,… etc., etc.

          • jacobhalo

            Then what makes you a Catholic if you can deny any of the teachings? All Christians are baptized, but it doesn’t make them Catholics.

            • Catholic pilgrim

              In a limited sense, if a Protestant is baptized with the Trinitarian formula, it does make him Catholic, but severely lacking in the fullness of the faith (which is a horrible loss to have, whether they realize it or not). The goal for all humans is the fullness of the Catholic faith, not a lack of fullness, which is why we’re encouraged to reach out & invite Protestants (& Eastern Orthodox too) to accept & receive the fullness of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Mormons & Jehovah’s “Witnesses” who utterly reject the Trinitarian formula of Baptism are not Catholic in any real sense.

      • jacobhalo

        John, you don’t have any choice but to believe in the teachings of the church. You must be No.1, a faithful Catholic.

      • jacobhalo

        Can you give me a citation for your 7 points?

        • Catholic pilgrim

          A good citation (besides the Catholic Catechism) is the late Father Richard John Neuhaus’s (a convert from Lutheranism) book “Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, & the Splendor of Truth” (which he wrote in the early years of Pope Benedict’s pontificate). Read the book. It has some of the finest arguments of what constitutes being a Catholic (baptism) & what it means to live that faith out (practice). It was meant to be sort of biographical (of Ratzinger) & autobiographical (of Fr. Neuhaus), but it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, thoughtful catchetical-type books. If you like our Crisis’s Fr. George Rutler, you’ll love Fr. Neuhaus (RIP, a friend of Fr. Rutler).

        • Catholic pilgrim

          And yes, being a “pro-choice” Catholic is as horribly disturbing & disgustingly contradictory as being a Nazi Jew or Jewish Nazi, but it is unfortunately a horrible possibility. Especially because of what we hold Catholic Baptism means & implies (permanent, indelible mark on soul).
          .
          Furthermore, I believe Jews also have a belief that once born a Jew, you die a Jew- regardless of whether like it or not or whether you’re a Nazi or an Atheist; their belief is based on irreversible blood lineage, ours on irreversible spiritual realities. Also, the tortures of Hell (state of being in absence of God, our life source) are felt more strongly by those Baptized Catholics (who end up in a state of Hell by rejecting their Baptism) than by those non-Baptized who end up in the permanent state of Hell.

      • reddog44

        See reply to jacobhalo.

      • Chris Kozub

        I have to agree with John. To say that if you are pro-choice, or pro gay marriage, that you are not Catholic is simply not true. It may mean that you are not a very good Catholic, but if you were baptized you are still Catholic. If you follow this line of thought from Jacob, you would then have to conclude that anyone who lies is not Catholic, or misses Mass is not Catholic, or receives the Blessed Eucharist is not Catholic.

        The Catholic Church, to paraphrase is “a hospital for sinners, not a museum of Saints”. We need to pray for our brothers and sisters who arrogantly believe that they know better than Jesus Christ and his body, the Church.

        • Chris Kozub

          Receives the Blessed Eucharist unworthily…. Sorry about that…

          • John200

            Thank you, Chris. The point is simple, and I was surprised anyone could miss it, or misread it.

            Nice to meet you on Crisis.

        • R. K. Ich

          Apostasy does mean one day Christ will say, “Depart from me, ye workers of lawlessness; I never knew you.”

          • Chris Kozub

            That’s true, but until that day comes he also says that “who, having 100 sheep, would not depart the 99 to go find the one who is lost”. He also said, courtesy of St. Faustina’s visions, “Your sins are but a drop in the oceans of my mercy”.

            While someday these apostate brothers and sisters may indeed be separated with the goats, we need to do what we can to convince them of the errors of their points-of-view, without simply ostracizing them and telling them they are sinners and going to hell.

            Like a few others that have posted here, little frustrates me more than Catholics who do so much damage to our Faith and the faith of others by preaching/publicly advocating for teachings that contradict our Faith. But, we will never convert them without love, hope, and mercy.

            God Bless!

    • The term liberal and conservative are political ones, albeit ones with itinerant and unfixed meanings.

    • reddog44

      You ask a very good question jacobhalo and one that no Catholic as ever given a credible answer.

      John200 reasoning is fallacy, because it discredits the word “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” This signifies one belief system and means unadulterated
      faithfulness to ALL the tenets of the catholic faith.
      Roman Catholics criticize Protestants for their many denominations and various viewpoints, but I have stated many times that these same Protestants are more faithful to authentic “catholic” dogma and teachings. If what John200 says is true the Roman Catholic faith is a mockery of true Christianity. One cannot be a baptized Catholic and be pro-choice, or even a lukewarm Catholic.
      We deserve a better answer.
      Cliff

      • jacobhalo

        Exactamundo.

        • John200

          Dear jacobhalo and reddog44,
          I thought I was being nice to you, but you are not taking it well.

          1. What you call “Exactamundo” is Wrongamundo.
          2. “We deserve a better answer” misses the answer you received.
          3. “John200 reasoning is fallacy, because it…” fades into fallacy itself. I did no reasoning; I looked up your answer in the Catechism and pointed it out to you, jacobhalo. And reddog44, you can read it, too.

          Just like I did when I was learning who is a Catholic and who isn’t.

          When you read the Catechism, you will achieve better results than by making up your own rules, thinking you had caught me out or tripped up the Church. The Catechism, gentlemen.

          I showed you where to start. Read a few paragraphs. It isn’t as hard as you are making it. You will soon learn that “No Catholic has a credible answer…..” needs amending to, “Every Catholic who reads the Catechism has a credible answer.”

          Best to you and yours.

          • jacobhalo

            The quote in the Catechism only says that you have a permanent mark on your soul. You must believe all the teachings of the church if you are to be a Catholic. Look up heresy in the Catechism.

          • jacobhalo

            John, Jesus said, those who are baptized and BELEIVE will be saved. Those who don’t BELIEVE are already condemned. See the word “Believe” You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe. They are called cafeteria Catholics.
            John, You are just plain wrong. I taught religion and history in a Catholic high school for over 30 years.

            • John200

              Dear jacobhalo,
              That’s good service, but you missed something simple. I dunno how or why, but you missed a point.

              Best to you and yours.

          • reddog44

            I think John200 that you display far too of the attitude of the Pharisees of Jesus day. I have read my Catechism and am not making up my own rules.

            Yes, I agree the “Catechism” but it must be the right one! And I will say it again, your reasoning is a fallacy!

            • John200

              Dear reddog44,
              Say this until you understand yourself: I did a simple lookup. The Catechism predates me and does not contain my reasoning.

              Best to you and yours.

      • Catholic pilgrim

        The Catholic Church holds to the Gospel revelation that Baptism is a Rebirth, a new birth free of sin & death for a New Creation (which God establishes through the life, death & resurrection of our Lord Christ Jesus). You’re “born again”, as they say. Baptism (this new birth) leaves an indelible, permanent unchanging mark on your soul (whether the person likes it or not). This is the spiritual reality of things, whether you (reddog44) like it or not. Baptism has irreversible consequences (it’s not simply a dress up “rite of passage” ceremony, as good as those things may be). In a limited sense, Protestants baptized (through the Trinitarian formula) are Catholics but severely lack in the Fullness of the Catholic faith (which is a horrible deficiency to have). Our job as Catholics is to invite & encourage Protestants to come into Fullness of the Catholic faith (which is the most glorious thing for man), & the Protestants job is to accept & receive the Fullness of the Catholic Faith (which Christ our Lord intends for ALL men to have).
        .
        Being “pro-Choice” Catholic is a horribly disturbing & disgustingly contradictory as being Nazi Jew or a Jewish Nazi. However, because of the irreversible spiritual reality of Baptism, it remains a horrible possibility. With the nature of Jewishness (based on blood lineages), one born a Jew dies a Jew (even if said Jew became an Atheist or Nazi). In Trinitarian Baptism (which would exclude Mormons & Jehovah’s “Witnesses”), one is reborn into an even greater reality than this passing world or blood lineages. This has strong implications for people who want to live in heresy, deceit, & evil (like “pro-Choice”). Hell is a freely chosen state of separation from God (our Life source & source of all goodness & being, Creator). The soul of a Baptized Catholic who choses the permanent state of Hell (utter absence of God) over God suffers greater pains & self-tortures than the soul of a Non-Baptized individual who permanently chose Hell.

        • reddog44

          CP, I think you made a reasonable attempt at explaining Baptism, what others have failed to achieve with their explanations. Maybe they didn’t read their catechism?

          But your comment about Protestants “severely lack in fullness of the Catholic faith” needs to be reconsidered and that many Protestants do have this fullness. A fallacy of Catholicism is the belief that the “the fullness of truth only exists in the Catholic Church”. This comment needs redefining and correction.

          • Catholic Church

            reddogg44, thank you for you kind words. Fullness of the Catholic Faith comes at varying degrees (from lowest to highest degree possible). By their natures, some (like Eastern Orthodox) have higher degrees of Fullness than others (like say, with all respect, the Protestant Episcopalian denomination or Presbyterian USA); this applies to individual believers as well. Serious as well as simple deficiencies spring up when both individual & Christian bodies of believers have deficiencies of Fullness. Some serious ones (that have to do with Christ’s graces that are being freely offered to us by God) are, for example, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If one is a Protestant & commits sin, where will such Protestant go to experience the awesome, abundant graces that God grants to us when He forgives us at the Confessional? There is no Sacrament of Reconciliation at the local ECLA Protestant parish. Another issue: the leadership of the local Protestant United Methodist parish lack the Apostolic succession & authority. Countless other serious issues (that are too many for me to write) spring up when one lacks fullness. Only in the holy Catholic Church (the very Bride & mystical Body of Christ) is all the Fullness (to its greatest degree) guaranteed, & an individual Catholic believer constantly receives & experiences that Fullness of Catholic faith by always open-mindedly & open-heartedly allowing the Holy Spirit to gift him/her with it.
            .
            Our Lord Christ Jesus prayed to His Abba/Father that we Christians all may be one. It’s too serious a desire of Him for us (members of his Holy Bride) to ignore.

            • reddog44

              Thank you for your considerate explanation, and yes I agree 100% with your statement about being one. That is a great detriment in the Christian world today, and if I might add, we need to respect each other and the “truth” we each have, otherwise unity will never take place.

              Cliff

  • joelfago

    Pope Francis did not say that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman.

    • ForChristAlone

      but the faithful among us know that it is so no matter what he says. many of us have just stopped listening to the man. he reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey (google it)

      • joelfago

        Sadly, this wolf in sheep’s clothing is leading many astray.

    • Daniel P

      He also did not say that cannibalism is wrong, in this particular speech. Obviously, he supports cannibalism.

      • joelfago

        He wasn’t talking about the Eucharist. He was talking about marriage.

        • fredx2

          We have a string of Papal statements rejecting gay marriage: Oct 25th: “What is being proposed is not marriage!” Paragraph 55 from the Pope’s recently concluded synod: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”

    • Austin Ruse

      Hah…sure he did. He said, “Every child has a right to be raised in a family with a mother and a father.” Sorry, two Yangs ain’t ever gonna give a child a mother and a father. Or two Yins.

      • joelfago

        Homosexuals could agree with what he said. He did not say “only.”

        • Austin Ruse

          That is most assuredly what he meant. In fact, the church teaches that even adoption of a child by two men is a form of violence against the child.

      • M

        Adopting a foster child into a traditional family does give a child a mother and a father.Until one is willing to do this, it’s rather difficult to criticize the best efforts of others to raise children.

        • Austin Ruse

          That the rights of children are violated either by nature or man does not change those rights which include the right to know the married love of his own mom and dad, something that two yins or two yangs can never provide. Ever.

          • M

            Francis didn’t say anything about the child’s “own” mother and father. He spoke of “a” mother and father. My point is that if one of one’s strongest moral beliefs is that a child should have both a mother and a father, adopting an otherwise unwanted child, one who doesn’t have either a mom or a dad, would be the best place to start. Every state has long lists of children available for adoption. If one isn’t prepared to adopt, how can one deny a child the opportunity of being adopted by a same-sex couple?

            • Austin Ruse

              Of coures, that is what he meant. He didn’t mean any old mom and dad. And yes, adoption is a very good thing just not yang adoption…

              • Tim

                You try to hard to speak for Francis, Austin Ruse. I don’t think he’d be pleased.

                • Austin Ruse

                  So, you speak for Francis?

            • Tim

              You try to often to speak for Francis. I don’t think he’d be pleased.

        • Tim

          An excellent point, M. Until people start putting their money where there mouths are and adopting these unwanted children, their complaints about single mothers and same sex parents look hypocritical and anemic.

    • M

      joelfago, you are right up to a point. Francis is upholding male-female marriages as ideal, but he uses very charitable and respectful language regarding other arrangements. He always shows Christian charity and avoids sounding harsh or judgmental. Of civil unions, he has said, “One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.” There are many “different cases” worth looking at. Francis may feel that a child has a “right to be raised in a family with a mother and a father,” just as he feels that everyone has a right to a healthy diet, comprehensive health care, dignity, and a share of the world’s prosperity, but such rights cannot be guaranteed by the Church. In our fallen world, we can only approximate perfection. We all know that there are children in single parent families, children of mentally ill and abusive parents who are unsafe with their traditional families, and high-maintenance, special needs children whose parents are unable or unwilling to cope with them and who give them up to the state. There are, for example, violent, non-verbal autistic children bopping around the foster system, passed like hot potatoes from one imperfect situation to the next. Similarly, there are children who are so mentally disabled that they’re unable ever to potty train or feed themselves. Many of these children spend their lives in foster care because there are NO families with a mother and father willing to take many of them in. So … what if a gay couple that is kind, gentle, and desperate for a child offered such a child a safe, loving home? I don’t know how Francis would answer that question, but I know how I’d answer it.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Enough of the conferences. Lets ‘do lunch’ Father Z knows a lot of places nearby.

  • “When we speak of complementarity between man and woman in this context, let us not confuse that term with the simplistic idea that all the roles and relations of the two sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern.”

    What does that even mean? Man, I miss Benedict’s clarity.

    • ForChristAlone

      I think that following every declarative sentence uttered by the current bishop of Rome, he ought to add this, ”Let me give you an example of what I am referring to.”

      Better yet, the current bishop of Rome ought to remain silent until he’s consulted with Cardinal Burke so that he does not run the risk of jettisoning the Church into schism.

      • John200

        He would do better to simply diagram his sentences before signing anything, and before saying anything in public.

        They taught students to diagram sentences when Francis went through school.

        OK, I know it is a lost art, but it works.

        • Thanks, now I’m going to have nightmares about diagramming past present participles.

    • GG

      Ask any Liberal or soft right professional Catholic. They will graft their spin onto it and claim it is self evident and crystal clear.

      • jacobhalo

        This pope could be compared to Professor Corey, the double talker.

    • Daniel P

      It’s an attempt to clarify that a woman can be feminine despite taking out the garbage, or that a man can be masculine despite changing a diaper. Or that’s what I got out of it.

      • Pure speculation on your part. That’s not a criticism, it’s a fact because it is imprecise and unclear and your last sentence indicates the uncertainty.

        • fredx2

          The problem is, he is increasingly susceptible to being called the “Pope of Confusion”. I suspect he got this odd rhetorical style from living most of his life in a dictatorship, where you had to say things without really saying anything. But as Pope, you can never tell who he is talking about. When he castigates “those who follow the law” is he talking about super strict fundamentalists, or is it Pope Benedict he is criticizing? Or just those who want to follow church teaching without turning it into a mush? Some infer the wildest things to his off the cuff pronouncements, and claim him as their left wing political ally, stirring up all sorts of problems where no problems need to be.

    • Austin Ruse

      As one of the speakers said later, it means that over time a husband takes on some characteristics of his wife and vice versa and that it what is supposed to happen.

      • And therein relies the problem. This Pope speaks in imprecise political anthems that require an army of interpreters, because he’s given to fits of garrulousness.
        We’re routinely told he’s “plain-spoken”, but he’s not. His speeches are a curious fusion of Jesuitical causuistry and industrial grade populist resentment.

        Here’s a recent gem: “God always forgives, but the earth does not,” I’m sorry, but that’s eco-loon drivel. It’s imputes animate characteristics to matter. Will somebody remind him he’s the Supreme Pontiff of a troubled Church, not some painted shaman chanting the votaries about the pyre?
        I’ll make a bet. Like the people that voted for Barack Obama because he was (manufactured) charisma and now find that charisma isn’t character; the men that voted for this man thinking showy piety was sanctity that would provide competence will have a similar reckoning with their actions.
        I’m old enough to remember when it was a common charge to assert that Church was a bastion of greed that though the only sins were those of lust. To hear Francis talk, the only sin is the sin of greed. He has boundless foregiveness for lust, but no mercy for “financial speculators”, whatever the heck he means by that. What happened to “who am I to judge?”
        I’m thinking more and more I understand how ordinary Catholics felt during the times of shall we say, some of the less distinguished Bishops of Rome.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          I’ll continue to try to give Francis the benefit of the doubt, although increasingly he’s not leaving me much room for doubt. His progressivism seems relentlessly ordinary and also rather passe and stale. It may thrill the secular Commisariat that a Pope is saying such things, but I can’t see the smallest particle of originality in his ideas otherwise – strictly garden variety liberalism, and very dated at that.

          • It’s not his “progressivism”, it is his agoraphobic ignorance that concerns me.

            “It is also painful to see the struggle against hunger and malnutrition hindered by ‘market priorities’, the ‘primacy of profit’, which reduce foodstuffs to a commodity like any other, subject to speculation and financial speculation in particular,” Francis said.
            “The hungry remain at the street corner… and ask for a healthy diet. We ask for dignity, not for charity,” he said.

            http://www.france24.com/en/20141120-doomsday-pope-warns-mans-greed-will-destroy-world/#./?&_suid=141660176423103037383643016038

            The world now feeds billions and that was unimaginable just a few decades ago and that is due mostly to the profits that allowed the development of technology. It is those profits that light the candles he curses as not bright enough.

            Where there is systemic hunger (not due to drought or other sudden calamity) it is often because of an oppressive state or the lack of respect and we haven’t heard anything about an oppressive state from the Pope.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              But I think his progressivism compels his ignorance. His statements – such as the embarassing specimen you cite – remind me of the “peace and justice” stuff that was coming out of Notre Dame back in the bad old ’70s or perhaps the view of South American style “liberation theology” from the same era.

              Whatever label you want to give it, it’s really dismal stuff, especially in light of the intellectual heft and sophistication wielded by his two immediate predecessors.

              • Agreed. We were spoiled for three and a half decades.

  • St JD George

    Acting out on “gay” impulses is a sin, what’s wrong with just stating the obvious instead of trying to tip-toe around it with soft language. It’s no different than a lot of other sins, except for one thing – there is a militant movement in this world who wants to use the government to coerce us into accepting this particular sin as normal through force, I would argue possessed by Satan. Do we celebrate other abuses of the body like alcoholism or drug abuse with parades and celebrations – no, we try and help them overcome their addictions though sadly many never do. Nor should we celebrate the sham of SSM as it is a sin against God. I understand that 2-3% of people are afflicted by this orientation (according to the CDC) and we should help them understand God’s love for all his creation, the purpose of sexuality in procreation not recreation, and to remain celibate while they come to terms. As we all know in Roe-v-Wade, not all laws are just laws.

  • ForChristAlone

    I think that before any bishop, including the current bishop of Rome, opens his mouth about anything related to Church teaching, he ought first to consult Cardinal Burke to determine its orthodoxy. Now that’s a guideline that we all can live with!

  • ForChristAlone

    whenever I hear comments that the current bishop of Rome makes I am reminded nowadays of Professor Irwin Corey

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD9hogmgrAU

    • Tamsin

      delightful.

    • jacobhalo

      I just posted about Professor Corey, and then I scrolled down to see this. Great minds think alike lol.

  • John Albertson

    Of all the speeches I have read, that of Rabbi Sacks was far and away the best. It is worth a second reading. I am not surprised – he gave a singularly brilliant Erasmus Lecture in New York City last year.

    • It was very, very good. Three cheers for the Rabbi.

  • ColdStanding

    Today, thankfully, I have little to say. I only hope that people hear about how men and women are complementary and know what I mean.

  • Austin, who scolded you?

    • Austin Ruse

      Can’t say.

      • So it was just some anonymous idiot who carries no weight whatsoever?

        • Austin Ruse

          Cant’ say.

          • John200

            As a party of one, I give you a pass on the name, Austin. I have been in situations where I knew the facts but could not name names.

            It is always uncomfortable, but I got out with my cred more or less intact. You will, too.

        • Austin Ruse

          I am not trying to be coy..i just cannot name names. But it was someone in authority.

          • If they are afraid to prove their authority, then that is all the more reason to name names. Let us have a religion of light, not darkness.

            • bonaventure

              It must have been a highly placed U.S. bishop.

              • Without a name, all we have is some mysterious power who might not even have apostolic authority, dictating a form of political correctness that borders on censorship, in support of heresy.

                • bonaventure

                  But if it were someone without apostolic authority, Austin should have had no problems telling. He is a weathered journalist and respected commentator after all.

                  I would not be surprised, however, if it is someone who does not want to end up like Cardinal Burke.

                  • Possibly. Or it might be a minor bureaucrat overstepping his authority, like the clerk that inserted Corporate Personhood into the final publication of the Supreme Court opinions of SCCvSPR.

                    Without a name, we don’t know, and we *can’t* know. We also cannot know the terms of Austin’s source without being able to trace that source.

                    • bonaventure

                      Of course you’re right that “without a name we *can’t* know.” But Austin’s refusal to reveal it raises the expectations, as well as the stature of the culprit.

                      In the end, I do not care, and Austin has no obligation to reveal. But maybe he shouldn’t have mentioned it, as there is already enough division and polarizing around, unfortunately, the only institution in the world which should be a symbol of unity par excellence…

      • GG

        I understand not revealing names, that makes sense but what was the reasoning? Why should you not use the word conservative?

        Why was there concern about it being seen in such a light?

        • Austin Ruse

          I thought I had explained that in the piece. Mea culpa for not being clearer.

          The reason they did not want this labeled as “conservative” is because the Church is neither conservative or liberal. Moreover, they did not want to alienate those who are other than conservative but who might be sympathetic to the cause of man-woman marriage.

          • GG

            Ah, thank you I guess I missed that. I do not mean to criticize the Pope but in all fairness in two different interviews he seemed to use these terms. In one he said he was not a right winger. In another he said he does not mind debating conservative bishops.

            I accept that in a pure sense liberal and conservative are not accurate theological terms but as a practical matter they work very well.

            It is hard to deny that there liberal and conservative bishops do not exist. In fact, to claim such is intellectually dishonest.

          • But those who are not conservatives are against family life in general. Are they that blind?

          • fredx2

            And that makes perfect sense. Why scare off Democrats who are sympathetic to reality?

            • Austin Ruse

              Sure. But there was no talk of conservative politics at the conference nor in my reporting. All I did was mention a few people in attendance. People draw their own conclusions. And they inevitably do. The thing is a Democrat who cares about marriage just has to understand 1) they are a minority in their party, and 2) they’re gong tohave to work with conservatives…

  • Siwash

    I’m a moderate. I’m tired of being called (as if it’s a negative thing) a “conservative” simply because I disagree with a new policy idea.

    Some policy ideas are crap and junk, and should be exposed as useless or expensive or wrong or evil or just plain bad for people. The gay folks need to be sensitive to moderates’ concern about the kind of propaganda abuse they spit out so quickly. Nice.

    • Austin Ruse

      im a moderate, too…

  • Siwash

    Also. . . our Church isn’t right or left or liberal or conservative. It just IS; the one global institution dedicated to speaking the full truth about human existence. Our church needs to speak truth both “in” and “out” of season, rather than just follow today’s media trends and wear bell-bottoms and Nehru jackets.

  • Shere Khan

    according the religion of modernism homosexualism is, like the slaughter of the unborn, a virtue;someone needs to design a virus that will kill male homosexualists

    • We don’t advocate slaughter here.

      • Austin Ruse

        We advocate conversion…

      • Shere Khan

        be that as it may, “we” being you and who else? – The plain fact of the matter is that the religion that I call modernism does advocate the slaughter of the unborn as well as proposing that homosexualism is virtuous while at the same time believing in some ffantasy that they call equality, not to mention believing that there is such a thing as a democracy of truth.a religion is characterised by its beliefs and assumptions and does not “nnecessarily” how to involve what-is-cCalledGod despite the fact that the religion of modernism is essentially atheistic which means– absurdly, it posits a God in which not to believe; far worse than being a religion it is also a disease which has infected many beings of European or English origin,, and quite a few of the riffraff as well. A religion is characterised by its beliefs and or assumptions and the fundamental assumption of the religion of modernism is that all other beings share its beliefs and or assumptions, but that is fairly characteristic of all religions, which bbreak he fundamental rule of common sense: never assume or believe anything that you have not verified for yourself. It is precisely the predisposition to religiousness that accounts for the degeneration in the quality of reason of the beings of the planet Earth;; it also gives rise to their fantastic division of everything into good and evil which also compounds their stupidity.

    • mitch64

      Wow….you hate abortion but you advocate killing adults? Not very Catholic of you. Oh, and by the way, they had one, the “queers,” survived..and funny enough, keep getting born.

      And lesbians are okay with you?

  • Hilary Poitiers

    Rather, recognizing that this is a culture-wide problem, and with all respect, your crime was not “being off message.” Your fault was having forgotten the necessity of rhetoric. How you report the facts is no less important than the facts themselves, and decisive in the cultural warfare now underway. I do not know that Pope Francis’ soothing rhetoric will prove most apropos, but there is no doubt whatsoever that progress as a rule requires that we be mindful of our listeners’ assumptions, and use appropriate means of persuasion.

    • Austin Ruse

      So, reporting the names of some of the participants violated the rules of rhetoric? Really? I was acting as a reporter not an advocate trying to persuade. Different job…

    • GG

      But, you cannot persuade people who refuse to be convinced no matter what evidence is used.

      • Hilary Poitiers

        Must we then abandon all persuasion, i.e., courtesy, and toss out facts as if we were talking/writing to no one in particular, or to one unworthy of respect, even if their reason is shut down?

  • FD

    LOL. Poor Austin, the only thing left is covering a meeting among the holdouts talking to themselves in tha Vatican. NOM’s finances collapsed as donations dried up. The barriers to marriage equality have been dismantled and the SCOTUS has turned down all requests for stays. It is over. Gays ate getting married in 35 states and those marriages are fact. Time to find a new horse. The yangs have beaten you.

    • Austin Ruse

      Well, if you think that 19 countries out of 220 is final! Sure. And most of the state laws allowing for phony marriage have been imposed by the judiciary. So, sure! Phony marriage is about to sweep the whole world! Phony marriage is allowed in only a few in the European Union and a smaller percentage of the Council of Europe. Yes, phony marriage is about to sweep the world. A-huh…

    • GG

      Marriage equality is a fiction. Unequals must be treated unequally as a matter of justice. Homosexual pairings cannot ever be a marriage. It is like saying sauare circles exist.

      • FD

        Marriage equality is reality in most of the United States, that is simply what is true in the real material world. Gay people are getting married everyday, there is nothing you can do to stop them. It is over.

        • It’s funny how this always ends in worshipping the state.

          • GG

            Corrupt minds need corrupt minds.

        • fredx2

          Until the Supreme court accepts the 6th circuit case. Then the court will say those 3 person courts were way off base when they degraded our entire system of due process jurisprudence to force their personal views on the public. People notice it when democracy is seriously undermined by judges, and the recent election results foreshadow a coming reversal of fortune for what was, in reality, a political movement that used every trick int the book to seize temporary power.

          • FG

            Fact. The Supreme Court has had multiple opportunities to take up a case and would have imposed stays if there was any real chance of reversing the multiple district court decisions. By waiting, they are effectively allowing an ever larger class of potential litigants, with legal standing that the opponents to SSM do not have, to form in the form of married couples in thirty-five states. You cannot win this. You have been beaten, this is what losing looks like.

            • TomPaine

              No, as Justice Ginsburg has stated, the Supremes have been waiting for a circuit split to take a major case on this issue. They kind of need a reason to step in. When the circuit courts have agreed on an issue, there’s nothing for the Supremes to adjudicate. Oh, and truth and natural law never lose.

        • GG

          It is not equal. It is a perversion. The State can impose slavery again and it would still be wrong. What is over is right reason among the moral idiots who wear black dresses and pretend to be honest judges.

        • Austin Ruse

          Well, actually they aren’t. SSA don’t care a whit about marriage, really. The SSA are roughly 1.6% of the population, the percentage of that 1.6 that want to get married is a miniscule. So, sure, “gay people are getting married every day” but hardly any of them.

          • FG

            That 1.6% is over Five Million individual citizens in a country of 316,000,000. Your numbers do not work. The numbers of legally married gay couples in in the tens of thousands already. Each of the citizens has legal standing to challenge the remaining laws. It a meter of numbers and time, the number of potential plaintiffs to challenge discrimination is multiplying.

            • Austin Ruse

              Yes and hardly any of them want to get married! There are fewer gays than Methodists!

              • Tom

                There are fewer Jews than LGBTs!

                • Austin Ruse

                  According to Pew, 2.2% Jews, more than gays…

                  • Tom

                    Yep, which is why I said LGBTs, Austin. I don’t quite understand your obsessive focus on the low % of LGBT people. It is not as if percentage frequency affects any of the most crucial pro-gay arguments. Indeed, I would think that the lower the percentage, the more easy it is to sell the notion of a minority victimised by a majority. It plays wonderfully well into a narrative of anti-majoritarianism.

                • TomPaine

                  His were illustrating a point, whereas you’re just trolling again. For all the hoo-rah about SSM, most gays by far aren’t doing it. That says something about the efficacy of pressure politics.

              • FD

                And they are your equals under the civil laws of the United States. What part of that is so hard to understand?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Who says they’re not?

                  • FD

                    What exactly are these laws your side passed to specifically limit their rights under civil marriage laws all about again? Oh yeah, limiting their rights as adults to share the same legal status as others. It is that simple, it’s why your side lost in court, in the end, it’s an issue of equal treatment under the civil laws.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      First, any adult is allowed to marry and has always been so, even when there were odious laws against interracial marriage. But, there have always been limits to whom you may marry ( a man may not marry his niece, for instance). In fact, even in states that allow phony marriage, there are still limits of that kind, unless you want to extend the nonsensical slogan “love is love” to any arrangement.
                      Second, there was not a single law passed that said “two men may not marry” or “two women may not marry.” The laws that passed, usually overwhelmingly, even in liberal states, even during Democratic primaries, all said something along the lines of “marriage can only ever be between man and a woman.”
                      A tiny fraction of a a tiny fraction ought not to be able to name blue red or white green or a sodomitical relationship is marriage.

                    • Tim

                      Austin Ruse, it’s not a “tiny fraction.” It’s now the majority view that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. Additionally minorities have certain constitutional protections, even when vastly outnumbered. Nobody is being forced to agree that SSM should be legal or to marry anyone of the same sex. People are still free to spout hatred and disrespect, however antithetical such behavior is to a true Catholic mindset. What do you have to whine about? I seriously doubt your incendiary rhetoric has converted one single mind to your viewpoint. You only sound coherent to the like-minded. To anyone else, you are quickly dismissed as an unpleasant, self-righteous windbag.

                    • It used to be the majority view that people with dark skin be relegated to separate facilities, or that it was completely just for FDR to inter people for the crime of being Japanese. Appeals to popular whim or mob rule, is decidedly not Catholic, Christian, Civil or Scientific.

                    • GG

                      Truth is hate to those who hate the truth. Those with a corrupt mind see error as truth and love as hate. It is a spiritual and emotional illness.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It is a tiny fraction of gays out of a tiny fraction of the overall popuelation that is interested in marrying. Gays are not getting married in droves. The real purpose is payback against not getting picked for dodgeball or something.
                      The thing is that this tiny fraction of the population is attempting to change the definition of marriage for everyone. What’s more, the only way thye are getting their way is through nondemocratic means. This can only end badly for them and for society. If this really was a majority view, then the gays would not mind putting it to a vote. But they won’t, hence they go to the courts.

                    • FD

                      Ok , gay people have been getting married in MA for about ten years so there is actual data. What real world harm has arisen directly from these individuals being married under civil law?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well, for starters they started immediately in preaching homosexuality in schools. They banned Catholic adoption agencies who were not willing to send kids to sodomitical relationships.Broad-guaged assaults on religious freedom. Now, you may feel all these things are peachy. But these are real harms. I am not sure, but perhaps they have actually changed birth certificates to “parent A” and “parent B”..proof positive that lgbts do not care about moms and dads…
                      Real harms…

                    • FD

                      The RCC adoption agency was not “banned”, they chose to give up a contract with the state to administer an adoption agency. Civil law does not permit discrimination in government programs. They are free to continue operating without government money. The rest of those harms are just gibberish, offense against your religion is not a legal harm. You are free to execute your religion and say whatever you want. The only difference is gay people are getting married. You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge that fact without resorting to silly euphemisms and ” ,” marks.
                      There is nothing you can do to reverse this, it is all but over. The SCOTUS would have already done it. If you are so sure of your facts why don’t you become a witness in the next case?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Interesting how blithely the LGBTs dismiss a foundation human and civil right, i.e., freedom of religion. Anyone reading this should understadn the real threat to our way of life and to the constitutional and human rights order. Whenever so-called “non-discrimination” comes into tension with Freedom of Religion, it is Freedom of Religion that loses.

                    • FD

                      Your way of life? Oh please. Everything that exists that you do not agree with is always prefaced with “so called”.
                      We’ll I got news , your reality has been replaced. No quotes required, it is the law.
                      Gay people are here to stay, and they just defeated your bigotry in a big way that you have no chance of reversing. Your religious freedoms are not impacted by strangers right to civil marriage.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Reality is reality. I know you think reality is relative, but it ain’t.
                      As my father used to say, “We shall see what we shall see.” Better yet, TS Elliott, “there are no lost causes because there are no won causes.” This is a fight that began in the Garden of Eden and centers on man’s fidelity to God. Inevitably those who rebel eventually lose. So, we are confident that your little sexual revolution and all that goes with it, principally the massive body count, will also recede.
                      We have the confidence of those who know the battle has already been won.

                    • mitch64

                      The thing is, his reality hasn’t been replaced. Men still love women, women still love men, they still get married, they still have babies (nothing is going to stop that ever) and they still practice their faith. Gays have been around since the beginning of time but now they don’t have to hide, and that comes right down to what is bothering him.

                      “Your religious freedoms are not impacted by strangers right to civil marriage.” Correct, and if people like that, who say they cant stand government interference, should simply not get a civl marriage and just get a sacramental one. Problem solved…oh, but they wont get the legal benefits and tax breaks, you know, the things they want to deny other people, so they continue on, screaming that their rights are somehow being impinged upon.

                    • TomPaine

                      “Your religious freedoms are not impacted by strangers right to civil marriage.” Do you live under a rock? By now, numerous busnesses have been sued because their religious views do not include phony marriage. The assertion that “this won’t affect you” was false.

                      “You know, the things they want to deny other people.” That’s fallacious. If something’s not possible, you’re not being denied it, and despite all the legal machinations, man/man or woman/woman marriage is naturally impossible. No court can change that.

                    • mitch64

                      But it is possible.. so yes, you are denying..But besides that little dance your doing around logic, lets talk about businesses being sued. I run a business and I cannot discriminate based on my religious or faith beliefs. If something is a law I must abide by that. That is part and parcel of conducting a business in the public sphere…(plus it makes zero business sense in the long run.) To take it to the cartoony extreme (which seems to have a lot of fans here) if I was a Satanist I could not deny Christians service..if I was a radical gay activist (which here is any gay who stands up for themselves) I could not deny servicing anti gay marriage advocates, etc. etc. That’s life in business, you have to follow the rules, the tax codes, etc. You bake the cake, you deliver it to Chad and Thom and you get on with your life.

                      Plus, to use your logic in another response…the people that are effected by this are so small, why should it bother anyone..right?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Watch how blithely this LGBT person dismisses the foundational civil and human right of freedom of religion, all on the altar of phony marriage that gays almost universally don’t give two hoots about. Whenever so-called non-discrimination comes into tension with freedom of religion, freedom of religion loses.

                      For anyone who wants chapter and verse on the real harms of phony marriage, watch this admittedly rough documentary produced by MassResistance on what happened after phony marriage was imposed in Massachusetts:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Note how blithely the LGBTs do away with religious freedom. And yes, they were banned from adoption.

                    • mitch64

                      No, once again they weren’t. Also you fail to mention that the Vatican had a hand in stopping them from operating. In 2006 the Archdiocese of Boston got out of the adoption business when the Vatican, having found out they adopted out 13 children to gay couples, told them to stop. Also, the Diocese of Fall River has been adopting children out to a Rhode Island Diocese, so they aren’t forced out of the business…oh and Rhode Island has gay marriage…so its not the end of adoptions or the world.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, when phony marriage was imposed on Mass, Catholic charities was given a directive to violate their religious consciences and beliefs or get out of the adoption business. So, yes, they were banned.

                    • mitch64

                      See above..CC was given a directive, by the Bishops…they were already placing kids with gay couples.

                      So, once again, while two yangs can’t make a baby, they can raise a kid.

                    • FD

                      They were also placing children with Unmarried household of individual and cohabiting couples as well as a few gay individuals. The law was passed in 1989 and they complied with it for about 15 years, until the Bishops got into the anti marriage equity thing. So much for the every child deserves a “mom and dad” propaganda. They NEVER enforced that rule on themselves even. It’s just the gay thing they did not like. Adoptions just got handled by a different set of non-profits.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I am not sure if what you say is correct. It is correct that the libs involved in Catholic Charities did it in a few cases and the Church put a stop to that. But, the Rainbows have to enforce their own orthodoxy with the power of the state to enforce…so, yes, the state banned Catholic Charities from adoption,as the Boston Globe understood

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Sorry, wrong. When Mass forced phony marriage on its people, Catholic charities was ordered to place orphaned kids with homosexual couples, something the Church teaches does violence to the child. They couldn’t and therefore had no choice. They were banned.

                    • mitch64

                      Nope, you are wrong and your trying to spin this to fit your narrative. Catholic Charities got out of the adoption business when the Bishops found out they were adopting out to gay couples. This was also going on when the Mass. legislature was debating on putting an anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot, of which the Bishops were all for. Catholic Charities had been accepting state money, so they were bound by a non- discrimination law..one that had been in existence long before anyone thought of gay marriage, 1989! There were 13 adoptions which was nothing compared to the upwards of 800 adoptions that took place, and Catholic Charities admitted that most of these kids had disabilities or were older..so they would be hard to adopt out to a “natural family.” Catholic Charities board members unanimously voted to continue to allow gay adoptions but the Bishops themselves decided to disband the agency, after they tried to get CC exempt from the non-discrimination clause, which of course was nipped in the bud.

                      So, actually gay marriage had nothing to do with the adoption fiasco. It was the non-discrimination clause from 1989 and CC would have gone on adopting kids to gay parents if the Bishops, in their wisdom, hadn’t gotten involved in both the political fray and the adoption fray. The Bishops chose this direction, CC and the state did not. So now everyone looses.most importantly the kids.

                      Which is too bad because, yes a ying and ying can’t create life, but sometimes they can clean up the mess (i.e. homeless children, both disabled and not) that a ying and a yang created.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Here is what happened.

                      Mass had a non-discrimination law dating back more than a decade before 2003. That law banned “orientation discrimination”.

                      In 2003 the Vatican announced that placing a child with homosexuals was against Church teaching.

                      In 2005 it was reported that Catholic Charities in Boston had placed a small number of children with homosexuals. Cardinal O’Malley ordered them not to do so any longer. One sixth of the Catholic Charities board resigned in protest.

                      After phony marriage was imposed on the state, the state determined that any licensed institution had to abide by the nondiscrimination law and so Catholic charities was ordered by the state to begin homosexual adoptions.

                      The Church asked for a religious exemption but it was denied and as the Boston Globe correctly headlined the story, “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business.”

                      And what’s more, even if Catholic Charities went totally private, that is, refused to accept state money, they would still be forced to give children to homosexual couples. As Americans for the Separation of Church and State said at the time, “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

                      So, yes Catholic Charities was banned from doing any adoptions.

                      Whenever a foundational civil and human right like freedom of religion comes into tension with these new nondiscrimination boondoggles, the foundational civil and human right gets tossed on the ash heap.

                      And the rainbows couldn’t care less…

                    • mitch64

                      I am giving you a benefit of the doubt and say that you are interpreting things though your world view, which has extreme bias concerning these issues. Once again, CC was facilitating adoptions with gay couples/people and it was more then a few, between 70 and 80. Small compared to the number for straight couples but not a “few.” The discrimination ban, which included sexual orientation, it wasn’t an “orientation ban,” law as you allude, came into effect in 1989, long before gay marriage was even thought of. CC complied, and had no problems with adoptions until the Bishops intervened..two full years after the Vatican made their announcement. This happened during the Diocese involvement in civil politics concerning Gay Marriage (which I opine is in a reaction to their own ineptitude concerning the molestation scandal…but that is a different discussion…) Funny that they waited two full years to stop this horrible sin from taking place but..things move slow in the Church. So Gay Marriage had no impact on CC’s adoptions until the Bishops intervened.

                      Once they couldn’t get CC to get a religious exemption they told CC they still couldn’t process gay adoptions, despite the fact that the board had an unanimous vote to do so and the board members quitting in protest. So the people on the ground were in support of it while the generals, from their lofty towers screwed things up. Once again, the only reason that Gay Marriage had an impact on the adoptions is because the Bishops MADE it an issue. If Gay Marriage had never happened and the Bishops had made the same decision…(which they wouldn’t have, it seems the Gay Marriage debate woke them up and they actually had to realize what was going on in their own diocese with the little people) the State would still have told them they could not facilitate adoptions as they were discriminating, not just against gay couples but gay people.

                      So because of the Vatican’s and the Bishops decisions, a lot of “un- adoptable,” kids are stuck in the foster care system, bouncing from home to home. Do I personally think that CC should have gotten a religious exemption….yes, on the face of it, (I have to know more about the laws…) though I am more practical then both the law makers and the Church hierarchy.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But the fact remains, when the Church authorties came to know what was going on, that adoptions were being done against Church teaching, the Church put a stop to it. This was too much for the Rainbow fascists who clamped down on true diversity and stomped on basic human rights, as understood in the Universal Declaration and the implementing Covenants of 1966. The Boston Globe understood quite well that the govt was banning the Church from adoption. The thing to consider is this. Why is it that the Rainbows cannot brook even a bit of disagreement. Were there no other adoption agencies willing to give kids to phony families? Of course there were. So what happens to diversity? Out the window when the Rainbow fascists want their way.

                      And one of the sad things is that Catholic Charities in Boston specialized in placing special needs kids. And what a laugh to consider that gay men want special needs kids. Special needs kids do not fit into the kids-as-accoutrement that is Rainbow adoption.

                      Speaking of world view. Yours really cripples you. Otherwise you would allow for a diversity of opinion and practice.

                    • TomPaine

                      Please. Mass Equality lied outright when they said they wouldn’t go after religious organizations after SSM was imposed by the court in MA. They went after the only adoption agency placing handicapped children. The two men who posed as adoptive parents in the case, later admitted they’d lied and had been recruited to pretend they wanted to adopt. The whole thing reeked. Resort to legalistic language about discrimination is ridiculous. I live here and saw the whole thing play out.

                      The societal harms, including loss of employment and being forced to shut down a business sued by narcissts over a cake, are tangible, not gibberish. You just don’t seem able to see another point of view. Loss of perspective is a prime symptom of identity politics.

                    • TomPaine

                      Saying that the Franciscans chose to give up their adoption service is like saying that Brendan Eich resigned voluntarily: horse**** of the first order.

                    • TomPaine

                      You’re twisting the statement. Austin didn’t say a tiny fraction held a certain view of the issue. He said a tiny fraction are partaking in phony marriage. And that is correct, per the Pew center’s research.

                      “It is now the majority view”–that’s an overbroad claim. A poll can be made to say anything its sponsor wants, for instance by asking only certain segments of people. Also, the fact that some legal maneuvering has made SSM legal in a state doesn’t mean “Michigan [or you name it] supports SSM.”

                      You magically know how all other readers view the author and his work? Wow.

                      It seems you’re angry; bizarre statements and insupportable claims don’t help your cause, however.

                      Ad hominem = fail.

                    • GG

                      No, it is an issue of corrupt minds misinterpreting laws. There is no right to deviant behavior.

                    • TomPaine

                      That was a legal theory fashioned from whole cloth. The “rights” language is blowing smoke and always has been. The legal language was cleverly crafted, but it still cannot make SS”M” real.

              • mitch64

                Why then are you constantly clutching your pearls about them? For such a small population, who would take advantage of marriage on an even smaller scale the energy you put out doesn’t seem to be worth it. Odd.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Not at all. To use your oh-so-fey phrase, we are “clutching out pearls” about this minuscule population precisely becuase they are out to redefine marriage. Not just for themselves, but for everyone. Ever heard of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” on a birth certificate? That is where the redefinition is taking us; that and a whole lot of there nasty places…doing away with the foundational notion of moms and dads is very dangerous to the wellbeing of kids.

                  • mitch64

                    Thank you for being quite predictable..I knew you would latch on to the phrase though if we are going old school I prefer “pansy,”! However, once again, how does a small minority of people who could care less about a topic (according to you…) “change the definition,” of marriage…you and your ilk are fanning the flames of paranoia like the Ferguson protestors, wringing hands and knashing your teeth as you imagine a vast conspiracy. Now I do agree with you on small issues like the stupidity of “parent 1” or “parent 2” but that is just typical govt. ridiculousness…that will not change that someone is a mother or a father, nor is it intended to, its cost saving so they don’t have to have to forms. Even if a form calls you that you are still a dad arent you? The foundational notions of moms and dads will never be changed…and “the small minority” of people who want to get married couldn’t care less to do so.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      For the government to determine that fathers and mothers are not important enough for birth certificates is no small thing. Probably it is to you, since you likely had a distant or absent father and are still feeling the pain of that.

                    • mitch64

                      Crossing the line and going for a personal attack? Luckily I couldn’t log on last night and give you the appropriate response. I had a very close relationship with my father, as do a lot of gay people I know, at least as many as my straight friends have with theirs. Get out more often and talk to some gay people and dump the cartoon view of the world. I don’t care if your anti gay (though I will debate you) but at least be knowledgable about it and don’t pull things out of your keister.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Exceptions only test the rule. And I frankly doubt what you say.

                    • mitch64

                      You can doubt all you want, but it just proves your mindset. I have my own opinion on what drives your neurotic fascination with this topic…(besides an income…) but that would be an opinion, and I tend to keep people’s personal lives, or my perceived view of their personal lives, out of it. You would be wise to do the same so you won’t look so petty, (and outdated.) You will never win as you can’t even grasp the complexities of the issues or of people or use real arguments. You jump to cliches when you are cornered and then, wave away anyone who says that their experience is different. Your an unfortunate example of why your “side,” is loosing.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I rely upon the work of still brave psychiatrists and psychologists who are healing the brokenness of gay men looking for their father in other men.

                    • mitch64

                      As you say, exceptions only test the rule..I am sure there are gay men who have issues with their dads, as their are straight guys..we live in a broken world. Is everyone with a distant father gay?No. Do all gays have distant fathers? No. Common sense is a valuable thing.

                      But I have to say they are brave…since they are practicing and have to be over 80 year old if they STILL hold that view. And of course you rely on their work, quacks though they may be, they are the only “experts,” you can pull out that would AGREE with your thinking.

                      Anyway, we had a fun exchange but I have to get ready for Thanksgiving, where my family and friends and I will thank God we live in a country like this, where we can live freely and people with your way of thinking are becoming the minority and loosing their precious power. I wish the best holiday to you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Many former heads of the American Psychiatric Association practice the treatment of men and women with unwanted sexual desires. Quite common.. Indeed, the man who sponsored the resolution to take SSA out of the diagnostic manual has treated hundreds of such cases.
                      BTW, no one wants to take away your right to vote, to live where you want etc etc etc. All your basic freedoms remain intact. Where we draw the line is in your attempt to redefine marriage and in adoption and perhaps a few other areas.

                      your fear of Christianity is palpable.

                    • mitch64

                      Once again, reading into people’s minds, how convenient. Anyway, since I am a Christian that is ridiculous..(does your cartoon view of the world view “gay activists,” only as far left atheists?_)..the only fear I would have is of people with your oddball opinions controlling the narrative but you have lost, I have the right to both be married and adopt…so you have indeed lost that particular fight.
                      Now let me get into your mind since you opened that door. Any fear in this is entirely yours. People like me scare you a lot. You actually like the stereotypical drag queen gays, and the exhibitionist “gay pride,” gays,the angry activitst,” etc. That fits your world view and your definition of good and evil and oddly enough, makes you feel comfortable. You can deal with that as its the way the world is supposed to be, the world you thought you grew up in. Gay people are freaks and have no power and that is the way you feel it should be.

                      Its gay people like me who are “mainstream,” that scare the holy hell out of you. We get married, have jobs (you know, non wedding planner or florist /hair dresser type jobs) we have kids, houses in the suburbs. We go to Mass, or to services. We go the same bars and restaurants as you. We shop at the same places, our kids go to the same schools. We are your doctors and lawyers and financial planners and garbage men. We aren’t dying of AIDs or cruising parks or doing whatever the heck you have fantasized that gay people do in their spare time. And because of that, people are changing their minds about gay people and gay marriage. People are changing their minds in far greater numbers then any “gay activist,” could accomplish, just by living a boring old life. Accepting, and now people that hold your thoughts are considered “weird.” You drew the line and everyone stepped over it without even noticing.

                      Your the one who is afraid Austin. People aren’t changing their minds in the opposite direction, you are just preaching to the choir..people who already believe and are ready to buy what you have to sell, and it scares the hell out of you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      If you were a Christian then you would try to follow Christ and his Commandments. But it sounds like you are not only not living his commandments but you object to them, or whitewash them or otherwise ignore them. You are playing with your everlasting soul.

                      Do I think that you are like regular folks? Sure, you have jobs etc etc etc. But you are not “everywhere” as your folks suggest. You are only 1.6% of the population. there are more Methodists. There are probably more ex-gays than “gays”. Moreover, social science shows an inordinate amount of deviant behavior among your set (huge numbers of partners, lack of monogamy, risky behavior like anal sex). So, in that regard, your set is not like the rest of us, though some of that behavior exists among us, too, sadly.

                      All revolutions eventually eat their young. The sexual revolution, of which you are a part, has eaten a huge portion of the young. Millions of dead bodies, of the unborn, of people dying of sexual diseases and the pathologies that go along with that way of life (drug addiction, alcoholism, violence etc).

                      This, too, will end. the victory has been won already.

                    • mitch64

                      Good, then neither one of us as anything to be worried about. You have a blessed Thanksgiving with your family as I will with mine.

                • TomPaine

                  The implications of redefining marriage and the family are profound. I don’t think even you can deny that. The point about the very small proportion of gays claiming to be married has been made clear already: it’s an issue for the miitant elites and poltical climbers. The lack of interest by the vast majority of gays undercuts the claims of the elites about how crucial SSM is. Please quit taking things of out context. If a person can answer a point honestly, they don’t need to shear it of its context to try to show something else.

                  • mitch64

                    The implication on *your* marriage having any impact I can deny..because it doesn’t. For me the implications are profound but in a positive way.

                    Your argument that there is a “lack of interest,” from gays in marriage makes little sense…for one, where is are your stats for this…secondly, most states just started adopting it this year, and many of the states had anti-gay marriage activists attempting to stop it, so that may impact, thirdly a lot of straight people aren’t interested in marriage…so we should abolish it because of that?

                    I could also turn that argument around and say the lack of interest in most straight people in fighting gay marriage proves how silly the anti-gay marriage movement is and how that group is motivated by their religious values (all well and good but has no standing in civil law) or an anti gay bias…most people involved in this are older and far right. They are far from the mainstream in society….which you may be proud of, but they will have little impact on how things play out.

        • GG

          That is not equality in any true sense. That is a serious perversion of marriage and is a form of moral violence.

        • TomPaine

          They can tell themselves it’s marriage; it cannot be and is not the same thing as natural marriage. You can’t fool Mother Nature.

    • fredx2

      You mean like when the Supreme court imposed abortion on the country? That sure solved the debate, didn’t it? No, in fact it led to decades of strife.We are being set up for the same thing.

      Only a very few states have voted it in. The rest were imposed by quite questionable court decisions that did not make much constitutional sense. Would the founding fathers said “Oh, yes, men need to marry men, that’s exactly what we meant when we created the constitution”.

  • bonaventure

    Austin,
    About your comments that “Two Yangs can’t make a family” and that “This does not denigrate or demean them or their relationships.” While in fact it should demean and denigrate homosexual relationships, because they are based on a grave sin. They (the relationships) are sin.

    • RufusChoate

      You passed. Congratulations.

  • bonaventure

    Austin,
    About your comments that “Two Yangs can’t make a family” and that “This does not denigrate or demean them or their relationships.” While in fact it should demean and denigrate homosexual relationships, because they are based on a grave sin. They (the relationships) are sin.

  • hombre111

    Your crime wasn’t being off message. Your crime was thinking yours is the voice of the Church.

    • Project much?

    • Austin Ruse

      Given that you don’t know what I wrote, you are simply talking out of your keister here.

      • hombre111

        Austin, I was simply responding to a statement you made. You connectedwith someone who was “scolded” by a phone call. You wrote, “He said something along the lines that the conference would set liberals straight about what the Vatican believes about marriage. Our crime was being off message.”

        So, I rest secure in my response. In this paragraph, at least, you identified with another person who presumes to know what the Vatican believes about marriage. You got spanked because you really did presume that yours is the only Catholic way to look at marriage.

        I read the rest of your article and found it a good representation of the conservative view. I agree with much of what you said.

        • I don’t think he was spanked by the church, but by the Kochtopus Libertarians who were putting on this conference.

          • Austin Ruse

            The conference was put on by the Church.

        • Austin Ruse

          You have not read my Breitbart piece which was neither liberal or conservative, just straight reporting. Straight reporting of the facts that got pegged for conservative because it was a conservative event, no matter what the spinmeister say. That’s also the point of this piece.

          • hombre111

            Thanks, Austin. I will read the background piece in Breitbart and try to understand your point of view. By the way, I did read a summary of the meeting on NCR, which bent over backward to be objective and non-argumentative. The article was written in the middle of the meeting, and I will see if they summarize the rest of it. Oops! I need a link.

            • Austin Ruse

              The NCR reporter was not half bad. I think he is trying to channel John Allen.

          • hombre111

            Austin. Although I could not find a link to your Breitbart piece, I did follow the link to Daniel Horan’s essay in America, which you said “scolded” the conference. I guess it is another example of reading the same thing from different perspectives.

            I would say that, rather than scold the conference for its “conservative” use of the word “complementary,” Horan did us all a favor by noting that complementary has more than one meaning. He noted that Pope Francis used the word in what he called a “social and communal setting,” which emphasizes working together for harmony. Those speakers who followed used the word in an “ontological sense,” based on the essentialist philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, who would say that we are dealing with metaphysical realities. These realities cannot change. Rather, we must adapt ourselves to them.

            As a good Franciscan, Horan refers us to Duns Scotus and his idea of “haecaitas,” or “individuation.” This needs a much fuller philosophical explanation.

            But to summarize it all, I would not say Horan was scolding anyone. He was a good scholar asking us to be aware of two different uses of the same term, and the philosophy behind two different meanings.

            • Austin Ruse

              I would.

            • GG

              Oh yes, the propaganda dressed up as academic thinking. Save it for the credulous.

          • GG

            And spin there is no stopping. The Gay Left have more than an academic interest in confusing this fundamental aspect of existence. This papacy has unleashed those who have been hidden for so long. They are emboldened and will use all forms of pseudo intellectual arguments and propaganda.

            They could not fight Ratzinger with their minimal intellectual wattage, but now they have found their confidence.

    • Tim

      Yes, hombre111. This is exactly the problem. It is an embarrassment to the Church and a source of error to the faithful.

      • GG

        Rubbish. It is a grave error to call “gay” acts as normal or good.

    • GG

      The voice of the Church, Jesus, says homosexual acts are of the devil. They are pure evil.

      • hombre111

        Jesus did not say one word, zip, zero about homosexuals. They ticked of St. Paul, tho, along with women without hats in church.

        • GG

          Oh, such facile nonsense. Jesus founded a Church. We know His exact teaching on the matter. To deny that is dishonest to an extreme.

          • hombre111

            When you say “exact” teaching, you have to be able to cite chapter and verse in the Gospels. There is no such place, although you can quote St. Paul. But even what Paul said was said within a context and, if we do not understand the context, we might not understand what he really said.

            • Objectivetruth

              “When you say “exact” teaching, you have to be able to cite chapter and verse in the Gospels. ”

              And one of Satan’s main tricks, Screwtape, is to muddy the meaning of scripture.

              What you are is a pro gay, pro abortion, pro contraception fraud. History will show that demonic, pro sodomy evil infiltrated the priesthood and the Catholic Church over the last 50 years leading to homosexuals with Roman collars buggering young altar boys. You and your pro gay band of filth are being sanitized from Christ’s Church, hombre.

  • Interesting to hear about the message police. I noticed that the conference also did not mention sperm donation or reproduction rights at all, talking about a right to “a” mother and “a” father. As if it had nothing to do with procreation itself, making a baby together, with each other, but only with raising them.

  • It also didn’t mention that marriage is the only licit and legal and legitimate and right way to procreate. It seems afraid to say that unmarried sex and procreation is not a right, and using sperm donors, even by married couples, is not a right.

    As far as messaging goes, it has all the earmarks of the Kochtopus, NOM, ADF, FRC alphabet soup of libertarian transhumanists. I don’t know if Francis is aware of their agenda, or on board, or what. Are there any Catholic Transhumanists here? Libertarians?

  • Jimmy

    Its not like anybody can’t walk into mass participate and leave. Methodist, Gay, alien, voodoo… Whatever its not like you are questioned at any time during mass about your faith except for within your own conscience. No one is barred at the door. So the fight is not that gays really
    want to join and be real Catholics it is that they do not want Catholics to be Catholics.

  • clintoncps

    The flaw in all this is acknowledging that homosexuality can be anything other that against the nature of man. There is nothing beautiful or even innocuous about homosexual behaviour because it denies the immutability of maleness and femaleness and leads to bludgeons like LGBTQ mythology that punish those who refuse to go along with sexual disorientation, and also psycho-sexually molests children through bogus “curriculum” and homosexual adoption and artificial reproductive technologies. We have got to stop trying to reach a truce with this evil, and stop believing homosexual activist who insist that the homosexual impulses they experience define the true nature of their humanity. Until we do that, we will remain in danger of eventually marching in the parade ourselves.

    • TomPaine

      Well put.

  • Shere Khan

    an MG GT, is a species of English sportscar; which country makes the LB GT, presumably some sort of sportscar?-asfar as can be discerned it seems to be very popular amgst the deevotees of the religion that I call ‘modernism’, but I have yet to see it reviewed, or tested by the motoring press; in English GT is short for grand tourer, presumably LB is a make of motor car.
    Perhaps crisis magazine could do a road test of the LBGT;mileage, handling, reliability, and trim.

MENU