The Church Needs the New Homophiles

Christianity and Homosexuality

There is a group of Catholics who experience same-sex attraction. They accept the teachings of the Church on sexual morality. They do not act on their same-sex desires. They are chaste. They live lives of prayer, brotherhood and friendship, along with a sexual chastity that is proper to their station in life.

You might think that I would loathe these people, hate them, despise them, and want to drive them from the Church. You might think that their desires alone are enough for me to want them to simply disappear from the Church and from society

You might think this if you read Damon Linker on my recent column about the New Homophiles. You might think so if you read the comments of blogger Mark Shea, who said my column was “appalling” and much worse. You might think so if you read the comments by Maggie Gallagher who said my column was “vile.”

But the thing is, I have never written a cross or even critical word about the men and women I describe above. These are men and women of the Catholic apostolate Courage.

This Church-approved apostolate is filled with heroic men and women working hard to live according to Catholic teaching. I celebrate them without reservation. There should be Courage chapters in every diocese in the world.

So, what’s the difference between the New Homophiles and Courage? First, I do not consider the New Homophiles as “enemies or fifth columnists or half-breeds” as Mark Shea said. I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ who should be embraced but whose ideas ought to be resisted. I have said the New Homophiles are 95 percent there in terms of Church teaching and that the last 5 percent is surely problematic.

Understand that the “5 percent” that is problematic refers in no way to sinful temptations. We all have those and we are called upon to resist them, though most of us do not expect huzzahs for doing so.

The “5 percent” refers to certain propositions they espouse that are at odds with the Church. Holding these propositions are not damnable any more than holding the narrowest understanding of “no salvation outside the Church” damns anyone. The “5 percent” remain a problem, however.

This group insists on their gay identity, indeed they put a spot light on it. That’s kind of the point of their movement. WE ARE GAY AND CATHOLIC. Some of them go even further and insist on calling themselves “queer.” The Church teaches there is no “gay identity.” We are children of God—first, last and always, and the Church frowns on anything else.

Even more dangerous than insisting on a “gay identity” is their implicit support for “coming out.” Recent studies have shown that 80 percent of those who as adolescents identified as “gay” are fully heterosexual by their mid-twenties. Studies show that same-sex attraction is remarkably plastic, particularly but not exclusively in women. To urge a teen to “come out” is profoundly harmful and even dangerous. Scholar Robert Oscar Lopez has written on his blog “English Manif” how these young men are targeted for what can only be described as sexual abuse by older men.

The New Homophiles insist that God made them gay, though the Church does not teach that. They insist that they have special gifts given to them through their same-sex attraction. That is certainly not in Church teaching. And they want Church teaching to reflect these assertions, which would amount to a change in Church teaching.

The apostolate Courage and the people in it make no such assertions. The apostolate Courage rejects the “gay identity.” They accept the simple moniker “children of God,” no more, no less.

The apostolate Courage does not argue that a disordered desire has given them special gifts unique to the disorder, gifts not necessarily available to others. Chief among these gifts are gifts for friendship. If this were so, you would see these gifts manifested in some way in the larger homosexual world, but what you hear time and again is that world is far from friendly, that it is mostly shallow and even predatory.

And those in the apostolate Courage want nothing more than to live the faith as best they can and make no special pleading for changes in teaching to suit their temptations.

Those in Courage experience temptations just like those among the New Homophiles. None of us, I certainly don’t, reject people with temptations. Indeed, the Church teaches only two human beings were ever born without the temptation to sin. The Church is for not only the tempted but also those who have fallen to temptation. There is no distinction between any of the sexual sins in that regard. To say, as Linker does, that I expect a lack of original sin from the same-sex attracted or anyone else is simply false.

The New Homophiles do not much like the apostolate Courage. They seem to think it is for dead-enders, sad-sacks, old guys, those who have hit rock bottom in the bath-houses or on Grindr, and the only way out are dreary weekly meetings and going through 12 steps or psychological counseling.

The New Homophiles reject the notion that same-sex desire can or should be treated with psychological counseling, though the Church clearly teaches that same-sex desire has a psychological origin. The New Homophiles do not believe there is anything wrong with their attractions, only acting on them sexually. For those keeping track of tone, psychological counseling is one of the many things snarkily dismissed by Eve Tushnet in her book Gay and Catholic.

Perhaps there are things in Courage that need improving. They certainly needed a better website and they got one. Perhaps it skews older and needs to better engage those in their 20s.

The head of Courage—Father Paul Check—is a remarkable man, an intellectual, and a pastor. He is not immune from criticism. He may even admit there is something to at least some New Homophile criticism of Courage.

I can say without hesitation that the apostolate Courage needs the New Homophiles, their energy, their smarts, and their marketing savvy. But the New Homophiles need Courage, too, including its more humble approach.

The New Homophiles should consider taking down the spotlights, closing their blogs, and rather than inventing new teachings, truly engaging the teachings as they are. Rather than rejecting the New Homophiles, as some suggest, I argue the Church needs them, dirty socks and all.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Tim Danaher

    You have to hand it to the catholic LGBT faction for advancing their position within the church. Today our bishops are largely silent on combating the homosexual agenda and have given sanctuary to many obstenant groups out there, e.g., Fortunate Families, PFLAG. How can the church give material support to these groups when one of their core principals is legitimizing “same-sex marriage”? It really shouldn’t. come as a surprise since the church has conceded the fornication, abortion, and marriage position a long time ago. Sure we still offically teach no sex outside marriage, all human life is to be protected from conception to natural death, and that marriage is a lifetime commitment, but where is the proof in modern Catholic life? Where are the bishops and priest in their support of families who are teaching their children to actually practice what the church believes? I believe the church is going there a Sodom and Gomorrah period, as it panders to every kind of “cafeteria” group in order to stem to bleeding of parish roles rather than embracing and preaching boldly God’s message of salvation. Pray for our bishps and priest.

  • GG

    Excellent piece Mr. Ruse. Excellent.

  • lifeknight

    Excellent article on the confusion in the Church. Lest the blog blow up, one needs to remember the history of “normalizing” the actions of homosexuals. Until 1973 the persons who acted on their same sex attractions were considered to have a psychiatric diagnosis and their acts were illegal. Alas, medicine and law now condone the behaviors. Only the Church has remained the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

    • Salvelinus

      I really think that 1973 change to the DSM is the problem, and the reason.
      They truly are sick and need help to change, not celebrate

      • End Times

        Salvelinus, wouldn’t you better say that what happened in 1973 was only a further evolution of the already existing problem? The earlier DSM already considered “homosexuality” to be a “sickness,” rather than an issue of morality; the very fact that the Catholic and Western world had ceded an issue of morality to “science” – that is the problem. Once it had been declared a “mental disease,” it’s only a matter of time – of evolution, to use a favorite word of the Modernists – until it is declared a natural variation. Really, it’s a question of repentance, not change. Once we are debating whether it’s a “sickness” or a natural variation/a “God-given gift,” Catholcism has already “lost” / the Devil has already “won.”

        • Salvelinus

          Good call… I read in the past there’s church used to speak of the moral issues, as well as the negative effects on earth and in this thing called, now this is probably something weird, “the four last things”…
          Tongue out of cheek now

          • End Times

            I appreciate even the opportunity to get to write it out, to think it through.

        • Phil Steinacker

          Be clear that I am with you on Church teaching and God’s law, but you need to realize the DSM was NEVER a diagnostic tool for morality of any kind. For the sake of accuracy, the DSM was and is a diagnostic tool of human disorders of a psychological kind, and the normalization of homosexuality removed it from the DSM as a diagnosable malady requiring treatment.

          We never had a chance of God’s law being represented in the DSM on any point, and to the extent that any concepts in the treatment of mental illness is a reflection of Church teaching is merely coincidence. I give the folks behind the DM no credit for such happenstance, although I do bemoan the betrayal by the folks at the 1972 APA convention who made back-room bargains to overthrow the long-held understanding of homosexuality as aberrant.

          Modern psychology has been concerned with behavior which is outside conventional norms rather than immorality as such. The obvious problem is that this criteria is easily moved like goal posts to suit the whims of the age.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        One recalls Alexander Pope

        Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
        As to be hated needs but to be seen;
        Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
        We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

        From endurance or tolerance, to pity or compassion to embrace or affirmation

    • St JD George

      If you haven’t, read Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Communist from 1958. In it he reveals all the goals of those who plotted to destroy western society from within. Not surprisingly, key among them were to infiltrate cultural and government institutions to begin the process of subverting our perceptions of good and evil. You know the old saying about the goal to convince what is evil is good, and what is good is evil. Read just the goals, it will open your eyes.

    • We passed condone a long time ago. The train is parked at celebrate now.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      “their acts were illegal”

      In a few countries, perhaps. The Penal Code, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau (promulgated September 26 – October 6, 1791) abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphème, la sodomie et la sorcellerie] and this Code became the law of most of Europe and its colonies.

  • joebissonnette

    The first English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church said that homosexuality was rooted in “affective immaturity”, though subsequent editions no longer say this. I asked a priest friend about the odious significance of this deletion and he said that the Church is preserved from teaching error, but that this does not necessarily mean she will always have the courage to teach the fullness truth.
    it is a sad reality that the Church seems to have lost whatever nerve it once had in speaking about homosexuality and this lack of nerve has made room for the false anthropology of Eve Tushnet et al. This is so important because unlike animal sexuality which is wholly instinctive, human sexuality is a combination of instinct and cultivated, inculturated desires. To fail to respond to the false anthropology of homosexuality as an essence is to allow and even encourage the destructive inculturating influence on teens who are highly plastic.

    • “Intrinsically disordered” is a better description.

    • Azygos

      Scripture insinuates that homosexuality is rooted in a rejection of God (Romans Chapter 1). I think insinuating that it is merely “affective immaturity” is ridiculous and unsupported by theology and psychology. God says that this behavior is worthy of death and those who promote such things deserve such death but promote it anyways. This is the truth and it should be preached with all its fullness. Homosexuality leads to death, viz., Hell; if consented to in thought, word or deed. It is a seriously grave sin that cries to the heavens for justice.

  • Salvelinus

    I agree with Mr. Ruse on everything here except for two major fauxpaus.

    “… There is no distinction between any of the sexual sins in that regard…”

    This is not true, as the Truth taught in the church in the past, is still Truth today and always will be. Sodomy is actually one of the five sons that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance. So, in actuality, THERE IS a difference in type of sexual sin.

    Secondly, “No Salvation outside the Church” had been known truth for centuries prior to the false-ecumenism deluge of the 1970s to today. If it weren’t for exta ecclesiam nulla salus, why does one need to be Catholic? Why have so many martyrs suffered tortuous deaths rather than renounce Christ and his church, and become Muslim, Jewish, some other false religion of the devil? (Remember, someone said that if it doesn’t include him, it’s of Satan).
    If no salvation outside the church isn’t true or is changed to a watered down ecumenical description (think catholic answers), does this mean the ex cathedra statement proclaiming it clearly was incorrect?
    Is there error in the solemn statement from the chair of Peter. .. or maybe the Holy Ghost changed his mind? ?

    Just because teaching the hard truth is difficult and might sound “unmercifull”, it’s still truth. Watering down the hard truths (ie removing some statements relating to condemnaton of homosexual sodomy, the effeminate, etc) is what tells catholics, there is no need. No need for missionaries either, some it doesn’t matter what telethon one is. ..
    Lastly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has been replaced by “the Catholic church is just a Christian denomination, but it has the “fulness of truth” and even the Catholic liturgy had removed pr ayers for “the conversion of jews, heretics, Schismatics, pagans, atheists and agnostics”.

    Dumbing down the language to sugar and saccharine out of “ecumenism” had done nothing to bring converts. . In fact is clear is harmed the bride of Christ the King

    • Austin Ruse

      The development of the debate about “no salvation outside the Church” is utterly fascinating. One may hold the Feenyite position and still not endanger your soul. Feeney was not excommunicated because he held those views but for other reasons. However, the Church teaches a broader view than Fenney’s.

      • You forget that the Feeneyite heresy also contains a Protestant attack on the Vatican itself. The doctrine is used to prove that the Pope is not Catholic.

        • jacobhalo

          There was no heresy on the part of Father Feeney. He taught church teachings on “no salvation… It was his Jesuits superiors who were teaching that anyone could be saved. The Jesuits have always been rebels. Take our pope, for instance.

          • Azygos

            Actually Father Feeney taught against Baptism by desire and Baptism by blood, both teachings that have been confirmed by Church Fathers as well as the hierarchy of the Church. Father Feeney took his views to far probably as a result of liberals taking their views on these doctrines too far in the opposite direction. P.S., I do not have good hope for the salvation of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic Faith, less perhaps they be children and the mentally retarded with these I am not entirely sure what God will do but I must have hope that Gods mercy will prevail.

            • jacobhalo

              Baptism of blood and desire and not stated in the original infallible doctrines, even though I agree with it.

              • Azygos

                “baptism
                of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love
                of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or
                implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of
                which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to
                the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the
                removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”]
                because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who
                is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is “de fide” that men
                are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon
                Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the
                Council of Trent” St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s Moral Theology
                Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism

          • Thanks for proving that the real heresy in Feeneyite teaching is not EENS, but rather that the Pope is a heretic.

      • jacobhalo

        I attended Catholic schools in the 50’s and early 60’s. We were taught that there was no salvation outside the church, including Protestants. We were not even allowed in a Protestant church. Vatican II changed the doctrine (they said no doctrine was changed) and now, not only Protestants can attain salvation but also other religions, even atheists. This is heresy.

        • James

          I went through an RCIA course several years ago (as a sponsor) and the doctrine of No Salvation outside the Catholic Church was still firmly taught, and stated that anyone who was Protestant or of non-Christian status who was saved was only saved through that conduit of Grace which is the Holy Catholic Church. And the candidates had no problem accepting it.

          • Azygos

            The best explanation that I have ever heard is from the Baltimore Catechism # 4. It matches up with what Jesus Christ says, that many are called but few are chosen. It matches up with what the syllabus of errors states, that good hope for the salvation of those outside the Church cannot be entertained. It matches up with the prior Popes statements on the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. This was used to teach the Catholic Faith for over 80 years and is still a great Catechism.

            121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the
            Church?

            A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows
            the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be
            saved.

            Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion
            and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a
            Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the
            true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and
            enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like
            the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly
            considerations from entering it.

            In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the
            religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be
            convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

            Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly
            believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church,
            and who has never — even in the past — had the slightest doubt
            of that fact — what will become of him?

            If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin,
            he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true
            Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his
            knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he
            committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more
            difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till
            it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in
            the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to
            confession; and if he does, his minister — not being a true
            priest — has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without
            confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out
            mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call
            contrition is often only imperfect contrition — that is, sorrow
            for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread
            the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic — with all the instruction he
            has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and
            all the practice he has had in making such acts — might find it
            difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having
            committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant
            have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know
            about this requirement and who has not been taught to make
            continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be
            feared either he would not know of this necessary means of
            regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the
            necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin
            would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

            If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal
            sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about
            the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because,
            being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be
            condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

            I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found,
            except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in
            Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are
            really children of the Church, no matter what religion their
            parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are
            children of the Church; but those among them who deny its
            teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its
            lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

            I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found,
            namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the
            truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during
            his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that
            we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members
            of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its
            Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy
            Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

            I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord
            or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim
            to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic
            Church.

          • jacobhalo

            That is good to hear. I wish the pope would state that publicly.

      • Salvelinus

        Thanks sir! I appreciate the response. It’s interesting indeed, it’s like one time said one thing, and the only ones that really still push it are the groups that are more traditional Catholic bent… I want around to see all of the controversy with Father Feeny and the Boston archdiocese, but as one that got confirmed in that archdiocese (about the time of the homosexual child raping priest scandal) i, sadly have to admit that my faith foundation was nonexistent.

        Sorry to take it down the rabbit hole, Mr. Ruse.
        Great work, and I’m a huge fan of all of your work. Keep fighting the good fight and you guys over there are in my prayers!

        • Austin Ruse

          Not to worry. I figured a mention of that controversy would draw some digressions!

        • linda daily

          What do you find is good about his fight?

          • Why do you ask?

          • GG

            Defending truth is good.

            • linda daily

              Unless Mr. Ruse is gay, this isn’t his fight. He is not a priest, spiritual director or moral theologian. He is part of the Catholicoic paparazzi. Gossips and voyeurs need to mind their own business and attend to the state of their owns souls.

              • Unless linda daily is part of the Catholic paparazzi, this isn’t her fight. She is not a priest, spiritual director or moral theologian. She is part of the public. Gossips and voyeurs need to mind their own business and attend to the state of their owns souls.

                • linda daily

                  Again I am rubber, you are glue. . . I don’t get paid to gossip.

                  • What are you doing here?

                    • linda daily

                      Spitting into the wind, obviously. Enjoy your gossip fest.

                    • GG

                      Gossip? Give your propaganda a rest.

                  • Phil Steinacker

                    And you are about 5 years old, according to your language.

                    • linda daily

                      And a little child shall lead them. . . I obviously can’t hold my own against the moral giants who comment here.

                    • Phil Steinacker

                      That’s for sure. You speak nothing of substance but you certainly have a sarcastic mouth.

                      That’s ALL you’ve got.

                      You aren’t qualified to even share this space.

                    • The first think required to “hold your own” is to understand that puerile antagonism isn’t a position to hold.

                    • linda daily

                      Whatever that means.

                    • I’m sorry to have taxed your vocabulary and cognition.

                    • linda daily

                      You are clearly my superior in every way. Christ had you in mind from the cross as his model disciple.

                    • At least I’m not practicing to be lukewarm.

              • GG

                How on earth do you do you come to such a conclusion. The guy did not write about some private issue? He is part of the Body of Christ and is writing about a serious issue that affects our culture and our faith.

              • Azygos

                You take offense at what he says and seek a way to silence him. At-least be honest about it.

              • Phil Steinacker

                It is the fight of ALL authentic good Catholics to identify and fight the influence of evil in the Church. Austin Ruse is carefully isolating the small but dangerous part of these folks to identify and refute these falsehoods undermining Church teaching.

                Your use of the word “gossip” reveals you are hardly capable of adult discussion in this matter. And “paparazzi” is downright laughable.

                You are clueless and in over your head.

                • linda daily

                  Hit a nerve I guess.

                  • Phil Steinacker

                    Is that all you’ve got?

                    Dream on.

                  • Mindless vandalism always does-no matter how smugly think of yourself as an aerosol artist.

              • annmarie

                This is everyones’ fight. Thanks to Mr. Ruse for this article which puts the temptation of homosexual desires where they belong with every other temptation which can rob us of ourwholeness. Gay is not good. It is to be overcome like every other temptation with the help of God and society. Gay is not aligned with special gifts. Being out and proud is a betrayal of one’s true nature and an abuse of those young struggling with such temptations.

      • Azygos

        In the Syllabus of Modern Errors, the proposition that states, “Good
        hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those
        who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” Was specifically
        Condemned by Holy Mother Church.

        It is Error # 17 here http://www.papalencyclicals.ne

        Catholic Encyclopedia: on the ‘Syllabus of Errors’
        “For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal
        Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher
        and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are
        bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor
        in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.”

        http://www.newadvent.org/cathe

        This really sums it up, you either believe that the Church is necessary for salvation or you really don’t. You believe that there is good hope for those outside the Church (which is a condemned error) or you don’t.

        Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem,
        December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another
        error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the
        Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many
        Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal
        salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of
        Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot
        and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic
        faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response
        favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable
        Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is
        infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and
        “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be
        penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your
        episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will
        strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and
        equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be
        found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and
        learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that
        the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy
        and justice.

        • Austin Ruse

          It comes down to how you define the Church. You would agree that baptism is required, but the Church teaches there are three types of baptism, water, fire and desire. Someone on their way to baptism into the Catholic Church who is struck by a car and dies is not in the Church but is someone who may be saved by desire. A strict reading of no salvation outside the Church would damn this person to hell. This is not what the Church teaches.

          • Azygos

            The best explanation that I have ever heard is from the Baltimore Catechism # 4. It matches up with what Jesus Christ says, that many are called but few are chosen. It matches up with what the syllabus of errors states, that good hope for the salvation of those outside the Church cannot be entertained. It matches up with the prior Popes statements on the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. This was used to teach the Catholic Faith for over 80 years and is still a great Catechism.

            121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the
            Church?

            A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows
            the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

            Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion
            and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a
            Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the
            true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like
            the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly
            considerations from entering it.

            In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the
            religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be
            convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

            Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly
            believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church,
            and who has never — even in the past — had the slightest doubt
            of that fact — what will become of him?

            If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin,
            he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to
            confession; and if he does, his minister — not being a true
            priest — has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without
            confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out
            mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call
            contrition is often only imperfect contrition — that is, sorrow
            for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread
            the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic — with all the instruction he
            has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and
            all the practice he has had in making such acts — might find it
            difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having
            committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant
            have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know
            about this requirement and who has not been taught to make
            continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be
            feared either he would not know of this necessary means of
            regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the
            necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin
            would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

            If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal
            sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about
            the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because,
            being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be
            condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

            I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found,
            except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in
            Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are
            really children of the Church, no matter what religion their
            parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are
            children of the Church; but those among them who deny its
            teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its
            lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

            I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found,
            namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

            I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

    • I thought there were four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengance. Where do you find five?

      • Salvelinus

        Whatever… You get the point

        • I would like you to list your five, with scriptural reference, and show Sodom to be among them.

          • Azygos

            “There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).”

            http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-are-sins-that-cry-to-heaven-for-vengeance-and-sins-against-the-holy-spirit

            You can find these same sins listed in the Catechism and in other Catholic sources down through the ages. I’m not sure why a Catholic would ever ask why sodom should be amongst the sins that cry out to the heavens for justice though. It is obvious to anyone who can understand the natural law and see how this behavior mocks God. It is not ironic then how “pride” is usually promoted with the sin of sodomy amongst the sodomites.

            • Thank you. I never said that Sodom was not among them, I just wanted somebody to show their wirk.

    • HartPonder

      Dominus Iesus, really a follow up to Nostra Aetate, helped me to answer these questions that I was moved to ask. The document really confirms our mission as we converse with other religions. It is my current viewpoint this document alone is worthy of an article. “Why even evangelize if all religions lead to God?” Is a question all Catholics should have an answer for.

      • Salvelinus

        I will check it out. Thanks

      • R. K. Ich

        My thoughts too. This whole business that the catholic faith simply makes it “easier to get saved” is hogwash. If it’s the Truth of the ages, it’s not simply the best among many live options: the other options are dead ends.

    • Michael Depietro

      The teaching “no salvation outside the Church” is only true if we believe that one need not have explicit membership in the Catholic Church to be saved. This is clear from Vatican II which stated

      Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the
      unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all
      things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can
      attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the
      Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by
      grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them
      through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the
      helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part,
      have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace
      strive to live a good life. . .But often men, deceived by the Evil One,
      have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of
      God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some
      there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed
      to final despair. . .”

      This was not all that new since it had been considered 100 years prior if not more that some people could be in some fashion united to the Church but not connected with her explicitly, as per Pius IX :

      Pope Pius IX wrote: “Well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can
      be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be
      obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same
      Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and
      also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff”. In the same
      letter, he said: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with
      invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing
      the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and
      ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life
      by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who
      clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and
      habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no
      means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the
      guilt of deliberate sin.” He added: “God forbid that the children of the
      Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are
      not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the
      contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the
      kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or
      suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue
      them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily
      fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most
      loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them
      lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and
      charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal
      salvation.

      This is silly to fixate on no salvation outside the Church, we cannot pick which Papal statements and which councils we want to adhere to. Where apparent contradictions exist we must search for a way to reconcile them. In this case the Church has made it clear, the statement no salvation outside the Church means all who are saved receive the grace needed for salvation through the Church but if invincibly ignorant, but still seeking the truth one can be considered an implicit member of the Church and thereby can be saved.

      • HartPonder

        Dominus Iesus:

        “In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”

      • Azygos

        In the Syllabus of Modern Errors, the proposition that states, “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” Was specifically Condemned
        by Holy Mother Church.

        It is Error # 17 here http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

        Catholic Encyclopedia: on the ‘Syllabus of Errors’
        “For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and
        judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.”

        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Bl John Henry Newman said of the Syllabus, “the Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions and the like,) to which it pointedly refers. Moreover, when we turn to those documents, which are authoritative, we find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo of the Apostolic Voice; for, in matters in which wording is so important, it is not an exact transcript of the words of the Pope, in its account of the errors condemned,—just as is natural in what is professedly an index for reference.”

          • Azygos

            Blessed John Henry Newman was wrong. You don’t simply dismiss the syllabus of condemned errors promoted by a Pope for all the faithful to adhere to, as something without any authority. The fact that the syllabus cites documents to further define these condemned statements and to show that they are in fact condemned, should provide more weight to the condemnations themselves. The Catholic encyclopedia gives a good description why the syllabus of errors must be accepted by everyone.

            Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem,
            December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another
            error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the
            Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many
            Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal
            salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of
            Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot
            and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic
            faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response
            favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable
            Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is
            infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and
            “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be
            penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your
            episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will
            strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and
            equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be
            found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and
            learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that
            the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy
            and justice.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              “The fact that the syllabus cites documents to further define these condemned statements and to show that they are in fact condemned, should provide more weight to the condemnations themselves.”

              Absolutely. Newman gives a very good example: “For instance, take his own 16th (the 77th of the “erroneous Propositions”), that, “It is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion should be established to the exclusion of all others.” When we turn to the Allocution, which is the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we find there? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of “his wonder and distress.” And again, taking the Pope’s remonstrance as it stands, is it any great cause of complaint to Englishmen, who so lately were severe in their legislation upon Unitarians, Catholics, unbelievers, and others, that the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies. As in the instance in the foregoing section, he does but deny a universal, which the “erroneous proposition” asserts without any explanation.”

              • Azygos

                It seems to me that many people want to reject error # 77 for the promotion of ‘freedom for all religions’ and that ‘all religions shall have equal status within the State’. Very American and modern but very anti-Catholic. It is not surprising then that this one error strikes a cord with many Christians who seek to deny it or find way to diminish its authority.

                Quoting from the syllabus directly #77 states, ” In the present
                day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.”

                The condemnation of this error is clear but if it were not clear enough then I present it in another way.

                Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864:
                “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as
                attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by
                the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

                • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                  No, it is not clear, for when we turn to the Allocutio “Nemo vestrum, cited in support of the supposed error, it does not support the proposition as Bl John Henry Newman spells out.

                  • Azygos

                    “In the present day it is no
                    longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only
                    religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
                    — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.”

                    Friend, how is this not clear enough for you? The Catholic Religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. It is an error to believe otherwise.This is because the Catholic Religion alone is true and is of God. All other religions are false and are of the devil. The Church therefore cannot promote false religions or protect them, it would never promote the State to do so either.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      Because, when we turn to the allocutio “Nemo Vestrum,” which is the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we find there? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of “his wonder and distress.”

                      In other words, the allocutio, which is alone authoratative does not supposrt the proposition.

                    • Azygos

                      You wrote, “In other words, the allocutio, which is
                      alone authoratative does not supposrt the proposition.”

                      First of all, you assume that the allocution is alone authoritative, this is false and absurd. Secondly, you assume that your interpretation of the allucotion (or someone elses) is correct and that you can therefore reject the condemned error that is listed with its citation – this is equally absurd for surely they knew exactly what the proposition was and knew exactly what was in the allucotion when they cited it. Thirdly, the list of condemned errors was given as an authoritative pronouncement under the direction of the Holy Father and as such is authoritative in itself – just as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains. Now, the allocutions supports the propositions that are condemned hence their referrals to the propositions cited in the syllabus. For error number 77, this proposition is condemned, it is also condemned in scripture and by Popes in different encyclicals. The reason you come to the conclusion that the allocution does not support the proposition is simply because you reject the proposition and must find some way to rationalize your rejection.This is because you believe that the best form of government is a secular one where the State is separated from the Church, and where all religions are given equal rights with no special privileges granted to the Catholic Church, to the exclusion of the other false religions.

                      More condemned errors that you are sure to reject found in the syllabus of errors and elsewhere,

                      Condemned Error # 55.
                      The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

                      Condemned Error # 40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. — Encyclical “Quipluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.

                      Condemned Error # 56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

                      Condemned Error # 57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. — Ibid.

                      Condemned Error # 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

                      Condemned Error # 78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

                      Condemned Error # 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

                      To follow these condemned errors I would also like to cite the
                      writings of two different Popes, and remind the reader of the citation that I posted above from Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Quanta Cura.

                      Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, June 20, 1888:
                      18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the
                      increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate
                      powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some
                      order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable
                      harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.

                      19. To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.

                      20. But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and
                      therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor,”[7] rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by
                      certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin.

                      21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide — as they should do — with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to
                      the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

                      22. All this, however, We have explained more fully elsewhere. We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects. Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State. For, since it derives the prime origin of all power directly from God Himself, with grave authority it charges rulers to be mindful of their duty, to govern without injustice or severity, to rule their people kindly and with almost paternal charity; it
                      admonishes subjects to be obedient to lawful authority, as to the ministers of God; and it binds them to their rulers, not merely by obedience, but by reverence and affection, forbidding all seditions and venturesome enterprises calculated to disturb public order and tranquillity, and cause greater restrictions to be put upon the liberty of the people. We need not mention how
                      greatly religion conduces to pure morals, and pure morals to liberty. Reason shows, and history confirms the fact, that the higher the morality of States, the greater are the liberty and wealth and power which they enjoy.


                      Pope St. Pius X, ‘Vehementor Nos’, February 11, 1906

                      ‘That the State must be separated from the Church is a
                      thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social
                      worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world,
                      which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis
                      inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to
                      refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.’

    • Betty

      The Church has never taught that you need to be Catholic to be saved. The Church takes Christ’s words that you need to be baptised. There are three types of baptism 1) by water (which makes you a Catholic -even if done in a protestant Church as long as it has the same words and done with water. 2) by desire (so you can be enter Heaven just by living a good life and realising that there is a God. This means a Chinese person who has never heard of God can go to Heaven. And it also includes people of different religions – including Islam- who live their lives loving God. 3) by blood. You can go to Heaven if you have not been baptised but you die for God (the Holy infants). The Church has not changed it view on this pre or post Vatican 2. Moreover a baptised Catholic cannot beileve that they will automatically go to Heaven – that is a sin of arrogance. Faith and deeds get you a ticket hopefully! It is also a sin to think you will never get there – including non-Catholics.

      • Azygos

        You are clearly wrong. The doctrine that no salvation outside the Church has been defined so many times that I must imagine you have either lost your mind or that you have not seen these definitions. I will post but a few here and I beg you to follow the link and read them for yourself!

        Jesus Christ, “Whoever is not with me, is against me.” “Whoever does not gather with me, scatters.” “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” “If you will not believe that I AM then you will die in your sins.”

        John 3:18, “Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

        Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
        (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and
        preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not
        only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics,
        can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the
        “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew
        25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so
        important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those
        remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church
        unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for
        their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and
        the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as
        great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of
        Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of
        the Catholic Church.”

        Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

        Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam
        (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and
        maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is
        apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification.
        Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the
        Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

        Pope Pelagius II
        (578-590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace
        and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to
        flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down
        their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the
        punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be
        crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of
        the Church” (Denzinger, 469).

        Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum:
        “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best,
        the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who
        profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another
        and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For
        we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak
        wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of
        God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one
        Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is
        given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we
        must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside
        the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With
        reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the
        Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have
        God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'”

        Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio
        (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: “You know how zealously Our
        predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny,
        namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.
        The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint
        Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this
        matter: ‘Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he
        will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Saint
        Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta
        in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever
        has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably
        he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God
        because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’
        (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost
        numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory
        the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of
        the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it
        is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all
        who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5).
        Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree
        on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV,
        these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the
        faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same
        dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the
        Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the
        Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses
        (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other
        Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)… We
        are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

        Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem,
        December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another
        error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the
        Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many
        Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal
        salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of
        Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot
        and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic
        faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response
        favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable
        Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is
        infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and
        “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be
        penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your
        episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will
        strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and
        equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be
        found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and
        learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that
        the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy
        and justice.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus#Catholic_statements_of_this_teaching

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Pius IX’s also said, “We and you know, that those who lie under invincible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts, which are engraven by God on the hearts of all, and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, by the operation of the power of divine light and grace, to obtain eternal life.” ( Dec. 9, 1854)

          Previous declarations of the Holy See must be read in the light of that qualification.

          • Azygos

            Pope Pius IX also said (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem,
            December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ.”

            Previous declarations of the Holy See must be read in the light of that qualification.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              Both passages come from one and the same Allocutio.

              We have further light on the question from the constitutions of an ecumenical council, namely, Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate

              • Azygos

                It is a condemned error to have good hope for the salvation of those who have not submitted in anyway to the Catholic Faith. Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate being documents part of a pastoral council that purposely avoided using infallibility, did not intend to declare any new doctrine or “change” any doctrine of the Church. What was once condemned as error is still error, it makes no sense to insinuate that since V2 these declarations have come upon new light, in that they can be understood in a different sense or in a different way. In spite of the Church officially condemning this error above, Catholics continue to pander the idea that we can have good hope for the salvation of those who have died outside the Church, while trying to use the pastoral documents of V2 to justify that absurd position.

          • Azygos

            And Pope St. Pius X, [Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905]: “We are
            forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine. And so, Our Predecessor Benedict XIV had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”

      • R. K. Ich

        Yikes, this is the same moralising goo you get from Mormons and JWs. It’s practically Pelagian.

        The baptism of desire was typically a category reaerved for catechumens who died before baptism. Sacred Scripture paints a bleak picture of those who have not heard the Gospel: that they are in darkness.

  • Maggie Gallagher

    What I thought was vile was doing things like venting your frustration by reading all kind of stuff into a photo the Washington Post took, which the writers are not responsible for. This has actually been done to me once by Commonweal, which published a photo of me with RJN, Mary Ann Glendon and George Weigel with Bush in the oval office, and proceeded to attribute to me (among others) all kinds of views I have never expressed and did not hold.

    If you are going to attribute heretical views to the writers as a group I think you should quote them rather than summarizing your impressions.

    It was more a howl of frustration that lacked I think a basic respect for fellow citizens, much less (like Eve) members of the body of Christ.

    It is not a doctrine of the Church that it is wrong to call yourself gay,although I agree there are strong pastoral (or maybe for me conceptual) objections to identifying yourself in that way.

    I don’t believe in lay excommunication, and I don’t understand how hard it is for us to have more charity with one another.

    Well I do understand, but I fight the tendency.

    Anyway thanks for this piece. Maggie

    • Tim Danaher

      I would go a step further. Any group that self indentifies as gay, LGBT, or uses the rainbow colors should not recieve any support from the direct support or promotion from the church. Offically, these groups seek to change/undermine/confuse church doctrine concerning the nature and purpose of sexuality and marriage. I believe there are faithful Catholics involved with these dissenting groups, but since our church leaders fail to name names, the faiithful are being kept ignorant of these cooperation in sin.

    • Austin Ruse

      Maggie, I hope I made it clear that they do not hold heretical views. They hold views that are not fully in comportment with the Church, but their views are not damnable. For instance, the Church recommends that people not even come out except to a few close friends, confessor etc but never publicly . I quote them pretty fully in previous columns on this subject as do other authors, Jim Russell and Dan Mattson. We’ve been working on this issue here at Crisis for months!

      As to the photo, i do not think i draw any conclusions from the photo. I simply describer what was in the photo. I made a little fun. I draw conclusions from what they have written….

      Anyway, thanks for the note…

      yours,

      • fredx2

        No, you used the photo to put words in their mouth. intended or not, it struck me as unkind, Perhaps you did not intend it that way.

        But remember what the Catechism says – this is a cross for these people to bear and we should be sensitive to that.

        The church document you quote is not from the Catechism, but is a reference document on how best to pastorally deal with homosexuals. As such it is more in the realm of suggestions, not hard and fast doctrinal conclusions.

        I don’t think that document made a particularly big deal about coming out publicly. It seemed to me to be one of those after thoughts that gets included as a recommendation.

        • Austin Ruse

          I most certainly did not put words in their mouths. What nonsense.

          There are many teaching documents of the Church including documents issued by the body of bishops. This is also why i insist their assertions are not “heretical”…

        • Wow, there’s a lot of inference being used to decry inference here.

        • GG

          This is all a legalistic type of reasoning. The Church has no “teaching” on “coming out” as a liker of arson. Should we encourage such a thing?

          Common sense has been lost and taken over by false sensitivity and false compassion.

          • Phil Steinacker

            Agreed.

        • Phil Steinacker

          Frex2.

          This is so unlike you, or at least the fredx2 I’ve seen posting at NCR and, I think, Crux. Here you write more typically as a liberal so attached to sensitivity that you take liberties in reading into Mr. Ruse’s words associated to the photo which are, in fact, not there.

          You claim the photo put words in the mouths of Josh and Eve. I had to go back and take a look, because nothing was so apparent when I read it upon publication. That remains the case.

          Also, drawing upon any and all bona fide Church documents are appropriate for Mr. Ruse and all good Catholics to obtain guidance and suggestions. Besides, it is just good sense to publicly criticize and oppose “coming out” for Catholics, especially those who claim to follow Church teaching.

          Nor is it wise for such Catholics, being that we know that SSA activists have targeted other high-profile ex-gays to seduce them back into “the life.” Sometimes they have succeeded in very damaging instances, so it does stand to reason that publicly coming out, even for an unknown rank and file Catholic, could be an occasion of sin if someone targets them for seduction in retribution.

          Blessings on you, fredx2.

    • fredx2

      I think Mr. Ruse keeps confusing things that the church teaches with things it does not. He may be right in one sense, but there seems to be a confusion that wants to turn the gay homophiles into active, vocal, obstinate underminers of church doctrine. I don’t see them that way. This is a brave move for many of them to make, for in essence, they are saying to the church “You are 95% correct”. At that point, you say “welcome, we can talk about the other 5%” not “get out of my sight until you agree 100%”.

      • entonces_99

        At that point, you say “welcome, we can talk about the other 5%” not “get out of my sight until you agree 100%”.

        Which is pretty much exactly what Mr. Ruse’s December 19 column said.

      • GG

        But, that is not accurate. Ruse identifies the problem well. It is not a group that says we believe now help our unbelief. It is a group that claims to accept the teaching on not engaging in deviant acts but goes on to claim the attraction to those acts is a special gift. Not only is that confusing but it can be a crack used to reimagine the Truth on the entire topic.

        • I’m thinking of Bastiat and the broken glass now.

        • Phil Steinacker

          And someday it will most assuredly by deployed by Satan exactly for that purpose.

      • Phil Steinacker

        Fred, that 5% dissent you seek to minimize is damaging to the holiness walk of others with SSA. You can’t minimize that 5% just because you think it’s too small to be significant. Youcan’t be more wrong

        The most effective lies of the devil are 95% truth because it only takes 5% error and falsehood to fatally distort the truth in substance.

        The new homophiles are mostly in sync with Church teaching, but adhering to gay identity contradicts our Catholic identity as children of God. You may not be able to find an outright prohibition in Church documents against identifying oneself as “gay Catholic” but nowhere are we taught we are to see ourselves as ANYTHING but children of God.

        Besides, the Church responds to evil in its ever-expanding forms as it is manifested, and so it may be that the document condemning “gay Catholic” identification has yet to be written because prelates remain blissfully ignorant of the “smoke of Satan” circulating in the Church in this manner.

    • HartPonder

      I don’t believe in Lay Excommunication?

      1 Corinthians 5: 6-12 shows that it is up to all of us to uphold God’s standards within the Church. It’s not what you or I “believe”, but what God requires of us as members of his Church.

      Some, in their attempt to justify their public acts in the Church, say that God’s love is great and that he will overlook their sins, since he recognizes their imperfections and weakness, even promoting the lifestyle in parades, books and the like. But God’s Word spoke of such: “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4).

      Let us not use God’s love and Grace as an excuse to do wrong, or publicly promote our sinful inclinations, it is a distraction to our true work at hand (Matthew 28:19,20).

      Sadly, 2 Timothy 4:3-5 seems to apply more than ever: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

      Time restricts me from citing all the Saints in upholding the Faith in this matter.

      It is not enough to just say “the Church teachings are this or that…” We need to cite the authorities and the Tradition of our Faith to show we are not speaking from our own initiative, but God’s (John 14:24) Why? To bring to back those who want to follow not their own will, but God’s.

    • “It was more a howl of frustration that lacked I think a basic respect for fellow citizens, much less (like Eve) members of the body of Christ.”

      You mean like the lack of respect exhibited by not making your greivance privately, first?

    • Azygos

      I don’t find it prudent for people to “identify” themselves by their sinful inclinations. Lets examine how absurd this is with an analogy. Imagine that a man is often tempted to adultery, should he accept this as part of his identity then walk around calling himself a celibate adulterer? Should such a person do this everyone would immediately say that this man is crazy and his title doesn’t make sense. Why then should anyone with SSA call themselves a celibate homosexual? Either they are a practicing homosexual or not. Temptations to sin do not define who you are, only your consent to them does that. If you don’t consent to them then why boast of them as being your identify? I am tempted to a great number of things but I would never imagine in a million years that I should define myself by these things. Likewise, when a person defines himself by his temptation then he has already given up part of the fight to overcome them. He has in a sense, welcomed and accepted these temptations as a part of who he is, claiming no ability to change, stop or hinder them. It would be better for a person to state and boldly believe that they are a Catholic and that they refuse to be Gay. Than to say, I am a Gay Catholic who chooses celibacy and being Gay is a blessing. What follows with the latter is a set of beliefs/doctrines that are against Church teaching as explained by the original article above. What follows with the former are groups like Courage.

      • Davis Wenbil

        Great comment !!

  • Maggie Gallagher

    And I should probably apologize to you Austin for using the word “vile.” That wasn’t charitable. “uncalled for” or “uncharitable” would have done so I am sorry for that.

    • Phil Steinacker

      While I would also but respectfully disagree with your use of the latter two adjectives, I have to commendyou for your apology, which is not one of those mealy-mouthed conditional half-apologies seen so often these days.

      Bless you, Maggie.

  • Michael Depietro

    It is shocking that this view should be considered “vile”. There is a very simple doctrine of the Church, and that is that homosexual desires are disordered. How could they not be disordered? A thing is good or not good when it conforms to its nature or end. A circle is a good circle when it more perfectly is “circular” something that is shaped closer to an ellipse would be less of a circle. Sex is oriented to reproduction and the bonding of spouses in marriage, that is its end or purpose. When sex is oriented to something else it is disordered and misused. So sex outside of marriage is sinful. Homosexual sex is obviously sinful. Homosexuality then is a disorder, a bad thing, an disordering of the sexual urge to an improper end. This is simple to see. Its analogous to the eating disorder “pica”, when individuals have an appetite to eat non nutritive materials, like clay instead of food. The proper purpose or “end” of eating is to obtain nutrition, so an orientation or desire to eat non foods is clearly a disorder. ( For a discussion on what makes anything good see http://catholicxray.com/there-is-no-crying-in-baseball-but-there-is-metaphysics-a-discussion-on-goodness/ and for a discussion the proper end of sex see http://catholicxray.com/789/ )

    This is not to say being a homosexual is sinful ( anymore than having pica is sinful) but it is to say being a homosexual is not a gift from God, it is a burden ( like having pica) and to the extent someone out there is clinging to their “gay identity” it is heterodox, and ultimately will lead to the justification of homosexual activity. At the end of the day this logic is not compatible with the teaching of the Church on sexuality and we have seen what the loss of that teaching has done to society.

    The loss of the overall Christian understanding of sexuality has left us with chaos. Wide spread divorce, out of wed lock births, sexually transmitted disease etc. This is most evident in the effects of increasing numbers of fatherless homes, and the risks of increased poverty, such homes are subject too. ( You are about 3 times more likely to be impoverished if you are a child in a single family home.) In any case to the extent the new homophiles are causing confusion about the nature of the teaching on human sexuality they are part of the problem. And if Mr Shea and others do not get this, well they are part of the problem.

    • End Times

      Thanks for this post. It’s seems confusion has been sowed by the use of the word “disordered” in totally distinct ways in different contexts. The Church means, or should mean, disordered in the sense in which St. Paul speaks of homosexuality: the means and the end are put out of order; the means are made an end; what should be first, the understanding and choosing of one’s proper End, is done last, after one has already chosen the means. But, the word is confused with it’s contemporary use in an entirely different context – that of the “psychiatric disorder.” The first context, traditionally spoken of by the Church, uses disorder in the discussion of the moral and the immoral. The second context, of modern psychology/psychiatry/social science, uses disorder in the discussion of the healthy and the sick, the statistically normal and the abnormal. These are wholly distinct contexts. … I can’t help but believe that this confusion, on the spiritual level, is purposeful, intentional, and Satanic.

      • GG

        The thing is the use of the term is the same in both senses. It is a disorder medically, psychologically, philosophically, and spiritually. It is. It oriented toward the good or toward health.

        • End Times

          “The thing is,” you are right ideally, I suppose, and, in a sense, in fact.

          You are right, ideally, that disorder should have the same meaning and be used univocally in all those domains, medically, psychologically, etc. I say that because, I think, if a Catholic worldview were dominant, all those domains would be concentric, as it were

          But obviously when the word “disorder” is used in the DSM, for example, it has another meaning – since the people using it don’t believe in transcendent purpose or that natural entities have supernatural ends. If it hadn’t this other, atheistic meaning before 1973, the psychologists wouldn’t have been so willing to hand over the DSM to the homosexuality advocates.

          But then many people in the Church today don’t believe in transcendent purpose either, or that natural entities have supernatural ends. So that “disorder” is meant the same by Modernist, determinist psychology and by many in the Church. Here again, you are right – “It’s the same use of the term” – but it’s hardly an achievement.

          “Psychology” requires the confusion to continue to propagate its beastly self. The Church can and should stand for clarity.

          • GG

            I do not disagree with you. I only point out that the affliction is not consistent with goodness or health.

            • End Times

              I appreciate that; I appreciate even the opportunity to write about this, as it is a discipline and a spiritual-combat even to keep one’s thoughts clear, and I find myself needing to fight for the clarity in my own head again and again.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            A word need not have an essential core meaning that is, therefore, common to all uses of that word. We should, instead, travel with the word’s uses through “a complicated network of similarities, overlapping and criss-crossing.” We have to see how it functions in a specific social situation.

            Thus, in the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argues that it is impossible to devise some definition of “game” that includes everything that we call games, but excludes everything that we do not. However, we are all familiar (i.e. socially) with enough things that are games and enough things that are not games that we can categorize new activities as either games or not.

      • Azygos

        Homosexuality is a disordered on all levels. It is abnormal, unhealthy (mentally, spiritually, physically) and sick as well as disordered concerning the means and end.

  • Mike

    So why are they proud to be gay. There have been approximately 5000 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Gays make up 2% of the population. Yet of the 5000 cases, approximately 4000 were homosexual priests abusing teenage boys. So why are these people proud and affiriming their homosexuality when it can predispose to sexual abuse?

    • egalitrix

      Because some of them were merely pedophiles/ hebephiles.

      • Ever hear of comorbidity?

        • egalitrix

          Yes, obviously some pedophiles are also homosexual, just like some are also heterosexual. That does not mean or prove that most gays are predisposed to sexual abuse.

          • Nordog6561

            “Gay” sex IS sexual abuse.

            • egalitrix

              Not in the legal sense.

              • Nordog6561

                Ah yes, the hackneyed appeal to the authority of positive law, as if it were the last word regarding the reality of things.

                Fail.

                • egalitrix

                  What I meant to say is the legal definition of sexual abuse is that which is not consensual or between individuals not capable of consent. So any case of “gay sex” is not automatically sexual abuse under the laws definition. I made no attempt to claim the law should be accepted as right.

                  • Nordog6561

                    >>So any case of “gay sex” is not automatically sexual abuse under the laws definition. <<

                    No, just under the laws of physics and biology.

              • GG

                The only sense that matters is the right sense. It is always deviant.

          • Next time, just answer the question “I may have heard of it, but I don’t understand it or just don’t want to consider it”. It will promote a more meaningful and productive exchange.

            • egalitrix

              To be fair, you responded with a concept that was not clearly related and I jumped to making an assumption about your position.

              • I’m sorry you don’t understand the concept.

          • Salvelinus

            The is no such thing as “a gay”.
            One chooses to have unnatural sex with the same sex, violating natural law in the process.
            I would love to walk into a bank sometimes and take some money out to pay some bills… Just enough to ensure FDIC Pays everyone back.
            Buti choose not to do sincei know is immortal and sinful, and i could get in serious physical and psychological damage.
            I have never done it.. Never will.. I control the urge… So I’m not a bank robber
            Get the point?

          • Azygos

            Homosexuals molest kids at 10 times a higher rate than that of heterosexuals. Homosexuals are also notorious for promoting man-boy love.

            • egalitrix

              That is a myth from the FRC based on misinterpretation of data. The people they cited even told them not to use their research. The bottom line is when it comes to the highly deviant attraction to children it would be a gross mistake to compare it to any attractions adults have for each other. As disgusting as it is there are plenty of heterosexual men who also push the age of consent.

              • Azygos

                Homosexuals make up around 2% of the entire population in America. Yet 1/3 of the nations child molestations happen by people who are homosexual. The math here is rather simple, you have a tiny group of people in the United States much like a speck of dust or a needle in a haystack – molesting just under half of all the children in child molestation cases. The number is majorly disproportionate compared to the amount of heterosexuals that molest children. I think it is fair to say that a homosexual is 10 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual. Call it bologna if you want to but the numbers don’t lie.

                • egalitrix

                  I believe the statistic was 1/3 of those child abuse cases were between same sex (up for some dispute). That doesn’t mean the abusers were all attracted to just same sex adults, therefore it is impossible to conclude that many were “homosexual” in that sense. That is the mistake FRC made in interpreting the data.

                  • GG

                    Parsing deviant desires may seem like a neat notion for psychistric manuals but in the end what is at the heart of the problem is the desires for the same sex is pathologic no matter the ages.

      • GG

        Homosexual attraction is a disordrred.

    • Salvelinus

      I know.. Is sad that happened to the church. Thank the1960s and 70 s when the homosexual infiltration of the priesthood occurred.

      I fear that with Satan and modernism taking its roots again, the church should prepare for another diabolical infiltration.
      Virtually all of the boys being raped were pastpubescent… Raped by homosexuall priests.. Benedict was trying to end seminaries allowing these men to hide.
      I doubt Pope Humble will continue the blockade

    • jacobhalo

      I don’t understand that gays are proud. Proud of what? I thought one would be proud of an accomplishment. What is accomplished by being gay?

  • ForChristAlone

    There is no such thing as “being” gay. You can “have” same sex attractions but all that goes along with the effects of original sin. Pay these people no mind unless you are their professional therapist or confessor. Then, do all you can to help avert their unnatural desires.

  • St JD George

    I know many are uneasy with him, but I can’t help but see the fingerprints and grinning on the face of the dark prince of this world advancing his agenda with cunning deceipt. It may be one sin among many to act on immoral impulses (and I know there is a claim of celibacy here), but this sin is battering down the doors of the church with a ram fighting to gain universal acceptance of sodomy and legitimacy of SSM. There is no need to sugar coat the reality of the battle we are in. We may wish to ignore, but it is not ignoring us.

  • ONCE GAY ALWAYS GAY is a heresy related to Once Saved Always Saved. It denies the human ability to learn and change.

    • jacobhalo

      That reminds me of a person who asked me if I was saved. I said, I don’t know. I’m not dead yet.

    • Vex

      Show me some peer reviewed academically validated evidence to prove that. Moreso I don’t recall believing SSA to be incurable is condemned in the catechism, it just tells people they can’t act on it.

      Pushing the morality aside for one moment, looking at it purely as a “disorder” in the psychological sense (as Mr Ruse elsewhere on this page highlights in his opinion from where the Church teaches it originates).

      Humans can certainly decide to be celibate, plenty of priests stand as proof of that. What isn’t possible is to change ones gender preference.

      Just because a man decides he won’t engage in sex with another man doesn’t mean he experiences lust/desire for sex with another man any less.

      • I am sure a liberal like you would say that. I have no faith in your so-called “peer review” when all the peers have been brainwashed and bribed.

        • Vex

          I’ll take that as a “No Vex, I can’t prove my claim so I’m just going to make cheap childish potshots at you”

          • It’s more like “No Vex, I refuse to play your stupid elitist game where only people with enough money and the right opinions count and everybody else is just garbage to be killed.”

            • Vex

              I love you too Theodore <3

          • Phil Steinacker

            No, he doesn’t need to prove anything, so he does not operate from the weakened position you ascribe to him. He correctly diagnoses “peer review” as the fraudulent but effective tool for corralling the duped that it is.

            • Vex

              Not all peer reviews are done by communists/atheists/whores/insert-favourite-enemy-of-the-church here. Are there or are there not many Catholic universities not only in the US but across the globe? How come none of them have got any studies to offer on this subject, I’m sure they could review one another after all, they could even ask other universities which oppose homosexuality like the Mormon and Baptist establishments.

              They don’t though, because it’s defending the indefensible. It’s fine to think homosexual actions immoral, but there’s a great deal of evidence to say the inclination is most certainly very real and never goes away.

      • Phil Steinacker

        The change in position by the two APAs (psychiatric/psychological) came about by back-room political horse-trading at the national convention of the first, and as a result of vicious personal attacks on members of the second sustained over time.

        In neither case did those reversals occur because of bona fide scientific research, peer-reviewed or otherwise. There is no such thing as honest research which supports the lie that homosexuals cannot be treated effectively to lose that attraction. It is nothing more than political propaganda so often repeated by those afraid of the destruction to the SSA agenda if it is not itself destroyed.

        As for the Church, She need not participate in this shell game run at Satan’s gaming table by submitting Her teachings to “peer review.” Wow! What a laugh! Only Satan has the moxie to float such a suggestion into the world.

        Not that you, Vex, are demonic, but such notions are of Satan and NOT of God.

        • Vex

          [The change in position by the two APAs (psychiatric/psychological) came
          about by back-room political horse-trading at the national convention of
          the first, and as a result of vicious personal attacks on members of
          the second sustained over time.]

          The curious thing however is that while there has been “pressure” on the psychiatry association to alter its thoughts on other concepts such as polygamy and incest it only ever has as and when new evidence proving previous notions false comes to light.

          There are still efforts from some members of the SSPX today and the likes of John Salza to convince NASA the Sun orbits the Earth, it doesn’t give way however since the evidence says otherwise.

          [In neither case did those reversals occur because of bona fide
          scientific research, peer-reviewed or otherwise. There is no such thing
          as honest research which supports the lie that homosexuals cannot be
          treated effectively to lose that attraction.]

          I personally have to disagree here, especially in wake of the Denmark and University of Australia studies from last year. Even supposing this premise is correct though, have we any cases of a former homosexual losing their attraction to the same sex?

          Bizarre as this may sound (if you google it I’m sure it will easy to find, I can’t share links because it makes discus flag my posts) a test was developed at Cornell University to measure male homosexual inclination. It’s quite a long complicated process but part of it is they test erectile movements and eye dilation reactions to various images. They have tested several self proclaimed “Ex gays” and every single one of them has failed the test.

          I don’t think the psychiatry association really has much of a hand in politics, certainly nowhere near as much as say the Catholic and LDS churches.

          [As for the Church, She need not participate in this shell game run at
          Satan’s gaming table by submitting Her teachings to “peer review.” Wow!
          What a laugh! Only Satan has the moxie to float such a suggestion into
          the world.]

          I’m not talking about putting church teaching to peer review o.0 I’m talking about the root psychological causes/origin (call it what you will) of homosexuality, not theology regarding the actions it can lead to.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Very astute insight. I like it and I’ll use it.

      Thanks.

  • fredx2

    Look, I think the fact that the new homophiles refuse to act on their temptations is an indication that they realize it is wrong. How else could you interpret it?

    Rosaria Butterfield, a former lesbian feminist professor now married to a man and who has children, has spoken about the gay community’s focus on hospitaltiy. Long before there were any gay homophiles the gay community focused on being nice and being hospitable and exteneding friendship to those who were hurting. True, there was always a seamy underbelly at the same time but there also was this focus on being friendly.

    I see nothing wrong with the New homophiles focusing on that as a way to build self esteem and reduce the sense of social worthlessness that some encounter and use it as a stepping stone to encourage the difficult process of being celibate. They are quite properly focusing on the postiive aspects of their situation as a means to eliminating the negative. People who have temptations such as this might need a little encouragement and a shift in focus.

    I think Mr. Ruse is being a bit too harsh on this one. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The way I see it ,logic inevitably will lead all new homophiles to the Courage position anyway. Don’t destroy a half way house.

    • Austin Ruse

      Let’s hope you are right. I am hoping that one or a few of them will come around to the Courage position…

    • “I see nothing wrong with the New homophiles focusing on that as a way to build self esteem and reduce the sense of social worthlessness that some encounter and use it as a stepping stone to encourage the difficult process of being celibate.”
      The problem isn’t that they are building that oft-abused and ridiculously over valued commodity of “self-esteem”. I’ve been watching the products of the self-esteem movement enter the workplace for about ten years and many are quivering puddles at the slightest criticism. The real world is bouts of withering contempt and you have to develop a tolerance for it. Thank God there was no self esteem movement when Pasteur was scorned and reviled by his “peers”.
      The problem is that they are building their esteem on a lie, that same sex attraction is a “gift” that carries with it some unique perspectives or vantages. I’m sure that some believe it, and perhaps others regard it at a useful fiction, but no temptation, no matter how innate or durable, is a gift.
      I’m a married man. Attractive women still catch my eye, should I tell the readers here (or better yet my wife) that the heterosexual concupiscience that operates in my soul and mind gives me special insights into femininity?
      Or should we copy St Louis de Monfort whose dying words were reported to be an expression of joy that he would never sin again.

      • GG

        It is that simple.

      • R. K. Ich

        Sir, that was Johnsonian in execution. Could not have said it better myself.

        • Coffee is a beautiful thing for igniting the neurons…

      • Phil Steinacker

        Great response.

      • Joe

        He clearly was referring to self esteem in the sense of not having an unrealistically low sense of self worth.

        As someone who has struggled with depression, I can absolutely say that self esteem is nothing to do with shielding people from “bouts of withering contempt” because someone with low self worth doesn’t need the world to provide it. Their mind provides a continuous stream of withering contempt for themselves even before the world starts adding to it and self esteem is about having a strong enough internal sense of self worth (or more likely the support of others to provide it externally in moments of weakness) to *survive* all that.

        It is ABOUT developing that tolerance you speak of. It’s just that some of us are already chest deep when the flood starts, which is why we’re more prone to going under than you are, not because we’re flimsy tissue-paper people.

        I’ll put it another way:

        If a guy loses his arm in a combine accident, even if the wound heals, the arm isn’t coming back and he won’t be able to do a lot of things as readily as someone with two hands. It’s just the way it works. Treating someone’s lower capability at something caused by a misfortune that was inflicted upon them as some kind of character flaw is, well, unchristian.

        • GG

          No, that is misstating the problem. It is as if someone who is blind demands the all now hold blindness to be a good and normal. That is to misdefine health and goodness.

          The solution to medical and emotional problems includes authentic medical care not redefining reality to suit the afflicted.

          • Joe

            No, they are saying that being blind doesn’t make THEM bad. They are objecting to characterizing blind people as somehow being worse people.

            They are also saying it gives them insights into the problems that result from blindness that a sighted person would not generally have.

            • Joe

              They are also saying that having experienced the struggles of blindness firsthand and not only learned to deal with them but to thrive despite them, they are especially equipped to teach others to do the same.

        • What makes you think you are the only person with depression in this board?
          Telling little Johnny or Sally that all that matters is that they tried, not grading papers with red marks, and not keeping score in their soccer game isn’t preparing them for life or inoculating them against depression.

          • Joe

            Great job inventing some nonsense to attribute to me, there.

            Those things you complain about are misplaced solutions to a deeper problem of teaching children that making a mistake–not succeeding–is the worst thing they can do, and then putting them in an environment where success and “winning” are equated and only some students can possibly “win.”

            The people proposing those things are wellmeaning, but they’re fundamentally misunderstanding why sometimes kids get shaken up by getting a bad grade. It’s not because of the red ink or being told they didn’t succeed. It’s because they’ve already been taught that making a mistake means they’re not as good a person and that it will permanently harm their success in life.

            They’re taught that they need to do the best they can or you’ll end up a worthless schlub flipping burgers forever, then they’re put in an environement where “Second place is just first loser.”

            Of course that’s going to be traumatic for a CHILD. Children and teens experience social disapproval the same way they experience physical pain. It literally causes the same physical reactions in the brain and triggers the exact same stress response.

            And I don’t think I’m the only person with depression on the board. I just recognize that anyone who characterizes a person struggling with anxiety disorders as being too fragile and blaming them for it and saying they need to “toughen up” when the problem is that they are dealing with MORE, not because they are more sensitive, is a person promoting extremely harmful ideas.

    • GG

      It seems to be the opposite. If they accept Courage there would be no conflict. To claim not to engage in disordered acts and then claim the attraction is some special gift leads in the wrong direction. This is obvious.

    • Phil Steinacker

      But they don’t have a monopoly on being friendly; it certainly does not result fro some special gift which they claim “comes with” being SSA. Ruse is quite right to point out their attempted ploy to remain attached to their “gayness” as a form of virtuousness.

      That Ruse is a lonely voice in the Catholic wilderness does not undermine his veracity; it shores it up. Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest of the prophets, and he was that first lonely voice.

      Ruse’s solitary mission here also highlights the failure of bishops to be vigilant and outspoken shepherds. This is no surprise; 80% of the bishops at the Council of Nicea walked in as Arians, and even after the Council settled the Arian Heresy question, many continued in their defiance. Ven. Fulton Sheen acknowledged as much, claiming it will fall upon laity (like Mr. Ruse, you, and me) to save the Church, and to do so by teaching “the bishops to be bishops, the priests to be priests, and the religious to be religious.”

      Unfortunately, the accommodationist attitude is so pervasive among bishops AND laity that Mr. Ruse is still a lonely voice, but if I’m correct he’s been raising this alarm only for the last 18-24 months. That is not enough time for good Catholics like you, fredx3 (I’ve read many of your valiant challenges to the left online for several years, now), to read him carefully enough to realize he is being frank and not harsh. Our sense of right and wrong has been slowly dulled by accusations of meanness fully process. To wit, the first time I read him on this issue, I didn’t get what he was saying, either. I thought he was making an anthill into a mountain.

      Recently Mark Shea attacked Mr. Ruse’s campaign against the hidden agenda of the New Homophiles, and referenced other Catholic commentators just as confused as Shea is. I instantly recognized this article, whether you knew it or not, as Mr. Ruse’s refutation of Shea’s malignant attacks, and I think he took pains to make clear what he appreciates of the New Homophiles and what is still dangerous.

      The distinctions between the New Homophiles and the Courage apostolate which are identified by Mr. Ruse mean everything to the Church charting a proper course in confronting this homosexual challenge to her teachings, and that is only on this level. Remember, the attempt to float a proposal at last October’s Synod on the Family which would also recognize special qualities (gifts) of SSA folks is part and parcel to this same approach identified by Mr. Ruse. Also, bear in mind that the proposal on homosexuality which was voted down by the bishops along with two others (one of which proposed Communion for Catholics divorced and remarried without annulment), was re-inserted to the agenda for discussion for the Ordinary Synod on the Family next October, as if the bishops had not voted it down.

      There is something evil at work in the Church, fredx2, and I know you know this. Just be careful that human concerns about not being nice don’t lead you astray in the battle before us. It is far more charitable to resist openly and directly any evil, however, subtle or benignly presented, which is proposed by others. Worry not that it may seem harsh or mean; just that it is clear and true.

      I’d much rather you hurt my feelings than to let me slide into hell unchallenged.

  • linda daily

    Perhaps we would do best to mind our own business, work out our own salvation and let God work in the lives of others. Spiritual busybodies attract nobody to Christ.

    • And we just lost a great chance to that with the passage of New Year’s Eve. I don’t know why so much opprobrium is heaped on people that want to celebrate and then drive home. We should mind our own business.

      • linda daily

        Silly comment. Not comparable. Focus on your own sins and disobedience. Church teaching is clear and each individual must grapple within his or her own circumstances and in relationship with God.

        • I merely took your principle to its naturally absurd end. Perhaps you should mind YOUR own business.

          • linda daily

            I am rubber, you are glue . . .

            • Are you 12?

              • linda daily

                Just responding to you in kind. See you comment.

                • No, you are flailing.

            • Azygos

              Why don’t you just be honest and come out with your views directly instead of hiding behind a charade of, we must all grapple with our sins. To speak bluntly, you find the article offensive and you think the author should shut up. The way you go about saying this is deceitful and ridiculous. Your attempt to silence the author from speaking the truth is just shameful and I find it funny how you purposely avoid addressing the claims he made in the article.

              • linda daily

                No I think what I said – he is not a priest, spiritual director or moral theologian. He has no business delving destructively into sensitive matters of the soul for his own gain. True concern for the wellbeing and salvation of others does not present like this. This entire site seems populated by those who want to tear other people to shreds to prove a cultural point.

                • GG

                  So, addressing error is wrong. Got it. You may scold others because you are the authority. Got it. I guess the irony of your position is lost on you.

                  • linda daily

                    What’s your error, GG? I want to address it on this forum.

                    • GG

                      When I write about publicly and have my pic in the media celebrating it then you would have a point. Right now you are confusing and obfuscating.

                • Phil Steinacker

                  Another damnable lie of progressive pseudo-catholycs.
                  This is NOT a cultural issue and you are either a liar or a fool, needing prayer in either case.

                  • linda daily

                    So what am I, Phil, a liar or a fool? Did you actually read my original, rather benign comment, before the hounds descended?

                • Azygos

                  You are just making an appeal to authority in attempt to silence the author. I reject your claims outright, the authors words stand for themselves and you would do much better making a case if you attacked the claims that bothered you instead of making ridiculous assertions about the authors qualifications or intentions. But just to examine things from another perspective, you have judged this author’s article as being sensitive in matters relating to the soul and to be extremely uncharitable, you seem to want to tear the author apart here. Are you a priest, spiritual director or moral theologian? What makes you qualified to judge the authors intentions and the matters of the soul he speaks about? Maybe you should be silent and allow the author to speak. Perhaps, he is more qualified and you are putting him down for no reason! 😉

                  • linda daily

                    “Many people are looking for an ear that will listen. They do not find it among Christians, because these Christians are talking where they should be listening. But he who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either; he will be doing nothing but prattle in the presence of God too.

                    This is the beginning of the death of the spiritual life, and in the end there is nothing left but spiritual chatter and clerical condescension arrayed in pious words.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer

                    • GG

                      Please stop the propaganda. It is not that Catholics are not listening. It is that the “gay” persons speaking d not like the answers. There are no new heresies. It is the same old attempt to spin disordered desires into something good.

            • You are boring.

            • Phil Steinacker

              No, you are 4 years old.

        • Phil Steinacker

          You defy Scriptural demands that we admonish our brothers who continue to sin. Your sin is misrepresenting Church teaching.

          • linda daily

            Sleep well.

    • GG

      Talk about straw men.

      • linda daily

        Crying strawman is also a strawman.

        • GG

          Only if it is false.

    • Phil Steinacker

      We are not discussing the private sin of anyone. We are discussing attempts to normalize a distorted Catholic sense of homosexuality and even sanctify a contrived pseudo-identity as “gay Catholic.”

      Pope Paul VI said the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and is swirling within it walls. We are identifying one of the ways this maybe happening. All Catholics are called to this challenge.

      Trolls like you seem to be in the service to an attempt to sidetrack that call.

  • “You might think so if you read the comments by Maggie Gallagher who said my column was “vile.”

    So we can assume that comment, presented here as a “maggie gallagher” in a comment box was authentic?

    I find it vile that she would use such damning language-(keeping in mind, she is a professional wordsmith, and chooses words carefully) without some specific facts that would support the charge (visceral indignity does not justify that word). More importantly, she should have relayed her judgments privately, first, as enjoined by Matthew 18, having the option of private commmmunication.

    • gsk

      She already “owned” the comment, and offered an apology and clarification. Peace.

      • You don’t “own the comment”, by offering a fig leaf of an apology on the naked body of reiteration.

  • Recent studies have shown that 80 percent of those who as adolescents identified as “gay” are fully heterosexual by their mid-twenties.

    What “recent study” shows that?

    Studies show that same-sex attraction is remarkably plastic, particularly but not exclusively in women.

    Studies show that there is some fluidity in sexual orientation. However nobody has ever demonstrated that anything can be done to influence that fluidity. Outdoor temperatures have considerable range but they are hard to influence.

    To urge a teen to “come out” is profoundly harmful and even dangerous. Scholar Robert Oscar Lopez has written on his blog “English Manif” how these young men are targeted for what can only be described as sexual abuse by older men.

    Lopez is a teacher of English Lit. You are attempting to suggest that his erudition is of greater gravitas. Here in South Beach I see older men with their teen-or-early-twenties twinkie girlfriends all the time. Gay men hardly have a monopoly on seeking younger companions.

    • Austin Ruse

      Really, David, what’s the use? You don’t believe the studies i cite. I don’t believe the studies you cite. The study i refer to is from the Archives of Sexual Behavior. But, I am certain from your point of view, it is all wrong. Let’s just cut to the chase. Me: “here’s the study.” You: “It is all wrong.”

      • Austin Ruse

        But….

        “Prevalence and Stability of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation
        Identity During Young Adulthood”
        Ritch C. Savin-Williams • Kara Joyner • Gerulf Rieger

        And then..the amicus brief by noted psychiatrist Paul McHugh, former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins (though I am certain you will have ten reasons he is not a reliable source) in the Windsor case. It is full of footnotes from same-sex friendly scholars on the plasticity of same-sex desire:
        http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-144-12-307_merits-reversal-dpm.authcheckdam.pdf

        But, of course, they are all wrong..in almost every way…

        • For the record the Savin-Williams, et al study doesn’t demonstrate what you claim. Strongly identified homosexuals and heterosexuals show considerable stability in their orientation. There is greatest fluidity among people who identify as bisexual.

          And, yes, I am quite familiar with Dr. McHugh’s amicus brief. McHugh was making an argument in support of Church doctrine. What? You want to suggest that it had nothing to do with his religious beliefs?

          It is the overwhelming consensus of science (including every medical, sociological and counseling organization) that sexual orientation is innate and immutable.

          Those who disagree are almost always trying to torture science to conform to religious belief. Conservative Baptists insist that Earth is only 6,000 years old. It’s just a version of the Tobacco Institute.

          True science is agnostic with respect to the outcome. Science sees as much value in disproving an hypothesis as proving it.

          • Austin Ruse

            See…

          • R. K. Ich

            “True science is agnostic with respect to the outcome. Science sees as much value in disproving an hypothesis as proving it.”

            Sir, are you saying if true science showed overwhelmingly SSA folks can change you would be on our side decrying the evil? I think not.

            It’s all bluster. Back when the disorder was classified as a mental illness by “the experts” there was still a great push to normalize this lifestyle.

            I say SSA advocate groups are not genuinely interested in the science.

            • GG

              Bingo.

            • St JD George

              Like with politics, only when it conveniently aligns with their agenda, otherwise ignored or discredited.

          • And yet, you are as strident as a New Earth Baptist.

          • St JD George

            Mr. Frog, apparently you could benefit from reading Cleon’s book from 1958 as well. If you do, or chose to Google the 45 tenants for destroying western civilization, be sure to pay attention to no. 26, though they are all in play.

            • Someone equally wrong

              Tenets, not tenants.

              • St JD George

                Thanks, one of the hazards of typing on a small phone, the auto fill function, and not double checking your words.

                • Phil Steinacker

                  No worries. It’s one of the most common and amusing of errors, after not wanting to waist your time. 🙂

          • Azygos

            Science according to whom?

            In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

            “Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

            “Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

            Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

            http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

          • Phil Steinacker

            You fool. There is NO SUCH THING as consensus in science.

            Consensus is from politics, and has not place in science.

            Idiot.

            • R. K. Ich

              Exactly. This whole SSA push is a thin veil of politics wrapped around a rotten philosophy and world view justified neither by sound reason nor revelation.

        • R. K. Ich

          As I mentioned to the boiled frog before, even *if* there could be found a study that SSA is curable through medicine, therapy, etc, the end game for these folks is not change. Any study or suggestion that their behavior isn’t absolutely adamantine must be rejected.

          • Azygos

            So any scientific evidence that is contrary to your own views, which would suggest that homosexuals can change, must be rejected outright? That my friend is not science but a dogmatic view of an issue you have that revolves around homosexuality. Your dogmatic view is that homosexual behavior is unbreakable, however this is absurd and the fact that homosexuals change their behavior proves that you are simply biased in your assumption.

            ‘Gay’-rights leader quits homosexuality
            http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42379/

            • R. K. Ich

              You wrote: “Your dogmatic view is that homosexual behavior is unbreakable…”

              I’ll just pretend you haven’t read anything I’ve written on this topic.
              Either my writing style is horrifically impossible to follow, or you didn’t actually read what I wrote.

              Did you miss this part? “The end game for these folks is not change.”

        • “plasticity of same-sex desire: ”

          Ann Heche, Meredith Baxter, Kelly McGillis….

      • There must be a certain perverse hedonic calculus operative in the mind of somebody who is thoroughly dedicated to the futile act.

  • End Times

    Several points:

    – The New Homophiles, and those who indulge them, seem to have such limited historical perspective, and inherently progressive (i.e. Modernist) assumptions. Obviously they – as defined by their position, i.e. asserting the gift of their homosexual identity, etc. – would not have been indulged 1000, 500, 100 years ago – at any other time in Christendom (“Christendom,” which, obviously, is now de facto defunct.) Do they think this puts at fault Christendom, and the consensus of their forefathers and the saints, rather than the opinion of contemporary moment? Apparently they do. This seems to be the arrogance of progressivism, of Modernism, and for this alone they should be rebuked, although it is unlikely in this moment when the same spirit proliferates in the Church in many other areas.

    – When one considers the lives of these men and women from a broad historical perspective, doesn’t one find oneself wondering: Why not choose a vocation? Either become a nun or a monk or a priest or get married? Of course there is another debate, which is separate from this New Homophiles conversation but motivated by the same spirit, which has also been argued here on Crisis, I believe, as to how important “feelings” are to vocation. However, it is only in relatively recent times that the liberalization of society has made it possible for men and women to choose to be single out in the world, so that “their calling” (actually it’s a career) can be to be as an artist, or an intellectual; and without that liberalization of society “feelings” wouldn’t have possible mattered to vocation, in anything like the same way as the contemporary discussion now assumes. Taking advantage of this modern liberalization of society – which is certainly an objective good in many ways – for the sake of making one’s vocation to be being single, gay-identified, and an intellectual: This seems like a very tin-ny way of being. Why don’t these folks marry each other, and devote themselves to raising souls in the Church? Why not enter a monastery and maintain the perpetual prayer of the liturgy? (Of course many of them do, but you don’t hear about them, and righteously so.) The idea that feelings must be, if not satisfied, at least used as the basis of identity: This seems to me to be a most radical departure from the perspective of the Catholic Church, it’s Traditional teachings, it’s theological and pastoral understandings, and its traditional spirit.

    – It’s not only the New Homophiles, who look foolish when viewed from a historical perspective. It seems to be widespread, and so that most couples involved in true marriages aren’t themselves able or willing to explain that feelings aren’t the foundation of their sex-identity and attraction isn’t the foundation of their marriages. There is such a thing as marriage duty, etc. The romantic-sentimental understanding of sex and marriage seems to have overcome most everyone. It’s not just the New Homophiles or the old homophiles that are “5% off” on this; many “heterosexuals” (a bad, deceptive contemporary distinction) who also think their marriage will be sanctified by their feelings are at least “5% off” on this. When their feelings, which they have been allowed by the post-Vatican II Church, to worship – when their feelings change will “find themselves” “divorced.” That most likely is many more souls than will put themselves in jeopardy by succumbing to the influence of the New Homophiles. But isn’t it clear that these conversations are related? For this reason alone the New Homophiles should be rebuked, not cuddled – there focus on identity is part and parcel of the same demonic effort that would destroy marriage, and furthermore, would have us all subordinate ourselves to our feelings, rather than to our proper End.

    Thoughts?

    • Salvelinus

      As one whose wife is pulling the latter of your paragraphs, i can tell you is not fun when myself seeing marriage as work and a sacrament, doesn’t have a wife that feels the same.. She wants out because it’s difficult for a bit. I have no say in that matter.. Just pay is all i can do.

      Every thing you wrote, i couldn’t agree more

      • End Times

        You can pay… and pray and suffer. God bless you, your testimony is a great encouragement.

  • Dale O’Leary

    Persons with same-sex attractions have suffered rejection and alienation, failures of early attachment, and failure to identify with their same-sex parent or peers.
    This does give them an insight into suffering, which those who have experienced acceptance and secure attachment do not have. It is understandable that they may come to see their suffering as a kind of blessing — it is certainly a Catholic way of thinking. Of course, the first thing we should offer them is the healing love of Christ, but even after one has come through a healing process, scars remain. The wounds may still be visible. The healing process is often slow and the wounded are most probably never going to be the same as those who haven’t suffered, but we need to make a place for them.
    In AA the members no matter how long they have been sober, begin by saying “I am John and I am an alcoholic.” Each member knows he can fall. So too the brain patterns set up by years of experiencing same-sex attraction remain even when the person has been chaste for many years. Therefore, while each one is a child of God, those “gay” brain patterns remain and they can therefore say “I am John and I am gay.”.

    • Austin Ruse

      just not something the Church recommends…

      • GG

        And for good reasons.

    • gsk

      For more wisdom from Dale, go here:

      https://daleoleary.wordpress.com

    • “Persons with same-sex attractions have suffered rejection and alienation”

      Who hasn’t? The average public school is a petri dish for the rejection/alienation pathogens. Red Hair? glasses? big nose? freckles? “band geek”?…..

      • Joe

        Yet every attempt to quantify how often various groups experience rejection and alienation, persons with same sex attraction experience them at a much higher rate in school than students at large.

        Also, I have never met, nor even heard of someone being kicked out of their home for having red hair, glasses, a big nose, freckles, or for being a band geek.

        • No, but they’ve been kicked out for being pregnant.

          • Joe

            The point being that some people clearly experience far more, and far more serious rejection and alienation than others, and that these people are an example of that.

            Your attempt to compare those to the mild amount of teasing a person can get for having freckles is callous and disrespectful to people who have been subjected to real, serious harm by others.

            The fact that there are other groups also tragically subjected to comparable levels of horrible treatment by others does not decrease its severity in this case, either. It just means there is MORE tragedy.

            • I recall in grade school, children with physical anomalies of all kinds isolated, rejected and mistreated, to the point of tears.
              I’m really tired of this meme of homosexuals that they have a monopoly on rejection. It is rather myopic and self indulgent.

              • Joe

                You’re the one putting the word “monopoly” in there.

                We are just saying that it is *statistically documented* that students who have or who are perceived to have same sex attraction are more likely to experience those forms of mistreatments, and more likely to experience more severe forms of them.

                This has been independently confirmed numerous times.

                We’re just saying it’s more frequent and frequently more severe, not that it’s a monopoly.

                • You object to having your implicit assertion made explicit?

                  • Joe

                    I object to you inventing an argument I disagree with and ascribing it to me, then when I clarify to reaffirm I disagree with it you resort to some nonsense about “implicit assertions.”

                    My direct statements that I did not imply it override any perceived implications you want to think I included.

                    Do you object to accurately describing the greater frequency and severity of rejection and alienation those people are subjected to? What “implicit assertions” are you making by trying to trivialize those facts?

                    • Joe

                      How about we just talk about the things we’re saying instead of trying to read something more irrational into the other person’s statements?
                      Might be more productive, who knows?

                    • Whuut?

                    • Joe

                      What part threw you?
                      The part where I continue to mean what I say and object to you inserting meaning-changing words like “monopoly” into my points or the part where students perceived to be gay are quantitatively more likely to be subject to rejection, alienation, and harassment in school?

    • Azygos

      This may be how they do it in AA and how the new homophiles are doing it but the notion is ridiculous and preposterous. Take for instance myself, I was addicted to pornography for well over 10 years and still suffer from all sorts of weird temptations as a result. However, I am (my name here) and I am NOT a porn addict. I gave that stuff up when I converted back to the Catholic Faith and I refuse to be denied by my temptations or past life. My identity is in Christ. John would do much better if he said, Hi I am John and I refuse to be gay. The person who was a drunk would do much better if he said, Hi I am John and I refuse to be an alcoholic. Whether he is still tempted to alcohol is not important, it is what he does that defines who he is not what he is tempted by. If you accept the idea that your temptations define you identity then you are already a step in the direction of giving into them. It creates a mindset that this is what you are and it refuses to allow you a direction for change. So the post-drunk might say, Hi I am John an alcoholic, deep down below I will always be a drunk, it is who I am. Or lets try the person who suffers from SSA, HI I am John and I gay, this defines my identity and I will always be gay.

      What a load of hogwash! Any man with an ounce of dignity would refuse to be identified by his temptations.

      • Phil Steinacker

        It’s not entirely hogwash. I understand the purpose for this in AA, though the it may not be the same purpose among the new homophiles.

        In AA the continued self-identification as alcoholic is to remind the speaker daily that he cannot EVER take a drink; that if he does it may kill him or someone else. In this context it has for decades served an important and most effective purpose. AA veterans will tell you how essential that continued awareness is to their continued abstinence.

        Somehow, beyond the surface comparison Dale makes, I do not believe that is the purpose behind “gay Catholic” identification. It reeks of pride and attachment rather than a reminder of concupiscence to sin.

        • Azygos

          Like I said, it creates a mindset that defines who you are and you prove my point. You write that this “self-indentification” reminds him that he is forever an alcoholic who cannot drink. However, if he refuses to drink then he is not an alcoholic at all and should refuse to identify himself as one. St. Paul writes about drunks and homosexuals, “That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

          • Joe

            You seem to be arguing against vigilance against sin.

            I know it’s not what you mean…
            …but there’s some kind of miscommunication happening when multiple of us are getting that message out of what you’re saying.

            I’m just saying this so you can try rewording your position to avoid such misunderstanding in the future and avoid having people argue against things you aren’t even saying. Particularly since in my experience that’s the type of argument most trying on once’s patience.

  • littleeif

    Mr. Ruse, finding myself in such frequent disagreement with the tone and substance of Mr. Shea’s scribbling, it is great to know he has taken issue with you on this matter where in my opinion your thinking is spotless, coherent and faithful. I can quit doubting myself for a bit.

    • Salvelinus

      Generally if it burns up Mark Shea, iss got to be good for someone to read. It goes against the church of nice… That isn’t really that nice when you cross then

      • Phil Steinacker

        That’s for sure.

  • Salvelinus

    It appears one of the liberal blogs somewhere have linked to this informative piece by Austin Ruse.
    I sometimes wonder if there are people on the left (particullarly, the new leftwing shibolleth off homosexuality) that get paid to monitor Crisis Magazine to ensure the awful truth doesn’t leak out?

  • AMDG

    “…heroic”? “…Courage”? Sorry, but using words such as these kind of makes the others of us become “non-heroic” (ordinary), or “cowards”. There is nothing heroic or courageous about being homosexual or homophile. What the church needs is more families, not homophiles! Their lot is limited and non-sustainable. To opine the church needs more homphiles is a very slippery slope.

    • Salvelinus

      It’s heroic to have urges and fight them. That’s what that group courage does

      • AMDG

        I respectfully disagree. Under your definition of heroic, we’re all heroes, since we all have urges and fight them. It’s heroic to lay down ones life for another. It’s not heroic to simply fight an urge.

        • Phil Steinacker

          Please. Traditional Catholic spirituality says otherwise by recognizing different levels of heroism in differing situations.

          Certainly, laying down one’s life for others or for Christ is the height of heroism. So is living through long bouts with torture without capitulation to the Enemy.

          However, most of us in the West don’t encounter such opportunities (so far) but there is also heroism in being saddled with strong sexual desires and continually winning the battle to resist them, especially in an environment like our culture which actively seeks to break down the desire for chastity.

          It takes courage for those saddled with SSA to struggle against those urges through prayer. In fact, to actively engage in spiritual warfare of any kind requires courage.

          Perhaps your failure here is to realize that there are all forms and levels of heroism, and that you may be a hero from time to time, as well.

    • Joe

      One person possessing courage does not negate the courage of another person.

  • Colin Kerr

    perfectly said, Mr. Ruse!

  • Samuel63

    This group and the article are another attempt to insert the thin-edge of a controversial issue into the church. Once in place, this group will do its level best to further total acceptance of homosexual behavior. It is really just that simple. The simple answer and solution is to look at the bible and church teaching objectively. In these sources homosexual behavior is soundly condemned. My reference is Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 1.

    • Samuel63

      The sound of “dynamic silence.”

  • Richard C.

    It’s good to see Mr. Ruse make some distinctions here, but the previous article still is unreasonably hostile to Tushnet and Co. Spending a paragraph on how one guy has crossed legs and lips pursed and that gal has bare feet comes across as an appeal to stereotypes: those gays, they’re always weird and posturing!

    It was not a model of intellectual argument.

    • Austin Ruse

      It’s a newspaper column…

      • And a contemporary newspaper column is the antithesis of an intellectual argument.

        • Austin Ruse

          There is a fairly large gradient between “intellectual and anti-intellectual.” I make no pretense to making “intuleextual” arguments. I write news columns.

          • That wasn’t directed at you, sorry if it appeared that way. It is the professional secular journalist community that is pretentious and intellectually monocultural.

    • GG

      The picture speaks for itself. Any stereotype was due to the subjects.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Please clarify how a comment about crossed legs, dirty socks, bare feet, or pursed lips all so strongly identified with homosexuals that Me. Ruse’s paragraph constitutes a stereotype.

      I fail to see why such postures are exclusively homosexual in orientation. While I remain mystified at what Mr. Ruse intended by those remarks, I therefore see them as so innocuous as to be harmless. Such claims to the contrary take absurdity to new heights.

      I defy anyone to find an insult in there.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Thank the Good Lord for Courage. The expanding list of names rethinking the “spirituality” of homosexuality (as gift and vehicle of God’s life) is both appalling and disturbing. It is nothing less than the kneading of objective sin into the Incarnation (or, at least the attempt at it).

    Let this growing list-serv knit their whole cloth justification with all the weasel words in the Post-Modern (Derrida/Foucault) lexicon. When they’re done their script can be read back to them; maybe then they will see the folly of their ways, how far their thought falls short of the Glory of God and of His Creation.

    I refuse to yield to the argument of the courage-less New Homophiles, for I refuse to yield to it within my self.

    • Home of public finance expert Stephen Blaire.

  • Joseph Sciambra

    Not…Been there done that…as opposed to a lot of these “gay” Catholic intellectuals – I was there. Read more at:
    http://www.josephsciambra.com/2014/11/why-i-have-problem-with-eve-tushnet-and.html

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    To Richard, below:

    Ask yourself, where (from which controlling
    sources) does Ms. Tushnet (and co.) get their language discuss this
    topic (with which they weave their argument)? Which menacing spirit
    hover, demanding semantic and lexical allegiance?

    When did the
    language of the Church snip its tested and assured referents? When did
    homosexuality not become homosexuality? How, in God’s created creation,
    did homosexuality empty itself of sin and become a shell-casing for
    God’s Life.

    The homosexual person can certainly become a vehicle
    and reservoir of God’s Life, but first comes repentance and denial – and
    the piercing of devilish sin with the Sword of Truth.

    Ms.
    Tushnet needs to flush her book of all its Foucaultisms. (Here, poor Mr
    F. is a stand-in for a gnarled habit of mind, grafting lifelessly in a
    whole gaggle of – mostly university appointed – shrills: American,
    French, and menacingly German.)

    Ms. Tushnet, do that rewrite flushing and I promise to do a more serious rereading.

    • Maggie Gallagher

      Homosexuality is not a Christian term, it was invented by 19th century psychoanlysts from Vienna. Sodomy was the classic term and it described an act not a type of person primarily.

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        Every point is debatable. At the very least, collect all the uses of Sodom used as an adjective (from let’s say the Babylonians from Mesopotamia, let alone the monastic literature beginning with the Desert fathers of Egypt) to know that the wont, need, and preference for sodomy defined the commitment of the whole person. (Of course, this means we must now define the term “person” as understood by both the ancient Mesopotamians ad te Desert Fathers.

        To be a “sodomite” (even as recently as in Renaissance Florence) meant what exactly?

        [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton]

      • Phil Steinacker

        I think your history is correct, Maggie, as far as it goes. However, address your last point, it is the hallmark of the modern homosexualist movement to seize upon the act as self-identification.

        • Joe

          No, because when they say “gay” or “homosexual,” etc., they are specifically referring to attraction and not acts, and they are constantly clarifying that point when people misinterpret what they mean.

          You either have never spoken to (or spoken to but never listened to) them or you are intentionally setting aside what they have themselves said they mean in favor of an easier to argue against interpretation.

          • GG

            They favor ambiguity and being inchoate. If that were not the case we shot not be here discussing the topic.

            • Joe

              They don’t favor ambiguity, they consistently and vocally repeat that they always and consistently are referring to the attraction and not the acts when they say “gay” or “homosexual” or the like.

              That is not ambiguous. That is active effort to dispel ambiguity.

              Equivocating the generally understood meaning of the word with the less common, jargony version that uses it to refer to acts exclusively is what creates ambiguity.

  • Guest

    As a former gay person who saw the light and was healed by my Faith I am concerned that these articles referenced are attempting to “force” the Church into modernity. It always seems that individuals want the Church to fit society instead of the other way around. We cannot have one truth yesterday that differs from today and again with tomorrow. The truth is the truth..unchanging. I had a Priest in College convince me that homosexuality was OK and that the Church since Vatican II was looking at all its children to bring them into the fold regardless. It took many years to undo his several counseling sessions to understand that he represented an agenda/movement that was wrong then and wrong now. I now have lost many friends who do not agree with my stance and SUPPORT of Traditional Catholic teachings as well as more Liberal Catholic friends who do not agree as well. I do not carry a flag and am no ones poster child. I just believe the Truth is the Truth and that is how I live my life!

    • Welcome home. Glad to have you on board with both hands on an oar.

      Stay strong.

    • Azygos

      Praise God and praise his Holy name! 🙂

    • Vex

      [As a former gay person..]

      Have to say you lost me there. Have you been cured of your same sex attraction in that you no longer experience homosexual desires?

      If you haven’t that doesn’t make you a “former gay” (ex-gay is the one I’ve heard more), it means you have chosen to be celibate.

      • eddie too

        in general, human beings can control what they think. that means that we can stop thinking about sex although we can not control when we will be confronted by temptation. we can learn to recognize temptation’s approaches toward our souls and squelch them before they gain a foot hold.
        focusing on the nature of our temptations is useful when devising methods for avoiding a particular temptation, but classifying ourselves by the nature of our temptations does not seem to be of any particular value.
        the nature of the sins to which we are tempted is of lesser importance than adopting effective techniques for resisting and even eliminating these temptations.

        • Vex

          Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you, it seems I missed the alert for this post…Lets see now….

          [in general, human beings can control what they think. that means that
          we can stop thinking about sex although we can not control when we will
          be confronted by temptation.]

          Exactly, when a lustful thought comes to mind you can choose to dismiss it. However you can’t stop the immediate appearance of said thought.

          You can knock a bird off your head, but you can’t stop it trying to land on it.

          [we can learn to recognize temptation’s approaches toward our souls and squelch them before they gain a foot hold.
          focusing
          on the nature of our temptations is useful when devising methods for
          avoiding a particular temptation, but classifying ourselves by the
          nature of our temptations does not seem to be of any particular value.]

          Using the word “gay” to describe oneself is not ascribing a value to it, it’s simply a shorthand description. When discussing color do we talk about “a shade that is the result of a union of blue and magenta hues closer to the light than the dark” or would you just say “light purple”?

          You can refuse to call a fish a fish but it doesn’t make it any less of a fish.

          [the nature of the sins to which we are tempted is of lesser importance
          than adopting effective techniques for resisting and even eliminating
          these temptations.

          Again, I’m yet to see any evidence one can entirely rid oneself of sexual impulses. There’s plenty to say you can choose to ignore them, but none to suggest you can turn them off entirely.

          Were it so you would expect the Catholic Church to be leading the world in pursuing medication or treatments to turn off sexuality altogether for non-married couples. It doesn’t however because it isn’t possible.

      • Phil Steinacker

        Experiencing periodic temptations to homosexual sin doesn’t make one a homosexual any more than experiencing the temptation to rob a liquor store makes one a thief.

        You’ve made too much of Guest’s choice of “former” as opposed to “ex” as if they each hold definite meaning to which his remarks can be held accountable. This suggestion is simply false, and seems to be a ploy by which you can appropriate his right to describe himself.

        • Joe

          Except that, with the exception of a narrow range of apologists, the word homosexual is nearly exclusively used and taken to mean “attracted to the same sex,” and not to mean “Acting up on attraction to the same sex.”

          Using a jargonish alternate definition yourself is not a problem, but insisting that all other usage of the word matches your shibboleth version is, because it is willful miscommunication.

      • R. K. Ich

        Is your anthropology simply dealing with a soup of carbon, H2O, and biochemistry? Or do you actually believe in things like mind, will, and affections which are not reducible to physiology? I don’t believe your words when you say, “Have to say you lost me there.” I don’t believe them because they seem to be code for asserting, “Scripture cannot be right when it claims that the power of sin can be broken?”

        Or do you believe Scripture has a true anthropology?

        • Vex

          [Is your anthropology simply dealing with a soup of carbon, H2O, and
          biochemistry? Or do you actually believe in things like mind, will, and
          affections which are not reducible to physiology?]

          The natural sciences certainly can’t reduce and examine emotions, short of their hormonal and genetic influences of course. What can however is psychology; the field which is employed to examine the genesis and causes of certain human behaviors. Sexuality does fall within its field.

          Unless of course you’d like to suggest psychology as a whole is bunk and there is no such thing as psychosis, depression and the like?

          [I don’t believe your words when you say, “Have to say you lost me
          there.” I don’t believe them because they seem to be code for
          asserting, “Scripture cannot be right when it claims that the power of
          sin can be broken.”]

          The attraction itself is by the Catholic Church’s own definition a “moral disorder” and not by itself sinful. The actions it can inspire is what the Church believes is sinful.

          Scripture teaches people can choose to live holy lives, it certainly doesn’t tell them it will remove their crosses like broken limbs, unless again you’d like to suggest we can restore amputated limbs through prayer? I seem to recall something about not putting God to the test.

          [Or do you even believe Scripture has a true anthropology? I’ll bet dollars to donuts this will be the bone of contention.]

          I don’t think scripture is anthropology, it’s a valid source of material for the field indeed but it doesn’t concern itself with that.

          My point of contention is that I don’t believe people can change their gender preference any more than a limbless dog can grow new legs. There is no evidence to suggest it can, short of a few claims from “ex-gays” which the research team at Cornell University have proven to be false on several occasions in the past five years but a great deal to say it cannot.

          I think it’s a mistake to continue to teach something as an absolute dogmatic truth we know isn’t true and can and already has been proven wrong, one which the Church itself has never stated an opinion on either. The last time the Church tried ruling on a matter not of faith or morals (the Galileo affair) ended very badly, so badly it continues to be ridiculed for it by non-Catholics to this very day. I don’t see the benefits of repeating that mistake.

          Again, let me reiterate. I am not talking about the morality of the actions here, purely the origin, cause and presence of the attraction itself.

          • Nina Makat

            Spot on!

          • R. K. Ich

            “My point of contention is that I don’t believe people can change their gender preference any more than a limbless dog can grow new legs. ”

            Madam, the predilection isn’t the bondage. The will’s captivity to the appetites of the flesh is the spiritual thing under discussion — hence, the biblical anthropology (which is a proper theological category) part you seem to be missing.

            Nature groans under man’s fall as St. Paul clearly states. What if the sciences discover a like predilection for prepubescent attraction? And (back to the example nobody seems to want to address) zoophilia as well? Your message is, “Well, dogs’ limbs and all that,” whereas the biblical paradigm is, “Sin shall not have dominion over you.”

            The lot of all of us in this world is to pray the Lord’s prayer, “Forgive us our debts…” We are sinners saved by grace, but not captive by its powers as those who are not filled with sanctifying grace.

            That’s all I’m saying. If you don’t like the paradigm, you can stick with Freud and his progeny, I’ll take St. Paul any day of the week.

            • Vex

              [ Madam, the predilection isn’t the bondage. The will’s captivity to …”Sin shall not have dominion over you.”]

              I don’t know if you’re up to date with the latest developments in that field but Psychiatry is more or less settled at the moment on the theory that Pedophilia is the result of a trauma or stress later in life, it isn’t something that is present from an early age and typically develops or manifests (if it ever does) from middle age onwards.

              Homosexual impulses however are detectable far earlier and don’t appear to have any root cause, there’s been people who grew up next to gay bathhouses who’ve ended up straight as there have been Amish boys who’ve never even heard the word “gay”. While the two states are certainly not heteronormative, pedophillia has more or less definitive proven to be a mental disease caused later in life, whereas the impulses are innate from the start (Not referring to morality here).

              An individual can have as much willpower as they want but they can’t prevent sexual thoughts. Can you stop feeling lust if greeted by an image of a scantily clad beautiful woman? You can turn away I’m sure but you can’t turn it off.

              The will is relevant in desiring to follow or not follow the desired action, it has no role in subduing the libido itself.

              [That’s all I’m saying. If you don’t like the paradigm, you can stick
              with Freud and his progeny, I’ll take St. Paul any day of the week.]

              St. Paul probably didn’t understand Epilepsy, it’s not a word they had in his time and there is a lot of evidence from the Bible, Classical sources and treatises on medicine that both Pagans and Jews alike both thought believed those with it were suffering from “the sacred disease” (i.e: Possession by either demons [Jews] or a pagan God [Everyone else]).

              Thankfully with the work of later minds we know understand epilepsy is not an attack by Satan or a curse bestowed upon someone by demonologists/witches and know the proper course of treatment is a careful combination of psychotherapy and drugs as opposed to an formal Temple of Aesculapius exorcism.

              St. Paul has his place on matters of morality and faith, but I think when it comes to the workings of the mind Freud and Jung while not infallible are better informed on that topic.

              The point is while people have control over their actions they do not often have control of some of their impulses, sexuality being one of the hardest. Priests cannot turn it off entirely and several saints have bemoaned feeling sexual attractions.

              The attraction itself isn’t “Sin’s dominion”, and the Catechism does not support this idea at all hence I don’t understand its popularity. Choosing to entertain the thoughts longer than required or acting upon them is deemed sinful by the Catholic Church.

              Expecting a typical layman or woman with homosexual impulses to be able to develop a self restraint which even saints have been unable to do is really asking a bit too much!

              • R. K. Ich

                You wrote: “I don’t know if you’re up to date with the latest developments in that field but Psychiatry is more or less settled at the moment…”

                Excuse me whilst I chuckle at this slippery frippery of yours. I couldn’t hear the rest of your comments over the braying of this qualifier. Pray tell, what other doctrines do you find as malleable at the behest of the whimsical gods on Freud Mountain?

                So let’s see this logic: St. Paul didn’t have knowledge of epilepsy, ergo (ready for it?) the SSA defect (at least you haven’t denied it *is* a defect) has no moral or spiritual implications? Tell me, what are the measurable etiologies of a demon-possessed individual? Are you saying there aren’t any proximate physiological causes associated? That said, I’ve never claimed every defect is simply a ghost in the machine, disconnected from the world. A chain of detectable causes doesn’t ipso facto preclude sinister influences, now does it? Yet, neither have I claimed every psychological impairment must be traceable to such. What I haven’t done, as you seem to have, is pitted science against Scripture.

                Scripture indicates physical reality has a measure of influence over how the spiritual is manifested. The reality of death in mankind is the fundamental proof of this, unless you want to play the Pelagian and assert it’s “normal” or intrinsically “immutable” since the causes are quantifiable under the auspices of mutable science.

                • Joe

                  Anglicanae,

                  When you begin your response with “I didn’t read past the first paragraph of what you said, but here’s my response to what you said anyway”… that’s a fairly reasonable sign it’s time to reconsider if you should be replying at all at that moment.

                  • Anglicanæ

                    Joe, you didn’t actually read (or understand?) what I read. I don’t reply as a rule to anyone unless I’ve read their post, even amid fits of laughter or disgust. Physician, heal thyself.

                • Vex

                  [Excuse me whilst I chuckle at this slippery frippery of yours. I
                  couldn’t hear the rest of your comments over the braying of this
                  qualifier. Pray tell, what other doctrines do you find as malleable at
                  the behest of the whimsical gods on Freud Mountain?]

                  I find the one that presents the most evidence and logical conclusion to be the one to award the most creedance to. Those on “Freud Montain” are under continual review to adjust practices as and when new information comes to light. At present they’ve got a great deal of evidence to back up their claims, the ones who deny it either refer to outdated studies conducted more than 30-40 years ago now proven beyond any doubt to be mistaken or modern day pseudo-science that’s really not that much different to new age quackery.

                  [So let’s see this logic: St. Paul didn’t have knowledge of epilepsy,
                  ergo (ready for it?) the SSA defect (at least you haven’t denied it *is*
                  a defect) has no moral or spiritual implications?]

                  Now, I’ve said at least twice times we’re not discussing the morality here. You keep raising this point as if it somehow strengthens your statements so let me say it again.

                  The morality of practice does affect the origin or function of the motivating condition.

                  Just to make sure you’ve got it now

                  The morality of practice does affect the origin or function of the motivating condition.

                  Stop talking about the morality of it. Thinking Same Sex Attractions are of the devil or good does not make them crop up any more or less. People used to think people with cleft pallets were cursed by the devil but it didn’t make them appear any more or less than today.

                  [ Tell me, what are the measurable etiologies of a demon-possessed
                  individual? Are you saying there aren’t any proximate physiological
                  causes associated? ]

                  I personally am not an exorcist but since the development of psychology one factor I understand the exorcist seeks to identify is any supernatural factors.

                  That’s why the German clergy were willing to exorcise Anneliese Michel in the 70’s (although clearly, even the Church isn’t equipped to make that call sometimes http://en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel remove the brackets and the link should work).

                  [A chain of detectable causes doesn’t ipso facto preclude sinister
                  influences, now does it? Yet, neither have I claimed every
                  psychological impairment must be traceable to such. What I haven’t
                  done, as you seem to have, is pitted science against Scripture.]

                  I’ve done no such thing. I’m not tossing the idea of the divine out of the window, but I am looking for mundane causes before seeking out diabolic ones and so far there has always been a more mundane source. Apparently the Catholic Church is increasingly taking the same stance in light of if it’s rather dramatic mistake in the case of Anneliese Michel.

                  [Scripture indicates physical reality has a measure of influence over how the spiritual is manifested.]

                  “The Spiritual” has traditionally never been shy of making its displeasure known such as in the cases of the death of horrible psychosis that plagues several individuals who claim to see images of fiends and hell.

                  There are no animals that show signs of dark powers or diabolic visions, but there are plenty of them that demonstrate homosexual tenancies. I think it’s plain some things are not inspired by dark powers.

                  But just to please you again, this does not preclude the morality of it or acting upon it, just the origin of the tendency itself.

    • clintoncps

      I rejoice with you!

      In my own life, I used to be addicted to pornography and was also a homosexual “pride” committee member — but God breaks the chains of false self-images and re-creates us in Christ. Yes, I’ve lost friends, too, but I now have the intimacy of the Holy Spirit, the promise of eternal life in heaven, and communion with all my redeemed brothers and sisters; and I pray for all those future converts who are still hiding behind the masks and costumes sold to them by a sex-crazed world-flesh-devil tag-team. Let’s pray that they will soon return to the holy love of their Father’s house.

      Your brother in Christ and the Holy Family,

      Clinton

    • PuerDei

      I, too, share your story! The TLM and Holy Rosary led me to conversion and I thank God every day for it. It’s a difficult cross to bear, but with the Grace of God and the intercession of our Blessed Mother everything is possible. God bless and keep you my friend!

    • Fr. Max

      Very sorry to hear (yet again) that a fellow priest has (yet again) done harm to someone seeking to follow Christ by proclaiming his own personal views as official teachings of the Catholic Church. But very glad that the Holy Spirit led you away from his lies and falsehoods.

      As for your being “a former gay person”, it is important to remember that the Church teaches that homosexuality is simply a disordered same-sex attraction that for reasons unknown a very small percentage (about 1.8%) of people experience, and not an ontological personhood, i.e. not a state of being. So in fact one cannot really be “a former gay person” because one was never a “gay person” to begin with.

      Perhaps this recent piece of First Things might help. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

      God bless.

    • Carol Leeda Crawford

      So well written. Two additional points that this group is supporting go against truth. One that a person is their desires, and second that God made them this way. St. Paul is very clear in Roman’s that same sex attraction is the result of sin. Our personal crosses are crosses to carry. I am grateful to see you found the truth. God Bless you!

  • OBJ15

    One thought I would toss into the mix here. There is an argument to made (and to be addressed more extensively) about the connection between pornography and initial perceptions of same-sex attraction. Dr. Kevin Majeres, a cognitive-behavioral psychiatrist on faculty at Harvard Medical School, points out that many patients begin to question their “orientation” after finding themselves aroused by homosexual porn. But as Dr. Majeres explains, this isn’t necessarily because they suffer from an immutable condition, but because they overdosed on dopamine from watching pornography. He writes:

    “When someone clicks and sees a new pornographic image, his lower brain thinks this is the real thing, so he gets an enormous dopamine surge into his upper brain. This first exposure to a new female who is a potential mate wasn’t something that happened a lot to our ancestors; maybe only once in their lives; so the brain thinks this is a big deal. It doesn’t know that now the game has completely changed: it doesn’t understand that these are virtual females only; so with each new one it causes another flood of dopamine, time after time, click after click, as long as he continues. It’s a dopamine binge…

    As guys keep gaming the dopamine system, they start to find that they have to use pornography for longer and longer periods to have the same effect, and they have to visit more and more sites. Still, eventually they cannot get the same excitement as before…

    Guys soon discover a trick for increasing the excitement of dopamine when the effect starts getting weaker. If you want more bang, you need to add adrenalin in the mix. Does anyone know how to get more adrenalin?

    You have to stimulate another emotion: fear or disgust or shock or surprise. For a porn user, he needs to start moving to kinkier things, things that make him feel afraid or a bit sick; and so guys start experimenting with watching various perversions. You cannot predict in advance what perversion will really kick up your adrenalin; but once it does, watch out – the mix of adrenalin and dopamine is extremely potent. It triggers a new developmental stage for the brain – it triggers something called neuroplasticity, which means “rewiring.”…

    In particular, doubts about one’s sexual orientation after making contact with same-sex porn is increasingly common in guys who had never had reason to consider themselves as being attracted to men, and who had not been previously attracted to men; but at some point the shock or fear or even disgust caused by gay porn triggered an adrenalin-and-dopamine super-surge, and they were highly aroused by it. They may have been horrified afterwards, but this just increases their dread, which increases adrenalin the next time they do it, causing an even bigger super-surge – they’re caught in a perfect trap.”

    Excerpted from “The Science Behind Pornography” by Kevin Majeres, MD, http://purityispossible.com/

    • OBJ15

      Imagine a Catholic adolescent boy caught in this “perfect trap.” He
      thinks he might be gay. He doesn’t realize his arousal at gay porn is
      due to the dopamine/adrenaline mix his brain now craves. He doesn’t
      realize his brain remains shocked and disgusted by homosexual conduct.
      Question: From whom should he seek guidance? Eve Tushnet and the
      Spiritual Friendship bloggers? Or a good psychiatrist (and priest)?

      • I was a Catholic adolescent boy. I remember being aroused when the wind blew. I must be a Zephyrphile.

  • Steven N Reina Clark

    Can you cite where in Church teaching that God does not create people with same sex attraction and where the Church teaches that same sex attraction has a psychological origin?

    • R. K. Ich

      Might as well ask where in Church teaching God does not create people with zoophilia tendencies. The acts associated with these desires are clearly condemned in scripture and tradition as unnatural, under the umbrella of reprobation. Do we really need another “official” declaration?

      • Scott W.

        Well put. To ask “Why does God created people with…” is really a roundabout way of asking if God is all good, why is there evil in the world? The problem of evil is worthwhile objection, but in this context, it is merely a distraction. When it’s pelvic issue, and as if you could set your watch by it, people suddenly act bewildered.

      • Steven N Reina Clark

        My point is that is that we do not need to misrepresent Church teaching.

    • Austin Ruse

      The second is in the catechism.

    • kmk

      For starters, it is in Genesis.

      • Steven N Reina Clark

        Well, one could use Genesis to show that homosexuals are created that way. Further, Genesis does not address anything psychological. If there is not a Canon or Encyclical or paragraph in the Catechism that can be directly cited, then I believe it is irresponsible to state that it is in fact Church teaching.

    • Azygos

      “In a nutshell, if you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is
      homosexual, the identical co-twin is usually not homosexual. That means, given
      that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be
      genetically dictated. No-one is born gay” — Dr. Neil Whitehead

      • Steven N Reina Clark

        I am not saying that people are or are not born or created gay. My point is that Church teaching does not pronounce it one way or the other.

        • Azygos

          Nor does it need to. The only people seeking a pronouncement in the direction of ‘born that way’ are those seeking to justify in some way sodomite acts or the supposed blessings that come with sodomite attraction/temptation. It is ridiculous that people would ever contribute to God their disordered temptations and it speaks directly against the Holy Spirit (see citation below). No one in their right mind would ever say that being tempted to adultery or pornography is how God created people or how they are born. Yet when it comes to sodomy people say all sorts of things that are blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

          James 1:13-15,
          13 No one experiencing temptation should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death.

  • Joseph Sciambra

    I can not write enough about Fr. Check – a dear man; and there are not many red-blooded masculine priests who would want to be around us – but, the man is Christ-like – here are some pics of me and him from his recent LA trip:
    http://www.josephsciambra.com/2014/12/ex-gay-porn-star-joseph-sciambra.html
    Back in 1999, I got to know the Blessed Fr. Harvey, and, if it had not been for him – I never would have gotten out of porn or the life…

    • Once again, I get to write: glad to have you aboard, with two hands on an oar. Welcome home, even if you’ve been back a while.

  • kmk

    Again, it is not SSA. It is a choice to be in an unhealthy relationship. We all want to be in a relationship. Some of us participate in pornography. Some of us choose to participate in homosexual and bisexual acts because we desperately want to be with someone.

  • kmk

    Charles Manson still has a following even after all these years due to his energy, smarts, and marketing ability.

  • Trying to be helpful

    While Mr. Ruse seems interested in having a discourse and working with the Spiritual Friendship people, there seems to be an underlying hostility here that is unfortunate. How can a piece like this not serve to pit Courage and the Spiritual Friendship crowd against each other rather than bring them closer together? I am inclined to agree with Mr. Ruse on all substantive matters but his tone is not a friendly tone. It is unnecessarily combative and mocking. The remark about the “dirty socks” which got his earlier piece off to a bad start, lands this once on a bad ending. It is hard to get past thinking such a remark is a put down. Maybe he thinks of it as lighthearted teasing but it comes across as mocking. And why has he coined this term “the new homophiles”? It seems the flip side of homophobia and makes it sound like there is this creepy group of people who have this creepy love for homosexuals. Why not just refer to this group as the “Spiritual Friendship group.” Granted, they don’t fully seem to understand what spiritual friendship really is but it would be better to make that correction kindly and lovingly rather than give them a name they most likely would not want to accept. The SF people have some important things wrong, I agree. But, as Mr. Ruse allows, they do have some important things right. Even a luminary like Prof Robbie George praised Eve Tushnet’s book (with the qualification that he did not agree with all of it). She clearly speaks beyond her knowledge at some points but also has beautiful things about the need for all of us to figure out ways to spend out lives in self-giving. She herself does a lot of work at a Pregnancy Help Center. That seems a rather perfect choice to me. It seems it would be more helpful to patiently and kindly correct her errors and applaud the good elements of the book. Finally, Mr. Ruse seems to be a tough guy. Why take the time and trouble to complain how people are talking about him? Who knows if they represent the SF crowd and who knows how many of the SF crowd they represent? The SF people, as many have noted, have embarked upon a laudable path. I think we should try to accompany them as patient, loving brothers and sisters. People are more willing to listen, when their critics love them, don’t mock them, and don’t back them into a corner.

    • Austin Ruse

      Exactly what my piece suggests!

      • Gina

        Perhaps in logic-but not in tone.

        • Austin Ruse

          Focus on “tone” is for those who either can’t or won’t debate the issues.

          • Gina

            Perhaps. But I always understood tone to be an essential aspect of rhetoric, and rhetoric, an essential component of successful debate.

            • Austin Ruse

              Like I said, focus on “rhetoric” is for those who either can’t or won’t debate the issues.

              • Gina

                Or for those who, while agreeing with you substantially, want to help you understand why you are not winning your “debate”. Rhetoric without content is pure sophistry, but “issues” presented with a tin ear for rhetoric will not persuade–or so maintains Aristotle.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Plenty of content above. You just dont like the package. There are many reasons for communication and therefore many ways to communicate. Not all effective communication is the kind limited strictly to the seminar room.

                  • Gina

                    The content I never questioned, but you are right on other accounts (including the packaging!) I just can’t help thinking how much more effective your piece might have been–that is, how many more people it might have persuaded–had that package been wrapped a bit differently. But perhaps persuasion was not your intent, in which case I’m over my pay grade here.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You can’t imagine a purpose of communication other than persuasion? That’s the only purpose of communication? No other?

                    • Gina

                      No, of course I can–and I think you know that. But I also think you’re fully aware just how contentious this issue is, and I’m surprised not more attention was paid to the art of persuasion when wading into these waters. Or (serious question) do you believe that’s become a useless endeavor?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Happy to leave persuasion to others.

                    • Gina

                      Perhaps best.
                      Thanks for the enjoyable exchange, though.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Happy to inform and motivate.

  • clintoncps

    “The New Homophiles insist that God made them gay.”

    – This is utter blasphemy — to impute to God the works of the devil.

    “(The New Homophiles) insist that they have special gifts given to them through their same-sex attraction.”

    – This is precisely the same seditious language that was used in the interim report of the Synod on the Family last October, and the Satan has ensured remains tenaciously embedded in the machinations of those clergy who lobby for the Church to embrace homosexualism.

    “(The New Homophiles) want Church teaching to reflect these assertions, which would amount to a change in Church teaching.”

    – And you, Austin, in this very same article, assert that the Church needs the New Homophiles?

    My dear brother, you are in my prayers.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      The article was done, to a degree, with tongue-in cheek. The bottom-line for the New Homophiles is the need for conversion. After which, they can bring their de-homosexalized gifts in service to Christ and his Church.

    • Austin Ruse

      That, of course, was qualified with 1) them turning off their spotlight, 2) taking down their blogs (that is, spreading their propositions and 3) delving into what the Church actually teaches. What’s wrong with that?

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Dear Trying To Be Helpful, below:

    Sometime this Spring “50 Shades of Grey” (the movie) will be released. For commentary on both book and movie (and its oddly strange reception among, otherwise, faithful Christians) LigeSite News has posted several helpful articles. No need to summarize here. Except to note, the theme of both s the (spiritual) acceptance of Dominance/Bondage/Sadomasochism (D/B,S&M). It will be a blockbusting flob and a money loser, yet will be garland with the crown of the being the most talked abut movie of the year. The Today Show will go “ga-ga”.

    So, as a thought experiment, substitute homosexuality and “spiritual friendship” (in its Queer Theory definition). How would you construct your argument. There are those who99 say that their primary sexual identity if not (that is, is transfigured) beyond the “gender” of being male or female; that their sexual identity is the orgasmic experience of pain (giving or receiving), of domination (taking to the whip and chains or gladly exercising the instruments of bondage and torture). Take your pick, both are disciplined, rarefied expressions of the human condition: the transfiguration of sex beyond male & female, beyond the fundamental division imposed upon humankind by the strictures of bodily flesh. B/D,S&M takes our sexuality beyond the boundaries of bodily flesh and situates it in the realm of pure spirit.

    Don’t believe me? Read their literature, visit their blogs. Cat with them on the corner of Hollywood & Vine. With a bit of digging you could find someone’s catholic take on all this. Our culture is bone weary of this male & female business; B/D,S&M is the next step towards the spiritualization of sex. For, dear souls, that is the bottom-line program of the Spiritual Friendship folks. Of course, the New Homophiles will distance themselves with gusto from the notion that B?D,S&M claims kinship with them. It (they) rightly do. Acceptance of B/D,S&M (50 Shades of Grey, and all that) is the worked-out logic of their position. If the New Homophiles (the S/Fers) have taken their black sex markers and have drawn that bold, stark line of demarcation, I have yet to see it.

    How, has a Church, should we welcome them,, ask them to discover Christ in this particular sexual identity. If we are so anxious to do such for homosexuals why not those in the D/B, S&M “community”. I bet you, top to bottom, that there is a B/s,S&M spiritual friendship group forming, right now, as we argue here with Mr. Ruse.

    So, rewrite your post. Excise the terms “homosexaul” “same-sex”, “gay”, “spiritual friendship” and replaced with B/D, S&M.

    That is where we are headed.

    Maybe some German theologian can polish up the justifications for it, tack it on the door of the synod hall for this October. Sneak a paragraph or two in the next Synod report. Am sure there is a Belgium bishop or two eager to provide the nail and hammer.

    Homosexuality (the acceptance of it as no hindrance to the fullness of God’s Life) is the marijuana of sex: the threshold sex for all the hard stuff.

    Of course, you my counter that there is a bold, stark line of demarcation between homosexuality- acts & condition – and all other sexual orientations and practice. I would care to disabuse you of that notion. But, if you (we) are stuck on that notion than it is only a sign that you (we) are in captivity to the Spirit Of the Age, that Queer Theory (even as graciously put as Eve T. did in her little book) has become the master of this conversation, and should be awarded a seat in the Synod Hall. Saying that Queer Theory should be given a hearing-out is to privilege its language and lexicon.

    It’s time for a revived Index of Errors; and, maybe, even the beautification of that poor Dominican friar Alexander VI torched upon the faggots in Florence. Truly, a case can be made. When one gazes upon the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. it is not too difficult to read Michelangelo’s subtle pictorial protest against that burning at the stake in his beloved city.

    [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton]

  • What a Humanity!

    Everything is finding its justification!

    Human Beings can find any and every excuses to justify any kind of behavior.

    There will be no more right or wrong because everything will be “right.”

    Morality is collapsing.

    Faith in God is collapsing.

    And when there is no reference to a Supreme Morality, then everything is allowed, including homosexuality, bestiality, etc. And consequently, at the end of the day, everything is OK, everybody will be included, everybody will dance together and have fun!

  • Jacqueleen

    Why would anyone blatantly brag that they are gay, dysfunctional, disordered, etc. but chaste? ALL SINGLE PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF THEIR ORIENTATION MUST BE CHASTE/CELIBATE. The church teaches that fornication is a grave sin, adultery is a grave sin, immoral sex of any kind outside of marriage is a serious sin. So, why must there be a movement bragging about their choice to be chaste if there is not an ulterior motive?….All Christians must be chaste who are not married. PERIOD! Look for the real motive underneath the outward expression of Courage! Replace the motive with a real love of the beauty of the Catholic Faith!

    • Daniel P

      “Why would anyone blatantly brag that they are gay, dysfunctional, disordered, etc. but chaste?”

      If they boast that the Lord has freed them from certain sins, then we should all be happy that they boast, for then they boast in the Lord. As such, their boasting is a witness to those who have not been so transformed by the Lord’s love — that there is hope! Paul boasted in his afflictions, remember.

      The trouble comes when people think the nature of their afflictions set them apart as particularly important or blessed. Mr. Ruse has said more than once that the “New Homophiles” boast in that way, but I don’t think they do. At least, they don’t do it explicitly; it may be implicit in some rhetoric coming from the group, but it is not explicit. As such, I think we need to patiently wait for them to grow in faith, hope, and love, whereupon they will stop believing falsehoods like that.

      More love, that’s what needed. Not “I agree with everything you say” love; rather, “I trust that you are acting until good faith until I am proven otherwise” love.

      Now, if anyone has concrete evidence that a “New Homophile” is not acting in good faith, that would be another story. I haven’t seen such evidence.

      • Steve D.

        They’re not acting in good faith when they claim God created them “gay”.

        • Daniel P

          (1) Not all the “New Homophiles” say God created them gay. (2) Those who do are expressing their honest belief. That does not constitute bad faith.

          • Steve D.

            It’s not honest when they’re are trying to pass themselves off as practicing Catholics. They’re acting in bad faith.

            • Daniel P

              They agree that homosexual conduct is wrong, and they pursue chastity. They believe that there’s no contradiction between calling oneself gay and being Catholic. The Church has not said otherwise, though it has issued a pastoral recommendation against using terms like “gay”.

              They ARE practicing Catholics, as even their critics tend to acknowledge. Where’s the bad faith?

      • Jacqueleen

        Since it is an extraordinary effort for gay people to be chaste, is it not the same for heterosexuals? Shall we all form groups of Chastity and wear those Chastity belts of the past? Give me a break. There should be a group of evangelists who minister to the gay community and they can do the bragging that God has saved many gays all to His Glory!

        • Daniel P

          Jacqueleen,

          With all due respect, in this culture most young men (straight or gay) DO need to be in chastity support groups of some kind. Have you talked honestly with many young men about this issue?

          And I would recommend that ALL these people boast in their afflictions (in the proper contexts, with the proper emphasis on Christ’s saving power), so that other people who are going through the same struggles can have hope.

          Peace,
          Daniel

          • Jacqueleen

            Indeed I have talked to young men and women about this issue. Evangelization is not new to me and that includes praying for Seminarians who struggle with the same problems. The point I am making is that concupiscence is not only a problem for gays, but for all men and women. Be careful that you are not conveying the idea that once restored to a heterosexual orientation that it is okay for former gays to have sex anytime, anyplace, etc. DO NOT LEAVE OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHING THAT CHASTITY IS MEANT FOR ALL UNMARRIED PEOPLE. Respectfully,

            • Daniel P

              I never suggested that people may freely fornicate with the opposite sex. I never would.

  • M.J .

    Was surprised at one level, to see this topic again so soon ; yet , easy to see from the responses to the related previous article by the author , how the subject is of interest to many , possibly because of the angst caused in The Church from problems in the related area in recent years , the yearning to see an effective means of remedy and prevention such that The Church would serve as the source of powerful help , to stem away the tide that seems beyond help !

    The comments and related sited article by OBJ15 seems very good and pertinent to the issue , esp. the means of healing which seems applicable to all sorts of situations ; citing the article again here , esp. for the uplifting way it brings out the truth about the related aspect of prayer life –

    http://purityispossible.com/

    it is unlikely that there is any person ( including themselves ) that does not have someone in their life who is not afflicted at one level or another , by traits of fallen nature – manipulative , deceptive etc : trying not to be annoyed / hateful at them but trying to exercise Christian charity can be as challenging as any other traits may be ; seems that Is the point that the author is trying to bring out .
    A person such as in A.A who , in repentance calls himself an alcoholic is difft; from someone who uses the sexual identity mislabel as a sort of honor badge and sort of expecting others to offer support /affirmation for same ; that would be more like the A.A client defiantly holding a glass of liquor and expecting cheers !
    As to questions about inclinations , Scriptures and the Catechism, in explaining the nature of charity , of loving God beyond all else, gives reasons for the concerns of those who see the tainted wisdom that is not of heaven , with the related disorder ( Book of James ) needing to be addressed for what it is, so that the same help that The Church offers for all others , in dealing with the spiritual struggles can be of help , may be thus sparing many from any related issues down through the years and those in The Church can trustingly say that The Church is a hospital for the wounded ,that the balm is effective .
    Recognising that there is deep seated enmity /hatred in human heart towards The Father and that that enmity seeks expression in myriad ways – through deceit of seduction for unjust control , envy and on and on ..our inner blindness makes it not as easy a step as we think it ought to be, to see same , in us or the other …yet the truth that The Lord comes , to reveal to us The Father and what that Father love is like , allows His very Mother, to undergo all She had to, so that at least compassion towards Her would help our hearts to be free of those hatreds , take in that love, help us to know that our mission too is to help others to take in that love and love The Father as we ought to , often repeating , in the spiritual union , with those who are the cause of issues
    – ‘ have mercy on us , deliver us from our ( disguised ) hatreds , help us to trust in Your love. ‘
    May The Lord bless all the good hearted intent and efforts , not in hatred toward the persons even if same gets misunderstood as such , possibly from own deeper hatreds that have not been dealt with !
    May His mercy be the help !

  • Daniel P

    St. Francis de Sales:

    “One of the most evil dispositions possible is that which satirises and turns everything to ridicule. God abhors this vice, and has sometimes punished it in a marked manner. Nothing is so opposed to charity, much more to a devout spirit, as contempt and depreciation of one’s neighbour, and where satire and ridicule exist contempt must be. Therefore contempt is a grievous sin, and our spiritual doctors have well said that ridicule is the greatest sin we can commit in word against our neighbour, inasmuch as when we offend him in any other way, there may still be some respect for him in our heart, but we are sure to despise those whom we ridicule.

    “There is a light-hearted talk, full of modest life and gaiety, which the Greeks called Eutrapelia , and which we should call good conversation, by which we may find an innocent and kindly amusement out of the trifling occurrences which human imperfections afford. Only beware of letting this seemly mirth go too far, till it becomes ridicule. Ridicule excites mirth at the expense of one’s neighbour; seemly mirth and playful fun never lose sight of a trustful, kindly courtesy, which can wound no one.”

  • joxxer

    You make sense to me. That is how we should all be treated, gay or not. We are supposed to “fight the good fight” against sin——-any sin.

  • PreferablyAnonymous

    “dirty socks and all.” ? Did you seriously just condone masturbation? That is a sin friend, check Church teaching. Even the Youcat is clear on that one, sheesh.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    This sort of conversation always gets set right when ti (edges) towards discussing the cause(s) and etiology of homosexuality

    As Mr. Ruse posted:

    The second is in the catechism.

    Specifically, “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

    JUST POINTING OUT:

    1. “remains”: yet, down the road more will become explained, and better.
    2. “largely”: yet, at this juncture, some explanation is available, which requires more looking into.

    3. “unexplained”: see #1. Also, a better explanation may be around the corner (especially, if we dare honestly); maybe better “testing” and a refined vocabulary.
    4. “genesis”” an interesting admission that that partial explanation is causal, not a marrow and bone of Creation.
    5. “psychological”: in its narrow or larger sense? Did the authors have a particular “school” in mind? Did they intentionally exclude certain other “schools”?.

    In short, the discussion is not yet over. And, this section of the CCC is not the final word.

  • Daniel O’Connor

    The Catechism is good enough for me, and it should be good enough for anyone who calls himself Catholic. If the New Homophiles can’t accept it, then that needs to be called out; whether or not it garners for you the vitriol of Mark Shae (which in my opinion is a badge of honor).

  • jacobum

    In the name of Christian Charity can we all take a pledge to “ignore” to warbles and rantings from Mark Shea. The kindest thing we can say about him is that “He can’t help himself”. He suffers from “mental miasma”. It’s onset is caused by an severe and cronic organic humility deficiency. Unfortunately, Mr Shea continues to consistently produce clinical evidence of his affliction for reflexive “button pushing.” Responding to it only reinforces and exacerbates the condition. Let us pray for his recovery.

    • Steve D.

      Shea is just a bomb-throwing troll, mostly to drive traffic to his site. He fancies himself being a “conservative”, and yet flat-out stated he would have no problem voting for Demonrats if it weren’t for their pro-choice stance.

  • Homosexuality is a sin and Homosexual persons are sinners.

    I didn’t say it. God is saying it. But the Catholic Church NEVER said it.

    Show me where the Catholic Church is saying EXPLICITLY that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals are sinners.

    Rather, we read and hear the opposite.

    The Catholic Church represented by the Vatican and many of her lay people like this blogger for example (Austin Ruse) are trying to JUSTIFY an abnormal sexual behavior contrary to the teachings of the God they claim to believe in His teachings.

    A little piece of information: Christianity as founded by God is about ABSOLUTES. There is no RELATIVISM. There are no EXCUSES.

    A behavior contrary to the teachings of God is wrong and this wrong is called SIN. End of discussion.

    • R. K. Ich

      Austin Ruse justifying it? Where in this article is he justifying it?

      • Read it again carefully. Where are you seeing the opposite of what I am saying? Show me the explicit condemnation of homosexuality and the homosexuals. Show where it is said in this article that homosexuality is a sin and that ALL homosexuals are sinners. But all I am reading is EXCUSES, even the TITLE. Unless I am the only one who can SEE here.

        • Jim Russell

          The article doesn’t say this, nor does the Church teach this, nor does *God* say this, because it is, frankly, a bald-faced lie.

          The homosexual *inclination* is not properly ordered, and acting upon it is sinful. Neither the condition nor the *person* is automatically somehow “sinful”….

          Please, in all sincerity, find the Catechism and read it again, carefully…..

          • The Catechism’s version, which is the official Catholic Church’s version did not considered homosexuality nor the homosexuals sin and sinners.

            The entire teaching body of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is soft, appeasing to depraved humans and consequently has nothing to do with the teachings of God.

            Now, read the Bible to find out what I am talking about. Maybe those who call themselves “Catholics” (starting from the Pope) should start to learn what Catholicism is all about by reading the word of God!!

            I can give you a long lecture with a host of biblical references about sex and homosexuality but I will leave this to another time. Do your own research in the mean time.

            • Joe

              So you’re saying you know better than the Church, Paul? I think there’s a word for that.

              • I think you probably don’t know that the Church is appeasing her own homosexual clergy to begin with.

                • Joe

                  But you’re still saying the Church’s doctrine as presented in the Catechism is false? Just trying to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.

                  • Church doctrine on homosexuality??

                    • Joe

                      Have…have you not even studied the Catechism?

        • R. K. Ich

          That’s funny, the whacko leftist-agenda anti-God watchdog organizations have all their crosshairs on Mr. Ruse for…?

    • linda daily

      What a sad, anemic, angry vision of God.

    • James Scott

      I sense somebody here is a Calvinist.

  • Randall Ward

    Persons attracted to the same sex are no different from the rest of us that have an attraction to some type of sin. Why should they be treated any differently than the rest of us. The fact that the “gay” lobby wants “gays” treated as a different spieces of humans, should be the tipoff that we should not accomodate what the militant “gays” want.

    • Joe

      I’m curious what planet you got messages that anyone wants gay people treated as a “different species” from.

      Because I have not seen anyone on any side of the issue suggest anything remotely resembling that.

      • Randall Ward

        Are “gay” people just sinners, acting out on same sex attraction or are they somehow “different” from normal people?

        • Joe

          I’m unclear on what it is you’re suggesting I’m saying. Could you clarify so we can proceed in the conversation instead of merely talking past each other?

          • Randall Ward

            In the past you were either male or female. Now in many places you can choose between many “gender” choices, but people are still male or female. So what is this gender thing? People imagine they are not male or female, but something different, based on their choice of lifestyle. What is next; motorcycle rider gender, nudist gender, or maybe someone thinks they are a dog? All I am saying is that people are the same; their sin does not change them into a “gay” person, they are just a person that loves their same sex attraction, just like a heavy drinker loves their beer to an excess. But the gay lobby has convinced the US public that “gays” are special people that need extra protection. If they need extra protection under the law, does a man that loves sex with animals need extra protection; can the man marry a dog?
            The point is that “gays” are not special, in fact they are no different from anyone else; we all sin.

            • Joe

              Gay people are not, nor do they claim to be, a different gender.

              The term “gay person” means, to everyone except a select set of apologists, “a person who experiences same sex attraction.”

              And they don’t claim they need special protection, they argue they aren’t being given the same protection as the rest of us.

              Not everybody agrees, obviously, but they aren’t claiming to be something other than a person who happens to experience same sex attraction.

              Nothing remotely resembling your claim that they present themselves as an entirely different species.

  • M.J .

    Enjoyed the quote from Francis De sales , by Daniel P below ( need to reread the copy of the book by the saint ) ; makes one recognize why ridicule can sting , that there is validity to the pain ; having been affirmed in same by such a person as St.Francis , what to do with the pain …. – the wisdom of confessors and the recitation in the Liturgy , of the Our Father makes deeper sense ; when one can join the ‘offender ‘ , in The Spirit , that The Lord gives us , with the power of Infinite Love , to say in oneness , with the other ,
    ‘Our Father ‘ ….and the sting can disappear rather fast , the alienation gone ..and that might be the remedy that many need in all relation ships that need mending , to undo the hurts may be caused by unthinking parents /others , with stinging remarks that might still be causing the block towards The Father , all the related loneliness …and at times , the related demands that might present as efforts at manipulative , unjust , intrusions !
    Such a format might be what The Lord meant , in asking us to ‘give to those who ask ‘ , without feeding the fallen nature by opening up occasions for greed /contempt !
    ( Such a theme of joining , in spirit , to ask for mercy – ‘have mercy on us ‘ ( not just on ‘them ‘) is also a focus on Family Healing , in the book by Fr.Yozefu .
    ‘ Our Father ..’ with The Lord … to The Father ..to The Trinity .. joining with ever wider circle of the children of The Father …with the saints ..
    What an awesome God and faith we have ..
    and again, thanks to all who care and pray ..that helps with deeper insights !

  • etbl

    You are clear, kind , and accurate. We are all called to live a chaste life regardlessof our state–even married couples are called to chastity (no porn/masturbation/etc.).

    If only people with same sex attraction realized the GIFT of purity and chastity they could give to Our Lord, just like a consecrated virgin, nun, monk, brother, or priest!!

    The Father of Lies has once again twisted and inverted something good and spread confusion.

    Thank you Jesus that Your Church will remain steadfast.

  • Captain America

    I think inexperienced young men can be confused about sexual interaction and not know exactly what’s going on, and at the same time admire an older, non-familial male. . . so I think our society SHOULD be concerned about predatory homosexuality; this appears to be a problem endemic to homosexuality. It’s high time—we’re all adults here—in 2015 to openly suggest that homosexuality should be studied as a subject of human psychological development. What social factors may affect this turn?

    (for homosexuals posting here, recognize that adult heterosexuals ALSO have sexual desires they control; it’s something everyone deals with.)

    • Joe

      I’ve seen as much predatory sexuality by heterosexual people as anyone else (well, far more actually, but I’m trying to account for the base rate affect from simply encountering far more heterosexual people). It’s just as disingenuous to imply it’s a uniquely homosexual problem as to suggest having to have self control is.

  • JohnE_o

    Hi all. Back again…the people teaching my RCIA class STILL seem much more charitable, friendly even, towards their fellow Catholics than what I see here.

  • AugustineThomas

    Thank you for this article!
    Mark Shea and his ilk do nothing but hurt the Church with their aggressive commitment to outright and obvious heresy.

  • Ks

    Are we to assume the two people referenced above who never experienced temptation were the blessed mother and Jesus? Check the gospel. Jesus definitely experienced temptation, he did not act on it. As for b.v.m. The gospel is silent on that question.

  • cestusdei

    I agree. Homosexuality is not a gift from God. I hope that they make that 5% move.

  • James Scott

    Mr. Ruse your original article was an over reaction and a cause for scandal.
    I do not approve.

    >But the thing is, I have never written a cross or even critical word about the men and women I describe above..

    But you called those two SSA young people Eve and her male compatriot “Narcissistic” so who are you trying to kid buddy?

    That is like me catching you cuffing someone in the back of the head and your only defense is “Well I didn’t hit you”.

    Give me a break pal.

    Dude go read your combox. A lot of people found the tone and spirit of your article offensive. Also what’s with this label “New Homophiles”?

    I notice these young people don’t call themselves that. This looks like a smear word used to associate these two young orthodox individuals with Pro-gay movements which is implicit slander.

    >The New Homophiles reject the notion that same-sex desire can or should be treated with psychological counseling, though the Church clearly teaches that same-sex desire has a psychological origin. The New Homophiles do not believe there is anything wrong with their attractions, only acting on them sexually.

    Yeh here is an actual quote of her words to contrast your bias re-interpretation of her views on Courage and a conference she attended.

    QUOTE”During the entire nine hours of the conference, none of the speakers I heard discussed how to live chastely while experiencing same-sex attractions. The focus was entirely on the goal of switching sexual orientations.

    Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family and probably the speaker at the conference with whom I disagreed least, told me afterward that one small-group session had discussed chastity. “We don’t want people to believe that change means you have to be married and have to have kids,” he said, and then added, “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. We’re not trying to create people from homosexual to heterosexual.” These statements don’t line up with what I heard at the conference; but it’s much easier to be nuanced in one-on-one conversations than in lectures to big audiences.”END QUOTE

    So what is wrong with that? It’s not a rejection of conversion therapy per say but clearly conversion therapy is not the Goal for a young SSA/gay Catholic.

    I will address the rest of your nonsense later when I get a chance.

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    Amen!, Mr. Ruse.
    The reason Mark Shea writes such things is because he no longer has regard for accuracy and the truth, if it disagrees with his bias and ideology. It’s sad, but, should be refuted every time he does it.
    Good for you, for calling him, and the others, out for their calumnies and detractions.

  • Come on, man.

    “Indeed, the Church teaches only two human beings were ever born without the temptation to sin”

    Indeed, that is not what the Church teaches. Matthew 4:1 –

    “Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”

    Indeed, what the Church needs is thinkers and writers who can make important distinctions – being tempted vs. consenting to temptation. And indeed, what the Church really needs is men and women who do not pity and poo-poo sin and the orientation towards sin. And even more indeed, the Church needs to avoid use of the words “courage” and “heroic” to describe homosexually inclined, heterosexually inclined, or diaper-inclined people. A mother and father raising a large family is heroic and courageous; a man or woman who forego marriage for the priesthood or religious life are heroic and courageous.

    A person fighting sexual temptations is, well, a human being, and one fighting gravely disordered sexual temptations should be, well, quiet.

  • Mario

    This comment section is like something out of a zombie mind control dream. Except all you’d rather say asleep.

  • James Scott

    IMHO a Truely Catholic Response to Ruse and his questionable opinions.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2015/01/some-propositions-on-the-new-homophiles/

    The above person is far more kind to Ruse then I would have been. Which I readily concede is a virtue.

    The blogger above articulates in detail why Ruse’s original column was a disaster but offers solutions with kind criticism.

    I still intend to chime in later when I get the chance.

  • Good article, Mr. Ruse. Although I must admit I liked the first one as well.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Few are now reading or commenting now – I get that – but wish to post this point”

    THIS WEEK’S MASSACRE IN PARIS CRYSTALLIZED THE FOLLOWING:

    Posting the article which provoked these thoughts here, and also at the bottom:

    The New Homophiles embrace homosexuality utterly. Yes they do. Hug and squeeze into their very self the “identity” of it. Their privileged term, not mine. Once done they then proceed to empty it of the very “nature” of homosexuality: its lusts, its sexual fixations, the urge to rise at 3:am and turn on the internet, and, above all, its visceral rejection of the opposite sex (the embracing, the receiving of ti, utterly, though not as “identity”. After that is completed, the New Homophile attempts to refill – the now thinned and seam-weakened wineskin of sex – with something other. That “other” is is not a product aline to homosexuality, itself; for it is simply the material the New Homophile had culled from homosexuality, leaving the shell of it: now remixed, famously reconstructed by deconstructed, re-theorized by Queerness, cud=chewed by a thousand kidnapped spiritualities. In short, what is poured back into the scraped and scarred wineskin of sex is homosexuality itself.

    (Attempt is the proper word, for Hew Homophilism will not succeed.)

    The point is this: the New Homophile (better yet, New Homophilism, for it is now a movement within the Church) embraces homosexuality, utterly, in the attempt at rejecting it. The attempt is a spiritual exercise of setting aside a particular sin (actually, refusing the condemnation integral within it) by using that particular sin as the very (spiritualized) means, method, and tool, of rejecting the condemnation interior to the “nature” of that sin.

    The attempt is full of falsehoods because it is, bottom-line, a lie.

    NOW TO THIS WEEK’S MASSACRE IN PARIS:

    The New Homphiles are building a (new) homosexual culture within the Church (no need to evangelize without, for it is well-established there!) through the act of denying – not homosexuality – but the character and “nature” of homosexuality. Done through the doctrinal fundamentals and politics of Queer Theory: its doctrinal precepts baptized, re-mythologized to (ill)fit the language and teachings of the Church.

    Thus, the New Homophiles are establishing a demand for homosexuality by reeducating the Church that in accepting (embracing) *their* homosexuality they are, backhandedly, rejecting homosexuality has traditionally understood by classical, orthodox, historic Christianity.. The first chore (lesson) – as it always is – is the rewriting (the Queerly reconstruction) of the lexicon of the language of the Church. This is the swamp of evolutionized and doctrines from which is spawned such misbegotten notions that the concept of homosexuality was an invention of 19th Century Viennese psychologist. (That’s right, when your argument is failing yank into it poor, mangled Freud!). Bottom-line, once more, the New Homophiles want us – this is the totalitarian aspect of their doctrinal re-visioning – that there is no such thing as homosexuality: psychological, ethical, doctrinal, and, above all, in terms of the received understanding of BEING and personhood.

    ( Let the New Homophiles set before us – for they are, I am sure, much
    more righteous than I – their perfected chastity and their faithfulness
    to the teaching of the Church, as currently received, none of that
    bears upon the argument put here. )

    So, in the end, what we (the Church) get is a (Church) culture ramrodded through, spread out like heated butter, with a homosexuality that is not homosexuality: see here, see there, homosexuality all over the place; see what? see here and there? there’s no homosexuality in this place. It has been denied and removed by melting and frosting the very (new) notion of it into every nook & cranny of the Church.

    I AM GETTING TO THE PARIS MASSACRES . . .with this question:

    What does a culture (a society) look like which denies the very existence of homosexuality (as a condition, in the fullest meaning of the term) yet practices it utterly, completely, and encourages its fullest flourishing?

    In Islamic cultures (within Sharia Law and Islam’s refusal of the very concept of BEING & personhood) there is no such *thing* as homosexuality, Within Islam homosexuality does not exist (deem recognition) as a condition (once more, in the full context and range of that word). Yes, as the author of the article posted explains, homosexul acts can be brutally punished; but that is almost beside the point, for Islamic Law has no internal consistency, no rhyme or reason in establish a true ethic based upon God’s Person and (reflected) human personhood. Islam cannot, with its violent denial of something as fundamental a the Law of Non-Contradiction. The “identity” issue – of any sort – simply does not enter into the discussion. In our over-wrought wallowing in what has been termed “identity politics” that seems almost a relief!

    Allah – regressed within his Totalitarian Oneness is full of whim & whimsey. Cocooned in relentless Oneness (warring against all that is not Allah) he tends to his Great Will which knows no bounds, no law, utterly free of content and purpose, and, has no wont to acknowledge any object (of any sort), or to give place to love and friendship. Such a Great Will as Allah’s descends and crushes all before it according to Allah’s whim & whimsey.

    At sunrise stone every fag, by noon toss the remainders off the walls, by evening go visit the Taliban Boys! That is sex jihad for Allah’s sharia.

    One can only imagine the culture such a god builds: there no homosexuality, here no homosexuality – turn down the sheets, round the corner, homosexuality everywhere. For exhausted, worn out Western, leftist elites, it almost sounds refreshing. Submit to Allah’s Totalitarian Oneness and have it all.

    [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton]

  • Akira88

    With all the Churches closing because of all the empty pews because most priests fail to teach Catholic Doctrine from the pulpit the last concern should be focusing on a minor issue.
    The rules for homosexuals are the same for singles. It’s that simple.

    The world has more priests than ever before in it’s history. Those vocations are being taken away from us because there needs to be some house cleaning here in the USA.

    Weak kneed Bishops care more about politics than they do about the truth. They seem to play let’s all get along – which Christ never indicated – instead of giving the real message that will get us to our real home.

    All the pc terms need to go the wayside of thee and thou. If you love Christ, keep his laws.
    When we slip the priest shouldn’t say — oh it’s understandable — no. Go to Confession and pray for firm purpose of amendment. Heck, it might take some time, but it’ll come.

    Liberalism needs to go by the wayside. It’s ripped our country apart as well as our Faith. Shame on the advocates of liberal politics in the Church for they are the destructive.

MENU