Why I kept my questions for the Rev. James Martin to myself

The rainbow flag is a highly recognized symbol for the LGBTQ community. Photo by Ludovic Bertron/Creative Commons

(RNS) — In my work as a kind of roving correspondent in the culture wars, I have seen the debate over the role of LGBT people in the life of the church play out in both Protestant and Catholic communities — and it plays out differently.

Protestant traditions, some of which are fully affirming of LGBT people in the life and ministry of their churches, can almost by definition tolerate debates, denominational switching and changing interpretations.

In the Catholic Church, both the institution and its LGBT adherents have faced different kinds of challenges. The result has been a kind of institutional dismissal that particularly alienates and marginalizes people whose sexual identities clash with the teachings of a Church that struggles with whether or how to recognize them.

And yet LGBT Catholics have stories to tell.

Regrettably, those stories have largely gone untold or unheard, lost in an unbridgeable chasm between Catholics who are LGBT and the Church into which they were baptized.

“Building A Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity” by the Rev. James Martin. Images courtesy of Harper Collins

The Rev. James Martin, a New York-based Jesuit priest and writer, discerned a vocation to fill that gap. His ministry led to a 2017 book, “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity.”

For his efforts, Father Martin has received widespread appreciation from LGBT Catholics and their families. He has also received considerable scorn, of a stunningly personal and vicious nature.

Though some of his appearances have been canceled due to pressure from self-styled traditional Catholics, Father Martin maintains a brisk speaking schedule.

Intrigued by the passion of his fans and his detractors, I eagerly attended a talk he gave this week at Georgetown University.

It turns out that not much of what Father Martin says is opinion. Most of his talk was simply stating facts leading to the rather obvious conclusion that the Church has not treated LGBT people with respect, compassion or sensitivity.

Neither, Father Martin openly concedes, has the LGBT community regarded the Catholic Church respectfully, compassionately or sensitively. This is not a major theme of his book talk, but it figures prominently in the book and has led to strong criticism from LGBT activists and allies.

Father Martin’s approach is fundamentally pastoral, and he is careful to never contradict Church teaching. This balance is what infuriates his detractors.

He is open with some things: “Let us lay to rest terms like ‘afflicted with same-sex attraction.’” He plainly stated, “I am concerned with the recent trend of Catholic institutions firing LGBT men and women.” Noting the uneven application of Church teaching used to root out school, parish and charity employees in same-sex marriages, Father Martin points out that the Catechism forbids unjust discrimination.

The. Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and the author of many books. Photo courtesy of DeChant-Hughes & Assoc. Inc. Public Relations

But we never hear Father Martin say the Church is wrong about marriage and sexuality, though his critics believe this is obviously his view.

At the Georgetown event, an audience member asked Father Martin what he would do if he could make one radical change in the Church relating to LGBT people.

He did not say that the Church should endorse same-sex marriage. He did not say that the Church should affirm same-sex relationships, though he noted approvingly that the cardinal archbishop of Vienna has made statements about the imperative to recognize aspects of gay relationships.

READIn Germany, Catholic Church grapples with blessings for gay marriage

He simply said he would ask the pope and others to reconsider the terms “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” — those used by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in reference to homosexuality.

Much of Father Martin’s presentation, and a forthcoming expanded edition of his book, recalls heartbreaking stories of exclusion, rejection and pain that LGBT Catholics have endured.

After his talk, I hoped to ask Father Martin to say more about his pastoral recommendations for LGBT Catholics. Might their encounter with Christ lead them to affirm Church teaching and aspire them to lives of celibacy? Should it?

Should noncelibate LGBT Catholics receive Communion? Can they be in a state of grace, or are they necessarily in a state of grave mortal sin? Are they akin to fornicators and adulterers, or is their sin (if it is a sin at all) comparable to eating meat on Lenten Fridays?

But the moment after Father Martin ended his presentation with a brief, fervent prayer, the stage began filling with men and women of every age. They all had stories to tell, and they needed a priest to hear them.

The moment seemed wrong for “gotcha” questions from a heathen journalist, though I suspect Father Martin will have to answer them sooner or later if he has not already.

I milled about at the wine reception, contemplating how I as a nominal mainline Protestant can believe whatever I want about the divisive theological questions of the day. There is always a church where I can receive Communion. My own conscience is all that stands in my way. How different it must feel for these Catholics!

I asked one gay Catholic layman why he didn’t just convert to Episcopalianism. “This is my Church,” he said. “She is my mother. I am hers and she is mine.”

After a while, I walked back into the auditorium, hoping to ask the famed Jesuit my questions.

He was still there, listening to stories.

Maybe more priests and bishops should do likewise.

(Jacob Lupfer is a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgetown University. His website is www.jacoblupfer.com. Follow him on Twitter at @jlupf. The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.)

About the author

Jacob Lupfer


Click here to post a comment

  • Gosh, gays have not “regarded the Catholic Church respectfully, compassionately or sensitively.” Gosh, the institutional Church craps all over them, and Marin is suprised that they don’t take it meekly? The people who should be reaching out to the LGBT community, with humility. But we all know this is not going to happen.

  • I have the same questions you wanted to ask…however I don’t believe Father wants to be the one to answer them, his purpose is to get the conversation going…But as a devoted Christian I know celibacy would be the sinless way to go…and it also is the holiest way for any Christian who seeks to relinquish the flesh for their Spiritual sanctity.

  • The sex drive is so powerful that in practice, the only people who can “relinquish” it are probably very strange indeed.

    Why is the RCC so freaked out about sex? Wouldn’t it be nice if it were as concerned by, say, racism and other phenomena that no one disputes are evil and/or dangerous?

  • Any Catholic who has validly considered their state of grace and sees themselves as not in any form of sin can and should take communion. I won’t say my church is “wrong” in how they view same-sex marriage, rather I’ll say that the current view will be changed by the Holy Spirit in the next millennium.

  • “Any Catholic who has validly considered their state of grace and sees themselves as not in any form of sin can and should take communion.”

    Well, we all know only one kind of sin gets such treatment. 🙂

  • There are in fact many sins for which priests may -and do- deny someone Communion. It is certainly not limited to “only one kind of sin”.

  • Remember that Fr. Martin is one of those who have “relinquished it“. I hope you don’t think he is very strange indeed.
    Those who say the morality of sex is not as important as the morality of racism may believe that because they are sure that only others are racist. Personal morality should come first, including (especially?) sexual, in this era of “Me, too”

  • I think Fr. Martin takes dignity and respect very seriously. We are to love and respect even though we may disagree. This is difficult, and Fr. Martin knows it. The fact is that many Catholics have sex before marriage, live together before marriage, use contraception, get divorced, and even cheat on one another–in other words, heterosexual Catholics are human. There is no organized effort to banish these people, fire them from parish jobs, etc. Most of the time, it is “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Each person is free to use his/her own conscience. It is only LGBTQ Catholics who are called names, isolated, fired from jobs, etc. In other words, the church discriminates against them. LGBTQ people deserve the same treatment as the other Catholics, and they should not be a marginalized group. The doctrine says that sex should be within marriage, and within marriage, children are to be accepted as a blessing from God. This is the teaching, and it is the teaching for a reason. But people fall short. They are still Catholic. It is because they fall short that they need the church and pastoral priests even more. Accompanying does not mean name-calling, judging, or firing.

  • I’ve never understood why any gay person would want to belong to a church or religion that doesn’t consider them full and equal participants. There are plenty of other organizations that will. And one doesn’t need a church or religion to live a good life or to make a difference in other people’s lives. Plenty of gay people, as well as people in general, are living a nice life without religion or a church.

  • No, those who say that the morality of racism is more important than the morality of sex are looking at the number of people who are affected by the two. Two gays who have sex are affecting generally only themselves. Racism is directed against a group. Genocide and racism are intertwined.

  • For most people, religion is an integral part of the answer to the question, “Who am I?” Changing the answer is generally not something done lightly or easily.

  • I’ve never understood why any gay person would want to belong to a church or religion that doesn’t consider them full and equal participants.

    A voice of Reason! Well observed….well stated.

  • Recommended Reading —
    Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control by E. Michael Jones. Libido Dominandi – the term is from St. Augustine’s City of God – is the definitive history of the sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present. This book examines the development of technologies like psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and, when push came to shove, plain old blackmail – that allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido Dominandi explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control.

  • “Neither, Father Martin openly concedes, has the LGBT community regarded the Catholic Church respectfully, compassionately or sensitively. ”

    I wonder why the Church deserves any of those things from the LGBT community? Let’s think about this Fr. Martin. The Church treats its own LGBT members like sh*t. That might be okay – I mean, they can do what they want “behind closed doors” and LGBT Catholics are just stupid and masochistic to stay. But the RCC publicly tries to impose its views on gay people on even non-Catholics. The LGBT community does nothing against the Catholic church – unless they are reacting to all the policies the Church is pushing for that are anti-LGBT. I guess Fr. Martin probably would advocate for victims of sexual abuse or rape to have to hug their abusers as some sort of reconciliation.

    “I asked one gay Catholic layman why he didn’t just convert to Episcopalianism. “This is my Church,” he said. “She is my mother. I am hers and she is mine.” ”

    This poor guy is suffering some serious mental abuse. So sad to see this.

  • What is worse is that all the gay folks who remain practicing Catholics are actually implicitly anti-gay. They really hate gay people.

  • How could the RCC’s view on same-sex marriage change in the next millennium? A lot of people don’t understand how Catholic dogma works (i.e., it never changes; it can’t), so they say things like this. But Catholics know the church cannot and will not change its teaching on same-sex marriage.

  • Re your second sentence above, I have no idea how strange he is, or is not–I don’t know him, and have not seen results of any psychological tests he may have taken.

    I *do* know, however, that the number of people who have been able to give up sex is very small. I suppose it’s analagous to something like not being able to see any colors, or not feeling pain in situations where everyone else would.

    The comment of John Hobson, below, is especially valuable and revealing, I think.

  • The bottom line to the RCC is that it has a history–a very vicious history–of trying to impose its own views on everyone else on so many matters. It is a very dangerous organization, and one that as late as 1893, in an encyclical by pope Leo XIII, was still opposed to democracy!

  • If “with humility” means “with the idea that the Church is going to change its teaching”, you are probably correct.

  • The problem is the Church’s extreme fear of public scandal. Sex just happens to be the scandal de jure. “…sex before marriage, live together before marriage, use contraception, get divorced, and even cheat on one another–in other words, heterosexual Catholics are human.” The fact that society generally accepts this reality means that Catholic individuals caught doing such things aren’t thought to reflect too badly on the Church. So nobody gets fired. However, homosexuality and same sex marriage, though increasingly accepted by society, are still not fully accepted by the general public. So a gay parochial school teacher who is publically revealed to be a homosexual becomes a public scandal that the Church feels it can not overlook. The important word here is “public”. This is also why the church’s first impulse when it finds its clergy misbehaving sexually is to cover it up. As long as it’s not public there is no scandal. Most denominations have the same problem, but none so extreme as the Catholic Church.

  • Your first sentence says quite a bit about you and nothing realistic about the sex drive in normal people.

    The second tells us that “be fruitful and multiply”, the first commandment given to mankind, is over your head.

  • There are so many important social justice issues unfolding before our eyes. The church is tone deaf in obsessing on LGBTQ people instead of seeking unity among Catholics to deal with immigrants, tax laws that harm the poor, etc. Oh, right…some in the hierarchy are complicit with all of this. The bottom line is that priests are pastoral, or not. The ones who go after LGBTQ people are not pastoral, they are the opposite.

  • I gave you one example above. Here are 2 more–out of HUNDREDS:

    1. Richard Cardinal Cushing was very proud of his (successful) efforts to censor books in Boston.

    2. The RCC tried to stop the development of the birth control pill.

  • You don’t think the sex drive is especially powerful? What evidence would convince you? Somehow, I doubt that there is ANY evidence you would find even plausible.

    There are a lot of ideas that are way over my head. But one idea that works for me in 99.9999% of situations is, “show me your data. Show me the evidence supporting your claim.”

    And it is no accident that EVERY major tenet of almost every religion is not only not supported by evidence, but in fact cannot be investigated!

  • You could insert “The Protestant Episcopal Church” into either sentence, along with dozens of other denominations, and each would be as accurate as it is as your presented it.

    Yes, people with religious beliefs try to influence reality, and in the USA that is okay.

  • the article and the comments Howard was replying to have to do with the RCC. No need to play the “but they do it too” game. No matter the actor, the actions are wrong.

  • If Martin is being true to Catholic church teachings and being pastoral then he must be call all lgbt people in his church to repentance. This is what the catechism of the church says about homosexuality:
    “2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

  • Then he must be calling homosexuals to repentance because to engage in homosexual acts is sin. Do you know if he is doing that?

  • No, Howard was making his usual anti-Catholic comments.

    I don’t agree that either action is “wrong”.

    You may not care for it, but you’d have to build a case for “wrong”.

  • 2 gays having sex affects a lot of people. Who do you think is paying for the drugs that helps keep homosexuals alive who are suffering from HIV and AIDS? Do you know how much these drugs costs?

  • It is far more than “trying to influence reality”–it is a question of imposing your view on everyone, by censoring books and trying to influence development of a pill for birth control. WHAT GALL!!!

    You will go a long way to convincing me of your first para if you can provide some examples of Episcopalians (or any other denom/religion) trying to impose their views on everyone. (Well, the Mormon “church” is one example.)

  • Sadly, there are still multitudes of people who will not be satisfied unless the meaning of the term, LGBT, is changed to Licking God’s Boots Today . . . just like the multitudes do everyday.

  • You don’t think it’s wrong to impose your views on others by censoring books??? Or trying to halt development of a pill that can be used for birth control, and other things?

    Do you understand how much you’ve just told us about yourself, and about the RCC?

  • I do not know if he doing that specifically. Seems his goal is to dupe lgbt back into the church then hit them with that. He is a catholic priest so he will tell them about their evil ways sooner or later!!

  • Can you be more specific? I will reply if I understand your question. What data are you talking about?

  • As opposed to the OVERT political and social control by forcing purely theological concerns abd sex and “what it is for” and how it should be done on people who don’t share those beliefs.

  • Here’s several astounding pieces of data. Dispute them if you will.

    2/3 of the world thinks that the Christian story is fiction. They have their holy books, many far older than the N.T., to prove it.

    Half of Christians in the world think that the other half of the Christians in the world aren’t Christians at all. They have documentation aplenty, and will be happy to fling it at all and sundry. They’ve been doing this ever since the hellenized Jews like Paul showed up and took over from early christian Jews.

    Each denomination of Christianity thinks that all of the rest of the denominations of Christianity have it all wrong. The liberal ones are willing to live with the disagreement without denouncing the rest. The conservative ones are stuck living with the disagreement, but fortunately, are no longer able to use the civil law to harm other Christians.

    we have the direct, irrefutable evidence of each and every faith that the world has ever seen– including the thousands of thousands of faiths that have gone to that great religious trashheap in the sky– that the all of the rest of them, with their definitive declaration of the True God(s) and his/her/its/their message to the world…

    …are false.

    Begin disputing this data.

  • I don’t have HIV.
    Let’s make alcohol, smoking, guns, and sugar illegal. Do you know how much it costs to treat the problems they cause.

  • Good point. I am a humanist so the fact that people would stand in the way of other people’s rights/freedoms just is inherently wrong to me. But I would have to do some work (which I won’t do since this is just an online forum and not a thesis paper) to come up with exactly why it is wrong. I am fascinated to know how one would argue the case for how it is right to fight against gays, access to birth control, democracy simply because one’s religion is against those things….

  • You have made two inaccurate assumptions, first that all gay men have HIV, second that all sexual conduct is equally capable of transmitting HIV.

  • I am not aware of priests who spend money against homosexuals. Hear their confessions and pray with them, yes.

  • I’m going to put my faith in the Holy Spirit rather than in the humans who preside over our Church. Gospels tell us we’re made in the image of God-I’m pretty sure that includes gay people too and I’m more than sure He will find a path for them. Until then they can join the rest of the church’s pariahs (divorced and remarried, living in sin, don’t think the Pope is infallible on any subject…the list is endless) and just go to communion anyway.

  • That actually makes little sense and has no basis in reality. You think the Holy Spirit magically changes Church dogma? The only reasonable thing for gay Catholics to do is stop supporting the Church. Period. Otherwise they are homophobic themselves (which makes some sense that they would be having been raised Catholic).

  • “For his efforts, Father Martin has received widespread appreciation from LGBT Catholics and their families.”
    Exodus 23:2 – 2You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,

    ‘afflicted with same-sex attraction.’ Christ taught it is a choice – Romans 1:26-27

    “Should noncelibate LGBT Catholics receive Communion? ” No. They are not Christians. We don’t share the joy of what Christ has done for us, with people who are spitting on that very same sacrifice.

  • Actually, many just want to see them in a relationship with Jesus and on their way to a lifetime with Him.

  • Hey Ben…..you’ve won man. Enjoy your victory. But sadly……it will never be enough, will it? Bolshevik Russia coming to a town near you. I think you will get more satisfaction watching our demise slowly…..than all at once. Just a thought.

  • The Economist published a tongue in cheek article comparing the RCC to a multinational corporation. As satirical as it was a very strong truth shown through.
    The RCC’s brand has gone stale and a new CEO has been appointed to oversee it’s rebranding to fit the desires of the newest demographic of customers.

  • Because although they have rejected Christ, they still want Him to bless their choices, rather than turning to Him and letting Him adapt them to His choices – as Christians do.

  • It is something that is asked of all people not married to someone of the opposite sex. Why should homosexuals be any different?

  • And for that I’m thankful. I can’t imagine the misery you must go through constantly knowing you are superior to all others. I know is be miserable among self righteous hypocrites. But then again there is Stockholm Syndrome.

  • What makes homosexuals more important than murderers, adulterers and pedophiles John?
    Those are all sin also.

  • Hmm sounds like you have an unhealthy obsession and it affects you deeply.
    Actually science (anathema as you may be to it traced HIV all the way back to chimpanzees in Africa thousands of years ago. Human HIV first appeared in Africa in 1908. A hunter had contracted a strain of simian HIV and took it to a port with him. There he spread it to women who passed it on to travelers from around the world. Heterosexual travelers.
    Science the more you know.

  • I’ll make the same comment to you that I have made to others in these past few days.

    I simply don’t understand why you right wingers must, MUST make up stuff about the people who don’t agree with your agenda. I absolutely support your freedom of religion to believe whatever you wish. I, as an atheist and a gay man, would proudly stand with you against your bogeyman of Bolshevik Russia, defending your right to your religious beliefs. I’ve said so many times on these very pages. Except, of course, that Bolshevism disappeared in Russia nearly 30 years, though it has taken on a new, putinesque disguise.


    As far as I am concerned, your religious freedom stops at my life and my participation in society. You would be howling holy hell if for example, Catholics achieved such a political ascendancy that your brand of Protestantism were in any way impinged on by catholic belief. Or by your other bogeymen, sharia or the vast Jewish conspiracy.

    If you want to legalize discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, it won’t be me or anyone I know that supports that. If you want to legalize discrimination on the basis of religious belief, by all means, do so, but lets make it legal for everyone to so discriminate against anyone for religious belief, not just a select few.

    What’s sauce for the religious goose is surely sauce for the propaganda.

  • Just an early death from second hand smoke, or an early death because conservatives in this country think that their toys are more important than the lives of their fellow citizens.

    Thanks for demonstrating one more time that you have absolutely no concept of morality.

  • In other words, since my comment doesn’t fit either your agenda or the story you want to tell yourself to justify your agenda…

    No comment,

    Ok. Got it.

  • I would say the same is true of you. You are the one who wants children in immoral environments – not me. i would rather all homosexuals turned to Christ and were cleanses. You are yet battling for them to remain in sin and end up in perdition.

  • That’s not at all far-fetched. Companies as well as the RCC (and other denoms) seek monopolies, and hope to keep a “customer” doing business with the same company for a long time.

    An excellent example is the RCC ritual (transaction) of confession. It’s an excellent way of keeping a customer doing business with the same outfit–the price (penalty) is not so high as to be off-putting, and the customer feels good after the transaction.

    One difference, of course, is that commercial vendors do not use fear in quite the same way as churches.

  • Abuse is abuse. And, frankly you are in an abusive relationship. The people in control of your cult use your fear and misery to keep from rising above it.
    And when you embrace it they call that Stockholm Syndrome.

  • Franky is there new CEO. Now bare in mind if they change too much they’ll drive away they fox news demographic (old and terrified of progress) and they would have to retool their entire line. That’s expensive and reduces short term profit.

  • You have it partially right, many stay as others noted, because the church is a part of their identity AND they want life’s events to be blessed by the church JUST as some protestants do (also called CHINOS–Christians in name only). What is called baptized, married and buried.

    The conflict comes for them in deciding what is more important who they know themselves to be or membership in a church that has nourished them until they came out and acknowledged they were LGBT.

  • I see what you mean. Just to be clear though, the RCC really can’t change much. This pope is nicer than the previous one but he certainly won’t change a thing with regard to sexuality. People don’t understand how dogma and doctrine work in the Catholic Church…

  • The Methodist and Baptist denominations were largely responsible for prohibition, which was imposed on everyone, and still is in certain counties.

  • Except Christ will bless them with some of what He does for others – air, food,shelter, etc, but, He doesn’t hear their prayers. Christ does not hear sinners prayers.

    Hebrews 10 – 26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    Isaiah 59:2 – English Standard Version
    but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

    That said,Christ is just to forgive and cleanse them of their sin should they turn to Him, repent and follow Him. Otherwise, they have chosen their future

  • And He has made clear in His word who is blessed beyond measure.
    We are all blessed because we have food to eat, houses to sleep in, warm beds for most of us, families, friends etc…..the blessings that Christ only gives to His children/friends are eternal life with Him because of a relationship with Him. He will bless people a lot to bring them to Him, which we usually recognize on this side of salvation, but the real blessings are for His and His alone.

  • I was not aware of the religious aspect of prohibition, but I *was* aware that it was to a large extent directed against immigrants and folks in cities, so your point makes sense. The Southern Baptist Convention is not what anyone would call a model of tolerance or honesty or respect for others. .

  • Here is what it costs to treat HIV and AIDS:
    “The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is $326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% non-drug costs). For individuals who remain uninfected but at high risk for infection, the discounted lifetime cost estimate is $96,700. The medical cost saved by avoiding one HIV infection is $229,800. The cost saved would reach $338,400 if all HIV-infected individuals presented early and remained in care. Cost savings are higher taking into account secondary infections avoided and lower if HIV infections are temporarily delayed rather than permanently avoided.”

    Who do you think is paying for this and how?

  • Many do have HIV. Here is the cost for treating it:
    Here is what it costs to treat HIV and AIDS:
    “The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is $326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% non-drug costs). For individuals who remain uninfected but at high risk for infection, the discounted lifetime cost estimate is $96,700. The medical cost saved by avoiding one HIV infection is $229,800. The cost saved would reach $338,400 if all HIV-infected individuals presented early and remained in care. Cost savings are higher taking into account secondary infections avoided and lower if HIV infections are temporarily delayed rather than permanently avoided.”

    Who do you think is paying for this and how?

  • Ever watch MMA? It’s like the dude on the bottom “tapping” and the dude on top just keeps wailing away.

  • Huh. The CDC stats I saw told me LGB folks had higher rates of private health insurance and and lower rates of public and no insurance than the straight . But I’m really not surprised if the facts don’t fit your narrative mane make some crap up.

  • I understand the point you are making, and it has some validity. But first, for most people, the fear of consequences of not using drug X are not as strong as the fear of going to hell. Second, the messages of drug companies are much easier to counter than the fears proffered by religions–a newspaper that runs a story saying “BigPharma XYZ is saying nonsense in its ads and to docs” is not gonna raise voices saying “anti-god/anti-religion” and so on. And there are lots of docs who will speak up.

    Finally, think about the ads drug companies run on TV. These days the list of side effects is typically quite long, and easily parodied.

    But very few voices will be raised in opposition when Denom X says “repent or you’re going to hell.”

  • Hmmm, lots wrong with that comment. You pay for people’s medicine? Do you take no medicine at all then? If so, by your logic we are all paying for your medicines? I would like to see the inventory you have adn we can judge your lifestyle choices. Also, people taking medicine for HIV or AIDS are not every gay man. Heck, not all people taking the medicine are gay!

  • Interestingly, the negative impact on others from smoking and guns is far greater than from HIV. You and I will never be impacted by HIV. We might from the other two even if we don’t do either. That is the sad truth.

  • How does this fit your “narrative”?
    “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with mena account for 70% of new HIV infections in the United States.
    New HIV infections among gay and bisexual men overall remained stable in recent years.
    More than 600,000 gay and bisexual men are living with HIV in the United States.
    photo of two men
    In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV”

  • We all pay for the medicine the sick take. Homosexuals are responsible for the vast majority of HIV and AIDS. Most cannot afford the medications not to mention the loss of the ability to work because they are to sick to work. Who is paying for that?

  • So what. If we all pay for medicine it doesn’t matter. Also you actually have no idea about meds for hiv apparently. If folks have hiv and take medicine these days they are fine to work. Most have insurance. Are you paying everyone’s premiums?! How generous. You take any meds?

  • Why should others who are not reckless have to pay for those who know its deadly to engage in homosexual sex?

  • “Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay and bisexual men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they take protective actions with their partners or seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services”
    Huh. Here is something you can do to help instead of running your mouth. But again that isn’t very Christian.

  • It is not deadly to engage in gay sex. Learn something. What meds do you take? Have you ever had or have an illness?

  • Except “repent or you are going to Hell” is a reality. Drug companies make up illnesses to sell their drugs to.

  • So this is not deadly?
    “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with mena account for 70% of new HIV infections in the United States.
    New HIV infections among gay and bisexual men overall remained stable in recent years.
    More than 600,000 gay and bisexual men are living with HIV in the United States.
    photo of two men
    In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV” CDC

  • Actually, nothing in what you just quoted implies “deadly” at all. LOL

    Try again maybe? This is fun!

  • Finally some stats related to death! But again, it is no longer a death sentence for someone to get diagnosed with HIV. I mean, you wish it were because you don’t think they should be able to have meds. You probably think diabetics should be put in the ovens too!

    In any event, all these stats are nice but have nothing to do with gays affecting you or “2 gay guys” having sex. If every gay person who had sex got HIV your numbers would be a lot higher…

  • Depends on the books.

    I haven’t told anywhere near as much about myself as you did concerning your inability to control your s-xual urges.

    Certainly you’re an anti-Catholic, which indirectly has something to do with the “RCC”.

  • A few assertions, not data.

    “2/3 of the ….” I see no issues. I haven’t been proselytizing on-line for any religion. Trying to use the knife you sharpened for people with religious agendas on me indicates you aren’t paying attention.

    “Half of Christians ….” I don’t think you can support that one. It is very probable, although again assembling data would impossible given the 2,000+ Christian denominations out there, that half of Christians or more think other Christians are wrong about one or more items of the Christian faith.

    “Each denomination ….” That is the statement which the “Half of Christians ….” should have been.

    At this point Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not appear to be taking on significant water overall. Touch base with us in 2,000 years and update us.

    I was just reading about intramural battles in atheism, much as happened in atheistic communism in the 20th century, so I suppose what we see is that humans tend to form parties and disagree.

  • You wrote:

    “You don’t think the sex drive is especially powerful? What evidence would convince you? Somehow, I doubt that there is ANY evidence you would find even plausible.”

    “There are a lot of ideas that are way over my head. But one idea that works for me in 99.9999% of situations is, ‘show me your data. Show me the evidence supporting your claim.’

    I then wrote:

    “Show me YOUR data.”

    It’s simple English. If you don’t understand what you asserted that needs to be supported, you’ve got serious problems.

  • The post to which I responded:

    “I gave you one example above. Here are 2 more–out of HUNDREDS:”

    “1. Richard Cardinal Cushing was very proud of his (successful) efforts to censor books in Boston.”

    “2. The RCC tried to stop the development of the birth control pill.”

    Where did you find “fight against gays” and “democracy”?

  • We still censor books.

    We still lobby for or against this or that drug or treatment.

    It is hardly shocking.

    One of my favorites in the long list of denominations trying to impose their views was one of the founders of what is now Americans United, formerly Americans United for Separation of Church and State, originally Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. That itself is a good example of Protestants trying to impose their views, but it gets better.

    Glenn L. Archer, who died in 2002, was one of the five founders.

    A rabid anti-Catholic, he dubbed the American Catholic bishops in 1949 as “more dangerous and clever than communism”.

    He petitioned the FCC to deny TV licenses to Jesuits because they were an alien organization. He also demanded that Cardinals in the Catholic Church have their citizenship revoked. He asked the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate the intentions, scope and achievements of “Vatican espionage” in the United States, charging that the Catholic clergy had learned American secrets “hardly anyone except the president knows”.

    Archer, a Free Methodist, was not formally “ordained” but held what was called an “exhorter’s license” from the denomination, which enabled him to preach in churches and conduct funerals.

    Your kind of guy all the way.

  • Actually it’s not. Instead of running your mouth treating people with dignity and respect allows them to be open about who they are. When they are open and feel safe they are less likely to engage in unhealthy activities.
    The only thing running your mouth will do is keep those people in hiding.
    But again treating people you fear with dignity and respect is not the Christian way.

  • Telling people the truth is treating them with respect. Engaging in homosexual sex is very very unhealthy and CDC stats prove it.

  • The same people that are paying for ever increasing rates of HIV among black peoples”e, our obesity epidemic, smoking, alchohosm, drugs, automobile accidents, workers compensation, emphysema due to air pollution, pregnancies, illegitimate babies, legitimate babies, welfare,, corporate welfare, tax breaks for religions, depression caused by religion, and everything else.

  • That doesn’t make any sense. I know people who have engaged in gay sex for decades and there is nothing unhealthy about them. There is risk to risky behaviors but we both know that that applies to all people who have sex not just gay people.

  • Several facts you should be aware of: The cohort with the lowest incidence of AIDS is lesbians; zero. The incidence of AIDS among gays is far less than the incidence of STDs — including AIDS — among the heterosexual population.

  • You have it backwards, Roy. Til’ Tuesday voices her decision NOT to use reason to gain an understanding of a fairly easy concept. Paraphrased, Til’s comment reads, “I’ve never once, not for a second, attempted to understand why a gay would want membership…”

  • Murderers, adulterers and pedophiles affect other people with their acts, homosexuals do not; something which should be obvious.

  • https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia

    homophobia – noun

    Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.


    “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

  • Unless practicing homosexuals do not live in society, e.g. they live alone on an island, they do affect other people with their acts.

  • http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

    “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

  • ” Most denominations have the same problem, but none so extreme as the Catholic Church.”

    You’re apparently unfamiliar with other denominations and the issues in orthodox Judaism.

    All of them pale in comparison to public schools.

    It might be fair to say something like “Most denominations have the same problem, but none has gotten as much attention as the Catholic Church.”

  • Are you saying that denomination will make a 180 degree turn and disown 2,700 years of constant teaching?

    I understand the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints has a mechanism for new revelation, but to the best of my knowledge that denomination teaches that the revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

  • Engaging in sex with anyone is inherently unhealthy if you don’t know anything about them.
    The core problem with this discussion is your inability to see gay men as anything but less than human. So I have accepted the facts presented and explained one of the ways to address the facts.
    You are part of the problem, whether you understand it or not.

  • ROTFL! Show me the evidence that hell exists.

    Religions make up the idea of hell to collect believers, who in turn provide money and support.

  • HAHAHA! This is typical religious-extremist nonsense. Where do you see me saying anything about myself or my ability or inability to control my “sexual urges”?

    I’m not merely “anti-Catholic”. I’m an empiricist and anti-nonsense and pro-liberty, which means I call out nonsense in all ideologies–Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, communism, socialism, etc.

  • OK, now you’ve made it clear. You wish to see data about the strength of the sexual urge. I will look for a good source for such and post that when I find it from a good source.

  • You certainly have a twisted view of “Christ”. He doesn’t hear sinner’s prayers? How can he forgive them if he doesn’t listen to them? Don’t they turn to him in their prayers? Your whole argument contradicts itself and is pure BS!

  • Right Roy? After all, any 7th grader could use basic reasoning ability to come up with a dozen valid, perhaps invalid, reasons a gay might wish to engage in group deity worship, which means it’s not that John can’t understand, rather he didn’t try to understand, even a bit.

  • I axed Christ once to bless me with a hot blonde in a red dress, holding a big plate of coke, sitting in a new red Ferrari. You know what he sent me? A chubby toothless blue haired mess, holding a bottle of Mad Dog, in a rusty Chevette. And you’re telling me Jesus loves me??

  • Most people don’t know that much about the diseases they or don’t care to know.
    You are part of the problem because you ignore the dangers of homosexual sex. Most homosexuals do.

  • Good Roy! You’re thinking. Starting my own church IS a logical solution. Surely a man with your reasoning ability is well aware that there are many other solutions which are equally logical and reasonable, huh?

  • Even lesbians are suffering from diseases:
    “Lesbians are at the same risk for many of the STDs heterosexual women are at risk for. Diseases can spread in a variety of ways, including:

    Mucosa contact
    Skin-to-skin contact
    Menstrual blood
    The exchange of vaginal fluids
    Sharing sex toys


  • I had/have a problem with Contemporary Christianity. At first I kept going to my church trying to ‘change’ the interpretation of the pastor/teacher. I was asked to leave the church. So I left. No big deal. I didn’t persist and brow beat the congregation. Or get the Law involved. I simply left.
    Living in peace with all men is not difficult. Sadly….a large portion of our now population insists on a ‘lowest common denominator’ like thinking.
    Simply put — Cultural Marxism rules the day.

  • ANY person who is sexually active can pick up those diseases, as your own source makes clear. No, you are obviously attempting to justify your fear and loathing of gays. Why you should do this is not for me to speculate, other than to say I can see no other reason for your doing it.

  • If you don’t want any diseases then don’t have sex. People need to be warned that “safe sex” is a lie. Homosexual sex can make you very sick and kill you. Will you warn them?

  • There’s a lot to reply to here. Let’s start with this:

    Yes, Americans United for Separation etc wished to impose its its views on everyone. It’s primary view was that no religion should be able to impose its views on everyone. This idea goes back to that well-known anti-Catholic bigot, Roger Williams, a Protestant who was kicked out of the Mass. Bay colony because he did not believe any one denomination should be allowed to impose its views on everyone.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite a few other specific views that POAU tried to impose on people.

    I have friends who are serious Catholics, who are dubious about the power of the RCC–tho at least some of them proudly describe themselves as “Cafeteria Catholics”.

    As to your other allegations, it would be a big help to me if you could give me specific citations.

  • I agree with you 100%, obviously, and I am looking for same. So far, have not found any. Have you found any to back up your statements re POAU? And have you come up with any specifics about how POAU wished to impose its views on everyone? (NOTE: at this moment I am not familiar with Archer, so I am not able to agree with you or dispute your claims. But I do have some familiarity with POAU and its actions, and I am not aware of any specific anti-Catholic bias by it. But I do know–as I hope you know– that JFK went out of his way specifically to deal with that matter and said that the RCC would not have any influence on his actions as president.)

  • I suppose you can nope so Susan. I don’t know how it works, but Christ does not hear sinners.

  • In context – “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” – Christ will not endorse sin.

    That means forgiveness follows repentance, a resolution to amend one’s life.

  • Well, that allegation evaporated fairly quickly.

    Yes, JFK was an all-around political slug and actually tried to make nice with Glenn L. Archer, while he was getting sucked into Vietnam, putting the Father of the Edsel in charge of defense, and arranging the assassination of the president of South Vietnam.

  • I think what Sandi and Bob must mean with their gibberish formulation of the Christian message — “Christ does not hear sinners [sic] prayers,” indeed! — is that being forgiven has to be prefaced by open, public acknowledgment of one’s sins.

    The way their hero Mr. Trump, for example, has stood up and confessed his sins and put them behind him. Which is why they have given him many mulligans.

    Or the way their hero Roy Moore has stood up and confessed his sins and put them behind him. Which is why they have given him many mulligans.

    I think this must be the point they want to make what that assertion that blows out of the water everything that has been said by the Christian churches for millennia now.

  • Your “gibberish formulation of the Christian message”, “their hero Mr. Trump”, “their hero Roy Moore” bit certainly seems to demonstrate that Bob has your number.

    If I ever read an informational post on a topic from you that does implicitly or explicitly engage in ad hominem, I will fall out of my chair.

    Btw, both posters provided scriptural references. Where are yours?

    I think the point they wanted to make is that if you’re not sorry, you’re not going to be forgiven, which would seem to present problems in the life hereafter.

    As I understand it, in the church that you purport to belong to, being forgiven has to be prefaced by an acknowledgment of one’s sins and amendment not to sin again. Nothing about “public” that I find.

    CCC 1448, 1451

    May I take it from your post you reject that?

  • Not to fuel getting off topic, but the suggestion that HIV originated in 1908 and spread by travelers appears to be completely apocryphal.

    It did appear to stem from SIV, probably from bushmeat hunters who were repeatedly infected – as they still are – when hunting monkeys.

  • Thanks, Mr. “Carioca.” So you agree that the point of the other two posters is that Mr. Trump and Mr. Moore are models of what Christian repentance and forgiveness is all about, I gather?

    Having openly confessed their sins and having repented publicly, they’ve been offered mulligans of forgiveness.


    This is the model of Christianity that you and the other posters are holding up to the world, correct?

    If you and the other posters could point me to articles or video clips — or even a comic book or cartoon — about when and where Mr. Trump and Mr. Moore did make a public confession of their sins before receving public mulligans of forgiveness, I’d be grateful.


    P.S. And gosh, what is it with heterosexuality? Do the churches need some special way of dealing with the heterosexual community, given how prone heterosexual men like Trump and Moore and Gingrich and one could go on and on naming names, couldn’t one — how prone heterosexual men are to sexual lapses?

    I’m really concerned about what these men’s lapses say about heterosexuality and the dangers it poses to people trying to follow the Christian path of chastity that Mr. “Arntzen” kindlly recommends to everyone in the world — but apparently not to himself as a heterosexually married man?

  • No, and to make sure I just went through every post on this article and the ONLY mention of “Trump” and “Moore” is in your post to which I responded. So, you set up a strawman, inserted the names of two people on your hate list, and switched the topic knowing full well (unless you have bigger problems than Arnzen suggsted) that neither said anything of the sort.

    And doing that is the model of Christianity that you are holding up to the world, correct?

    I take it “And gosh, what is it with heterosexuality?” is additional venting about another group you apparently hate – straight men and women?

    As to “the Christian path of chastity that Mr. ‘Arntzen’ kindlly (sic) recommends to everyone in the world” – I read his name as “Arnzen”, and I have not read him directly address the issue except to note that you seem out of synch with your own church.

    So, now that you further demonstrated he got your number, you can’t read, and you have a problem with heterosexuals, is there anything else you want to vent, sound off, or pontificate about?

  • Your first sentence above reveals a lot about your ability to understand simple statements. My allegation(s) have not “evaporated” at all. I said, specifically and clearly, I am unable to agree or disagree with you, since I have not yet investigated your claims.

    I note as well that you have not provided a single word of support of your statements. Again, very revealing. .

    The rest of your statement similarly reveals a lot about you and your understanding of simple texts. And as well tells me you are probably an evangelical “Christian” or a conservative “Catholic”–both phrases are oxymoronic.

  • Isn’t this why the church insisted that celibacy in a monastery far removed from the ‘temptations’ of the world was the best way to salvation?

  • Since there is no “Christ” that doesn’t disturb me one bit! Though since you seem to believe in him I think you should be worried, you don’t seem to have grasped the simplest of what are purported to be his teachings!

  • Isn’t that what Mr. Lindsey was pointing out! AND he gave two perfect examples of people who have been given multiple mulligans without any repentance on their part! Hypocrites will always get caught by their own hypocrisy.

  • Your reply shows how well fear works. Religions understand this very well, which is why they use it. It’s sad that any human being could be as fully brainwashed as you–but as we know, that’s widespread.

    If, in fact, hell were real, then there would be abundant evidence supporting that idea.

  • This entrance of “their hero Mr. Trump” and “their hero Roy Moore” precisely illustrates what I described a few days ago.

    I have never given either of these folks “mulligans”, and using other people’s discussions as a platform to sound off about the people you happen to hate on a particular day doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

    You know darned well what I meant, and it was NOT gibberish.

    You really need to get a grip on your outbursts.

  • Thanks for helping me point to the glaring double standard of folks who come to these threads to scream about what they see as the sins of LGBTQ human beings, while they completely — and conveniently — ignore the public and obvious sins of folks like themselves, Mr. “Carioca.”

    Some “gospel” you’re preaching to the world. Some “good news.”

    It’s amazing that so many young folks are walking away from the churches as fast as their feet can carry them, when the churches are represented by folks like you and sandinwindsor and Mr. “Arnzen.” With al that abundant “good news” and “forgiveness” you have to offer other people you want to tag as sinners. As you totally ignore your own sins.

    Nice talking with you and having your assistance in polishing my thinking about these issues. They are evidently very important to you, since you (and Sandi and “Bob” clearly feel obliged over and over to try to bring your “good news” to LGBTQ folks in discussion threads like this, and to dictate to churches other than your own — whose teaching and history you don’t understand at all — how they should approach these issues.

  • Susan, yes, I think so. That, and the strong strand of misogyny that had entered Christian theology and tradition by the time the monastic movement came along, which saw women as temptresses and the flesh as evil. The latter impulse had a lot to do with Greek philosophical ideas about soul and body that got imported into Christianity.

    As a result of all of that, many of the so-called desert fathers were, indeed, trying to escape what they saw as the snares of the flesh, particularly as they were represented by women, when they withdrew from the world.

    Mr. “Arnzen” has kindly recommended celibacy — “staying within the lines,” he calls it — to all LGBTQ people, with the implication that accepting their God-given nature and forming healthy intimate relationships is sinful.

    He doesn’t, of course, recommend celibacy to straight men like himself. His cruel recommendation disguised as biblical truth is only for other people, people unlike himself — to whom he feels superior and whom he comes to these threads to taunt. I’m pretty sure the history of the monastic movement and its focus on celibacy plays no role in his thinking, and that he probably knows little about that history — or the theology of the Catholic church, though he loves to dictate to Catholics what they should think about these matters, when he himself is not Catholic.

    His theology is clearly rooted in the notion that straight men like himself were made to rule the world, and women and LGBTQ folks need to be knocked back “within the lines.” He somehow calls this a proclamation of the “gospel,” the “good news” of Christ.

    Which he appears to understand about as well as he understands the history of Christianity and its multi-valent teachings that have shifted radically over many centuries — and will keep shifting as people recognize some of the inconsistencies between what has been proclaimed as gospel and how some folks are actually treated in the name of that “good news.”

  • No, that was not what he was pointing out.

    First, he suggested that I and another poster were uttering gibberish.

    Second, he brought in two public individuals and suggested they had publicly said they were sorry, which to the best of my knowledge is not true, and that I and another poster believed them to be heroes, which is simply untrue.

    What mulligans were given them is unclear, by whom they were given not mentioned, and what the current state of their souls and their relationships with God might be I am not sure, and I am fairly certain neither does Mr. Lindsey, although he rather clearly does not care for them.

    But, he’s your friend, so applaud him if you wish.

  • As is typical of conservatives and wackos, the allegations you make against me are, of course, true of YOU and not me. Trump is a wonderful example of this fact of life.

    I’ve asked you several times for YOUR data, and of course, your data are not forthcoming. No surprise.

  • I am sure you’re an expert on wackos, you being one and all.

    Of course my data is not forthcoming. Why would I disprove that which cannot be proven?

  • You’re on real roll today.

    Celibacy is for everyone, period. Staying within the lines is for everyone, period.

    What about kleptomaniacs’ “God-given nature”? How about sociopaths?

    The notion that “what is natural cannot be immoral” comes from Magnus Hirschfeld, a theoretician for what became one of the most debauched societies in the 20th century.

    Of course I recommend celibacy to straight men. They’re part of “everyone”.

    Of course, by “celibacy” you mean something other than what your church means.

    You would like to present it as meaning “no fun for you”.

    You love to dictate to Catholics what they should think about these matters, when your life and theology are not Catholic.

    Yes, we understand you resent and hate straight men.

    You have a number of problems, and that is just one of them.

  • Most folks probably stay within the lines. I assume by that you mean just live their lives the best they know how, love the ones around them, don’t hurt people? That would include sex too.

  • That is a nice sentiment by Martin. It is merely in line with Catholic Catechism. And it pertains to my comment how…..?

  • Yeah….again, nothing to do with my comment LOL. But it is good to see that even the anti-gay folks realize they are breaking Catholic teaching when they go on their rants.

    *** EDIT – Oops thought I was responding to the comment above dealing with Fr. Martin’s catechism comment. Sorry. Yes, be nice. It is so not hard!

  • The good news is that you can be forgiven, Mr. “Theologian”.

    The bad news for you is that first you have to be sorry and amend your life.

    Worse is that you’ve made it clear that you give your own church the one finger salute and are all about justifying it.

    “As you totally ignore your own sins” is rather a typical Lindsey comment, somewhat along the lines of “all the other boys are doing it”.

    Bad news – no, they are not.

    Nobody but you is claiming his sh-t don’t stink.

  • Then you better go learn more, the LDS Church has 12 living Apostles today, whom they consider prophets, seers and revelators.

  • Except for the gay/bi ones, they were locked away with the object of their desires, but told not to touch. Now that’s Hell!

  • Bob, I love the stuff you’re posting! Your tone tells me you must be a religious conservative, or political conservative, or both.

    And once again, you’ve shown how poor your are at reading simple sentences. I didn’t ask you for proof; I asked you for examples and citations.

    I hope you will continue this conversation with me, since it shows everyone exactly what conservatives are made of.

  • I would say that you, again, have no idea of what you are talking about…you say He doesn’t exist and then expect me to adhere to some teachings…..lol.

  • What has little to do with reality is the view that the Church is somehow infallible! Changes were made in Vatican 2 and at other times either the church was closer to true teaching before or after, take your pick! The Holy Spirit doesn’t change anything, he guides, but all fall short.

  • Rapists, murderers and thieves are made in the image of God. Confession and reconciliation are the pathways to forgiveness and salvation.

  • Frank Bruni’s column in NY Times today about those hating on Father Martin and obsessed with attacking LGBTQ human beings: it’s almost as if he read this thread at RNS before he wrote it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/scariest-catholic-james-martin.html

    Bruni writes,

    Check out the websites and Twitter accounts of far-right Catholic groups and you’ll see why. To them Father Martin is “sick,” “wicked,” “a filthy liar,” “the smoke of Satan” and a “heretic” on a fast track to “eternal damnation.” They obsessively stalk him and passionately exhort churchgoers to protest his public appearances or prevent them from happening altogether.


    And the vitriol to which he has been subjected is breathtaking, a reminder not just of how much homophobia is still out there but also of how presumptuous, overwrought, cruel and destructive discourse in this digital age can be.


    “We have to face the fact that there is a group of people across all religious views that are particularly antagonistic to L.G.B.T. people,” he [Bishop Robert McElroy] told me. “That comes from deep within the human soul, and it’s really corrosive and repugnant.”

    When historians and faith communities look back on this period of history, they’re going to be as astonished at the hate heaped on LGBTQ people by some “religious” people as we now are when we look back at the mass murder of Jewish people in the Holocaust, the mass hysteria about and mass murder of “witches,” the casual acceptance of enslaving human beings, and so on — all once blessed by Christians. What’s going especially to puzzle historians and faith communities is why anyone ever thought that the hate heaped on LGBTQ folks by some Christians today had anything at all to do with the Christian message, with Jesus and his good news.

  • There is no evidence for the existence of hell. All branches of Xianity acknowledge this.

    That raises an interesting question: how do you decide what claims to believe when there is no evidence for a claim?

  • Translation; Gays are SINNERS who reject Christ and thus my fear and hatred of them is justified?

    No, Sandi, you are perverting Christianity with your hate-filled blather. I suggest that you should look at your rejection of Christ.

  • Ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan? A Jew of Jesus’ day, would look on a Samaritan with the same loathing that you look on gays. In that parable, Jesus is saying that the neighbor we are to love includes those we despise.

  • Heterosexual sex can make you very sick and kill you. All the gays that I know, and I know quite a few (my brother is gay, as are several close friends) have not had a problem with STDs. Your comment is meaningless.

  • How many homosexual men do you know? Do you know thousands?
    “Overall, MSM account for:
    • 56 percent (estimated 615,400 persons in 2014) of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States.
    • More than two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year (70 percent, or an estimated 26,200 infections in 2014).
    While CDC estimates that four percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
    them is more than 44 times that of other men (rate ranges from 522 to 989 per 100,000 MSM compared to
    12 per 100,000 other men).

    The latest CDC analysis shows that:
    • From 2008 to 2014, HIV infections stabilized among MSM overall.
    • During the same time period, HIV infections declined by 18 percent among white MSM (from 9,000 to 7,400 infections),
    stabilized among black MSM (about 10,000 infections per year) and increased by 20 percent among Latino MSM (from
    6,100 to 7,300 infections).
    • HIV infections among gay and bisexual men decreased
    among those aged 13-24 years by 18 percent (from
    9,400 to 7,700 infections) and among the 35-44 age
    group by 26 percent (from 5,800 to 4,300 infections),
    but increased by 35 percent among those aged 25-34
    years (from 7,200 to 9,700 infections).”

  • Watching someone choose death over life, particularly when they have children is very, very sad.

  • It takes a lot less hate to help them find life and life more abundantly than it does to encourage them in their sin and let them die in Hell.

  • No perversion of Christianity necessary.

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

    Christ died so they could be saved from this, should they turn to Him, repent and follow Him

  • Howard, I love the stuff you’re posting! The lack of content tells me you must be an unemployed parking lot attendant, or an adenoidal microcephalytic, or both.

    And once again, you’ve shown how poor your are at reading simple sentences. I told you that until you provided support for your assertion, not to bother asking me for examples and citations.

  • You apparently missed the part where Joseph Hansen identified the church in question as Catholic.

    The sequence is supposed to be: aim, shoot – not: shoot, aim.

    Only the President in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet, seer, and revelator to the entire church.

  • This does not answer my question. When there is no evidence supporting a claim, how do you decide what to believe and what not to believe?

  • Don’t know him or anyone else that post on these pages. Some of what you utter is gibberish, like this argument. You haven’t been paying attention to the news if you are unaware of the mulligans they have been given and by whom.If you think Trump really believes in God than you are a bigger fool than I would have guessed.

  • I don’t think Mr. Lindsey, or me for that matter, need to be forgiven. You and the others that believe in that might want to be a bit more careful though.

    Since I don’t believe in sin, when sin is defined as defying God, since there is no God to defy. I do believe that people should treat others as they wish to be treated. Ever hear of that?

  • No. That isn’t what I said. I said since you believe in him you should be worried! BIG difference.

  • There is nothing sinful about consenting homosexual relationships. I suggest you read your Bible. Homosexuality is never mentioned.

  • Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
    It’s mentioned

  • If you have a point to make, then make it.
    Do not worry about your comments being replied to.
    Instead, see if you can learn something.
    As I have said before, you have missed the whole point of the Gospel.
    Gospel means ‘Good News’. Jesus brought glad tidings of salvation.
    Your threats of hell (and always they are made to other people) have nothing to do with a life in discipleship of Christ. They are the opposite of such a life.

  • But you still have not answered my question. On what basis do you decide to believe a claim if there is no evidence you can see? Surely you don’t believe every claim someone makes, no matter how honest or credible or trustworthy you think they might be.

    From time to time, we read of con artists who claim to be a member of Denomination X, who join a congregation of Denom X and proceed to fleece the members. The members trust the con artist because after all he is “the same as us”, so why would we not trust him?

    Not that I am saying you are being conned in any way by anyone, but I don’t understand what method or basis you use for deciding what to believe.

  • “Sexual orientation” doesn’t exist. Defining people by their desire to sin is in direct opposition to Christian beliefs. Fr. Martin is an apostate.

  • It is interesting data you came up with. It made me curious so I did a little more digging. I am not sure if the costs for those who remain uninfected refer to those who take a PHep drug to avoid being infected – works similar to a flue vaccine. I fouond that it was deemed cost-effective for people who lived a high-risk lifestyle – multiple partners etrc and failure to use condoms. As Ben noted, he doesn’t have HIV. So really there appears to be two factors at play in terms of health care cos reduction. Encourage committed life-time relationships and encourage the use of PHEP drugs as directed along with condoms for those living a high risk lifestyle – and the latter goes for IV drug users as well.

    As well, and only because I recently learned of a woman who was prescribed a relatively new cancer drug at a monthly cost in Canada of $5,000 a month, I started to look at the cost of cancer treatment – up to . $350,000 USD annually for melanoma (skin cancer). Cancer followed by heart disease are hugely expensive in terms of consuming health care dollars followed by a distant 3rd and 4th car crashes and diabetes.

  • My response was not to Mr Hansen’s comment, but to the second paragraph of your comment, which is entirely about the LDS Church.

    My seminary master’s thesis/major project was about the LDS Church. I lived among them in Salt Lake City for almost 2 years doing my research. At every Semi-annual General Conference in October of each year, the members of the LDS Church sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church as prophets, seers and revelators.

  • Some of what you utter is gibberish, like the post to which I am responding. If you don’t know him, how could you write “I don’t think Mr. Lindsey, or me for that matter, need to be forgiven.“

    I have never offered an opinion as what the President believes or does not – Mr. Theologian was the individual who dragged him in for reasons that I have still not figured out.

    If you can’t cite *one* “mulligan”, I think we can also dispense with that line of discussion.

  • Your first sentence indicates you were not reading the thread and simply erred.

    Your second sentence demonstrates you missed a significant theological position within the Latter Day Saints, that all leaders of the church are ‘called of God, by prophecy; and that each member of the church can receive personal revelation to strengthen their faith and guide them in their own lives, but that there are gradations of prophets, seers and revelators.

    Only the President is prophet, seer, and revelator to the entire church.

  • I am sure no one will take you up on that since it would involve ending your life and then trying to check up on you, the first being illegal, and the second requiring passing away.

  • I was aware Mr. Lindsey held that opinion, but was unaware you did.

    I believe that people should treat others as they wish to be treated IF they acted like that.

    Ever hear of that?

  • Try being a bit more creative with your replies Mr. Carioca. IF they acted like what? Speaking honestly on open forums and allowing others to speak honestly on open forums. Or are you trying to say something else.

  • I am a bit bemused at your “(s)peaking honestly on open forums and allowing others to speak honestly on open forums”.

    You should actually try doing it before recommending it.

  • The eccentric modern reading of the Centurion having a “boyfriend” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) is complete silliness, both in the context of the Roman times and mores, and in the context of the text itself as received.

  • Except, of course, that the texts cited have been interpreted as she presents them for 2,400 years or more, universally, until the last hundred years +/- 10 years.

  • Yes, I have read the entire thread. And I have great reading comprehension. But I was correcting your error about the LDS Church. Your stubbornness about that Church and how you believe that you are correct is beyond measure. I’ve checked with a number of friends who are current lifelong members of the LDS Church and they state that you are categorically wrong in your statement.

    Moving on.

  • Homosexuality is not mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments. In Leviticus there are two spots that say man shall not lie with man as with woman. That says nothing about being a homosexual. AND since Leviticus is a whole collection of dos and do nots to claim those two passages must be obeyed and the rest can be ignored is to be a hypocrit. Second in Corinthians and Timothy scholars agree the words Malakoi and Arsenakatoi have been mistranslated. Then the next passage is in Romans which was written by Paul who believed cellibacy was the best option. Jesus never mentions the act of anal sex and never mentions homosexuals.

  • As anyone with a level 3 comprehension of English can verify, I did not speak about the Latter Day Saints at all. I did not mention them, nor did the post to which I responded mention them.

    I am very familiar with the Latter Day Saints, and cite the Presidency as an example of modern day new revelation.



    “Latter-day Saints believe that there is need for revealed knowledge from God to direct the affairs of the Church and provide insight into God’s will today just as there was anciently. Revelations to the President of the Church may include declaration or clarification of doctrines or direction concerning theological issues, organizational matters, moral conduct, and practical administration. The unity of the Church worldwide is enhanced by the prophet of the Church as God’s spokesperson. As such, the President may speak authoritatively on such matters as scriptural interpretation, spiritual concerns, and temporal issues. His official statements in his time may take precedence over revelations in scripture pertinent to other times or over statements by previous presidents of the Church, though in fact these rarely are in conflict (cf. Benson, pp. 27-28).”

    EVERY member of the Latter Day Saints receives revelation. There is a hierarchy, however, of authority in speaking to the Church.

    For an example you might want to familiarize yourself with the 1890 Manifesto which advised church members not enter into any marriage prohibited by the law of the land, making it possible for Utah to become a U.S. state. The Manifesto is in the LDS Church standard works as Official Declaration 1 and is considered to have been prompted by divine revelation in which Woodruff was shown that the church would be thrown into turmoil if they did not comply with it.

    Moving on.

  • The citations have been given numerous times.

    “In Leviticus there are two spots that say man shall not lie with man as with woman. That says nothing about being a homosexual.” is absurd.

    “Problems” translating arsenokoitai and malakos exist only in the imaginations of LBGT exegetes, the same folks that have the Centurion asking for his male lover to be healed.

    Jesus never mentions fornication, genocide, incest, and bestiality btw.

    What do you make of that?

    If you’re relying on that individual you purport not to know for your information, I would find a better source without a personal stake in it.

  • IOW, sandin has no evidence. Of course, I knew that. Just as Sandin has no evidence for other religious stuff s/he believes.

  • No it isn’t because men who want to abuse other men will also “lie with man as with woman”. The phrase applies to heterosexual males that want to abuse other men as well as to homosexuals. AND as I pointed out Leviticus is a whole collection of dos and do nots with no greater emphasis placed on any one over the others.
    Malakos is an adjective that means soft. It is found in the Bible in front of cloth or garment. When the adjective is turned into a noun by changing the ending of os to oi an accurate translation would be soft man. Soft man can refer to peace lovers, men that aren’t fighters, it can refer to herders (the people that occupied the land the Jews wanted for their own) and it could refer to effeminate men which can include heterosexual as well as homosexual men.

    Scholars are unsure of the meaning of arsenakatoi because it isn’t found in other writings. Their best guess is that it refers to pederasts, heterosexual males that abuse young boys.

    Jesus wasn’t concerned about those issues he had a bigger purpose in mind.

    I suggest you educate yourself. Do your homework.

  • My homework indicates the interpretation that “(t)he phrase applies to heterosexual males that want to abuse other men as well as to homosexuals” has zero history earlier than the 20th century and is rejected by most of Judaism, both currently and historically, and almost all of Christianity except for a few most liberal sects.

    I find the same analysis applies to arsenakatoi and malakos, which apparently caused no controversy at all as to what was met for 2,500 years or so until the 20th century and “queer exegesis”.

    As an avowed non-believer, I am not sure what your basis for “Jesus wasn’t concerned about those issues he had a bigger purpose in mind” might be, but it certainly is nothing mainstream.

    arsenokoitai (and Leviticus):




    Zany modern LBGT-inspired “translations” are just that, zany.

  • You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Unless, of course, your neighbor is gay. That neighbor you shall fear and loathe, just as sandinwindsor does.

  • No fear or loathing here. Just a desire that they should have the knowledge that they don’t need to remain in that sin, and can have the ability to have a relationship with Jesus with eternity with Him.

  • Latter-day Saints, not Latter Day Saints. Latter Day Saints is the name used by the Reorganized LDS Church HQed in Independence MO.


    Prophet, Seer, and Revelator
    Author: Church, Lewis R.
    “Prophet, seer, and revelator” is the threefold title applied to all who have received the fulness of the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood associated with the apostleship. Ordinarily, those to whom this title applies are members of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. All members of these two governing bodies are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators by the Latter-day Saints in a public congregational vote.


  • I suggest that you consider your loathing of gays, rather than other peoples’ “sins”. After all, what homosexuals do with each other is none of your business.

  • In other words, as I expected, they do not actually affect you at all. Other than serve as objects of your unchristian hatred for them.

  • Youi really are anxious to “justify” your fear and loathing of gays. Incidentally, I notice that you did not answer my question. But then, you are too involved in your homophobia 9which is, of course, a denial of Christ) .

  • I take it you didn’t read either of the articles you cited since both support what I have said.

  • smiles…..it isn’t hatred to want to see them in a eternity long relationship with Jesus, John

  • You accuse people who agree with the Church’s teaching which it has taught throughout its whole existence that homosexual activity is gravely sinful, of fearing and loathing homosexuals. This is completely unjust.
    There are all sorts of behaviours which the Church also declares to be gravely sinful. Does that mean for you that because we believe an action is wrong we must hate and loathe the perpetrator, the sinner?
    You know that the Church has never taught this, rather she says that we should love our neighbour as ourselves. Nowhere is this love expressed more profoundly than attempting through prayer and exhortation to bring about the sinner’s aversion to his sin and his conversion to Christ. The Church only employs sanctions as a last resort when through hardness of heart the sinner seeks to justify his sinful behaviour by flaunting it for all to see, i.e. when it becomes scandalous.
    Even in such extreme situations no one who repents is ever beyond redemption, such Gods love for us.

  • Whether you accept it or not homosexual behaviour is a grievious, mortal sin which places one’s immortal soul at risk. Catholics are required by their faith in and love of God to believe this.
    All Catholics, therefore, especially those with children have a duty to oppose any and every attempt to persuade people that such activity is perfectly normal and commonplace and that so-called same-sex unions are marriages no different to one between a man and a woman.
    This is how the promotion of homosexual behaviour can affect people by leading them into temptation and bringing about the loss of their souls for all eternity. Infinitely worse than contracting AIDS or HIV.

  • My partner and I have been together for over 31 years. We hurt no one. He is almost 80 and I’m not far behind. We are not even close to dying. Your hatred and false witness is a mortal sin.

  • Your perverted beliefs cause the deaths of young gay people and incite other violence against others.

  • Those so violently opposed to Fr. Martin’s message have an evil, hateful agenda that they will have to answer for some day.

  • He appears to have recited the orthodox Christian and Jewish beliefs dating back 2,400 years or more.

    Or do you think Catholics are required by their faith to endorse your beliefs and lifestyle?

  • I don’t suppose the fact that holding that same sex relations – in fact all sexual relations outside of marriage – are inherently sinful does not translate into “fear and loathing of gays” enters into your assessment.

  • So you would condemn all gays to perpetual lonliness and celibacy, and pretend that this is a loving attitude.

  • Let me translate your second paragraph so as to better reflect your actual feelings:

    All Catholics, therefore, especially those with children have a duty to promote fear and loathing of homosexuals.

    The god that you have created in your own image and likeness, Trid, is an unloving bigot, just as you are.

  • I correctly say that homophobia is alive and wekll in Christianity, and that it is a perversion. You are a bigot, as are the other homophobes posting here.

  • Yes, loathing. As I just said to Tridentinus, the god you have created in your own image and likeness is an unloving bigot.

  • You are perverting the Christian faith in order to “justify” your bigotry. I am done with you. I love my LGBT brothers and sisters, as Jesus commanded me; you hate them. We have nothing more to say; I leave you to your faith, when you appear before the throne of God and are asked to explain why you are bigots.

  • Well, well, another one of your ‘translations’. Why am I not surprised?
    The number of orthodox Catholics whose comments you have rewritten and reposted in order to malign them must be approaching legion. Never mind, I understand, I don’t hold it against you.

  • By “orthodox Catholic”, Trid means “Catholics who agree with ME!” Trid disagrees with the magisterium on salvation, but refuses to admit it. Just as he pretends that there is no contradiction between Pius IX saying that freedom of religion is “an insanity” and Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae saying that it is a right. He is wholly dishonest, just as are many traditionalists — who believe that lying supports God and the Catholic Church. He now is saying that bigotry is what God supports.

    I malign no one, unless one believes that telling the truth is malignant.

  • Were I to advise someone with same sex tendencies that engaging in same sex relations was a moral good, leading them away from God and perhaps assisting in condemning them to perpetual loneliness in hell forever, I could not pretend that doing so exhibited a “loving attitude”. In fact I would be condemning myself.

    Perpetual celibacy to remain chaste may be difficult but it is not an evil, and certainly not as unpleasant as eternity in hell.

    “What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?”

    If we love others we seek their welfare, and there is no greater welfare than to be with God.

  • Or they are Christians of your sort that believe what you believe, as opposed to decent, kind, intelligent, compassionate people who think that it is not their business to be intolerant of others, to judge others, to obsess about the sex lives of other people, or to hide their intolerance and obsession behind religious belief so they can pretend that it is all about righteousness, rather than what it so obviously is.

  • We build the society in which we wish to live.

    It is not “decent, kind, intelligent, (and) compassionate” to pretend in the context of his church that same sex relations can be endorsed, blessed, or acceptable.

    Nor is it “intolerance and obsession” to point that out.

    Obviously you have an investment in a contrary point of view, but as a non-Christian and non-Catholic you don’t appear to have a vote.

  • Apparently he or she believes that folks are born male, female, or impaired. “Orientation” implies we get to pick after we’re born.

  • It takes a lot of love to want to see them with Jesus. I’m sorry for you that you cannot see that.

  • No loathing. Just a hope for them to understand they are hurting themselves and others and need Jesus.

  • Indeed, the main branch of the Latter Day Saint movement (also called the Smith–Rigdon movement) titles itself “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.

    The “Latter-day” hyphenated with lower-case “d” succeeded the usage “Latter Day Saints”, which prior to Smith’s death and the fragmentation of the movement was universal.

    In 1851 when the church formally incorporated the name included a corporate initial article “The” and a British hyphenization of “Latter-day,” thus becoming the legal name used today. Other groups such as the Strangites and the Reorganization kept the original unhyphenated “Latter Day” in their formal names. There is no theological significance to the difference, it is a legal issue.

    Btw several denominations of the movement, including the Community of Christ, oppose the use of the word Mormon or its derivatives in reference to its members or theology. The word was originally used as a slur, first “Mormonite”, then “Mormon”.


    65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;

    66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

    91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

    and so on.

    The Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is distinguished from the lower offices in terms of “prophet, seer, and revelator” in rank, which is why official revelations which affect the entire Church come from the President.


    “Well, you’re not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you’re not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you’re expected to be an expert. You’re expected to know your subject. You’re expected to have a testimony. And in that you’ll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn’t go shopping for the answer.”

  • That is not something I would be proud of – proud defiance of the Lord. That said, Jesus will still forgive and cleanse you of your sin should you turn to Him, repent and follow Him.

  • It is not the first time you have borne false witness against me. Our Lord warned us that this would happen. “Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:” Matthew 5:11.

  • Sure I do. I just did. And I always will.
    but that is the way with you religionists, isn’t it? You are happy, thrilled even, to bring your purely theological concerns and speculations into a public debate in order force them onto people who don’t share them by means of the civil law that governs all of us. You claim that is your right.
    By you whine no end if we non-religious people decide to enter into your church debates and express our opinion that perhaps what is hiding behind your religious debates is just plain old bigotry and authoritarianism of the worst sort, and perhaps all would be better served if you just admitted it.
    funny how what is sauce for the gay goose really isn’t sauce for the religious propaganda.

  • He appears to be talking about a common good, which pertains to natural law as much as it pertains to “religionists”. Or do you think Thomas Jefferson was a “religionist”?

    In this case the context is a Catholic priest in an internal debate of that denomination.

    Pointing out you don’t have a dog in that hunt seems fair enough, and calling traditional Christian – not just Catholic – morality “just plain old bigotry and authoritarianism of the worst sort” appears to be “just plain old bigotry and authoritarianism of the worst sort”.

  • Only to people who don’t wished to be disagreed with.

    Sorry, that ship sailed.

    Believe whatever you wantin your church. I don’t care. Believe that it entitles you to authority over my life with no dissent, and your going to be dissented with, in your church and in the public square. I don’t want authority over your life. I want you out of mine.

    Traditional Christian morality? It is to laugh.

    Simple enough.

  • Once again another ‘translation’ of someone’s post followed by an odious, personal attack upon the poster’s character.
    The only response to such comments has to be the pleading words of Jesus Christ, Himself, upon the Cross, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34.

  • Followed by a CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL statement about the bigoted statement I was responding to. Interesting that you, who claims to be a Christian, defend bigotry. It demonstrates that your claim is, at best dubious.

    Note for those who do not know Tridentinus: When he was posting on the National Catholic Reporter blog, he would regularly ask why anyone who disagreed by one iota with the Catholic magisterium — and to him, to reject any part was the same as rejecting the whole — would want to belong to the Catholic Church. Well, Tridentinus rejects a fundamental part of Christrian teaching, so I question why he would want to be a member of any Christian Church.

  • I have NEVERm “borne false witness against you”, and you are lying when you say I have. But then, dishonesty is part and parcel of Catholic traditionalism — they have to be dishonest, because they say things which do not match the facts. For example, Trid says that the magisterium has never changed a teaching, which is simply untrue. I gave the example of Pope Pius IX saying that freedom of religion is “an insanity” being contradicted by Vatican II saying it is a right. Trid has spewed some silly mental gyrations is a vain attempt to say that they don’t contradict, but this merely shows to what ridiculous lengths he is prepared to go to defend his lie.

  • I think good human beings who happen to be Catholic should be mindful about the consequences of their war against gay people.

  • Speaking from your perspective, of course, as someone who does not want to be disagreed with.

    Folks can pass laws, and amend the Constitution, for any reason or no reason. As the Dred Scott decision illustrated, p-ss people off enough and things can change.

    If those laws, or those amendments, happen to correspond with their beliefs – religious or otherwise – there is no recourse.

    You can WANT anything you want to.

    What you GET is contingent on a lot of moving parts, and you do a pretty good job of p-ssing off your fellow citizens with your protestations of non-existent rights, rights which don’t exist because you reject natural law on which they would be based.

    So that leaves you at the mercy of the majority. Which you work hard at p-ssing off.

    Simple enough.

  • He appeared to defend Christian teaching.

    The fact that you consider Christian teaching as bigotry is moderately interesting, primarily to you, but it doesn’t bear on him and his honesty.

    There is a reason why the National Catholic Reporter threw the towel in on comments, and you’re illustrating it. An actual discussion without getting personal was impossible.

  • The Magisterium has never reversed a teaching.

    Pius IX, Leo XIII, Gregory XVI, and Dignitatis Humanae were talking about different things in their contexts.

    The papal declarations condemned an absolute religious freedom that casts off all constraints of Natural Law and Church authority. This is essentially different from what DH talks about with key phrases like ”within due limits” and “provided that just public order be observed,” to emphasize limitations on religious liberty.

    The Council Fathers were careful to define what the Church means by “religious freedom” in the context of DH.

    “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power…”.

    By “religious freedom,” the Council meant men “are to be immune from coercion.” This is absolutely consonant with Catholic teaching.

    To prove the Magisterium has reversed itself you first have to understand the teaching.

  • No, because there are many good Catholics who conscientiously object to their Church’s war on gay people.

  • To say that the magisterium has never reversed a teaching is simply to deny historical fact. Period. You can obfuscate and clown dance all you like, but the fact is that Pius IX said “freedom of religion is an insanity” and that you are attempting to spin it into something he did not say. Because youir ideology demands that you have to lie about it.

    How about this: Pope Eugene IV, in his bull of 1414, Cantate Domino wrote:

    [The Most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms, deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

    Now, this says, quite solemnly –perhaps even infallibly — that Jews are damned because they are Jews. No ifs, ands or buts. All Jews are off to hell without a fan. (Which puts the Catholic Church in exactly the same moral position as the Nazis, who sent Jews off to Auschwitz because they are Jews. (I am ignoring, for the sake of argument, the solemn statement that all other non-Catholics are damned.)

    Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 16 says (footnotes omitted)

    Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in
    various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the
    people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ
    was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people
    remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of
    the calls He issues.
    (126) But the plan of salvation
    also includes those who
    acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the
    Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us
    the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is
    God far
    distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for
    it is He
    who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour
    that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who
    through no
    fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet
    seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it
    is known
    to them through the dictates of conscience.

    Eugene IV says that Jews are automatically damned, Lumen Gentium says the exact opposite. There is no way you can honestly say that Cantate Domino is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium — at least, you cannot say it and retain the least shred of honesty.

  • So, the society in which you wish to live dismisses gay people. And you don’t believe that is intolerant? What is it, then? Especially when beliefs such as that result in the deaths of young gay people who internalize such rejection.

  • To say that the Magisterium has never reversed a teaching is simply to affirm its claimed teaching authority and to point out that every single instance you provide of a “reversal” supports the conclusion that you do not understand the teachings involved and/or impute to an opinion the status of a “teaching”.

    For example, the whole of Cantate Domino is that no “work” justifies unless it is joined to “faith”. No one’s work can save them if they have no faith and no one can be a member of the Church without faith. Catholic theology does not support a works-based salvation. Your “proof texting” distorts the document taken as a whole in context.

    Sharp-eyed readers will note that this deals with the doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, a maxim that is constantly misinterpreted.

    All salvation comes through Christ alone, whose death opened the gates of heaven and released the righteous awaiting his coming.

    Echoing the Apostle Paul, who points out that the gentiles are saved by following the law written in their hearts, Pius IX in 1863 wrote:

    “It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.”

    And this was reiterated at Vatican II with much clearer modern terminology.

  • A Catholic who believes the constant teaching of his own church is a “war on gay people” is by definition not a good Catholic.

  • Since I have not advocated a society which “dismisses gay people”, I have no idea what you’re addressing.

    “Love me, give me what I desire” is a pose, not a position.

    I don’t support same sex marriage. I also don’t support abandoning laws against stealing because some people are kleptomaniacs, or laws against incest, or against polygamy, or against heroin, or a lot of other things which support a society in which I would like to raise a family.

    I also oppose laws which call for imprisoning gay people, or burning them at the stake.

    If by “internalize such rejection” you mean “recognize that most of society and the Abrahamic religions teach that acting on the orientation is immoral”, then coming to grips with reality is part of the growing up process. And unfortunately it is difficult and sometimes leads to despair to the point of death, and not just over issues of sexuality.

  • Your equation of same-sex marriage with heroin addiction, theft, incest and polygamy tells me everything I need to know about your prejudice. Same-sex marriage injures no one. It kills no one. It hurts no one. Exactly how does same-sex marriage harm your family? Your arguments are flawed to the extreme and frankly, ignorant, prejudiced people like YOU are what harms our society.

  • ‘Since I have not advocated a society which “dismisses gay people”, I have no idea what you’re addressing.”

    So, your equation of gay people with heroin addicts and thieves is not a dismissal? What is it, then?

    It’s impossible to reason with prejudice. Prejudice by its very nature is irrational.

  • It is a war. In the past, it came to executing gay people. In our time, it’s poisoning the minds and hearts of young gay people, who then despair and/or take their own lives because of what you insist they are.

  • Your phrase “your equation of same-sex marriage with heroin addiction, theft, incest and polygamy” tells me everything I need to know about your prejudice. You left out “I also oppose laws which call for imprisoning gay people, or burning them at the stake.” since it did not fit your rant.

    Same sex marriage injures society.

    Ours society is not, as Justice Kennedy seems to think, a society of libertarians doing their own thing.

    It was a conscious effort on the part of the Founders to fashion a society from the best of the Roman Republic, a commonweal led by right reason and civic virtue, and most people like it that way.

    Frankly, ignorant people like yourself are harming society, and yourselves, and young people, with vacuous poorly founded theories and specious arguments designed to back into your particular want list. Giving young people false hopes and ideas in the long run does them huge damage.

    10 minutes over at JoeMyGod and similar sites makes it clear that it IS a war, a war against families, against “religionists”, against “Christianists”, using the maudlin tomes of “despair and/or take their own lives because of …. you”, dragging out the ancient “it came to executing gay people”.

    That may work on people who do not have family, children, friends, and co-workers who are LBGT and who deal with them on a daily basis, who may fall for a head game like “you’re prejudiced and don’t know it”.

    It is a carefully contrived, propagandized, well-funded war against a society in which most Americans want to live. It may work on Justice Kennedy.

    But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

  • “Same sex marriage injures society.”

    You failed to provide any example or support for your claim. Because you can’t. And many LGBT people are Christians or Jews. You oppose laws for imprisoning gay people or burning them at the stake? Wow, you certainly have a big heart….

  • I have no reason to.

    You’ve already admitted you’re in a war, demonstrated that you’ll say nearly anything, including imputing fabricated “hatred”, to advance your position, and made it clear that nothing anyone could say would change that. Why provide examples or support, then?

    I’d rather put my efforts into communicating with people who can use good information to defeat your propaganda, and motivate them to work towards getting a less zany Supreme Court and towards constitutional amendments to put some matters back into the hands of the people and the states where the Constitution left them.

    One of our Supreme Court justices wrote:

    “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda”, that they are “failing to reach out and persuade the public”. In doing so, liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and as a result the judiciary is no longer independent but an unelected legislature. The conclusion was that this “overweening addiction” to using the courts instead of the democratic process is “bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary”.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

  • Actually I did. While you are entitled to believe whatever, I see blessings as morre gifts of the Holy Spirit. I offer this Franciscan Benediction as an alternative to the testimonies offered. as a way of deepening faith and living as a Christian.

    May God bless us with discomfort at easy answers, half-truths, and
    superficial relationships, so that we may live deep within our hearts.

    May God bless us with anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that we may work for justice, freedom and peace.

    May God bless us with tears to shed for those who suffer from pain,
    rejection, starvation and war, so that we may reach out our hands to comfort them and turn their pain into joy.

    And may God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be

  • The 32 years I have been with my partner, and now my legally married husband, does not constitute “propaganda”. It is a vow we took to love and honor one another. Your anti-gay agenda is defeated by our 32 years.

  • I have just reminded you that the Eighth Commandment also forbids calumny and detraction.
    It would be interesting, however, to know what part of “fundamental part” of Christian teaching I reject.

  • Well, good for you. One data point unique to you.

    The blather you provided in support of making your special case the law of the land, and suggesting to Catholics they give their church the one-finger salute, was propaganda.

    It consisted unfounded accusations, ad hominems, non-facts, and emotional appeals. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

  • I have not uttered any calumny about you. I am like Harry Truman, who was urged to give the Republicans hell. “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” Similarly, I just tell the truth about you and other traditionalists, and you think it’s calumny.

    You say that non-Catholics can only be saved through “invincible ignorance”. That is not what the actual Catholic Church teaches. (You will now spin this out of all recognition to make it appear that is what the Church teaches — it is what you always do, just like you twist things in your attempt to show what Pius IX saying that freedom of religion is an insanity is not contradicted by Vatican II saying it is a right. When you do that sort of thing, you are lying, in order to maintain your ideology. Any ideology which requires lying to support it should be abandoned. And to think that either God or the Church is served by lying is perverse .

  • Cantate Domino says “Jews, and heretics, and schismatics … are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared
    for the devil and his angels'”. That is quite simple and straightforward, and you — as is typical of traditionalists, are lying about it. Lumen Gentium says that this is not true. The two statements contradict each other, and to say they do not is a lie.

    I don’t know why you think that either God or the Church is served by lying.

  • No spin, straight from the Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14:
    “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as
    necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
    The explanation of the “insanity” quote I have posted before and it was far too nuanced for you and even so you wouldn’t have accepted it anyway.
    True to form you ended with insult in a Ill-mannered rant. No change there then.

  • I would rather bring another person to the love of Christ and a relationship with Him, than all those things. Those are incidentals here. A relationship with Christ is forever.

  • No honey…..the Lord would not contradict Himself like that.
    Romans 1 teaches how you exchanged an idol for God.

  • Sour grapes. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land, due to our laws, supported by the Supreme Court of the United States. That’s not “propaganda”. God Bless America.

    Now, could you please explain in detail how my marriage has done harm to you or affected you in any way (that is, except for pi**ing you off)?

  • Not interested.

    It had nothing at all do with our laws, but with a usurpation by the Supreme Court.

    The best approach is to amend the Constitution to remove the Gang of Five from the discussion and hobble the ACLU.

    I believe we can accomplish that without talking with you, and you have made it clear that talking with you and those who see it your way is a waste of time.

    Your tactic is known as “da da, tan tan”, fight fight, talk talk. It is not aimed at reaching agreement.

  • Yes Cantate Domino says that.



    “unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.

    As we read the text we see all the things that are ruled out as means of salvation by themselves: circumcision, kosher meals, and all of the Mosaic cultic and ritual laws.

    None of them avail of themselves, since such a position would deny the efficacy of Christ’s one Sacrifice for Man.

    The whole of Cantate Dominio is that no “work” justifies unless it is joined to “faith”. No one’s work can save them if they have no faith and no one can be a member of the Church without faith. For example, the person who was martyred can have implicit faith and can certainly implicitly desire to be in the unity of the Church. And if this is the case, then the person is indeed saved.

    Certainly Eugene was familiar with Romans 2:14-15 “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. “

    So, works by themselves do not save, and those who know that the Church is the one founded by Christ and reject it knowingly, heretics and schismatics, are indeed no longer in the bosom of the Church.

    That this was the Church’s understanding – the context in which “Cantate Domino” is to be understood, is well attested by St. Paul, by recognition of baptism of blood in the earliest days of the church, and by statements repeatedly by pontiffs before Vatican II, including the censure of Leonard Feeney, SJ, for putting forth the position you attribute to Eugene by “proof texting”.

  • Who needs your agreement at this point? You don’t matter. So… you can’t answer my question about how you are harmed by my marriage?

  • “Who needs your agreement at this point? You don’t matter.”

    That pretty much summarizes your side. No place to go with that except to rearrange the deck chairs so that we can say “Who needs your agreement at this point? You don’t matter.”

    I’ll discuss it with someone not engaged in “da da, tan tan”.

  • Here is the Church’s teaching pure and simple, no spin.
    Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14:
    “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
    In other words where ignorance is culpable not invincible.
    I explained to you previously what Pius IX meant by religious liberty. You didn’t get it then so I won’t waste my time going over it again. Even if you did get it your anti-Catholic prejudice wouldn’t allow you to acknowledge that you did.
    The remainder of your post above is the typical bilious rant of insults and invective which you dish out to all who don’t agree with you so I’ll ignore it.

  • No, I won’t answer the question because you’ve made it crystal clear that there is no point in talking.

    It is a war – as you noted – and my goal is to ensure that in the long run you lose.

    Your goal is to arrange a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario.

    The way your “side” played the game, and continues to play the game, ended the discussion with anyone but a sucker.

    And that’s the truth.

  • Well, if you’ve been harmed and you can show it, then wouldn’t you “win”?? And if you were not harmed, then there is no point in talking to you, a liar. You’re the one who made the claim. But you won’t because you CAN’T. We both know you aren’t harmed, so don’t waste your time and mine with your cowardly pretzel logic.

  • Your claim that sexual orientation is non-existent is made simply to minimize the internal conflict of your suppressed homosexuality.

  • “Who needs your agreement at this point? You don’t matter.” while accurately describing your position probably was not a wise post if you wanted a conversation.

    No one, after that, would bother responding.

  • Saying that all gay people have “rejected Christ” is not an odious, personal attack? HYPOCRITES

  • It was because of such fundamentalist, extremist Catholic trolls like Tridentinus that the NCR threw in the towel.

  • “Christ does not hear sinners prayers.”

    It would be realistic to say that ALL are sinners. So Christ must not be listening to anyone’s prayers.

  • I couldn’t care less. I prefer not to have “conversations” with bigots. I only wrote to defend my marriage from one such bigot. Now you can go back to your regularly scheduled program.

  • So, with “I couldn’t care less” you’re surprised at not getting a discussion going?

    I suppose as a bigot you only think there’s room for one bigot per conversation?

    He didn’t appear to be attacking your marriage. He appeared to be attacking your premise.

    So would I. It’s nonsensical.

  • Are you sure it wasn’t because of left-wing extremist anti-Catholic trolls like you?

    My favorite was “Hooded Claw”; sure took the “Catholic” out of NCR.

  • You just said he doesn’t listen to the prayers of a sinner. That includes you, or are you special?

  • Yes, I am sure. And there is nothing remotely “Catholic” about Tridentinus and his pompous band of fundamentalist extremists.

  • Been there, done that. I don’t feel the compulsion to throw myself in with a pernicious unloving cult in order to live a blessed life. The only reason most do is out of fear and insecurity.

  • In “da da, tan tan” there is never a win.

    If you win at the ballot box you win. If you don’t, you seek Justice Anthony “Sweet mystery of Life” Kennedy and win. There is one goal and one goal only: win.

    There is no pretzel logic in your position. There is no logic of any kind. It is simply war. You have nothing but contempt for other opinions.

    I completely understand that. I completely understand war.

  • That would be nearly hilarious except for the fact that coming from you – an anti-Catholic – it is so ghastly.

  • I was Catholic for 40 years, nearly ordained a priest. I think I know of what I am talking. And no one has seen fit to excommunicate me or invalidate my baptism, so for all I know I still am Catholic.

  • If so, then you should completely understand the war that has been declared on gay people by your so-called “church”. Your opinions regarding my marriage are irrelevant.

  • Whoa…Who told you there is/was no Christ, Susan? The so-called mythicists? Because you certainly didn’t get that idea from history. I await your reply. ???

  • I read elsewhere your claiming to be “Catholic”.

    If you can settle on which story you want to stand behind, it will make it easier to respond.

    The “war” is a result of God’s revelation to man, starting with the Jews.

    The“war” started with Lucifer. Like you, he did not want to be told what to do or what not to do.

  • I think I know what you’re talking about, too, as in “was Catholic”.

    Having an old membership ID in the drawer doesn’t counter the content, which is anti-Catholic. Would you like some of your “your so-called ‘church’” spiels replayed for you?

    If it waddles like a duck, it quacks like a duck, is the size of a duck, has feathers like a duck, it is not an elk, even if has an old elk ID in the drawer.

    Of course, at the NXR website that fit in. And that’s why the comments failed.

    I can’t imagine you’re a big enough fish to fry.

  • LOL, never heard that one before. Makes sense though – because Catholicism isn’t compatible with the notion that people should be defined by their desires to sin and I’m pointing that out in a relevant blog post, it logically follows that I must be attracted to other dudes. Nice thinking! Brilliant! A+++ You are such a good little cult follower!

  • I am ex-Catholic. And WTF are you talking about? If you can’t recognize that the Church has waged a war against gay people for centuries, then you’re simply being dishonest.

  • “No perversion of Christianity necessary.”

    You’re right, because there is plenty of perversion already built in by its adherents/.

  • You are correct. The church has been infiltrated by people pushing immorality and leading innocent people to their death in Hell. You are correct on that one.

  • The majority of Catholic priests, be they “straight” or gay, don’t live celibate lives, or have violated their vow of celibacy.

  • Then you completely misinterpret the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Good Samaritan does not try to force her beliefs or her judgment on those she helps.

  • One does not “catch” The Gay like a cold. Such ignorance is founded in hatred, probably self-hatred.

  • Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, pretenders, who are like white tombs, which from the outside appear lovely, but from within are full of the bones of the dead and all corruption! Matthew 23:27

  • So what scripture have I contravened? You can quote anything you like, but it needs to have some relevance.

  • Not forcing my beliefs on anyone. Perhaps you have never read the Great Commission? Matthew 28 may be of interest to you.

  • “Not forcing my beliefs on anyone.”
    Wrong. When you wrote…

    “Christ is just to forgive and cleanse them of their sin should they turn to Him, repent and follow Him. Otherwise, they have chosen their future”

    “help them find life and life more abundantly”

    …you’re basically saying others must live as you live and believe as you believe — or else they will go to hell. That is not the spirit of the Good Samaritan.

  • I am saying that others should live as Christ taught. You have difficulty with Christ’s teachings also zaag?

  • You’ve played it both ways.

    Unfortunately you’ve left quite the trail on the internet.

    Homosexual activity is considered sinful in mainline Judaism and Christianity. If you consider that a war, fine.

  • I would suggest that you far exceed “criticize the Catholic Church”. In fact you’ve stated it is the enemy, the perpetrator of war against your kind.

    Moving right along then ….

  • Then don’t do it, commencing with lying to yourself, if you care.

    And if you don’t, why are you bothering me?

  • My personal experience in the seminary, and years of research by former priest Richard Sipe says otherwise.

  • That alone is a war, but you conveniently left out the sinful *actions* of the Church taken against gay people over the centuries.

  • Oh, you mean the sinful actions of people in the church.

    I was under the impression that goats among the sheep were to be expected.

    What would Mr. Rogers say?

  • I rather suspect that when someone points out that a particular case of abuse was by a homosexual, and attributes it to homosexuality, you complain.

    But when a particular case of abuse of abuse is by clergy, you attribute it to the Church.

    Obviously you subscribe to “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”, or “I may not know much about what’s going on, but I do know who I want to jump up and down on”.

  • The perpetrators are the enemy. It was Judas, not the church.

    The numbers do not add up to “millions”.

    But you’re really not after facts.

  • Sipe, like yourself, is an ideologue rather than researcher.



    “Q: In “Spotlight,” an ex-priest named A.W. Richard Sipe is quoted as saying that the celibacy requirement of priests is the cause of sexual abuse by priests. Is this true?”

    “A: A.W. Richard Sipe is routinely interviewed by the media as an “expert” on Catholicism and the priesthood, and in “Spotlight” he is quoted as stating that celibacy is the root cause of the sexual abuse scandal and then goes on to make a series of other claims regarding sexuality of priests.”

    “The claims made by Sipe are not substantiated or proven, nor is another viewpoint or perspective offered.”

    “Sipe has made unsubstantiated claims over the years, such as claiming that celibacy caused the Holocaust. “I cannot forget that the people and forces that generated Nazism and the Holocaust were all products of one Christian culture and the celibate/sexual power system” (pp. 180, “Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis”).”

    When he taught pastoral theology at St. Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, he was considered a lightweight teacher as well as extremely boring.

    He now an elderly lightweight ultra-left married Episcopalian with – like you – an axe to grind, as well as still extremely boring.

    And yes, I had surmised why you did not get ordained but charity prevented me from saying it. Thanks for doing so.

  • No doubt you will contort yourself to discredit actual research. That’s what people like you do.

    The ONLY reason I didn’t get ordained was because I chose not to be ordained. The Church doesn’t reject anyone that wants to be ordained. That includes child molesters.

  • The sexual abuse of children by clergy is not about sexuality. It is about abuse. Your pervert mind informs you otherwise, apparently

  • No doubt you’ll claim someone who blames the Holocaust was due to celibacy did actual research. That’s what people like you do.

    Your last two sentences are utter nonsense.

  • What you gave me was your spin on what Pius meant. You spin it that way because you want, oh, so desperately, to pretend that there is no contradiction between what Pius said and what Vatican II said. I am spinning nothing. I am taking the plain, unaltered words of Pius and the plain, unaltered words of Dignitatis Humanae and saying, truly, that they contradict each other.

    You blather about “Oh, freedom of religion is not an unrestricted right, blah, blah, blah”. No right is unrestricted. To give the most famous example, the US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said,
    “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
    in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” There are similar restrictions on freedom of the press — libel laws, for example — and on freedom of religion: you are not allowed to practice human sacrifice any more. Pius was saying that freedom of religion, in and of itself — that each person can worship as he or she pleases — is “an insanity”. Vatican II says it is a right. THE TWO STATEMENTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, and you are simply lying when you say that they do not.

    And that is the main reason I reject your religious ideology (and “ideology” is the correct term): It can only be supported by lying. any ideology with falsehoods at its base should properly be rejected.

  • Actually Blessed Pius IX in Quanta Cura was quoting from Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos.
    The only religion which has a God-given right to exist is the Catholic Church because it was instituted by Christ. Secular powers, therefore, have a duty to protect the Church from anything and anyone including false religions. When a false religion attempts to proselytise then it becomes a danger to the true Church.
    Since countries of Northern Europe,North America and France since the Revolution were ruled by non-Catholics, this only actually applied to Catholic rulers, mostly monarchies.

  • I’m not blaming the Church for anything except its heinous crimes, hypocrisy and many other moral failures. My life improved immensely after I left the seminary. I found my lifelong spouse and commenced a successful career in education. I will retire this year. I suppose I might blame the Church for my success in life?

  • And you know that because …….?
    Read the Catechism on the sins against the virtue of Hope, Presumption and Despair.

  • I feel sexual attraction. Also, on an unrelated note, sexual orientation doesn’t exist. Any other questions?

  • No thanks. I don’t need a Catechism to tell me how to live. What does your Catechism tell you about arrogantly judging the state of another’s soul?

  • Your entire spiel rests on:

    – pulling a proof text out of its context

    – rejecting any attempts to point that out and interpret it in context

    Since Catholic teaching is done in context, that voids your argument at inception.

    Assuming for a moment there is a deity, and assuming for a moment that one has knowledge of that deity and the worship due it, to choose otherwise is an insanity.

    Context, context, context.

  • The culture is your Church allowed children to be abused, and allowed the perpetrators to go unpunished. Your defense of the Church in this regard is part of that culture.

  • No, the problem is you equate an organization with individuals.

    You have what is called an attitude.

    Unfortunately you seem to be lacking facts and a coherent structure to put them in to go along with it.

    So, has Lindsey asked for ID yet?

  • I suppose if espousing 2,500 years of unchanging teaching based on both revelation and the natural law is an evil, hateful agenda ….


  • I don’t care if it were 10,000 years — it’s still wrong, hateful and evil. It has led to the deaths of many, many gay people, and vulnerable children as well. And you don’t think it’s a war?

  • Individuals who acted in cohort with church officials. They planned it this way, and sheep like yourselves just played along. One perpetrator with whom I am too familiar received a standing ovation during a church meeting, after he publicly confessed to sexually abusing a teen-aged boy. A packed house of zombie believers, giving a standing ovation for an admitted perp. Was that “individuals”, too? I’m afraid you have no idea of what you are talking.

  • The Catechism doesn’t tell one how to judge another’s soul. It tells one how to judge the state of one’s own soul.
    If one publishes opinions contra to the teachings of the Catholic Church then one must accept that those opinions are going to be challenged by orthodox Catholics.

  • The teachings of the Catholic Church are nothing other than opinions. Look at you, tooting your own horn as “orthodox”. I’m sure someone out there is impressed. It would be better for you to keep your patronizing self-superiority to yourself.

  • This all comes down to your hateful obsession with homosexual people. I have to wonder where that obsession originates…. You jumped in on a discussion regarding celibacy to attack me. So classy. TROLL

  • Your connection to reality appears to be waxing and waning as you post.

    The reality of evil in the world is undeniable. Where you go off the rails is misattributing it to an organization and persisting in believing your particular version of it deserves an endorsement.

    I do think there is a war, a war between good and evil, and you’ve chosen the wrong side.

  • If it was a public act, you’ll provide date, place, and name.

    Otherwise, as you say, I am afraid you have no idea of what you are talking about.

    On the positive side you apparently got weeded out before being ordained, so that’s one positive effect of whatever was being done at that time.

    It also leads me to believe you were not in a seminary in Milwaukee when Rembert Weakland was archbishop.

  • Moreso. St. Basil knew in the 4th century as St. Peter Damian did in the 11th: those who commit sodomy should not be ordained and those who are ordained should be deposed without exception. That doesn’t mean out on the street, it means confined to a monastery for penance for the rest of their lives.

    Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald warned Paul VI and advised that the deviants be forcibly laicized and shipped to an island. The error of the Church was in heeding secular wisdom and thinking they could be rehabilitated.

  • Thank you for that blatant piece of homophobia. I suppose that you also agree with Basil that women are inferior to men.

  • My “spiel” rests on the plain words of Pius and the plain words of Dignitatis Humanae. Pius said that freedom of religion (and also freedom of speech) was “:an insanity”; Vatican II said it was a right. Youi traditionalists are trying, oh, so desperately, to PRETEND that the two do not contradict each other, because your ideology insists that the magisterium does not change teachings. As I said, an ideology which is based on falsehoods should be abandoned.

    I suppose you also pretend that Eugene IV saying specifically that Jews are damned does not contradict Lumen Gentium (and the Apostle Paul) saying that Jews can be saved.

    No, the facts are that certain teachings have changed, and lying about it serves neither God nor the Church.

  • In other words, AS I SAID, freedom of religion is “an insanity”, and Vatican II calling it a right contradicts both the Unblessed Pius IX an Gregory XVI. Thank you for supporting what I wrote. Tell me, do you agree with Gregory or with Vatican II? You can’t agree with both — not and be an honest man.

  • Though as noted the inherent dysfunction is on those who want to use that pretext to change it for everyone else.

    By definition, their lives without the Church or the truth she brings are NOT nice., even if they deceive themselves in thinking so for a short while.

  • Your pejorative word games don’t frighten me anymore than your heresy nor rhetorical hyperbole and false equivalence, and neither do those that revel in filth. Sodomclasty would be more precise in any case.

  • This is exactly where some traditionalists would agree with you and point out that Dignitatis Humanae is itself, if not heretical, an indication of a different “Conciliar Church” different from that of the Roman Catholic Church.

    I’d say you’re both wrong, though the interpretation is novel enough, the document is consistent with the idea that there should not be coercion (which would impede genuine conversion)… which isn’t the same thing as putting up false heretical sects with the Immaculate Bride of Christ nor that the covenant of Moses has not been superseded by the New Covenant and that those who deny the Trinity cannot worship the same God.

    The only Catholic way to interpret any dogma, creed, Ecumenical Council is through the lens of tradition.

  • I don’t give a f**k how you choose to label me. You have so many labels to hand out. Choose one and be done with it.

  • Insufficient data. You’re said you’re an ex-Catholic so are one of the two… just not sure if you entirely rejected Christ or just Catholicism. Do you have any self identity that’s not predicated on sexuality?

  • I admire your continuing sense of duty about throwing ” pearls ” before swine . Are you earning grace for yourself ? Do you enjoy playing these intellectual games with your inferiors ? The sin of intellectual pride , perhaps . I have a lot of that in my own character .
    Two more arrows for your bow are slavery and castrato . The Jesuits of Georgetown owned slaves until Abraham Lincoln freed them . No one doubts that the Church today has changed its views on the subject . Another issue just as fiendish is that of the castrato in the Vatican choirs. Other examples are early Church Fathers such as Origin who castrated themselves to maintain their celibacy . Although the earliest writings attributed to Jesus encouraged the faithful to go forth and multiply , castrating young boys and holy aesthetes would seem to be counter intuitive even to the most dimwitted of us . The list you began here is very long . Is there a scholar somewhere who is preparing the definitive list ? Keep up the good work and do not allow yourself to slip into despair .

  • The modern cultural concept of “sexual orientation” refers to an innate, unchangeable aspect of a human being, like gender or race. Sexual attraction is a feeling. Feelings are fleeting and changing, like my affinity for ice cream and video games.

    The notion that people’s sexual attractions cannot change is incorrect. Therefore, “sexual orientation” isn’t a real thing.

  • More double-speak, so you can feel better about yourself. Even if sexual orientation were to change, it would still amount to sexual attraction. There are people who are bisexual, attracted to women and to men. Sexual attraction/sexual orientation does not change for the overwhelming majority of persons.

  • I am going on more than 60 years with no changes in sexual attraction. To say I don’t have an orientation would be false.

  • I’ve read both in context and in their entirety, and can say unequivocally you are in complete error on what Pius IX and Eugene IV wrote IN CONTEXT.

    What you’ve done is “proof texted” a small segment without regard to context, disregarded how the text were received and implemented after being issued, and set up a false dichotomy to “prove” something which apparently supports some other error(s) you’re making.

    It’s ridiculous on its face.

    This stuff usually emanates from folks promoting women priests, abortion and chemical birth control – “Sure the Church can change its teaching!”

    If that’s the case, it’s just another club.

  • “Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.“ From DH §1.
    The Council expressly declared that it did not intend to overturn the traditional teaching as taught by many popes including Blessed Pius IX and Gregory XVI.

  • “More double-speak, so you can feel better about yourself.” Whatever you say, big boy.

    “Even if sexual orientation were to change, it would still amount to sexual attraction.” But sexual orientation, by definition, can’t change. It sounds like you possibly don’t believe in sexual orientation either.

    “There are people who are bisexual, attracted to women and to men.” That doesn’t explain it. There are people who are fully attracted to men for a very long time, then change to being fully attracted to women for a very long time. These are real experiences of real people, which cannot be discounted because they don’t abide by progressive dogma.

    “Sexual attraction/sexual orientation does not change for the overwhelming majority of persons.” But if it changes for even one person, then that disproves the entire theory of sexual orientation. If one person can change their sexual orientation, then it is not in the same category as race or gender, which not even one person has ever changed.

  • Sorry, one exception does not change the reality. And it’s an exception that is suspect to
    begin with.

  • Right, so when someone claims to be attracted to the same sex, we completely believe their experience and assure them that these feelings are normal and natural. How dare you make any sort of claim that they don’t actually feel the way they feel. You love who you love, you homophobe!

    But when someone claims to be attracted to the same sex for a very long time and then claims that that has changed for them, and was not permanent after all, we deny their experiences and call them “suspect”. They must be either deeply confused or lying!

    You can’t have it both ways. Either we believe people’s experiences or we don’t. We don’t get to selectively believe them only when they support the liberal cult religion.

  • It’s clear that you have no rebuttal to what I’ve said. It’s unfortunate that you’ve chosen not to respond like an adult. An appropriate response would be “I’ve never considered this perspective, and though I’m not ready to agree with it, I will reflect upon it and consider it.”

  • This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to
    religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from
    coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power,
    in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own
    beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with
    others, within due limits.
    DH 2

    DH CONTRADICTS “Freedom of religion is an insanity”, and for you to claim otherwise is a flat out lie. I have asked before, and you have not answered, how and why you believe that lying serves either God or the Church.

    Traditionalism is, unfortunately, based on lying or willful ignorance. This is a fact. Your ideology should be abandoned, but you will not do it, because you are afraid that facing the fact that the magisterium can be questioned will lead you to actually think for yourself. And thinking for oneself is something that no trad wants to do — they aren’t that big on “thinking” in general.

    Let me say this once again: You have chosen Adolf Eichmann as your role model. Not in the way he acted, but in the way he thought. He was told what to think and do by others, and did not question his orders. You are told what to think by others, and you obey without question. That is laziness — the sin of sloth. And you also go in for pride in that you think you are better than I am because you do not think and I have the temerity to do so.

  • Of course IN CONTEXT both of themselves and Catholic teaching these two statements reconcile, the first pointing out that the use of government coercion to compel others to a religious practice is immoral, the second pointing out that if one does not avail himself of salvation knowing where it is offered one is insane.

    If you don’t know that, all you’re “proving” is that if you don’t read things in context, you wind up like the fellow with the KJV under is arm running around with “proof texts”, which only prove that he can’t see the forest for the trees.

  • My, my, you have worked yourself into a state. Your misunderstanding of the words of Gregory XVI, quoted by Blessed Pius IX has caused you to weigh in against me with an astonishing stream of invective and wild accusations.
    I am well-used to being labelled a liar by you as well as being likened to the Nazi War Criminal, Adolf Eichmann. Most people who don’t agree with you usually get this treatment. Because I don’t think like you, I don’t think for myself. Because I prefer to follow the centuries-old teaching of the Magisterium rather the opinion of one, John Hobson (who?), I am a devoté of Adolf Hitler.
    Everyone with whom you disagree you classify as a ‘traditionalst’, a word with a myriad of meanings. You say, “Traditionalism is, unfortunately, based on lying or willful ignorance. This is a fact.” Who says it is a fact? John Hobson? Where is the evidence for this? He supplies none, people just have to take his word for it. Christians who try to follow Christ, His teachings as handed down by His Church are now, according to John, liars or wilfully feigning ignorance.
    Not content with that you further accuse us of at least two of the Seven Deadly Sins, Sloth and Pride.
    José Carioca has just explained where you have got it wrong.

  • Absolutely!
    There are two kinds of rights, positive and negative. Positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. (Prof: Aeon Skoble).
    JH just doesn’t seem to understand the subtleties involved here. In this instance ‘Religious Freedom’ in DH can only refer to the negative right not to be coerced into changing one’s beliefs, mode of worship or religion; a no brainier, really (how can anyone be certain that they have changed someone’s mind). Whilst the Church in the past for the best of reasons in conjunction with the civil power may have colluded in ‘forced conversions’, it has never been a matter of doctrine.
    Succinctly you say, that someone with full knowledge that one can only be saved through the Catholic Church and knowing that, wilfully remains outside the Church is insane. What sane person would will and embrace their own eternal damnation?
    I take it you read JH’s diatribe before you posted your comment. I pity him.

  • Hooded Claw is, I believe a Catholic priest incardinated into an Irish diocese. If this is so and he is typical of current Irish clergy then can you wonder why they voted for same-sex ‘marriage’ and are quite likely to vote pro-abortion in the near future.

  • Most people who are excommunicated have excommunicated themselves, ipso facto. Excommunication Latæ Sententiæ means that the very act carries the sentence.

  • Trid! How the heaven are you? I’m trying to help some folks get the old NCR gang back together at a new site, and I thought of you. (Don’t ask me how I tracked you down….). Anyway, if you’re interested, contact me at [email protected] — even just to let me know you’re not going liberal on me! – Monica

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.