The Latest Homosexualist Assault on the Catholic Church and the Need for a Counter-Offensive

Franciscan University of Steubenville, where I have been a long-time faculty member, recently found itself again in the national news involving the culture wars—as it was during the summer when an aggressive atheist organization pressured the City of Steubenville, Ohio to remove a depiction of the University’s chapel from its logo—when a group of its homosexual alumni objected to its catalog description for a social work course that included homosexuality on the list of “deviant behaviors” to be studied. The Cardinal Newman Society viewed this as one of the many attacks on religious liberty that are now “coming from all fronts.” This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the alumni group made sure to send its objections to the social work accrediting agency. The obvious intent was to pressure the university by threatening the program’s accreditation. I’m not an official spokesman for Franciscan University. I am merely providing my own thoughts about a case striking close to home that is part of the larger context of threats posed to the Church and all serious Christians by the homosexualist movement.

One of the spokesmen for the homosexual alumni group claimed that it wanted to make sure that the university was “teaching proper social science and not offering biased science.” They suggested that the course was propounding “pseudoscience,” and emphasized that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. It is curious that they were ready to use the term “pseudoscience” when that DSM action resulted from homosexualist lobbying and political maneuvering within the APA, and not any new scientific findings. It was an early example of “junk science,” along the lines of what has been witnessed in the climate change debate, in which the imperatives of ideology were allowed to trump genuine scientific inquiry. In the meantime, I wonder if the alumni group considers Professor Mark Regnerus’ findings about the adverse effects suffered by children raised by same-sex couples as “proper social science.” What would they say about the data showing that a disproportionate percentage of sex crimes against children are committed by homosexuals? Are they ready to embrace the “gay gene” theory, even though there is no evidence for it? I know something about social science, and despite their suggestion to the contrary secular social science is laced with ideology and predetermined conclusions and is intolerant of viewpoints that don’t conform to the biases of the academy and the intelligentsia. Support for the homosexualist agenda is one of these biases. There are even a growing number of these “proper” social scientists today claiming that pedophilia should be viewed as entirely normal.

The group demanded that Franciscan University line up “with the truth of the matter.” Nevertheless, one of their spokesmen, a former philosophy professor who was trained in the realist philosophical tradition, now seems intent on constructing a new reality: that same-sex attraction is normal—as if the obvious complimentarity (psychologically, as well as biologically) between the sexes somehow doesn’t exist. The thinking animating the same-sex “marriage” movement is that husbands and wives, fathers and mothers are somehow interchangeable. Like the proponents of homosexualism within the Church—such as Dignity, New Ways Ministry, and the “gay ministries” that sprang up in certain dioceses—the Franciscan alumni group wants to pretend that the perennial teaching of the Church was wrong and can somehow be changed. Not only are they ostensibly not happy that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can never be moral, but completely contrary to St. Paul’s insistence (Gal. 3:28) that the defining characteristic for Christians must be their faith (they are neither Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, male or female), seem to view their same-sex attraction as the crux of their identity.

Some Christian churches, like the Episcopal Church that this former philosophy professor said he switched to partly because of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, have accommodated the homosexualists and other advocates of sexual liberation in this attempt to remake traditional teaching. The Catholic Church, the authentic guardian of that teaching, never will. I suspect that the alumni group, even if some are now Episcopalians or liberal Catholics or non-believers or whatever else, are deeply bothered by this fact. Maybe deep down they still feel called to the Church and know what they are doing is wrong, but having bought into the ideology of homosexualism think that with the right combination of pressure and denunciation they can somehow make it happen.

The homosexualist crusade of which this is just a small part has gone far beyond seeking tolerance or changing law. It now seeks nothing less than acceptance and, in fact, endorsement of same-sex sexual behavior as normal and mainstream in every walk of life—and it will get it by coercion if necessary. This intolerant and even repressive attitude—by those who started out seeking tolerance—is shared by the larger sexual liberation movement; it is seen vividly in the HHS contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient mandate. Even the churches cannot be spared. Forget religious liberty, all must embrace the new morality of secularism. The homosexualists are driven by a particular zeal and deep-seated anger. I think it has nothing to do with how others act toward them, in spite of claims such as those in the alumni group suggesting they were mistreated by being ushered off to therapy when they were students (which actually could not have happened because a person has to voluntarily agree to enter therapy). I am not a psychologist, but I suspect it is a result of despair at their condition (which, like it or not, is unnatural), guilt about their actions, a desire to justify themselves, and the uncanny hold of ideology. Neither ideology nor secularized religion offers hope, however, which is the very thing that those with same-sex attraction need most.

In a certain sense, the Franciscan University case is “small potatoes.” The homosexual alumni group apparently wants Franciscan to fall in line or lose accreditation of its social work program. In Canada provincial human rights commissions are banning clergy from speaking from the pulpit against homosexual acts or referring to pertinent scriptural passages, and fining other citizens for expressing such opposition; an English street preacher was arrested merely for answering a question that he disapproved of homosexual practice; Christian protesters at a homosexual fest in Philadelphia were arrested and could have received forty years in prison; some homosexualist groups have called for banning commentators from the airwaves if they uphold the perennial Christian teaching against homosexual acts; the California legislature has passed a law that makes it illegal for parents to seek therapy to change same-sex attraction of their minor children; Christians have been disciplined or fired from counseling and other jobs for expressing disapproval of homosexual activity; Catholic charities in Massachusetts was forced to stop arranging adoptions because they refused to place children with same-sex couples; reports in recent years abound with public school children being disciplined for stating their opposition to homosexual practice.

How should Catholics and other believers—and defenders of traditional culture, generally—who are concerned about upholding the natural law on homosexual practice respond to the onslaught of the increasingly repressive homosexualist movement? One of the major ways would be to vigorously and consistently expose homosexualist pressure tactics and intolerance. The homosexualists have been successful at portraying themselves as victims, when in truth they have become the victimizers. As I am fond of saying, the best defense is a good offense. Christians are the ones under attack now, and the nature of that attack needs to be driven home in whatever ways it can be to a public that, in spite of much confusion in its own thinking, does not support bullies. Second, we have not gone as far down the road to intolerance as the Canadians have. We have a First Amendment. Christians should take advantage of it whenever appropriate to: explain why homosexual acts are wrong, and why same-sex attraction is not normal and cannot be the equivalent of heterosexual behavior; bring out the correct scientific facts and expose the ideologically-driven “junk science” about homosexuality (the work done by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and the Family Research Council can be very helpful here); discuss how persons with same-sex attraction should be treated with charity and point out the organizations such as Courage that are available to help them lead chaste lives; and explain the impossibility and destructive implications of same-sex “marriage.”

They should also be ready to face down sham legal threats from the homosexualist movement aimed at stopping people from speaking up against it (besides continued aggressive efforts by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom to provide legal defense, the legal tables should be turned on homosexualist groups with suits for civil rights violations, abuse of process, and defamation). If we’re reaching the point where Catholic universities have to compromise their commitment to Church teaching to satisfy secular accrediting agencies in professional fields, maybe it’s time for them to think about forming their own accrediting bodies. The infrastructure is already there with such organizations as the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Society of Catholic Social Scientists, Catholic Social Workers National Association, and Catholic Psychotherapy Association.

Catholics and other Christians must take the offensive in this latest arena where religious liberty is on the ropes.

Stephen M. Krason


Stephen M. Krason's "Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic" column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis Magazine. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and associate director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also co-founder and president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He is the author, most recently, of The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic (Transaction Publishers, 2012), and editor of three volumes: Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Child Protective System (Scarecrow Press, 2013) and The Crisis of Religious Liberty (Rowman and Littlefield, 2014); and most recently, Challenging the Secular Culture: A Call to Christians (Franciscan University Press). His latest book is Catholicism and American Political Ideologies (Hamilton Books). He is also the author of a new novel, American Cincinnatus.

  • Pingback: The Latest Homosexualist Assault on the Catholic Church and the Need for a Counter-Offensive | Catholic Canada()

  • Alecto

    As I previously posted, Catholic college students at state and private colleges and universities were facing this situation in the early 90s, perhaps earlier. I am saddened to read now Catholic colleges like Steubenville are not immune from these attacks. However, it isn’t surprising that these assaults on free exercise are occurring: Catholicism is openly attacked and subverted by its own with impunity:
    Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Simone Campbell, Caroline Kennedy,
    et al…. Naturally, homosexuals are emboldened by the
    subversion of the Faith in public when the feckless leadership refuses to define and punish heresy. I write “refuses” rather than “fails” because a failure to act presupposes ignorance which is certainly not the case here. Lay people ought to question why our leadership refuses to act? Why they continue to chide anyone who demands excommunication for persistent heretics? Could it possibly be that the priesthood is filled with active homosexuals or something worse?

    Anyone familiar with Mary’s prophesies at Fatima is witnessing Satan’s attack on this church from within. It is time to acknowledge that the leadership in the United States is compromised and must be rooted out before more souls are led astray.

    • Alecto, are you proposing that the Church should excommunicate everyone who doesn’t toe the line? That seems to be a recipe for schism on a scale that we haven’t seen since the Middle Ages. Consider the 98% of Catholic women who have used contraception, or the massive number of Catholics who have gotten divorces. And then there are the gay and lesbian Catholics and their legions of supporters. And what about other liberal Catholics who vote for Democratic candidates, or all the ones who support the death penalty. And don’t forget that excessive wealth is now a cardinal sin, so you’d have to excommunicate all rich Catholics, which would severely damage your financial base.

      Where would it stop?

      Have you thought any of this through, or are you just venting?

      You might want to consider splintering off into a purer and more orthodox sect. You could start out small and grow the thing. Before long, you might succeed in rewinding history so that you have something that looks like the Medieval church.

      • Objectivetruth

        Oh Frank…….! Another “middle ages” comment! You might want to look up the difference between “schism” and “heresy” and when these things happened in the Church. The 98% comment has been refuted as false and a LIE many times. As far as excommunication… you know anything at all about the Catechism or canon law, Frank?? I don’t believe you do. please Frank, exit the website now, you are truly embarrassing yourself as far as the ineptness of your understanding of the Catholic Church!

        • Frank

          OT, I have plenty of “middle ages” comments yet to deploy. And I know the difference between “schism” and “heresy.” A “schism” is a rupture as seen by impartial observers. A “heresy” is the same event as seen by the partisans.

          When was the 98% figure refuted, and by whom? I remember it came from either Gallup or Pew. Did they change their minds?

          • Objectivetruth

            It was Guttmacher, not Pew, an enemy of the Church, there are many an article refuting their lie (google it, there’s a good article on lifesite news.)

            • Frank

              OT, I checked with PolitiFact about this. The 98% figure (Catholic women who have used contraception) is indeed from the Guttmacher Institute, which, as you say, the Church considers an enemy.

              The study was based on government data from a survey that has been conducted seven times since 1973 (during both Republican and Democrat administrations). The USCCB did not dispute the numbers, instead saying the study was irrelevant.

              • Matthew Arnold

                the 98 percent figure is garbage, as even the New York Times ultimately said. So was the method of sampling used. Frank, please spread your misinformation elsewhere, and try harder to educate yourself.

                • John200

                  This is an old dispute. Our homo”sex”ual brethren lost it a long time ago. Some newcomers do not know it.

                  • Frank

                    @John200:disqus Not much of an answer. I’m disappointed.

                    • John200

                      You have good reason to be disappointed. The light is not to be found in paganism. Some of us are aware of your pagan sources: for example, the Baals and Moloch in ancient times; more recently, the Marquis de Sade.

                      The light is not to be found in paganism.

                    • Frank

                      The Marquis de Sade? Puleeze!

                    • John200

                      Your philosophical inspiration, whether you know it or not.

                      So puhleeze yourself (and I know you will).

                • Frank

                  Matthew, help me here. What were the errors, and what did the NYT ultimately say?

      • J G

        There is a difference between being excommunicated and being in a state of mortal sin and thereby unable to receive Holy Communion. It is not sectarian to follow the teachings that the Catholic Church has always held. The medieval era gave us some very wonderful things. How ethnocentric of you to bash them.

        • Frank

          They were what they were in the Middle Ages. But humankind has made astonishing moral progress since then, and I would never want to go back there.

          • J G

            Really Frank? I expect some folks back in the 1940’s in Germany would disagree about our moral progress.

            • Frank

              @google-a3fea81400fed043a1e8a12a0047f5a8:disqus You might be interested in Steven Pinker’s recent NYT bestseller, “The Better Angels of Our Natures.” He finds persuasive evidence that, even in spite of the Gulags and the Concentration Camps, the world today is much less violent than it was in the Middle Ages.

              • Matthew Arnold

                Pinker is a linguist, not an historian. Get history from historians, and science from scientists. Body count and terror are strong indices of our bloody modern age, bloody far beyond anything remotely even imagined by Medieval or ancient peoples.

              • John200

                Body counts: Communists killed well over 100 million in the 20th century. Liberal policies have achieved similar results in service to population control, although the totals are not additive. Many deaths can be attributed to both liberalism and communism. Contemporary liberals and communists have a lot in common.

                And Steven Pinker joins Peter Singer in promoting the anti-human “Expanding Circle of Empathy.” Yes, Frank, I see secular humanism as anti-human, for obvious reasons.

                • El_Tigre_Loco

                  You left out the United States with over 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade.

                  • John200

                    They, too, are casualties of secular humanism, a most anti-human worldview.

  • rsps

    I cannot even believe that a PHD is citing the Regnerus study. It was a complete sham and highly flawed. But, this is what happens when you want to believe something so badly; you throw actual science out the window.
    Also, all the FUS group asked for was a change in course description. When the University ignored calls, emails, hand delivered messages….a public outcry was needed.
    It seems that some very smart people have a very difficult time discerning the difference between the actual teaching of the Church and what they themselves infer from that teaching. No where in the CCC does it say that homosexuals are deviant.
    The reason there was a request for the wording to change was specifically because this is a course that will be used by certified counselors and mental health professionals. It does not fit either Catholic Theology or Good science to imply that homosexuality a) is an action b) is on par with violent deviant behavior.
    If you note there was also an objection to the inclusion of Mental Illness in the same course description, for the same reason. Mental illness is not an action either.
    It was the University that made this into an issue of ‘Religious Liberty’ when really, they could have just changed the course description to be more accurate to the course as it is taught.

    • Totally agree. Mr. Krason has obviously not followed developments concerning the Regnerus study. The journal that published it appointed one of its board members, Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University, to perform an audit of the peer-review process. His finding was that the peer review had “failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems.” In an e-mail to writer Scott Rose, Sherket described the study as “bulls–t.”

      It does Catholic universities no good to disregard scientific consensus about matters such as homosexuality. They may be free to teach what they like, but they are not free to demand accreditation when their teachings fail to equip students to work as mental health professionals in the real world.

    • Guest

      Apparently you are unaware that following an immediate inquiry by the university, UT decided against formal investigation into Regnerus’ study, claiming no
      scientific misconduct was committed. Blogger Scott Rose (Rosenweig) is the gay activist who lodged the complaint. He is a notorious anti-Catholic bigot who goes to any length to discredit Catholics (Regnerus is Catholic) and the Catholic Church in is pushing of the gay agenda. Regnerus has been a highly regarded professor at Chapel Hill before becoming a well respected professor at UT. rsps should do some homework before spouting off.

    • 1776Mariner

      Apparently you are unaware that, following an immediate inquiry by the university, UT decided against formal investigation into Regnerus’ study, claiming no
      scientific misconduct was committed. Blogger Scott Rose (Rosenweig) is the gay activist who lodged the complaint. He is a notorious anti-Catholic bigot who goes to any length to discredit Catholics (Regnerus is Catholic) and the Catholic Church in his promoting of the gay agenda. Regnerus was a highly regarded professor at Chapel Hill before becoming a well respected professor at UT.

      Also rsps, as a health professional (as is my husband), you do not know what you are talking about when discussing homosexuality in a diagnostic context. When we were educated about this topic in our psychology classes, homosexuality was in the same category of pedophilia. The only thing that changed over the years is that homosexuals took over the APA decades ago and announced that homosexuality would no longer be considered a mental illness. I have no doubt that homosexuality and gay “marriage” will be legalized through activist judges (like abortion) but that does not mean it is normal or moral. Pedophilia is the next “lifestyle” that will be declared “normal” by fiat and shoved down our cultures throat. Christians who stand up to truth will be persecuted and driven underground. In the end, the culture will be destroyed because there is nothing healthy in either dysfunctional lifestyle (homosexuality or pedophilia). So it will be the Christians who will have to rebuild our civilization. Christianity has done it before, we will do it again. But there will be much suffering and evil in the interim.

      • 1776Mariner, if you and your husband are health professionals, I can’t imagine what planet you practice on. You and the writer of this article would perhaps like us to think that only one health and social care association in this country (the APA) has declassified homosexuality, but virtually all of them have done so (except, of course, the Catholic ones). They include the American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Sociological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytical Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and the American Anthropological Association.

        These organizations represent virtually the entire scientific community in the pertinent fields. Which one of them do you and your husband belong to?

        The University of Texas never investigated the Regnerus study, as you yourself pointed out. It is beginning to appear that they simply closed ranks around Regnerus just as the Catholic hierarchy closed ranks around its clergy and Penn State did around assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

        It’s true that Scott Rose has a beef with the Catholic church, and so do I. I believe the catechism’s description of homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” is not only blatantly unscientific but libelous and terribly harmful to children who are exposed to it.

        If you are a medical professional, as you claim, you should know better than to associate homosexuality with pedophilia. What you learned in your psychology class probably several decades ago was just wrong, and you have a professional responsibility not to propagate that error any longer.

        • MarkRutledge

          Please, Frank, ditch the propaganda. You can list as many ideologically-driven organizations as you want, but the fact will remain they’re ideologically driven, and all fall back on the same political decision, approved by a slim majority, as a proxy for genuine scientific inquiry. The fact is, those are professional organizations, not scientific bodies. The best research, with politics and idealogy removed, reveal homosexuality as severely disordered. As Catholics, the compassionate course of action is to help the afflicted overcome their affliction, and strive to live a normal, happy life.

          • Can you cite a little of that “best research” showing homosexuality to be severely disordered?

            • John200

              Perhaps 2000 years of history as lived by your faith would get you started on the right road.

              • Frank

                Interesting. I’ve been asking this question about research for over ten years, and I never get an answer. When I am asked about research, I can always cite it.

                • John200

                  It is a malformed question. Your interlocutors are embarrassed for you. You pretend to toy with us when you display perfect ignorance of 2000 years of history as lived by your faith. Oh, dear, now what????

                  As long as you are living, you have a chance to see things aright. One hopes that at some point you will be properly catechized. Once that is accomplished, when you are asked about truth, you will be able to cite it.

                  Frank, we are trying to direct your sorry, lazy carcass toward the finish line. But we might not complete the work. There are others, as you know, who need similar help and who cooperate more readily once they know what is good for them.

                  You don’t have forever to drop the troll posture.

            • Dale O’Leary

              Dear Frank,
              Here is a sample of the best research, done by those who support the gay agenda.
              If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.

              Herrell et al., “A co-twin control study in adult Men: Sexual
              orientation and suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 10
              (1999): 867-874; David Fergusson, John Horwood, Annette Beautrais, “Is sexual
              orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young
              people?,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 10 (1999): 876-888;

              Theo Sandfort et al., “Same-sex sexual behavior and
              psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and
              Incidence Study (NEMESIS),” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58 (2001) 85-91:
              “The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior
              are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.”:

              ;Theo Sandfort et
              al., Sexual orientation and mental and physical health status: Findings
              from a Dutch population survey,” American Journal of Public Health, 96,
              6 (2006): 1119-1126 “Gay/lesbian participants reported more acute mental health
              symptoms than heterosexual people and their general mental health also was
              poorer.” ;

              R. deGraff, Theo
              Sandfort, M. ten Have, “Suicidality and sexual orientation: differences between
              men and women in a general population-based sample from the Netherlands,” Archives of Sexual
              Behavior, 35, 3(2006): 253-262;

              Stephen Gilman et
              al., “Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex
              sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey,” American Journal of
              Public Health, 91, 6 (2001): 933-939: “Homosexual orientation, defined as
              having same-sex sexual partners, is associated with a general elevation of risk
              for anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and
              plans.” ;

              Susan Cochran, Greer
              Sullivan, Vickie Mays, “Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress,
              and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the
              United States, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 1 (2003): 53-61:“Results indicate that gay-bisexual
              men evidence higher prevalence of depression, panic attacks, and psychological
              distress than heterosexual men. Lesbian-bisexual women showed greater
              prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder than heterosexual women. “;

              James Warner et al.,
              “Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men, lesbians, and bisexual men
              and women,” British Journal of
              Psychiatry, 185 (2004); 479-485 :
              “Gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women have high levels of mental disorder.”

              It should be noted that
              the rate of SSA among persons borderline personality disorder is significantly
              higher than in the general population. See: J. Parris,
              H. Zweig-Frank, J. Guzder, “Psychological factors associated with homosexuality
              in males with borderline personality disorders,” Journal of Personality
              Disorders, 9, 11 (1995): 56; G. Zubenko et al., “Sexual practices
              among patients with borderline personality disorder,” American Journal
              Psychiatry, 144, 6 (1987): 748-752.

              In some
              cases persons with schizophrenia present with SSA, but the SSA is resolved when
              the schizophrenia is treated. See: J. Gonsiorek, “The use of diagnostic
              concepts in working with gay and lesbian populations,” (in J. Gonsiorek, Homosexuality
              and Psychotherapy, NY: Haworth,
              1982) 9-20.

              29, (1992):
              501 – 523; S. Sleek, Concerns about conversion therapy. APA Monitor,
              (October, 281997): 16; J. Smith, “Psychopathology, homosexuality, and
              homophobia,” Journal of Homosexuality, 15, 1/2(1988): 59-74.

              Warner: “Gay, lesbian
              and bisexual men and women have high levels of mental disorder.”

              [1] James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip Sutton,”What the
              Research Shows: NARTH’s response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality” Journal
              of Human Sexuality 2009, Vol. 1.

              It should be noted that
              the rate of SSA among persons borderline personality disorder is significantly
              higher than in the general population. See: J. Parris,
              H. Zweig-Frank, J. Guzder, “Psychological factors associated with homosexuality
              in males with borderline personality disorders,” Journal of Personality
              Disorders, 9, 11 (1995): 56; G. Zubenko et al., “Sexual practices
              among patients with borderline personality disorder,” American Journal
              Psychiatry, 144, 6 (1987): 748-752.

              In some cases persons with schizophrenia present
              with SSA, but the SSA is resolved when the schizophrenia is treated. See: J.
              Gonsiorek, “The use of diagnostic concepts in working with gay and lesbian
              populations,” (in J. Gonsiorek, Homosexuality and Psychotherapy, NY: Haworth, 1982) 9-20.Richard Stall, et al. (2003) “Association of
              Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased Vulnerability to
              HIV/AIDS among Urban Men who Sex with Men,” American
              Journal Of Public Health, 93 (6) p.
              939-942; R. Hogg, et al. (1997) “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality
              in gay and bisexual men,” International
              Journal of Epidemiology, 26 (3) p.657-661; J. Diggs, (2002) “Health Risks
              of Gay Sex” Corporate Research Council, (480) 444-0030; M. Xiridou, (2003) “The contribution of steady and casual
              partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in
              Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 1029-1038:
              Gabriel Rotello (1997) Sexual Ecology:
              AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, Dutton: NY.Milton Wainberg
              et al, ((2006) Crystal Meth and Men who Have Sex with Men: What mental health
              care professionals need to know, Haworth
              Medical Press, NY; Perry Halkitis, Leo Wilton, Jack Drescher, ed. (2005) Barebacking: Psychosocial and Public Health Approaches, Haworth Medical Press: NY; Sean Esteban
              McCabe, et al (2005) Assessment of Difference in Dimensions of Sexual Orientation:
              Implications for Substance Use Research in a College-Age Population, Journal
              of Studies on Alcohol, 66, p. 602-629.Morbidity and
              Mortality Weekly Review (2008) “Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses among Men Who
              Have Sex with Men,” June 12.,htm:

              • Frank

                @33aac565a4349988aac3bab2ddfea464:disqus Have you actually read any of these articles? I don’t think they’re going to point to the conclusions you think they do. The first one on your list, from the Archives of General Psychiatry, has this to say about the high incidence of suicidal behaviors among gay men:

                “In the 24 years since the declassification of homosexuality as a pathological characteristic by the American Psychiatric Association, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, school counselors, and others have argued that the experience of being gay—in particular, growing up as an adolescent aware of homosexual feelings in the face of stigmatization and in the absence of social support—may be a risk factor for developing psychopathology. Studies have reported inconsistent findings of higher lifetime prevalence rates of depressive symptoms, alcohol and other drug abuse, and suicidal behavior in homosexual compared with heterosexual samples.”

                “Studies have identified risk factors for self-injury in gay youth, including intrapsychic conflict over nonconformist sexuality, nondisclosure of sexual orientation to others, gender nonconformity, and interpersonal conflicts including personal attacks within the family and at school.”

                I would probably have cited this article to you in support of my contention that many of the high-risk behaviors of gay men can best be addressed by ending discrimination and stigmatization and guaranteeing same-sex couples everywhere the right to marry. Marriage is a great stabilizing force, and yet it is still denied to same-sex couples in most parts of the world. If you believe that marriage is good for straight men, then you can hardly deny that it would also be good for gay men.

                Thank you for the list, because I believe it may support my claims much more than it will support yours.

                • Frank

                  @33aac565a4349988aac3bab2ddfea464:disqus The third study on your list offers this assessment:

                  “The effects of social factors on the mental health status of homosexual men and women have been well documented in studies, which found a relationship between experiences of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination and mental health status.”

                  Here are the studies they cite:

                  Brooks V. Minority Stress and Lesbian Women. Lexington, Mass DC Heath1981;

                  Meyer IF. Minority stress and mental health in gay men. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;3638- 56

                  Bradford J, Ryan C, Rothblum ED. National Lesbian Health Care Survey: implications for mental health care. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62228- 242

                  Frable DE, Wortman C, Joseph J. Predicting self-esteem, well-being, and distress in a cohort of gay men: the importance of cultural stigma, personal visibility, community networks, and positive identity. J Pers. 1997;65599- 624

                  Herek GM, Gillis JR, Cogan JC. Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67945- 951

                  Meyer IH, Dean L, Internalized homophobia, intimacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. Herek GM.ed.Stigma and Sexual Orientation Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Thousand Oaks, Calif Sage Publications1998;160- 186

                  Herek GM, Gillis JR, Cogan JC, Glunt EK. Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. J Interpersonal Violence. 1997;12195- 215

                  Otis MD, Skinner WF. The prevalence of victimization and its effect on mental well-being among lesbian and gay people. J Homosex. 1996;3093- 121

                  Ross MW. The relationship between life events and mental health in homosexual men. J Clin Psychol. 1990;46402- 411

                  Rotheram-Borus MJ, Hunter J, Rosario M. Suicidal behavior and gay-related stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents. J Adolesc Res. 1994;9498- 508

                  • Frank

                    @33aac565a4349988aac3bab2ddfea464:disqus I hope that those who have questioned my presence on this site (including, perhaps, yourself) can now understand why I came here. There has been a lot of needless suffering in the LGBT community, where the risks of disease, suicide, drug abuse, and mental illness are much higher than they should be. But imputing these problems to homosexuality itself is a grave mistake that only makes matters much worse. Psychiatric professionals have denounced “conversion” therapies, and even the practitioners of those therapies (notably, NARTH), have recently admitted that they are ineffective.

                    So let’s re-start from the understanding that stigmatizing gay and lesbian individuals is not the solution—it is the problem. The Church’s approach is terribly misguided, it is harmful, and it has no support from the psychiatric community. I would urge you to read some of the studies that you listed and to pay careful attention to the “Conclusions” section of each one. I think it is highly improbable that any of them will conclude that homosexuality is sinful or that it is “intrinsically disordered.”

                    Homosexuality is very common in many, many animal species, including bison, brown bears, brown rats, caribou, domestic cats, cattle, chimpanzees, dolphins, marmosets, dogs, elephants, foxes, giraffes, goats, horses, koalas, lions, orcas, raccoons, barn owls, chickens, common gulls, emus, king penguins, mallards, ravens, seagulls, at least 16 species of fish, at least 30 species of reptiles, four species of amphibians, and 75 species of insects.

                    Only humans—the species with patriarchal religion—has any problem with it.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Frank, Dale’s right. I’m in the medical field and she’s referencing some pretty strong peer reviewed research. Very well respected publications.

                  • Frank

                    @Objectivetruth:disqus Exactly. Read my comment carefully.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Also, Canada has had the right for gays to marry for many years, but only 17% of gays do while 78% of heterosexuals do.

                    • So you are making all this fuss over a tiny number of marriages that will have same-sex spouses? Go do something useful. Read to a child. Teach a marriage class. Feed the starving. Visit the sick. Stop attacking gays.

                  • Frank

                    @Objectivetruth:disqus If you read the thread carefully, you’ll remember that the “challenge” was to produce some evidence supporting the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” I checked out the first three articles that Dale cited and could find no such confirmation of the Church’s teaching. On the contrary, these articles reported research designed to discover whether there was any correlation between homosexuality and certain high-risk behaviors, mental illness, etc. And some of those studies did find positive correlations. But correlation is not causation. This is a principle to engrave on a stone over your bed. Correlation is not causation. To put it simply, homosexuality does not “cause” self-destructive behaviors. What causes them is a toxic mix of social ostracism and other factors.

                    This is why I say that Dale’s list of articles supports my argument rather than hers. The articles are sound, from what I could tell. (I didn’t check them all, only the first three.) And so she did a good job in finding strong peer-reviewed research. But it doesn’t appear that any of it is an answer to my challenge.

                • Objectivetruth

                  No one is for discrimination and stigmatization of SSA people, Frank. But why redefine marriage, Frank? and if you do want to redefine it, shouldn’t the bigamysts and pedophiles also have a place at the redefining marriage table? Reason I say this is that national man/boy marriage associations have already argued that if marriage is redefined for gay adult men and women, they want the right to marry a 12 year old boy. The redefining of marriage opens it up to all groups……..can you see the slippery slope?

                  • Frank

                    @Objectivetruth:disqus There’s no slippery slope. Apart from the fact that the “slippery slope” argument is considered a logical fallacy, there is also the hard reality of judicial precedent in this country. The courts don’t normally rule against a litigated behavior unless they find that the state has a “vested interest” or “compelling interest” in prohibiting it. In the case of same-sex marriage, there is no such “compelling interest.” In the case of man/boy love and polygamy, there clearly is.

                    Don’t worry. A bright line separates SSM from these forms of marriage that we all recognize as harmful.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      You’ve got it backwards, Frank. The state has a “vested interest” in promoting marriage between a man and woman because this is best for the child. The state sees a benefit to a child having a mother and a father. Like it or not, that is what nature intended, and the state recognizes that. Two men married could never, never bring an incredibly crucial and major component to the raising of a child: MOTHERHOOD. I read an article how lesbian couples who adopt a boy soon bring a male friend in to the rearing of that child because they realize they can never give that boy the male, fatherly rearing he needs. And yes Frank, there is a slippery slope. If marriage is to be redefined, why can’t a man have five wives? Or a mother marry her son? Or a father marry his daughter……etc. or are you just being a bigot against those groups?

                      And I asked before, Frank, why years later after getting the legal right in Canada for gays to marry, do only 17% take advantage of it and get married? Almost 80% of heterosexuals Canadiens do, so why such a descrepency?

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus You just keep striking out. A Vancouver Sun story that ran four days ago (“Census: Gay Couples Are Embracing Marriage”) reports that the number of gay couples tying the knot increased by somewhere between 121 and 181 percent between 2006 and 2011. During the same period, the percentage increase for opposite-sex couples was 3 percent.

                      And your analysis of the laws in this country is inaccurate. The state does have a vested interested in encouraging marriage for the sake of children, but it has no vested interest in denying marriage to same-sex couples, and it has no vested interest in denying those couples the right to adopt children.

                      I have explained several times why the slippery slope argument is flawed. The state has a vested interest in not allowing polygamy, incestuous marriage, or man-boy marriages. Such marriages would be harmful for the reasons that I have explained and that should be obvious. If you really don’t understand why they are harmful, you can easily do some research or re-read some of my comments. Once again, there is a bright line between SSM and such hypothetical forms of marriage.

                    • Wake up. Only 10% of children in America today are living in homes where they are raised by both biological parents. Single parents, divorce, remarriage, adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc. and all these things from heterosexual families. Stop freaking out about the 1or 2% of marriages with same-sex spouses and do something to fix heterosexuals.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And Frank, leave the bubble for a minute: WE all on this website recognize SSM marriage as harmful!!!!! Get it???? So if you’re allowed to redefine marriage towards what you want and say its OK, but call others personal redefinition as harmful, isn’t that being bigoted?

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus To challenge a falsehood is not an act of bigotry. I realize that most or all of the bloggers on this site believe that SSM is harmful, and that’s why I am here. Q: “Why do you rob banks?” A: “Because that’s where the money is.”

                      The claim that SSM is harmful is simply false, and every major health and social services organization in this country has affirmed and reaffirmed in the most uncertain terms that there is absolutely no harm in SSM and that a great deal of good comes from it. The U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals has found “no compelling reason” to prohibit same-sex marriage.”

                      The fact that I am outnumbered here doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. I didn’t come here to find friends, after all.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Catholics cannot affirm or recognize gay marriage Frank because At its core is sodomy. Sodomy has always been against the proper “order” (therefore, if not ordered, it is “disordered”) or nature of God’s will or plan for the sexual act and sexual organs. The sexual act is a complimentary act of total selfless giving between man and woman that is unitive, bonding and possibly the transmission of human life thus cooperating with the will of God. Anal sex between two men is just that: lustful sex, the using of the other man as an object of self gratification. No self giving, no bonding of complimentariness, no procreation. Totally against God’s plan for the sexual act. Basically, an insult to God and what His will is. You are quite aware Frank of all the studies showing how gay men are extremely promiscuous, even today AIDS still being a scourge on gay men.

                      One last time, if gays want marriage why then in Canada do so few take advantage of it? I believe that at its core it’s all about sodomy and self-centered orgasm, the commitment of marriage to one person for the rest of ones life is a contract the promiscuous gay male is unwilling to do.

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus How do you know what God’s plans for the sexual organs is? Have you talked to Him recently? And what is “the proper order” that you speak of? How do you know that frontal missionary-style sex is the “proper order?” God has mysterious ways, wouldn’t you agree? Aren’t you being a bit presumptuous in second-guessing Him? When you get to the Pearly Gates, He may ask you about that…

                      So anal sex is lustful for homosexuals, but it’s not lustful for the heterosexuals that practice it? No bonding? How can you be so sure? Have you “been there, done that, bought the T-shirt?”

                      What IS God’s plan for the sexual act? And how do you know? When you quote the Bible and I answer by quoting the Bible, you tell me that the Bible mustn’t be taken literally. You can’t have it both ways. It is either literal or figurative.

                      As for Canada, I just posted a comment about that, which you will find either above or below. SSM is wildly popular among same-sex couples in Canada. Your information is out of date. Gay men and lesbians want commitment, and there can be no clearer evidence of that than the census figures from Canada. Thanks for bringing up Canada. It proves my point.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Wrong on Canada Frank, fuzzy math on your end, google for the truth Frank. Their census was counting people who were roommates, but not married gays.

                      Where have I mentioned scripture Frank, only mentioning how YOU have misinterpreted scripture and have no authority to interpret it? I’ve only discussed how sodomy is against the natural law. If you want to go there then, and scripture in several places mentions the sinfulness of homosexual acts,how is your interpretation correct (and sodomy is OK), but 1700 years of Catholic authority is wrong? Did you put together the canon of scripture and receive authority from Christ himself? I can show where the Catholic Church has authority over scripture……where does your authority come from?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Show me Frank how someone makes a baby through anal sex.

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus Is someone trying to make babies?

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus No, I was not wrong on Canada. You are. I cited the article; you can read it for yourself.

                      I don’t rely on holy scripture, but I do sometimes cite it when it is cited to me. My point is that you can’t send me to “several places that mention the sinfulness of homosexual acts” without expecting that I’ll reciprocate by taking YOU to “several places” where God orders abortions, forbids eating shellfish, commands fathers to stone their daughters, etc.

                      I consider the Bible to be literature (sometimes great), and that is all.

                    • John200

                      Your point is so idiotic, no one here wants to explain it to you. A well-catechized 10 year old knows why your point is wrong. It starts with the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. As I suggested earlier, you should enroll in RCIA.

                      Second point: The author of the Bible considers you to be infinitely valuable. You consider yourself to be worthy of subhuman conduct and inhuman thinking. The denouement is not good, not good at all.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus The author of the Bible considers me to be “infinitely valuable,” but my dénouement is “not good, not good at all.” What utter rubbish, and it makes absolutely no sense. It’s like some warped monster of a father crying tears of love as he tortures his only child to death. And you accuse ME of subhuman thinking? No wonder people are turning to atheistic humanism.

                    • John200

                      No rubbish there, I told you what can save you from “atheistic
                      humanism.” And those are the words for your predicament. Do you see where I got
                      the ideas of sophistries, de Sade, paganism, having your ass handed to you,
                      Satan, and pride?

                      I have done enough for you. The rest is up to you.

                      Best wishes to you and yours (including to the partner you
                      are destroying).

                    • I went to the Roman Catholic seminary, to the Franciscan University of Steubenville, to bible school and graduate school in theology. And I agree with Frank. You call names, you know nothing about sexual orientation or how America works. We are not a theocracy, Praise God!

                    • John200

                      No surprise that you agree with Frank.

                      You say you went to schools where you should have learned something, specifically, the truth. Look at what you did with that education (if you really have it).

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I know God’s plans Frank through the Church he gave us, the Catholic Church. Here are two major tenants of marriage: it is a covenant before God between a man and a woman and it is open to procreation. Your a gay atheist, Frank. You don’t believe in God so you strike out on the first tenant. You can’t procreate naturally in a gay relationship so you fall short there. As the gay community continues to jettison all the major parts of what defines marriage…….how can you then call what you’ve totally changed and watered down “marriage?” Sorry Frank, I can stand out in front of my house and point at an elm tree saying “it’s a giraffe, too!” all day long and it doesn’t make it true. I once heard a gay man say “why do my partner and I need marriage? We’ve got all the legal protection we need. Marriage is a straight person’s thing, not ours.” he realized that he and his partner could not fulfill the requirements of true marriage, let alone have any God given right to change what marriage is.

                      C’mon Frank, you’re living a life of horrible sin. Repent and believe the Good News. You’ll find the peace of Christ.

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus Right. You know God’s plans through your church. It’s a faith thing, so I cannot hope to persuade you. I know that and it’s not what I’m here for. I’m here to plant some seeds of doubt and to be a witness for the truth. A lot of people may read these comments without leaving one themselves, and I am here for their sakes.

                      Similarly, your faith-based objections to SSM will ultimately fail to persuade those who think outside the faith bubble, like myself. Your sham rational/pragmatic/consequentialist objections don’t hold up to scrutiny, so you will always fall back on faith. That may work for you, but it may NOT be a very potent argumentative tool in this day and age.

                      The gay man who wondered why he needed marriage was probably ignorant of the 1043 federal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage in this country. He didn’t have all the legal protections that he imagined he did.

                      An elm tree is not a giraffe, but a same-sex marriage is in fact a variety of marriage in 10 countries and 7 U.S. states.

                      OT, your talk of sin and repentance, like your talk of heaven and hell, is addressed to the wrong person. And if what I have heard from faithful Catholics on this blogsite demonstrates the “peace of Christ,” then I definitely don’t want any part of it.

                    • I have found the peace of Christ. God made me homosexual and I am very blessed with love and peace and joy in my life. I am an ordained Christian minister and served the poor as chaplain in the city mission. Praise God for the peace which passes all understanding!

                    • How can anyone who claims to believe the bible not pay any attention to what the bible itself calls the sin of Sodom? “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;they did not help the poor and needy.”

                    • If you don’t like promiscuous gays, support marriage equality. Marriage, for all its flaws and human limitations, remains the best protection against selfishness and STD’s.

                    • John200

                      You came here to find the truth. You are losing that.

                      You think you are among people who cannot keep up with your sophistries, and that we have not read your philosophical muse, the Marquis de Sade, and that we do not know your religion, paganism.

                      How sad that you have had your ass handed to you and you have to pretend it is not happening. Oh, that’s pride, and Satan will be so proud of having locked you into it.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus You are sounding more and more apocalyptic, even hallucinatory. Maybe you should see a medical professional about that.

                      My partner just passed by and I read him what you’d written, in a kind of Vincent Price voice. We couldn’t stop laughing. He said, “Tell him he’s a scarecrow. If only he had a brain.” Thanks for the laughs.

                    • John200


                      Your lame private party oozes pride, but I already pointed that out. You think sophistries, de Sade, paganism, having your ass handed to you, Satan, and pride are laughable.

                      You seem to think your pride is not a problem. It is. Carry on. I have already done more for you than I was ordered to do.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus You were “ordered” to do something for me? How cryptic. Are you a member of Opus Dei?

                    • John200


                      If you knew the Catholic faith a little better, you would not find love for your neighbor cryptic. Nor would it surprise you to learn that your neighbor is everybody. Nor would it surprise you to learn that we are all — ALL — called to help our neighbor. It is an order, not optional.

                      RCIA, Frank, come on, it is the cure for what ails you. Or at least a good start.

                      If you are a literary type, come in through C. S. Lewis (not a Catholic) or G. K. Chesterton (a convert). There are many others (the list of saints is long), but those two helped me almost as much as scripture itself. The Catechism tells you everything, but it is dry reading for the unbeliever. You probably would not finish it.

                      Almost forgot to answer directly — no, I am not in Opus Dei. I know a few members, but the reason I have not joined is simple. I cannot keep up with all the orders and movements in the faith. And I do not want to make a mistaken commitment.

                      So I shoot right down the mainline and I know I am alright. Catechism, Papal encyclicals, orthodox scholars, etc.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus I have seen nothing on this site that in any way attracts me to Catholicism, and I cannot imagine why anyone in his or her right mind would put up with it. It seems to be about sin, guilt, suffering, self-denial, sexual repression, and fear. Especially fear. I am (most of the time) in a sin-guilt-suffering-self-denial-fear-and-sexual-repression-FREE zone, and I REALLY like it that way. Thank you.

                    • The same things that make marriage great for loving and committee heterosexuals apply to same-sex couples.

                  • Frank

                    @Objectivetruth:disqus It’s odd that no one seems to be “for” discrimination and stigmatization—not even Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. How can this be, when we see evidence of these behaviors all around us?

                    Any psychologist could handle that question readily. We simply deny that we are engaged in such behaviors and hope that we’ll be believed. Usually, people don’t challenge us, so we think we’ve gotten by with it. Or, we spin and reframe those behaviors in terms of religious liberty or lame “love the sinner/hate the sin” excuses.

                    I’ve noticed that conservative Catholics often try evoking fears about same-sex marriage by pointing out that caterers and photographers will not be able to refuse same-sex clients for religious reasons. But these business owners would never admit that they are “discriminating.” Oh no. It is about “religious liberty.”

                    As for stigmatization, I can’t think of a better example than the catechism’s description of homosexuality as “objectively disordered.” It has caused untold harm and has contributed mightily to the dysfunctions that Dale’s articles point to.

                  • You are creating the old straw man argument. But the reality is that in the 72 nations with marriage equality nobody has ever made laws legalizing bigamy or pedophilia. There is no slippery slope. As Mildred Loving, whose crime and sin of marrying someone of another race finally led to the end of laws barring interracial couples from marrying has said, “I support marriage equality. It is the same struggle my husband Richard and I endured, the struggle to marry the person you love.”

              • Guest

                Most of those links are to pseudo-scientific publications and groups. Every actual scientific medical association agrees sexual orientation is not a choice.

            • El_Tigre_Loco

              What is sex for? Procreation.
              Homosexual acts do not allow the possibility of procreating, therefore they are against nature.
              What is the problem?

          • Mark, the scientific medical authorities are all unanimous that the actual evidence is overwhelming that sexual orientation is not a choice. You can personally run an experiment to prove the experts wrong. Choose to turn yourself gay for the next year and write a report about it. What you will find is that it was impossible for you to change your sexual orientation. Same as it is for gays.

        • Objectivetruth

          AAAARGH!!!!! Obviously, Frank, you didn’t look up what the Church means by “intrinsically disordered” did you?! Leave now while you have an ounce of dignity left! Most of the people reading these comments and posting here have studied the Church’s teachings while you don’t have a clue! Reading your posts is like watching a slow moving train wreck. I’m trying to help you, Frank! You are truly embarrassing yourself! Take six months to truly study the Church, come back and you might have something to say!

          • Frank

            Maybe you’re projecting. Maybe you could spend as much time sharing with us what “intrinsically disordered” means as you spent writing that paragraph. I’m dying to know.

            • John200

              It is sad that you engage in intrinsically disordered behavior, pretend you don’t know what it means, could easily find out what it meant if you were sincerely interested, and have reduced yourself to trolling.

              The clue is “Objective truth” to which you object with such force. Good thing you are impotent and have no influence on others.

              Just so you know before you die: You ARE dying, bodily and spiritually, from intrinsically disordered behavior. You can learn it right here, or not. You will know soon enough, when you are required to cease the wiseguy BS.

              • Frank

                What wiseguy BS? Mark claims that the “best research reveals homosexuality as severely disordered,” and then he can’t cite the research. The reason he can’t cite it is that it doesn’t exist. All the reputable research points to exactly the opposite conclusion. So instead of dealing with this little conundrum in a adult way, you all tell me that I’m “toying with you,” that I’m “impotent and dying, bodily and spiritually.” Great going. I’m really impressed.

                • John200

                  You are not impressed. You are a BSer, in internet terms, a troll.

                  You will learn what you need to know.

            • Objectivetruth

              C’mon Frank……John200 is right. Sodomy has always been a grave and immoral sin, whether you choose to follow it or not. You know that. The Truth is the Truth, we’re all subjected to it. All of us have sins that we need to stop doing and repent from. The best part is when someone stops sinning…..there is peace! You seem like a good guy Frank. It’s out of Christian love that we tell you this.

              • Frank

                Well, I don’t know how many times I’ve said this, but I’ll say it again. Anal and oral intercourse, the two forms of “sodomy,” are practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Not all homosexuals practice it, any more than all heterosexuals do. It is in fact a high-risk behavior. If you are concerned about the social costs of such behavior, then address the behavior instead of attacking the sexual orientation of the people who engage in it.

                Obesity is also a high-risk behavior and gluttony is a cardinal sin. People of all races, religions, and ethnicities engage in it, and the social costs are enormous. But why on earth would you single out any particular race or religion or ethnicity for criticism of obesity?

                What would you say if I were to claim that Catholicism is sinful because Catholics practice gluttony? I think you would immediately spot the problem with that statement, and yet you do not spot a similar problem with the claim that homosexuality is sinful because homosexuals practice sodomy.

                Why are such absurd claims made, and who makes them? For the answer to that, I will refer you to a Catholic writer, René Girard, who has written extensively about the mechanisms of scapegoating. And what you have in those two statements is classic scapegoating strategy, which, by the way, is almost always unconscious.

                • Objectivetruth

                  And Frank both anal and oral sex whether practiced by hetero or homosexual person are against the order of nature (hence, disordered), not part of God’s will or plan for the sexual act, and therefore Immorral. If homosexuals are committing anal/oral sex it is a grave sin, if heterosexuals are committing anal/oral sex it is a grave sin. But as John200 previously said, you are just trolling, trolling along. As far as the Guttmacher study and contraception and the USCCB not refuting it, their “non response” was not an agreement of it, they’re job is not to get in the gutter with Guttmacher and refute ridiculously flawed studies. And guess what……if 5% of Catholic women or 95% of Catholic women are using contraceptives it doesn’t change the morality of the sinfulness of contraception. All that says is that either 5% of women are willfully sinning or 95% are willfully sinning. Keep trolling though!

                  • Frank

                    OT, I’m glad you are finally focusing on behavior, not the identity of those who practice it. Whether you consider anal and oral sex to be grave sins is of no concern to me, as long as you do not single out homosexuals, as if only they were “guilty” of these sexual behaviors. That is truly a slander, and it is what offends me and all LGBTs.

                    The reason the USCCB did not refute the Guttmacher study is that they they couldn’t. I find it impossible to believe they would have refrained from doing so otherwise. And again, my point was not about the morality of contraception but only about the prevalence of its use among Catholic women. It is symptomatic of the fact that many Catholic women do not listen to the clergy about such matters and that the Church’s influence with them has weakened considerably. And it goes back to what I’ve been saying about the Church being so stuck in the past that it is usually, in the late Cardinal Martini’s words, “200 years behind the times.”

                    • John200

                      Rich, I am sad that you are finding ways to promote homo”sex”uals. And yes, as you know, they are guilty (no scare quotes needed) of grave sin. It is not slander to inform LGBGTBLXYZQUACKTs (whatever acronym suits them as of 9/22/12) that they are heading to mortal sin. Offense, be damned. I’d rather save one than concern myself that I “offend” you by telling the truth.

                      Do you know anything of true Catholic faith? It is OK to say, “No.” Many people can plead ignorance. But it is not OK to learn about the faith and reject it.

                      Do you see?

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus: I keep trying to understand and you keep failing to explain.

                    • “Homosexuality” is a modern medical term and concept. The bible does not address civil laws in the US on marriage equality. The bible never addresses sexual orientation. The same God who gave us the bible gave us modern medicine. Those who ignore medicine only create pain and suffering where it is not necessary. There is a rapidly growing list of churches recognizing all this. My denomination has welcomed gays for 40 years and it turns out, people are people and love is love.

                    • John200

                      I know the origins of the term “homosexuality” and its etymology. I know it is not a perfect descriptor for what you are. I use it because most people understand it to mean (roughly) what I want to say. I talk to you using your terms because I want you to have the truth in language that communicates as clearly as possible. I know you will resist with all your sad, benighted little boy strength.

                      There is no need to redefine and recount its etymology every time you homo”sex”uals want more attention.

                      I choose to call it homo”sex”uality because it is a more accurate descriptor.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And people have been freely saying no to the moral teaching of Jesus Christ for 2000 years, this is why the road back to him is narrow, and the road to hell is wide, Frank! People said no to Christ even during his earthly ministry, Jesus didn’t convert everyone. People choose to go to heaven or hell, Christ doesn’t send them. So Catholics Frank that know the true teaching of Christ concerning sodomy and contraception and decide to live those lifestyles anyway, well…..guess what road they’ve decided to travel on????

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus You’re talking to the wrong person. I don’t believe in heaven or hell.

                    • Look at the four Gospels. You won’t find Jesus saying a single word against homosexuals. Please follow His example. Or, at the very least, stop using His holy name to justify your human prejudice.

                  • FUSalum

                    Objectivetruth, you are mistaken. Oral sex is completely acceptable within a Catholic context provided the male does not ejaculate. Bully for the ladies, I should say.

                  • Frank

                    @Objectivetruth:disqus Homosexuality is very common in many, many animal species, including bison, brown bears, brown rats, caribou, domestic cats, cattle, chimpanzees, dolphins, marmosets, dogs, elephants, foxes, giraffes, goats, horses, koalas, lions, orcas, raccoons, barn owls, chickens, common gulls, emus, king penguins, mallards, ravens, seagulls, at least 16 species of fish, at least 30 species of reptiles, four species of amphibians, and 75 species of insects.

                    If it’s not part of “God’s plan,” then why do so many animal species feature homosexuality?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And wabbits!!

                      C’mon Frank! You took that list off of a Bugs Bunny episode where Bugs is reading off of a list of animals the Tasmanian Devil likes to eat!

                      So Frank, you’re an atheist? No belief in heaven and hell? My question then is if you don’t believe in an afterlife, and when you die it’s total darkness, nothingness, why are wasting so much time I’m here bashing Catholics? As a 68 year old, your entire existence only has a couple of more years left then no more Frank, according to your atheistic faith. No heaven or hell for you means no divine afterlife judgement so therefore you are not adherent to any moral laws. So why waste what precious time you have left posting here? If I had your beliefs I’d be partying like a hedonisitc rock star!!! So c’mon Frank……….quit wasting your time in here bashing the Church and have fun!!

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus Do you mean to tell me that the only reason you’re not out partying like a hedonistic rock star is that you believe in divine punishment? So is that what you’d really like to do–party? Virtue is not its own reward? You don’t do good things simply because they are good? Or even because you love God and your fellow human beings?

                      I’m afraid this is a view of human nature that I do not share in any way, shape, or form. I believe that empathy and altruism are part of our natures and that we don’t need threats of punishment to manifest them.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      totally distorted what I’m saying Frank. Frank, nature has set up heterosexual behaviour as normal, homosexual behaviour goes against what nature demands, and is therefore, not normal, but abnormal. Spin that truth whatever way you want Frank. Call me all the names you want, but the truth is the truth. The sexual act and organs was designed by nature for procreation between a man and a woman.

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus The sexual organs were not designed. They evolved. The mouth also evolved. It is used for more than one purpose.

                    • pick moss

                      Hey Frank, Objectivetruth has a good point, why not quit wasting your time bashing the church and have fun? If you don’t believe in God and His Church, why not do what brings you the most pleasure. There are no consequences, so live it up!!! But I got tell ya, you are taking a heck of a risk. Either there is a God and an afterlife, or there isn’t. If you toss the coin and guess wrong…you suffer a horrid fate! Is it worth a single coin toss? Do you really want to take such a gamble? One summer evening, I went out fishing on my favorite lake. I paddled my canoe to the far side of the lake and fished until dark. Then the mosquitoes came out, thousands of them!!!! The stung me all over my body, including my butt. (I sat on a wicker seat.) The mosquitoes’ buzzing was maddening!! I was screaming like a lunatic before I reached the boat launch. That was just one little moment in my life….but…I realized that an eternity in hell, was not something I ever wanted to experience. A few minutes of intense aggravation or pain are more than I want to deal with. When I die, I want to join our God in heaven. I want to spend eternity with the people are dear to me. People can rationalize anything, but the truth of the matter is…ALL of us are pretty weak-minded. ALL of our attempts at logical thought, are pathetic. We ALL construct our reality out an initial decision about what is true, and real. Frank, you seem like a great guy…definitely as nice as Objectivetruth, John200, or I. You seem very bright, honest, funny, with a lot of love in your heart. Why don’t you and your partner come to church next Sunday, and see if you can learn to love the church and the Lord? The church has a lot to offer, and we are always in need of more good men and women. I bet you would end up a leader in the church. The church is full of very conservative people, but if you look hard enough you will find some quiet liberals who love the Lord, and the church, and can’t agree with all the issues that are being discussed….which is no different than with any large organizations….give us a try Frank, we are all sinners, we are all weak, and foolish. God loves us despite ourselves. Plus there is no way you want to spend eternity with mosquitoes biting your butt. (worse yet….spending eternity in a room with Objectivetruth and John200 discussing the evils of homosexuality!!)

                    • Frank

                      @6a14267447fb62c60f988d34aeee49ec:disqus Are you telling me that you are having no fun and that you take no pleasure in life? Do you mean that you have sacrificed this life for the next? Is it possible that you are going to bypass your life altogether–your only chance at it–in favor of a promise attached to a wager? It seems to me that you are betting the farm on a roll of the dice.

                      And why would you think that I am not already enjoying my life? This is precisely the difference that I see between you and me. I have realized that this life is all there is, and I am living it to the full. That does not mean that I party until 4 a.m. every morning. I do not like partying. “Living life to the full” means different things for different people. For some, it means writing novels; for some it means creating art or composing music. And for some, it means trying to make a difference in other peoples’ lives. But my life is full of meaning and purpose–infinitely more so than it was during the days when I believed as you do.

                      Thanks for your story, which I genuinely appreciate. But I think you drew the wrong lessons from your experience with the mosquitoes. You were thinking of your own pain and of your need to avoid it and to have eternal happiness. You were not outer-directed but inner-directed. You were thinking of yourself. But what about the injustice of there even being a place where people suffer for eternity. Have you thought about that? How could you ever worship a God who would countenance that? The span of eternity is like all the grains of sand in the whole world–and, yes, in the universe. What kind of “god” would create a universe in which people like the Dalai Lama and myself would roast forever in a lake of fire?

                      The theology of hell is revolting, repugnant. It’s a scandal to every decent person because it’s about ultimate control and ultimate fear.

                      We only become free when we can throw off those shackles of control and fear.

                    • Frank

                      @6a14267447fb62c60f988d34aeee49ec:disqus Here is a short, entertaining video about the “Pascal’s wager,” by Scott Clifton:

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Also Frank, most of the animals you mentioned eat their own young, feces,and vomit and thank goodness I as a human have divine given reason and intellect not to engage in those activities either.

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus Are you saying that, without “divine given reason” you would do those things? Somehow, I don’t think it’s your “intellect” that prevents your doing so. Eating one’s own feces is just not something that humans do. Our amygdala, which controls the four F’s (feeding, flight, fighting, and making love) does not include a fifth F (for “feces consumption). It’s not in our repertoire of normal behaviors. But homosexuality (as an orientation) definitely is, just as left-handedness, and premature baldness are. (The incidence of each of these is about 8-12 percent.)

                    • Mark

                      Ah, the old “horny stupid animal” defense.

              • What does the bible say was the sin of Sodom? “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;they did not help the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49

            • He has no clue.

      • Tout

        Too bad, many Catholics don’t actually defend their belief. I try to rebuild some Catholicism. For years, I go & pray at a Mary-statue downtown, twice a month, hang sign “Whether glad, sad or wary, pause a while, say a Hail Mary”. Some pedestrians come and touch the statue; a few said a prayer; a girl knelt on the ground,prayed,left. I started a Mary-procession in May, by going around 4 streets,praying rosary in hand. The 7th time(2005), others joined me. In 2008, a lady took over(I was 88), had a fine procession, ending in church for Mary-crowning. All parishes should have a Mary-procession outside.Even if it had only 8 people, and Mary-statue. In Turnhout(Belgium) I prayed at Sacred Heart-statue.It was in very bad shape. Back in Canada, wrote to 100+addresses & the Mayor there, that it had to be repaired. It was fully repaired in 2006. And other Catholic actions.Always receive H.Host on tongue,never in hand.Always cross myself before meals, In restaurant, alone or with others who don’t. Please Catholics, receive on tongue;God wants to come in you, not in your hand. When no use of a communion-rail, I give only 25 cents or less.

      • Marriage equality is winning at the ballot box, too. The tide has turned because anyone who knows a gay couple can see the love we have, and recognize that we are no threat to anyone. We just want to marry and live our lives with the same rights as anyone else. Thank God the last legal prejudice is starting to fall. And when you conflate a loving married gay couple with child rapers you only show that your goal is not understanding but the ugliest possible smear.

    • John200

      “I cannot even believe that a PHD is citing the Regnerus study.”

      You will. Many Ph Ds will cite it. It is better than the opposing “studies.”

      • The Regnerus study was audited by the journal that published it and found to contain significant disqualifying problems.

        • John200

          Sorry, Frank,
          Your manic tone on this does not persuade, nor does the non-fascinating parade of lefty baloney arguments.

          Homo”sex”uals are like that, yeah, they are. Normal people are so over you and your tactics, you really need a change.

    • El_Tigre_Loco

      If homosexuality is normal, nay, wonderful, why was there such a flap over the priest scandal? You can’t have it both ways.

      • You are sick indeed if you can’t tell the difference between two loving adults getting married and spending their lives together versus child rapers, such as the many pedophile priests so many bishops covered up for.

        • El_Tigre_Loco

          What is my name? Just because a disorder was changed politically to ‘normal’ doesn’t make it so. The strange thing I find in this whole mess is that the folks who are trying to prevent these actions are actually doing more good for the participants than the ones who are trying to pander to them. Do you have children? Do you give them everything they want no matter how outrageous? Human beings are evolving from the animal (temporal) toward the spiritual (eternal). Too many people today want to return to the animal state. This is not only a bad idea, it could cause major regret. What you propose is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Never a good idea. Believe me, we are all approaching that time in our lives when we will wonder what the heck we were thinking when we decided on this or that course of action.

  • MPorter

    I am really rather surprised that educated people are so dim as to assume that the term “deviant” can be used coextensively with “intrinsically disordered.” From a scholarly perspective both these terms have very specific meanings within their disciplines. So in short there is simply no reason why a Catholic institution should be terming “homosexuality” a “deviant behavior” – it is not church teaching. But the point really is to promote the university to its Republican customers, isn’t it?…not actually to stand up for church teaching. If they were interested in fidelity to Rome, they would not have invited torture-advocate Michael Hayden to receive an honorary doctorate.

    • verbummilitant

      “Deviant” is defined as “deviating from what is considered normal…in sexual behavior” (Webster’s Dictionary). God created us. He alone designed our bodies. He did NOT design the digestive/waste system of our body to be used as sexual organs!
      The Catholic Church has always taught that sex MUST be open to procreation. May I refer you to Genesis 2:22-24. And the Lord God built the rib: which HE took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; SHE shall be called woman, becuase SHE was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife [marriage] ” and THEY shall be two into one flesh.”
      That has been God’s plan since the creation of mankind. NO MAN, NO GOVERNMENT can change that. ANYTHING that deviates from “belonging to the real nature of a thing” (Websters Dictionary) is, by definition “intrinsically disordered.”
      Aaaahh…the power of the “victim.” This exalted status would appear to give those who wear it’s crown, entitlements that far exceed nature and nature’s God. However, appearances are often misleading. Be careful of what fruit you eat “lest perhaps we die.”

      • anglesium

        Webster’s is not a valid source, academically. Deviance is a term in sociology or behavioural psychology. “Intrinsically disordered” is a term in natural law ethics. In order to understand the proper context for either of these terms, one has to reference the accepted dictionaries of the specific fields of study: not Webster’s. The American infatuation with Webster’s as a final authority always strikes me as amusing. If you must use a general dictionary rather than a scientific encyclopedia of terms, there is the OED…or has it not made it across the pond?

        There are many ways in which homosexual acts could be termed deviant in the context of a class on behavior, but homosexuality as such can not be defined as deviant, given current classifications. The suggestion that this wording be changed is in no way an attack on either the school or the church, but simply a helpful criticism of an outdated academic classification. There are certain personalities that cry “attack” any time any word of criticism is uttered. And certain organisations that seem to have this personality. Any institute of higher learning that has lost the ability to receive correction has lost its purpose.

        As for studies linking homosexuality and sociological issues, have you all never heard of the principle that causation does not equal correlation? The studies are of interest and not to be discounted, but making the leap to direct causation is very reckless scholarship indeed. I understand my church has come under criticism by many for its acceptance of homosexuality, in spite of the thousands of years of tradition, but it seems to me that this open-door policy is far more Christlike than politicised marginalisation.

        • Verbummilitant

          So what is the definition of “is.”
          The Truth is not a something; it is a Somebody “as it was in the beginning, is now and shall forever be…” You cannot redefine Truth.

        • David Casson

          “In spite of thousands of years of tradition” – Thousands of years of accepting homosexual behavior? Could you please explain?

  • Mary

    The homosexual lifestyle is literally full to overbrimming with negative consequences – with hugely disproportionate morbidity and mortality for the practicing homosexual.

    Even the misrepresentations regarding the “safety” of lesbianism are now beginning to fall away and reveal the naked truth.
    Part of that naked truth is that scores of other human behaviors are being labeled as abnormal, pathological and harmful and being censored in one form or another, by the forces of public opinion and political and legal action, while homosexual behavior and its huge health consequences have, with a “magical religiosity” been declared off-limits for public commentary.
    All the while, the rest of society is being saddled with the majority of the huge expense for management of the health consequences of these lifestyles. Yes, the homosexual community produces nowhere near the tax revenue and GDP contribution that it withdraws – now almost at political and social gunpoint – from the rest of society. The negative consequences have spilled out into the rest of society in other ways as well – resulting in both tangible and intangible, substantial costs–including the huge legal costs of actions taken (as described above) against those who defend natural law, religious freedom and protection of free speech, and parental rights.

    It is via the “religious fervor” of the High Priests of homosexual advocacy that all this is being foisted upon us. That fervor is not compassionate – not compassionate towards people with homosexual attraction, not compassionate towards families, not compassionate towards children and their future.

    Thank you for your article.

    • Elizabeth

      Mary, check the ACE study (Anda & Felitti)…the majority of health costs and consequences are more closely tied to adverse childhood experiences, not sexual orientation. You claims are actually unfounded and unsubstantiated.

      • Matthew Arnold

        No, Elizabeth, check the NIH for incidence of morbidity and mortality, especially, of course, for HIV and AIDs, and you will see the problem clearly.

        • If you sincerely care about the dangers of promiscuity for gays, support marriage equality. The Catholic church admits it cannot turn a homosexual into a heterosexual no matter how much the person might want that. To attack gays is cruel and senseless. Marriage equality and better health care are the solutions.

  • Elizabeth

    It is laughable to characterize what the alumni group did as an attack. The issue has nothing to do with religious freedom, altering catholic teaching, or changing the freedoms of the school. It is simply about a mischaracterization of conditions and linking items that cannot properly be linked in the manner described by the course description. Anyone who says different is working their own agenda…I can say this with authority as one of the alumni whose name is on that press release. Dr. Krason has not spoken to me about this…I think he is making sweeping assumptions and drawing the wrong conclusions.

    • MarkRutledge

      Yet is is precisely an attack on religious freedom because it intends to prevent the school from acting upon clear and compelling teachings of the Catholic Church.
      As to critical thinking, how is it that having your name on the press release gives you the prescience of my own or anyone else’s intentions and/or alleged agenda?

      • Elizabeth

        It is clear to me that you really do not know much about this event if you continue insisting that we are attempting to alter the schools teachings. All we asked for was a change to the course description because it not only misrepresented the state of the art and science but it also misrepresented actual COURSE CONTENT and focus.

  • Mr. Krason, one of us is in the looking-glass world, and I strongly suspect it is you. I knew something was amiss when you attempted to smear the American Psychological Association while recommending NARTH and the Family Research Council as reliable sources of information about homosexuality. Let’s get real. NARTH has been totally discredited by every major medical and social-care organization in this country and Canada, and it is about to be barred from practicing in California (as it should be). The Family Research Council has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    You are not a psychologist, but you presume to recommend two groups that psychologists and counselors all over this country have denounced.

    I think your proposal about accreditation is splendid. Let Catholic universities get accreditation from Catholic accrediting bodies. That way, their graduates in mental health will have a lot more trouble finding jobs, which will reduce a lot of the “reparative therapy” noise.

  • David

    I’ve been calling for Christian organizations to create their own accrediting systems for two decades. But does anyone listen to me?

  • Rich

    Religious liberty is NOT “on the ropes.” Nor are these students “attacking” the University.
    If the church can deepen its understanding about the nature of the human person as it relates to slavery, it can deepen its understanding about human sexuality. Eventually, she will. Hopefully it will not take a thousand years, but I know one day, the Church will come along with the science involved here. The problem right now is that our understanding of sexuality is nascent. There is still so much we dont know. We are only beginning to see more clearly. The problem is control and fear.
    Will the Church even have the conversation? NOt in my lifetime..nor my children’s children’s. I mean, think about it, the voices of women are still not really allowed within the confines of what “good Catholics” define as their teaching authority. Sure, I understand the reasons they give as to why their presbyterate needs to be all male…but does their decision making body have to be ONLY them? Sad. Empty and sad.
    This author cites only the most useful articles to bolster his case scientifically, and then discovers that those very studies are the most questionable among the scientific community.
    I am sad that I will not be alive to see the real conversation that will take place in the Church someday about this issue, but it is nice to see I am alive when the questions about the conversation (not ATTACKS…sheesh…relax a bit) have begun.

    • Thanks for your valuable perspective, Rich. We have to take the long view, and the Church cannot continue its present course indefinitely. It will change or it will become even more irrelevant and cult-like than ever. It is one of the most conservative institutions on the face of the earth, so I guess we should not be surprised that it has not accepted 21st-century science about sexuality, the role of women, problems inherent in a celibate priesthood, and family planning.

      • Mariana

        Frank, there is no “science” about homosexuality and there never will be because sexual intimacy is mentally inspired. If the sexual organs work, they will respond to the mental stimuli. A biological gene has never been, nor will it ever be found. BTW the word (not the act) didn’t even exist until the late 19th century. It was created and used to argue against a Prussian anti-sodomy law. The law In all Abrahamic religions and cultures established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature. However, the condemnation of anal sex between males predates Christian belief, going back to ancient Greece. “Unnatural” can be traced back to Plato.

        • Mariana, are you speaking as a scientist when you say there is no “science” about homosexuality? I rather think you are speaking from a mix of intuitions, Catholic teachings, and visceral reactions that have nothing to do with science.

          The scientific consensus is that about 35% of the variation in sexual orientation is genetic, and the rest is “gene expression” and hormonal.

          When the word “homosexual” began to be used is irrelevant. The 18th-century “philosophes” in France were well aware of homosexuality, but they didn’t use the term, because the term was a later, clinical development.

          I don’t much care about what Abrahamic religions have to say about homosexuality. The God of the Pentateuch also supports abortion and prohibits the consumption of shellfish.

          Anal sex is practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals in roughly equal proportions. And when you talk of sexual practices, you are talking about “behavior,” not orientation or identity. Many homosexuals do not practice anal sex, and many heterosexuals do. Maybe it’s time for you to study up on sexual practices, since that seems to interest you.

          • Mariana

            I don’t know what circles you are in, but I assure you that I don’t need to study up on sexual practices. Why do you have to turn this into a personal attack? Here are some scientific facts for you. And I suggest you study up on the Old Testament as you are confusing ancient ceremonial practices with moral laws that are relevant for all time. Quoting from Dr. John Diggs an African American doctor who has done extensive studies on homosexuality:

            “Yet human physiologically makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity (anal sex) the rectum is significantly different from the vagina and with the regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently anal sex leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

            “The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue that is blood. Therefore any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

            “The vagina is the only part of mankind that is designed to receive the components of an ejaculation safely. The anus is not and is subject to an extraordinarily high infection rate.

            “The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections.”

            “The only epidemiological studies to date on the life spans of gay men have concluded that homosexual and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.( The Health Risk of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs Esecutive summary (i)

          • Objectivetruth

            Now you’re misinterpreting the first five books of the Old Testament (and consequently, how they refer to the New Testament) Frank!!!!

            • John200

              Don’t take Frank Lozera too seriously. He is not misinterpreting anything, he is showing that he does not understand it. Nor does he care to do his homework. So this is all a game to him. He is faking it, and you can see that he is not on an equal footing with catechized Catholics.

              Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river…..

              • Frank

                Apparently, whatever it is that I don’t understand is so mysterious that it cannot be explained.

                • John200

                  Dear Frank,

                  What is apparent is that you obstinately persist in following your own light, which is darkness. That is why you claim, unbelievably, to not understand simple things.

                  In charity, though, let us pretend you know as little as you say. We observe that what you pretend not to know is daily taught to Catholic school kids. For adults, the prescription is Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). Your time is here, Frank. I almost envy you because you can learn so much over the next few months.

                  You should know, yours is a very old game. Don’t play it out to the denouement; it ends badly. Homo”sex”ual trolls are pitiful.

                  But you don’t have to end up pitiful. You are meant to do better.

                  • Frank

                    @John200:disqus: What is the dénouement you speak of? How badly does it end?

                    • John200

                      Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river…..

                      You are meant to do better.

    • Mariana

      Rich, the church has been having many, many conversations over the course of history, including the topic of homosexuality. The problem with elitist intellectuals of this age is that they believe they have been gifted with superior intellect for no reason other than the fact that they exist in the here and now and are such self-absorbed narcisists that they can’t even see past their own era. Somehow they are so much smarter than all the preceding popes, bishops, ambassadors,
      kings, clergy, princes, dukes, theologians, and university professors who, for the past two thousand years have gathered in
      general councils to share ideas and have the very conversations you claim don’t even exist. What do you think they were discussing in two Vatican Councils? Or do you even read the Encyclicals? The church knows more about modern science than people like you would ever realize.

    • Adamantius1

      Rich, there is no evidence that the church ever deepened its understanding of slavery if what you mean is that the church somehow condoned slavery. The church tolerated slavery in the beginning because she was preoccupied with other things–like combating heresies and staying out of the Coliseum. St. Paul even told slaves to obey their masters. This does not mean, however, that he approved of the practice. He says repeatedly in many of his letters that he saw his job as preaching Christ crucified. The idea of trying to effect social change was alien to him. That is very different than the issue of human sexuality, which the church has written about extensively. Sure, there is room for a deepening of understanding, but the Catechism makes clear its teaching that sexual relations are licit only when they occur within the context of marriage and only when the couple are open to procreation.

      • Frank

        Interesting what you can find with a little searching on the Internet:

        It wasn’t until 1965, 102 years after the Emancipation Proclamation that the Church got around to condemning slavery. St. Augustine wrote that it was not absolutely forbidden by natural law, and Aquinas argued in favor of it. A medieval order of monks (the Mercedarians) ransomed Christian slaves. The naval galleys of the Papal states captured Muslim galley slaves. In 1537, Pope Paul condemned “unjust” forms of slavery, but the Cathedral of Salamanca was built with slave labor. In the Age of Discovery, papal bulls approved slavery. The Transatlantic slave trade was begun at the request of Bishop Las Casas and authorized by Charles V in 1517. It was never condemned by the Vatican. The Jesuits owned slaves in the New World, and books critical of slavery were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. Capuchin missionaries in the Americas were excommunicated for their anti-slavery efforts. Pope Gregory condemned “unjust” forms of slavery in 1839. Even after the American Civil War, in 1866, Pope Pius IX affirmed that slavery was not against divine law.

        It wasn’t until 1994 that the Catechism set out a strong anti-slavery position. This seems to be yet another example of the Church bringing up the rear—following instead of leading. (The other examples were heliocentrism, evolutionary theory, democracy, and same-sex marriage.)

        • Rich

          Well said, Frank. Most people really don’t do the research. I HAVE read the encyclicals and I DO know what the Church teaches, and how doctrine develops. Our current understanding of the Holy Spirit developed and changed. As did the role each person of Trinity has. What about Docetistism or monophysitism… the heresies about Jesus that had to be dealt with and decided upon. Our understanding DEVELOPED. Arius and Nestorius were also good men whose ideas were eventually discarded by a Church developing its doctrine on WHO Jesus was.

          The Church has changed its teaching over time, and done so often. We are in the midst of a sea change when it comes to the death penalty right now. Two recent popes have written about life in such a way that the death penalty in this day and age does not serve humanity nor the common good; leading us to believe that perhaps the Church is teaching that the death penalty is immoral. However, the Church has taught that a state does have the right to execute criminals who are a persistent dangerous threat to the common good.

          Slavery was one idea. Frank has offered others.

          There is a natural law, yes. Our PERCEPTION of it over time becomes more clear. We do not always see clearly. As we look into the nature of human sexuality more deeply and let many who used to be slain for same sex attraction actually speak…well, we DISCOVER more about the TRUTH of being human. It will be nice to have the voice of women become much more prominent also. There is always more to learn, and the Church WILL eventually come along into the clearer light about what actually IS.

          It will simply take much longer than most people imagine. Perhaps rightly so. In the meantime, we humbly remain part of the Church, in the pew, praying an loving as best we can…in our own time and place.

          Marina, above, seems to think I consider myself an elitist. Not so. I am simply stating my opinions. Reject them all you like, but ad hominem arguments are not arguments.

        • Matthew Arnold

          That’s nonsense, Frank. It’s too late to bother to point you in the right direction. I think I’d rather have my Jim Bean now. I’ll write back tomorrow.

          • Frank

            @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus: Do enjoy your booze. It’s late. Don’t try to point me in the right direction now. You can do that tomorrow when you’ve sobered up.

            • Matthew Arnold

              ok, frank, you stick with your position, but do you have books and scholarly articles to offer, or are you just making things up based on your time spent on the Internet? Jim beam eight old is not booze, it is liquor.

              • Matthew Arnold

                I’ll take it Frank is fantasizing pretty freely, based upon his ignorance of and perhaps hatred for the Catholic Church.

                • John200

                  Fantasizing is a very kind and understated way to note for what Frank Lozera is doing. You should feel free to disengage any time as he will merely continue trolling the thread. He thinks he is enjoying the darkness; he thinks he is winning a debate; he thinks he is using scientific knowledge.

                  He is using his bum; from him you will learn nothing.

                  It is all just a game to him. Then comes the denouement, which he thinks will never come.

                  • Matthew Arnold

                    Thanks, John. It is a tissue of cliches, half truths, mistakes, and downright falsehoods I keep hearing from him. I intend nothing personal in that. It is just that I have heard all that bad palaver before. Frank is so politically correct circa 1988. It is kind of quaint. But the facts are impossible to deny. Homosexuality is not sex, but it is very bad for your health, physical and mental. Nobody promotes it who is not already mired in an ignorance so deep that he does not need divine assistance to rise to the lighted surface of reason and common sense. The American people have never of their own promoted the agenda, only bonehead judges have. God have mercy on us all.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus Homosexuality is very bad for my health? Matthew, I just returned from a visit to my doctor, who is also gay. I am in excellent health and have no issues other than a little repetitive stress from typing so many blog comments. He is also in excellent health, both mentally and physically. My partner is a poster boy for good health. At 58, he runs 5 or 6 miles three times a week and has not one single medical (or mental) problem. He and I have very positive outlooks on life and can look forward to many more years sharing our lives together. What is your problem with that, exactly? Maybe it is not we who are ignorant but you.

                    • John200

                      Dear Frank,

                      Thank you, this is marvelous trolling, far beyond what I thought you could do. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,… (infinite sequence of laughter). You are very funny.

                      Now I do 4,000 pushups a day on my left thumb. My right thumb is a little weak, I can manage only about 2,550-2,600 per day. 500-800 per day on my nose, depending on how I am feeling, just to maintain balance among my super powers.

                      Back to earth.

                      Frank, you simply cannot say things like: your perverted partner — the man you are destroying — has not one single medical (or mental) problem. He has plenty, and so do you. EVERYBODY WHO KNOWS YOU knows it. They just don’t want to say it.

                      Next topic: for your persistent, self-correcting, doomed, homo”sex”ual trolling, I nominate you for Crisis Mag Homo”sex”ual Troll of the Year (you are not good at it, but the others were terrible).

                      Now come on, Frank, this is serious, they are going to close the bar. It’s time to go. Tomorrow you get your little motor running and you get it to RCIA. You don’t try to sell this krappe anymore. Yadig?

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus Are all Catholics like you?

                    • John200

                      No need to respond, “In what way?” and chase ourselves into another rabbit hole.Go to RCIA and find out that Catholics are like. We aren’t the media stereotype.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus It seems to me you are evading responsibility for your words. I am asking if you are a product of RCIA. You are a Catholic, by your own admission, so can I take it that you were formed by the RCIA and perhaps that you are one of its finest products? If I were to “go to the RCIA,” could I hope to be like you?

                    • John200

                      I have told you enough about me. I need not tell more. And I have given you enough useful advice; you don’t take it.

                      RCIA, Frank. Then, maybe Dei Verbum.

                    • John200

                      No need to respond with, “In what way?” and chase you into another rabbit hole.

                      Go to RCIA and find out what we are like. We are not the media stereotype.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus Are you a product of RCIA?

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus If I go to RCIA, can I become just like you?

                    • John200

                      No, I am unique and non-repeatable. So are you.

                      But you can improve.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus All this talk of bars and Jim Beam. Sorry. I’m not alcoholic either. I may be “doomed,” but I’m not a lush. I may be a gay man, but I’m not delusional.

                    • Matthew Arnold

                      Well, Frank, that’s good news. I certainly wish you every blessing. And your partner, too.

                    • Frank

                      @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus Thank you, Matthew. I appreciate your good wishes. This is what it is all about. Seeing the “other” as a human person worthy of respect. I congratulate you.

                    • John200

                      He will, you know it. All we have to do is listen, do what we were told, and stay near Him. Everything that surrounds you was put here for your benefit. That goes for all of you!!

                      Ditto on your points. Homo”sex”uality isn’t sex, etc., etc. And homo”sex”ual activity harms EVERYONE, not just the self-destructors who take an active part in it. We all have increased taxes, medical costs, and insurance premiums. We put up with the smelly personal climate around homo”sex”uals in the workplace, schools, etc. We all lose good things that homo”sex”ual perverts might have done for the world if they had followed His directions. These are proofs, just for starters, that homo”sex”uality is a detriment to us all (don’t get me wound up about this).

                      Anyway, I am always happy to meet a clear thinker at Crisis Mag.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus You seem to think that the world has lost many good things that we homosexuals “might have done” for the world, etc. Have you stopped to think about all the great things that have been done BY homosexuals? Michelangelo, Stephen Sondheim, Peter Tchaikovsky, Leonard Bernstein, Herman Melvllle, Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln, Barbara Stanwyck, Cliff Montgomery,– to name but only a few. And BTW, Stalin and Pol Pot were NOT homosexual…. They were like you. So were Genghis Khan and Mao Tse-Tung. So go figure. Maybe you should consider converting. You could make something of yourself. Make your mother proud.

                    • John200

                      Dear Frank,

                      Ha, ha, ha, ha,…. (infinite sequence of laughter).

                      You tried to slide ‘Abraham Lincoln was homo”sex”ual’ by me.

                      I must admit, I missed it the first time I scanned the thread today.

                      Ha, ha, ha, ha,…… oh good grief, Frank, my ribs hurt, I feel like I am going to die. If you don’t hear any more comments from me, you will know my innards broke on this typical homo”sex”ual’s joke.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus It wasn’t a joke. Just do a little research on the subject. I’m not going to spoon-feed it to you.

                    • John200

                      You cut-and-paste a slander on A. Lincoln, and you think you are spoon-feeding me.

                      Q: What am I to do with such a silly homo”sex”ual?
                      A: Suggest RCIA and then Dei Verbum.

  • Eric

    Professor, your opinions don’t cite or properly set the context of your sources to back up any of your claims, except for the Regnerus study. Wait, Regnerus!? Are you kidding? What is the department chair of a two person political science department doing leaning on such an infamous and highly critiqued study by Mark Regnerus? And why even mention the Family Research Council? Their own highly-publicized biases have earned them the classification as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Why not properly cite several strong, unbiased, empirical, academic, peer-reviewed studies? What’s that… can’t find any? In my professional academic study of the four gospels, Christ never once calls his followers to “take the offensive” in this or any other arena where, according to you, “religious liberty is on the ropes.” Please wake up and realize that Medieval Christedom collapsed several centuries ago, and militant Catholicism will not bring it back – ever. We live in a global village of religious pluralism now. And professors at any Catholic school that has a documented history of hiding, employing and defending clergy who’ve raped minors should really think twice about casting stones at its brightest gay and lesbian graduates. Check your Catholic Social encyclicals and you will find that the church still upholds the dignity of all men and women; so its it’s passé and rather uncharitable to label human beings as “homosexualists” or falsely accuse alumni – who you’ve actually taught – of promoting anything even close to an “ideology of homosexualism.” Are you just trying to find a niché audience for your quasi-intellectual multisyllabic words? The Franciscan University LGBT Alumni are not radical activists taking on a religion – as you depict them. They are simply alumni who – like heterosexual alumni – are just plain emarrassed that any university would stubbornly defend course catalog descriptions that continue to make use of the language and diagnostic classifications that may have once existed – but changed well over a quarter century ago!

    • MarkRutledge

      If you are going to play the ad hominem game, why then bring up a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which could just as easily be labelled a “hate group” (if such labelling was a worthy activity)? As to the crux of your argument, it seems that the university should simply yield to the fads and fashions of the day, to be the slave of chronology. Thankfully, the school is upholding eternal Truths, as the author of this piece supports.

      • Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group like the Vatican is a Baptist summer camp.

        The Catholic Church has always had trouble yielding to the “fads and fashions of the day,” like heliocentricism, evolutionary theory, and democracy (Yes, the Church was militantly anti-Democratic until fairly recently and still is, internally).

        I think you are completely wrong to say the Church is not a “slave to chronology.” That is exactly her problem. She is stuck in the Middle Ages.

        • Objectivetruth

          Incorrect on all three: heliocentricism, evolutionary theory, democracy. Heliocentric: this is almost laughable considering all of the work done by Catholic astronomers over the centuries (you ever wonder why Frank 51 craters on the moon are named after Jesuit scientists?) evolution: I guess Frank you never read Pope Pius’ encyclical “humani Generis?” Democracy: once again laughable, considering all the praise over the 200 years Popes lavish on the United States for its system of government. Why so much animosity towards the Catholic Church, Frank? If you actually studied its teachings, Tradition and history (instead of tossing out false statements and the ever so tiresome “stuck in the middle ages” comment) you might actually be surprised by Truth

          • Frank

            OT, do you remember Galileo? He was forced (by the Church) to recant heliocentrism and was placed under house arrest until he died. It is true that Jesuit and other Catholic scientists made important astronomical discoveries and supported heliocentrism, but it took a long time to get the Popes on board.

            Evolution: “Humani Generis” (1950) wasn’t published until 91 years after “Origin of the Species,” which is itself significant.The early Church fathers taught creationism, and Augustine believed that God created the world in a single instant. Though the Vatican didn’t take a clear position until 1950, an 1860 German council of bishops declared Darwin’s theory to be “opposed to the Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” In the last decades of the 19th century, the Jesuit periodical La Civilità Cattolica took a strong stand against the theory. The Vatican itself said neither yea nor nay to either of these declarations.

            Democracy: Pius IX’s encyclical Quanta Cura (1864) is published with an important annex called The Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus condemns democracy, socialism, and freedom of speech and religion. Didn’t you know, OT, that the Church supported every single European fascist dictatorship around the time of WWII?

            The Church is still not a democratic institution, as Catholics on these blogs have repeatedly told me (proudly, I might add).

            The point of all this, of course, is that the Church is again bringing up the rear, and this time the issue is same-sex marriage. Isn’t the role of the Church to lead, not to follow? And yet it so often seems blindsided by new knowledge about human beings and the cosmos.

        • Matthew Arnold

          Right, Mr. Lozera, Copernicus was against heliocentricism, right. Your history leaves a lot to be desired.

          • John200

            Don’t expect Frank Lozera to know what he is talking about.

            It ain’t necessary.

          • Frank

            @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus: Take another drink and go to sleep, Matthew. You’ll figure it out in the morning.

    • Bravo! Well said!

    • Adamantius1

      (A) The Regnerus study was vindicated by the University of Texas. According to Robert A. Peterson, the university’s research integrity officer: “I have concluded that Professor Regnerus did not commit scientific
      misconduct.” Now you may not like the study because it doesn’t corroborate your beliefs, but the study was published in a major peer-reviewed journal and found to be scientifically valid. (B) Your post also seems to be quite multisyllabic. Are you trying to find a niche?

  • Pingback: Communion on the Tongue Devil Archbishop Chaput | Big Pulpit()

  • Patrick

    Does it bother you that this was brought about by Franciscan University alumni? What are you teaching in Ohio?

  • Dr. John Spiegel, APA president in 1973, Dr. John Fryer and sever other prominent psychiatrists who were all having sex with men grouped together to change the DSM. Imagine the DSM change was initiated and orchestrated by doctors who were practicing the behaviour. Well if anything needs to be challenged it is how and why the DSM was changed in 1974. The sexual practices of men together are harmful to their health. Where is the honesty in the medical field. Go to any hospice for AIDS and 95% of those with AIDS are men; many young men. The behaviour is not only deviant, it is harmful to your health.

    • So far, all you’ve told me is that a group of gay APA-members were the ones who got the ball rolling on the DSM change. But you frame that in such sinister terms, as if they somehow intimidated all 137,000 members of the APA into going along with their nefarious demands. I think you underestimate the APA. These gay psychiatrists that you describe were probably much more alert about the DSM misclassification than others in the APA, and so they decided to spearhead the effort to declassify homosexuality. What could be more understandable?

      You write that “the [homosexual] behavior is not only deviant, it is harmful to your health.” I am a 68-year-old partnered homosexual man. Can you tell me which of my behaviors is harmful to my health?

      • Adamantius1

        “I am a 68-year-old partnered homosexual man. Can you tell me which of my behaviors is harmful to my health?” Perhaps the same behaviors that killed Rock Hudson.

        • FUSalum

          Adamantius1, that is a little strange. For starters, are you aware that anal sex isn’t just a gay practice? And if Frank and his partner are faithful to one another, where is this HIV going to come from, exactly?

          • Adamantius1

            No one said it was just a gay practice. I merely pointed out that it is a behavior that killed Rock Hudson. It is also a behavior the church teaches is inherently sinful since every licit sexual act must be open to the procreation of children. That’s why the church even teaches that masturbation is sinful since a person can’t be open to life while having sex with himself. Of course, God is merciful, and no one (I hope) is suggesting that people will automatically go to hell because they commit such behaviors. (The Catechism is clear that there are various levels of moral culpability.) But the church has consistently and unequivocally taught throughout the ages that such acts are sinful and against natural law.

            • FUSalum

              Claiming that this “behavior” killed Rock Hudson is like saying the behavior of driving a car kills those who die in crashes.

              And for what it is worth, while the Catechism teaches sex must be completed in an open to life manner, there is no prohibition against anal sex as foreplay, though it might repulse you. Several orthodox theologians have said as much.

              • Adamantius1

                Well, yes, the idea of inserting one’s genitalia into something designed to eliminate excrement is repulsive. But that aside, who specifically are these theologians? I would like to check their credentials and see if they are in good standing with the church.

                • FUSalum

                  Do a google search for Theology of the Body – Chris West is one who has discussed this.

                  • Frank

                    So you can’t answer this question yourself? You must always defer to authority?

                    • FUSalum

                      I can certainly answer the question myself, but the people in this article claiming that being gay killed Rock Hudson and a bajillion other absurdities can’t seem to.

                • Frank

                  @Adamantius1:disqus If inserting one’s genitalia into something designed to eliminate excrement is repulsive, then why do so many heterosexuals do it? Surely heterosexuals should know better, since they are intrinsically less “disordered” than homosexuals.

                  • Matthew Arnold

                    Why do you say “if?” You must mean to say “since.” Also, you merely state that “many” normal people do such a sickening thing. Of course, you know nothing of the sort.

              • That is not quite true. While there is no dogmatic opinion written on any particular act of foreplay, all acts must reflect the dignity of the person. I think one could argue that anal sex is inherently degrading. ‘Nuff said. Adamastius dear, obesity and smoking are sinful, since they destroy the temple of the holy spirit. A lot of heterosexual behavior is sinful too: it is sinful when it is not marital. The marital act is, by definition, faithful, freely given, total and fruitful (open to life.) You can be married and have non-marital sex, even with your spouse, if you are performing acts that are contraceptive or otherwise failing to recognize the dignity of the human person.

                responding to your other comments: And I have read Christopher West. He never endorsed anal sex. In fact, I am quoting him. And while heterosexuality is not intrinsically disordered (as homosexuality is) heterosexuals certainly can be as disordered as homosexuals. In fact, if heterosexuals had never embraced the contraceptive mentality we would not be having a debate about homosexuality at all. One thing I am sure we agree on is the hypocrisy of heteros condemning homosexuals as they pop their birth control pills.

                • Frank

                  @facebook-100000687697435:disqus Homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered?” Where do you get that? … Oh. I know. The catechism. But, Cynthia, the catechism was written by people who have no understand of science. On this topic, the catechism is completely out of step with mainstream science, and that’s the same science that gets you airborne when you want to fly across the country and that you absolutely depend on when you have major surgery. None–none–of the major health and welfare associations in this country would agree with you that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” This is where Catholicism is out-of-touch and regressive. Maybe it’s time to ask your priest why the Church continues to propagate such ideas. Take courage. Ask, object, question, criticize. Don’t be a sheep.

                  • Matthew Arnold

                    Frank, there is no mainstream science promoting homosexuality, or I suppose you could cite it. There is lots of mainstream science about the morbidity and mortality of homosexual behaviors, and it is easy to find: visit the NIH website.

                    • Frank

                      @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus Once again, you are confusing behaviors with orientation. Everything you’ve said about homosexuality can be said about heterosexuality. For example, there is lots of mainstream science about the morbidity and mortality of HETEROSEXUAL behaviors. And you are correct that no mainstream science “promotes” homosexuality. Neither is there any that “promotes” heterosexuality.

                    • Matthew Arnold

                      Once again, you are making no difference to the argument. Pure rhetoric, of a very familiar and totally unconvincing sort. The NIH is not mistaken: homosexuality is a behavior extremely sickening and dangerous to health. Nobody believes that that behavior is NOT the result of orientation, since it is freely willed, when acted upon. Nobody can seriously believe that, objectively, it leads to anything measurable apart from morbidity and mortality–again, it is clear you do not know the NIH figures; I assume that, if you did, you would not write so blithely in trying to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality. For one thing, homosexuality is not sex, of course, and its practice is destroying the lives of many men.

                    • Frank

                      @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus Homosexuality is not a behavior. Homosexuality is an orientation and/or an identity (the way one perceives oneself, regardless of one’s orientation). A teenager who has never had sex and perhaps never will is either homosexually or heterosexually oriented (and perhaps a bit of both). A priest who has never had sex and perhaps never will is either homosexually or heterosexually oriented. Where’s the behavior?

                      Many lesbians find mates with whom they may be sexually intimate only during the first years of their relationship. At 60 years old, they are still lesbians, but where’s the behavior?

                      You are confusing behavior and orientation. Homosexuality is not dangerous to health any more than heterosexuality is. What is dangerous to health is certain types of high-risk behavior–behavior that both heterosexuals and homosexuals sometimes engage in.

                      Try focusing on the behavior, not on the orientation.

                    • Matthew Arnold

                      There is no scientific evidence for what you say. Pure fantasy, supporting a false dichotomy. Deal with the facts: NIH, NIH, NIH.

                    • Frank

                      @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus There is a cornucopia of evidence for what I say. You can say homosexuality is disordered until you’re blue in the face. But that won’t make it so. The Church does not decide who is psychologically disordered. Psychologists do. The church has no expertise in such matters. None. The APA decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was seconded by every major medical and counseling association in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

                      There is NO scientific support for the Church’s position on homosexuality. That position is completely out of touch with mainstream science–the same science that flies you around the world on 747s and gets you through a narrow escape with cancer.

                    • Brendan

                      The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If NIH is only using behavioral measures, than they are drawing conclusions based on these measures of behavior. Franks criticism is actually well placed. Orientation/identity and behavior are distinct concepts. There are many instances in which people engage in homosexual behavior and yet do not identify as homosexuals. You are trying to oversimplify a much more nuanced concept.

            • Frank

              @Adamantius1:disqus It is a behavior that killed Rock Hudson. It is also a behavior that has killed millions of Sub-Saharan Africans. Obesity and smoking are behaviors that kill millions of heterosexuals. Heterosexual promiscuity causes millions of broken marriages. What conclusions do you draw from this? That heterosexuality is bad? That heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry or have children? That they should not be allowed to eat at the lunch counters in Birmingham or sit at the front of the bus?

          • Matthew Arnold

            Poor bloke! That would be perhaps only the worst of the outcomes–HIV/AIDS–but it is hardly the only deadly or excruciating one. Again, don’t bury your head in the sand: read the stats. at NIH, all online and free.

      • Matthew Arnold

        Mr. Lozera, you should really look hard at the NIH figures. You will see the behaviors and their results in spades.

        • John200

          Bingo. The homo”sex”ual trolls hope they can get around the statistically certain results of their behavior.

          I don’t think they can….

          • Matthew Arnold

            They can’t. The stats are objective, intended to inform and shape medicine and public health policy. Their implications are clear. The magical thinking of politically correct ideologues is active, albeit in the jaws of death.

  • Mark
  • Pingback: ARCHBISHOP CHARLES CHAPUT: Some thoughts on Catholic faith and public life « Deacon John's Space()

  • Pingback: The Latest Homosexualist Assault on the Catholic Church and the Need for a Counter-Offensive | Church Militant()

  • BillMance

    Dear Dr. Krason,
    Prayers for the issue to be resolved.Hello Everyone, I am aware of this issue and here is my take on it * I am not posting this to cause controversy or dissension or to go against FUS or Catholic Church teaching and I am a Faithful Catholic with flaws and all :
    I am an alumnus of Franciscan University Class of 1990. I am a proud graduate and love the school. I wish only for improvement where there may need to be. No institution is perfect and no person for that matter. The course description in question is:SWK 314DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior. 3 credit hours- The semantics/grammar of the description is poor. It may be a summary of the chapters/course outline/course overview. I find it hurtful when certain imperatives are included that should not be. For example, one behavior listed which I find issue with, (due to the simple fact that I am a father of a special needs child), is: mental illness; and that imperative, to be labeled as a behavior is flawed Further examination of the course description, the ideas may fall within the Roman Catholic Church teaching, however the imperative homosexuality listed in the course description is not a behavior.(Homosexual behavior may fall outside the norm in society, so as do many other things that could: practicing the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a weekly basis, going to Mass every Sunday, praying before every meal, taking your children to CCD instead of sports practice, eating meals together as a family, stay at home mothers, single income families, (the list can continue).I am not a therapist and do not have all the answers. Christ was on the Earth to teach us how to live our lives and to do our best.)
    Further analysis of the course description: it focuses on the role society plays on influencing deviant behavior. Let’s pay attention to the two hot button imperatives: Mental Illness and Homosexuallity: So a mentally ill person may live a perfectly normal, non-deviant life until that person is influenced by society. Homosexuality is not a behavior. Homosexual behavior may be deviant in society, and again, what is society’s role in influencing the deviant behavior?
    Lastly, The issue is the imperatives being listed incorrectly, not the deviant/deviance terminology. The wording should be changed and greater care needs to be given, especially when any institution is educating tomorrow’s professionals.
    Bill Mance

    • BillMance

      Which context/definition is being used for each imperative? Clarity can skew an opinion.

    • Matthew Arnold

      “Homosexuality is not a behavior.” You should discuss that with the scientists at NIH. They’d be surprised to hear it.

      • Frank

        @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus No, I think the scientists at NIH would agree with me. They understand the difference between orientation and behavior and between identity and orientation. This is something that every psychologist understands.

        • Matthew Arnold

          That’s silly. Nobody forced the behavior the NIH records. Besides, the NIH employs scientists, real ones, not ‘psychologists.’

          • Frank

            @2c28c2b70c7aeacd10d39803c56ecde1:disqus Sorry. Maybe it’s time to pour that last drink back into the bottle. What did you mean by, “Nobody forced the behavior the NIH records.”??

            • Matthew Arnold

              It’s very simple. The sad souls acted upon their ‘orientation.’ Their actions are their own, unforced. The results, tragic and avoidable, are what the NIH records.

              • Frank

                Sad souls? How dare you judge these people? Have you never read Christ’s own words?

      • “homosexuality” is the lifelong sexual orientation

    • I wonder if you ever took a Sociology of Deviance course? “Deviance” means “outside the norm” (as in “on the far sides of the Bell curve”). It is not a moral indictment of any kind. Mental illness is part of the study because it is outside the norm. Sociologists look at the influence of a group (tribe, community, state) on the identity of the person. THAT IS WHAT SOCIOLOGY LOOKS AT. The smallest “unit” studied in Sociology is the “dyad”–a community of two. I took this classes eons ago, but we studied mental illness (I did my paper on the identity of alcoholics), homosexuals (here is where I learned about “tea rooms.”), prisoners, and nuns. All “deviant” by sociological definition. The description is not poorly written. It is a very accurate description of the same class I took in college. At an extremely liberal (College in the Catholic tradition) place.

      • Frank

        @facebook-100000687697435:disqus The statistical meaning of deviance is purely descriptive. The popular meaning of deviance is highly prescriptive, and therefore I don’t like it applied to me unless it is VERY CLEAR that we are speaking descriptively. Almost everyone is “deviant” in some respects, whether for height, weight, premature baldness, handedness, skin color, hair color, or predisposition to certain illnesses.

        It is highly misleading to link homosexuality to alcoholism or mental disease, and it is a misuse of science to do so. I am homosexual and I am neither alcoholic nor mentally disturbed. Nor is my partner either of these things. Nor are the vast majority of my gay friends. These linkages are the results of ignorance and bigotry, nothing more.

    • I was a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1980. And I agree the course was wrong. When two gay alumni pointed that out, some Catholic media outlets claimed it was a diabolical attack by all militant gay extremists. Such lies are why the conservative position is losing in the public arena, especially in the wake of the pedophile priest scandal and the cover-ups by bishops.

  • Pingback: The Latest Homosexualist Assault on the Catholic Church and the Need for a Counter-Offensive «()

  • Proteios

    A piece of advice. You lose a lot of us Catholic scientists when you summon the climate change debate. It isn’t one. The science is good and the only questions are how the earth and our environment will respond. Sad, because you have good points undermined by the ignorant insistence that a few unethical apples in the area of environmental research negates solid research by the other thousands of good scientists. Tis also marginalized us Catholics to the scientific sidelines when atheists and my fellow academics arrogantly declare Christians are ignorant. Ending this nonsense would go a long way and let us focus on the real issue, which I cannot recall due to being so annoyed at the climate change inclusion.

  • God’s child

    Dear God, have pity on us. What You created in love has been so distorted by the enemy that Your creatures argue among themselves! Please give us Your guidance show us Your Truth, send us Your Love, Jesus. We ask this in Your name Creator of all, all that is Good and Holy, through the name of Your Son, Jesus Whom You sent to teach us the way, the truth, the light.

  • Chris DeGroot

    I hear echoes of Abraham Lincoln in his speech at Cooper Institute.
    It is not enough that we tolerate an evil we must “join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them.”

  • observer of history

    Thank you, Stephen Krason, for a well-reasoned article.
    History teaches us that there some criteria of ethics and morality that cannot be punctured or watered-down without also destroying entire civilisations.
    Ethics and morality (the most comprehensive of which are only provided by Catholicism) are like a Life-Saver’s inflatable Rescue Boat: once punctured it becomes a deadly trap for all the occupants.
    Need more proof? Then look no further than the culture of “religious indifference” that had so widely pervaded even a cultured country such as Germany prior to Hitler’s rise to power. For further proof, then look at Russia prior to the rise of Stalin. (Hitler a fervent follower of atheist Friedrich Nietzche and Stalin openly atheist). Note how they both disallowed freedom of thought and freedom of speech, then becoming “cultures of death.”

    This is exactly why we should be trembling in our boots at the present western culture of mindless excesses and self-indulgence in so many areas, for example:
    the indifference to morality and ethics seen in the ever-growing “greed-is-good” mentality; the ever-more-aggressive “intellectual vacuum” mendacity of Christo-phobia, while at the very same time “indulging in inconsolable tears and hand-wringing over Homo-phobia” and their (false) claims for “equal rights“ (which, by the way, apart from the TITLE of Marriage, “gays” ALREADY HAVE all the same rights of married couples in superannuation, inheritance, etc. etc.)
    Only someone living in a vacuum will have failed to notice the millions of abortions; the demands for assisted suicide; the escalation in suicide statistics; drug ‘turf-wars”; murder and extreme violence becoming an everyday headline; etc. etc.- serious sins all sugar-coated with the usual euphemisms.

    It is increasingly evident that western culture has not heeded the lessons of history and is condemning itself to repeating the same old mistakes. An exceedingly selfish culture – where sin has been “normalised” – it is already well on the way to becoming yet another “culture of death”.

    It is also interesting then that “gays” themselves expose their own outrageous hypocrisy and massive deceit about their (real) agenda – to destroy the sacred institution of (real) Marriage … How? … Easy! … by “trivialising the TITLE” of “Marriage” – with their insistence of legally securing the “title of Marriage” (which historically has only ever belonged to a man and a woman in a life-long commitment in real Marriage and for the purpose of being responsible parents to off-spring).

    It is interesting to note that even though homosexual groups evidently “don’t see themselves as anything more than 1 to 3% of the population, and most not even being remotely interested in marriage (because they crave variety in partnerships), a growing number of them (actually really) want “to turn western culture on its head altogether” by “normalising“ their lifestyle:
    Apparently desperate to eliminate the burdensome “cloud of guilt” which even non-religious “gays” appear to find particularly unsettling. Their only outlet from this guilt? Bullying the public into acceptance of their irresponsible lifestyle.
    How? By their own admission:
    1. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society…”
    Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund)

    2. “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a craving on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners). Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two and to have affairs on the side while maintaining the ‘semblance of permanence’ in their living arrangement.” Former Homosexual William Aaron (William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972)

    3. “Typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.” University of Chicago Sociologist Edward Laumann (Adrian Brune, “City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says”, Washington Blade – February 27, 2004)

    4. “Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” Researcher M. Pollak (M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985)

    5. It is alarming to note that “gays” themselves further expose their (real) agenda:

    “…to get the public to affirm their lifestyle” … “to see government and society affirm our lives” (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989).
    (again, to lift that most inconvenient “cloud of guilt”)

    But most disturbing is that part of the homosexual agenda seems to be to alienate people from Christianity:
    “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form – should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” (Advocate, 1985).
    It seems “manufactured controversy” and outright lies are no problem to these bullies. If bullying does not work, try the “Trojan Horse” strategy:

    So what is their “Trojan Horse” strategy?
    Easy! “Desensitizing the public“: “The first order of business is “desensitization of the American public concerning gays”…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference … Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least – in the beginning – we are seeking “public desensitization” … if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (“The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.)

    — The “gays” own admissions about their (real) agenda – put the whole matter into a very different perspective.
    Not content with ALREADY having the same rights as married couples, and demanding also the official title of “Marriage” to justify their behaviour, they now also want a homosexual tyranny/fascism – where ONLY their THEIR voice is heard.
    To object is to face the very real risk of being jailed. This is how fascism operates.
    This reminds one of the beginnings of reign of terror of life under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – where Christians were eventually simply (euphemistically) “rubbed out” (butchered: 7.5 MILLION Christians under Hitler; many MILLIONS under Stalin; many MILLIONS in Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc. etc.)

    — It is time for the public to take note of this (admitted) sinister agenda that would terrify even George Orwell himself.

  • NDaniels

    We exist in relationship. When the psychology does not reflect the biology of a human person, a disorder exists.

    The line in the sand has been drawn between personhood and the objectification of the human person, those who recognize the self-evident truth that every son and daughter of a human individual, from the moment of conception, has been created equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female, to live in Loving relationship as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters…and those who claim that we have been created to live in relationship as objects of sexual desire, as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, polysexual…in direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery.

    • Frank

      @NDaniels: When you refer to the “biology of a human person,” you must take into account genetics, gene expression, and hormones. All of that is biology. Biology is not just plumbing.

      In fact, mainstream psychology DOES reflect the biology of the human person, and it recognizes that there is no disorder involved in homosexuality. This has been stated again and again by every major health and social services organization in this country.

      You are totally mistaken in thinking that homosexuality is only about sexual desire. Maybe that is what heterosexuality is for you, but I can assure you, as a gay man, that there is far more to it than that for me.

      • NDaniels

        Frank, a sexual inclination is not a person. I am a married woman who Loves my husband so you are mistaken to suggest that I am a “heterosexual”.

        • Frank

          @NDaniels:disqus That is a profoundly good point you just made. I do wish people would think of me in the way that you want to be thought of.

          I am a person.

  • NDaniels

    As the mother of a daughter who struggles with a same sex-sexual inclination that was greatly influenced by a forced sexual encounter when she was a freshman in college, I have watched my daughter grow and develop and I know she has an emotion issue that has effected her ability to develop healthy relationships and friendships.

    • Frank

      @NDaniels:disqus Why do you think these relationships are unhealthy? Maybe it is only your attitude toward them that is unhealthy.

      • NDaniels

        Frank, Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve for the sake of self gratification. Love desires that which is Good for one’s beloved. Any act, including any sexual act, that does not respect the personal and relational essence of the human person, who from the moment of conception has been created equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female, is not an act of Love. It is because I Love my daughter as I Love all my children, that I want her to heal her wounds and learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love. Our call to Holiness is a call to authentic Love.

        • Frank

          @NDaniels:disqus With the exception of male-female complementarity, what you have described is exactly what I experience with my partner of the last thirteen years. So it is apparently just the male-female thing that you’re getting stuck on.

          • NDaniels

            Frank, any act, including any sexual act, that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person, is not an act of Love.

            • Frank

              @NDaniels:disqus If any act between myself and my partner of 13 years were to “demean the inherent dignity of the human person,” I’m sure we could not possibly be as happy together as we are, and we would probably have separated long before now. We love each other and have built a life together with the support of many friends and a large extended family. Can you understand that at all? We are planning to marry early next year. How can you say, without even knowing us, that we “demean the dignity of the human person.”? This, to my ear, is beyond ridiculous and beyond mean-spirited. How can you identify yourself as a Catholic when you display such breath-taking prejudices? What does this say about your faith?

              • NDaniels

                “What does this say about your faith?”
                That as a Catholic, I recognize the truth about the inherent nature of the personal and relational essence of the human person and for this reason it is not unjust discrimination to recognize that a father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, children, two men, two women, one man and two women, one woman and two men, can not exist in relationship as husband and wife, and thus a sexual relationship between those who can not exist in relationship as husband and wife is a perversion, not a reflection of Love.

                • Frank

                  @NDaniels:disqus Are you seriously claiming that my relationship with my partner of the 13 years is not a “reflection of love?” Are you suggesting that we do not love each other because our love does not fit into your straight-jacketed, ossified, mean-spirited, and constipated definition of love? Is this what your religion teaches you? No wonder so many people are leaving your Church! Meanness has triumphed and love has been excommunicated.

              • John200

                This point has been made by many others and at dissertation length, but I can do it in 10 words or less:

                The faith is correct and you are lost in darkness.

  • The belief that the Earth revolves around the sun once was dangerous and sinful, and only a generation ago, Catholic schools would tie the hands of left-handed students, and force them to write right-handed. Left-handed people were “abnormal, and under the influence of Satan.” If the Church were to eject all the gay clergy, they would have to close 20% of their parishes! This too shall pass, its just a matter of time, The Church WILL join the 20th century, but 50 years too late.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    Homosexualists are promoting permanent solutions to temporary problems – never a good idea.

  • This article has it backwards. The gays are not stopping Catholics from marrying and living in accordance with their beliefs. It is the Catholics doing that to gays.

  • I did not learn homosexuality. I was so sheltered I had no real idea of what it was. I was terrified because I thought I was the only one in the world with these feelings. I was never molested. I was from a great loving Catholic family which prayed together every night before bed. I was only 12 when I began to discover I was experiencing something different from my many other guy friends. I was so masculine and popular with the opposite sex nobody ever suspected. They, like you, did not realize the hell that fear and repression cause. I remained a virgin, went to therapy to be “cured” when I was 16, and into the seminary at 17. I spent 22 years in ex-gay ministry and longer in therapy, but I learned that there was nobody who can change from homosexual to heterosexual. A homosexual who remains celibate his whole life is still a homosexual. Sexual orientation is real, lifelong, innate and is not chosen and cannot be changed at will. And I did what you suggest as soon as I had the unwanted attractions. I went to my priest at the age of 12 and he wanted to molest me. He was thrown out of the priesthood years later after admitting to having sex with a number of boys from 12-16. His name was John Aurelio. Google him.

  • This kind of article only leads to more hate in the world. Today polls of people under 30 say the first thing that comes to mind when they hear terms like Christian conservative is, “Oh, those are the people that hate gays.” 70% of young people support marriage equality because they know gay people as friends and relatives.

    • The nonsense about politics 40 years ago at one convention being the reason for homosexuality being recognized as a natural and given trait ignores the mountains of evidence that led every scientific medical association in the world to stop calling homosexuality a mental illness.

      • As a Franciscan University alumni, I believe that the two former students asking that a course not conflate them as gays with murderers, thieves, etc was reasonable. The articles this publication puts out claiming such requests were “assaults” and devious are false, cruel and will lead to more bullying of gay kids, gay bashings, gay suicides and encourage those nations imprisoning and even executing gays.

        • To read the articles on this topic in Crisis Magazine without any other knowledge of this issue, one would think that gays had been going around making the marriages of Catholics illegal or null and void. In fact, it’s the other way around.

          • There is no such thing as “the homosexual lifestyle” anymore than there is one kind of “Heterosexual lifestyle.” People are people.

            • Christian conservatives have created their own counterfeit organizations to advocate their viewpoint, such as the American College of Pedatricians. Its name was chosen to confuse the public with the actual scientific medical organization, the American Academy of Pediatricians. The difference is that the real medical associations all follow the scientific method of following the evidence while the fake ones only cherry pick those few bits of information which bolster their assumptions going in, the very epitome of prejudice. That’s why there is a disconnect between the general public, which follows real medical authorities and the Christian conservatives who only read the fake medical-sounding information.

              • There is no point to all these vicious attacks on gays since the Catholic gay ministries all admit they cannot change a homosexual into a heterosexual. All they can do is say nasty things about homosexuals and demand they live celibate lives even if they are not Catholic.