The real lives of gay men

 

gay_males2The following comes from a Nov. 22 story by Austin Ruse in Crisis Magazine.

Not caring about what happens to gay men is like not caring about prison rape. Prisoners are our brothers, too, and so are gay men. We must care deeply about the abuse of our brothers in prison and we must care deeply about the lives led by our gay brothers.

Prison rape seems a world away from us, a subject we try not to think about, yet it is rampant, dehumanizing and deadly dangerous. In the same way, we avert our gaze from the lives led by gay men. Certainly ignoring the lives of gay men is what the paladins of the gay movement want us to do. If others peek behind the curtain of the white-picket-fence-homosexuality they have built up for public consumption, support for the movement would wither and probably die.

I do not equate sex between gay men and prison rape. I draw the parallel simply to compare how we look away from certain things and act as if the subjects of those acts are not part of us, part of society, part of the human family. The active gay man and the prisoner are our brothers and we have to be concerned with both. But we quite deliberately look away from the reality of both.

But look we must, particularly since we are being asked to consider that homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality, that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage can be the same, that gay sex can in fact be spousal.

The arguments made by our best defenders of man-woman marriage focus almost exclusively on the definition of marriage and the rights of children to have both a mother and a father, and they explicitly say their arguments have nothing to do with the underlying question of homosexuality. Their arguments are very effective and I do believe they are making converts to the pressing cause of marriage. But in those arguments, one of the things lost is the real lives of gay men. It is as if we really do not care about them.

This is a difficult topic that no one wants to talk about. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage tells me that these arguments are not effective during active political campaigns. These arguments can backfire in those situations. Even so, we should show greater regard for our gay brothers by paying more attention to their lives.

Recently I was reading an excellent manuscript of an upcoming book by long-time Crisis Magazine contributor Robert Reilly on how the gay movement has moved through our institutions and our culture. He references a 2006 essay by a man named Ronald G. Lee who described himself as “a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum.”

Lee lived as an out and active gay man for going on three decades and what he describes is not only insane but also deeply heartbreaking. Lee was lied to before he came out of the closet. He was lied to the whole time he lived the gay way of life. He was lied to each and every day. What was the lie? That gay men are interested in sexually monogamous relationships.

Lee writes about a gay bookstore in Austin, Texas called Lobo’s where if you look in the front window you see bookshelves full of books, gay books certainly but books. In the back, behind a curtain was a section on pornography. No one could be seen among the stacks of books, everyone was in the back room. He said such an arrangement was perfect for the big lie that active homosexuality was normal and non-threatening to any straight person looking in the front window. The reality, though, was that everyone was in the back room with the porn. This was the reality of his life and the lives of gay men.

Lee wanted love, gay love to be sure, but love that fell in line with Christian sexual ethics, that is to say a lifelong emotional and sexual bond. His whole life he looked for that. He read the influential 1976 book The Church and the Homosexual written by a Catholic priest that explained how the Church wrongly interpreted all those references in the Bible condemning homosexuality. The book explained that monogamous same-sex couplings were consistent with the teachings of the Church. Lee says the book by Father John McNeill made him “justified in deciding to come out of the closet.” Father McNeill later wrote an autobiography in which he explained he lived a widely promiscuous gay life far removed from any notion of Christian sexual ethics, gay or otherwise.

And that was the reality Lee discovered as he began his search for gay monogamy. “For twenty years I thought there was something wrong with me,” Lee writes. “Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals.”

Lee got a computer and continued his futile attempt to find gay monogamy. He joined a Yahoo group loosely affiliated with Dignity, the “Catholic” organization that affirms gays in their active homosexual way of life. A young man posted a note asking if “any of the subscribers attached any value to monogamy?” He received “dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning, and all but one—mine—telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about.”

Lee got an AOL subscription and wrote a profile describing himself “as a conservative Catholic … who loved classical music and theater and good books and scintillating conversation about all of the above.” He said he wanted to meet other homosexuals like him for “friendship and romance.” Within minutes the first response he received was “How many inches?” And it went downhill from there.

The ugly reality Lee discovered his whole gay life was that this way of life is almost wholly about sex and plenty of it. Even supposedly stable relationships, the ones we read about in the New York Times, are largely facades. A gay man once told me he was in a long-time relationship but they never had sex anymore, just masturbated in front of porn with lots of action outside the relationship. He said this was typical. Lee says so, too, and so does the research.

In his excellent manuscript, The Gaying of America:  How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything to be published next March by Ignatius Press, Robert Reilly lays out the horrific numbers. Keep in mind that even repeating these numbers opens you up to a torrent of vitriol. You will see in the inevitable comments below that even mentioning them is hate speech, no more than lies, myths on par with the oversexed black man. Other than invective and charges that the studies and their authors have been “discredited,” the numbers are unassailable. And they are supremely important for a young man considering taking a peak outside the closet door.

This is the door he is about to walk through.

Reilly writes: “one might ask how typical anal intercourse is in homosexual behavior. Is it fundamentally characteristic, or anomalous? Some claim that homosexual behavior does not necessarily mean that male couples engage in anal intercourse. The answer, however, is that it predominates.”

Reilly quotes psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Santinover in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that “The typical homosexual (needless to say there are exceptions) is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse, with 12 times as many different partners as heterosexuals.”

Reilly goes further. “The most rigorous single study—the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study [1987]—recruited nearly 5,000 homosexual men and found that: ‘a significant majority of these men … (69 to 82%) reported having 50 or more lifetime sexual partners, and over 80% had engaged in receptive anal intercourse with at least some of their partners in the previous two years.’”

Such relationships are not spousal in any way, shape or form and this is what Ronald Lee found in his decades long search for real love, for a relationship that would fit into any notion of Christian sexual ethics.

Studies show gay men are remarkably promiscuous. Dr. Santinover cites a study by two homosexual researchers that found that out of “156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.” They said, “[t]he expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couples.”

Reilly cites a 1997 Australian study that showed “only 15% of the men reported having fewer than 11 sex partners to date, while on the other end of the spectrum 15% had over 1,000 sex partners. A whopping 82% had over 50 partners and nearly 50% had over 100.” The research goes on and drearily on.

Some have said gays act out promiscuously because they have internalized homophobia, that they were “forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of the homophobic mainstream.” Lee answers, “But 35 years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York…. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.”

I will give the final word to Ronald Lee from his magnificent essay.

When the young man from the Yahoo group got all the hostile response from his query about monogamy, “He did not know what to make of it because none of the propaganda to which he was exposed before coming out prepared him for what was really on the other side of the closet door. I had no idea what to tell him, because at the time I was still caught up in the lie myself. Now the solution seems obvious. What I should have written back to him was, ‘You have been lied to. Ask God for forgiveness and get back to Kansas as fast as you can. Auntie Em is waiting.’”

To read the original story, click here.

 

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Your Fellow Catholic says:

    So I’m unclear about why this is in CCD. Do the editors of CCD purport that having one monogamous gay lover is morally different than having 100 serial lovers? If so, what is that difference?

    • YFC throws in red herring again.

      This article is relevant to Catholics because the Catholic Church in the US continues to be weak in affirming that the act of sodomy is a depraved act and deadens the soul of the victims involved. I have witnessed many a Catholic function, including Holy Mass, where active homosexuals were extoled and their lifestyles glorified as if they were living saints. What will happen to the priests and bishops who have allowed this type of perversion in their churches? Woe to them….

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        So LInda, care to answer the question or not? What is your answer?

        • Sodomy is sodomy – a sin that cries out to God for vengeance.

          • FrMichael says:

            I’ll echo Linda B. here: either having one “gay lover” or 100 is depraved. Without seeking forgiveness of God for this crime against nature, eternal damnation is the almost-certain punishment.

          • Western Schnieder says:

            A true vision of hell if ever there was one.

      • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

        Linda,

        If you want to know what will happen to THEM, read the “Mystical City of God” and Our Blessed Mother’s words to Blessed Mary of Agreda on what will happen to them. It is indeed FRIGHTENING!

        But they don’t want to listen to that un-academically educated Jewish Woman Who happens to be the MOTHER OF GOD!

        By the way, She spent many years in the Temple, and She was and is very educated, especially in Scripture and it’s meanings

        May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
        Viva Cristo Rey!
        God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
        Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
        Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.

      • thomas nawn says:

        in reality, thomas aquinas though all hyman sexualty was potenyial sinful gay men do not rape women straight men rape women straight men beat their wives sometimes, not all but a lot do

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Not a smart argument……most cases of boys that are raped were by homosexual men.

          thomas what a sick and twisted view of life you have there….sin is sin..mo matter where it is coming from…

        • Abeca Christian says:

          thomas nawn also aren’t you aware that heterosexuality is natural, but homosexuality defies the natural law. What are you trying to convey with that stupid argument you just made? Are you saying that heterosexuals are disordered? Heterosexuality, when it honors God, it is a blessing but homosexuality when it defies the natural law, does not honor God. Most heterosexuals do not beat up their wife’s nor do they rape…..so don’t use that argument to justify gay lifestyles OK! Heterosexuality is not disordered, now if a man or woman have impure lifestyles due to addictions, then that is a sin that they need to confess and repent for. If they have anger issues enough to rape or commit murder, if they have mental disorders etc,,,,,they need help because its not normal. Sin is sin!

        • Ann Malley says:

          Let’s here it for St. Thomas Aquinas – no dummy, that one. In touch with his sexuality, that is reality, absolutely. Acknowledging the potential for sin is square one of recognizing the Truth of our fallen human nature, Thomas.

          That said, there is a TON of domestic violence that occurs between lesbian and gay couples. Ask a cop. There’s a ton of sin that goes on between married couples, too. Don’t believe it? Ask a priest. Heck – ask a cop.

          As to the potential for sin – you said it. That’s why married heterosexual couples need confession. That’s why people who just get out of bed in the morning and go about their ‘normal’ routine of life have need of confession.

          And you’re right. Gay men typically don’t rape women. They’d be more inclined, if they were a rapist, to rape a man. If they were also a pedophile, they’d be more inclined to rape boys.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley, unfortunately you are right when you say that there is sometimes domestic violence between same sex couples. Yes that is most certainly true.

            So this year, when the Violence Against Women Act was up for renewal, an act which give women much needed support and education, for the first time it explicitly included what was always known implicitly: That sometimes women incur violence against their female partners.

            Every prior year, VAWA passed with huge bipartisan support, and with the complete support of the American Bishops. This year, the US Bishops withheld support of VAWA because it included lesbians in the mix. They threw ALL female domestic violence victims under the bus because they could not countenance protecting lesbians. I can’t think of a more disgusting public policy stance by our hierarchy than this one.

          • Ann Malley says:

            YFC, while I see your disgruntlement on this particular issue in as much as you have outlined it to me, the biggest issue is still Bishops who opt for political voices while dismissing the fullness of Truth which is the cornerstone of them having any voice whatsoever.

            Translation: They throw everybody, women included, under the bus when they refuse to stick to their primary job of preaching Truth and offering worthy sacrifice to God.

        • thomas nawn, “not all but a lot do”? Wow, I did not know that I was so unsafe in the company of “straight men”! Now to take your logic further; “straight men” do not rape men of any persuasion. “Queer” men rape men of both persuasions, not all but a lot do! So now all of you men better think of avoiding men!

          It sure must be a lonely place to be if you are a man. First the woman libbers started male bashing, now its men who prefer sex with men who are the male bashers!

          • Oops, I should clarify myself. So now all of you men, no matter which persuasion you prefer, better start thinking of avoiding “queer” men!

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Tracy excellent!

          • Thank you Abeca. I would like to make a proposal that we start using the proper term “queer” to describe men who CHOOSE to HAVE sex with men.

            QUEER – Deviating from the expected or normal, eccentric.
            ECCENTRIC – Deviating from a conventional or established pattern.
            GAY – Merry; lighthearted. Bright or lively.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Tracy I have to reach out to the “today” crowd and facing the reality of these current times, your definition of “gay” is no longer what it was(especially our young generation, never lived nor have I, lived when that was word was considered as you have defined it, maybe when I was a babe but I might have been a little one to remember or recall, I do know though because of old wholesome movies, on how it was used) ……I don’t want to cause more confusion, so its best to address it at their level….but thank you for your time to share…

          • Abeca, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I must admit, however, that I used to hold your opinion regarding this issue. Back when queers made the choice to adopt the word “gay” to describe themselves, this redefined term had never been used in this way before, yet somehow people adapted to it! Queers adopted the term “gay” for the precise reason OF “causing confusion”. Just because someone hasn’t heard the term “queer” before, doesn’t mean that the word doesn’t more closely fit the reality of their lifestyle. By using the term “queer” with youth, it opens up honest dialogue. You can then define what queer means, as well as, define what the word “gay” really means. We should never feel obligated to use any word as redefined by the devil. If you think about it, this is a deadly snare we would be wise to avoid!

          • Abeca, by the way, I am using a modern dictionary for my definitions.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            nonsensical Tracy. I know you can do better.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Not nonsensical, YFC. Gay used to be the nickname for girls named Gayle and, at times, men named Gaylord. You might be chuckling at present, but that last name was never meant as one who is a homosexual overlord.

            That said, even the word queer used to just mean odd or different or unusual or strange. Sodomite or Lesbian is the proper terminology. At least in the research I’ve done.

          • Tracy –

            People who commit those acts and prefer that lifestyle are not MEN.
            There is no manhood there!

    • FCCarolina says:

      While mankind’s concupiscence lies at the heart of both, the difference lies in the disorder of homosexual attraction.

      Heterosexuality is a good as it is ordered the propagation of the species – this is obvious. Being attracted to the opposite sex and acting on that attraction outside of the covenant of marriage- including having multiple “partners” – isn’t a disorder but a reflection of concupisence. If one, however, is attracted to one or more members of the same sex and acts on that attraction that is a reflection both of concupisence and a disorder (i.e., not ordered to the purpose God intended for a man and a woman in their self-giving and fruitful union which “reflects the “the inner unity of the Creator” (“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”).

      Even in the concupiscence expressed through one’s heterosexuality there is still the inherent goodness of attraction to the opposite sex since it is a reflection of the order of Creation. Homosexual attraction and activity within or outside of homosexual “marriage” cannot reflect the same and is inherently and unchangeably sterile.

  2. Abeca Christian says:

    This article is nothing more than a serpent, one that asks the reader to try the forbidden fruit. It is poorly conveyed and it can lead to different conclusions and not a good article to say the least, for a Catholic website. I don’t even know which way it was trying to go…either saving souls or was it opening a door to more tolerance? If it was trying to be charitable and in truth, it surly was confusing to me. I am one that is a huge believer in reaching out to our brothers and sisters suffering with this disorder of homosexuality, that is what I use to do but this article just made me go hmm? Maybe I need to re-read it again.

    I don’t like the idea to even taste the forbidden fruit nor be tempted to try, at least that is why I felt that this article was poorly written. Not worthy to be published in my opinion, it can lead to different conclusions that may or may not be fruitful.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if a few thought that as long as a homosexual was in one relationship with of the same person…that it was better, than if he were in many as this article tried to expose. I get it that it was trying to tell of the problem that homosexuals are now embracing especially ones like promiscuous (Promiscuity). That is one I can agree with but it couldn’t of been conveyed better without tempting the reader one bit on the efforts of defending marriage by insinuating that there are some flaws in their approach. Again because homosexuality is a grave sin when embraced fully and promoted fully like the gay activists want it….this article just came across to me as a distraction from the real issues. Words like “not caring”….come off as manipulation, trying to change or desensitize a person’s mind that have convictions and care deeply for the natural law. It is a false assumption to say that people do not care. If you ask me, we have been caring the wrong way, that is why in some states it has already managed to re-define marriage. I can go on and on…..

  3. Abeca Christian says:

    I found it repulsive to even bring up the argument about those who defend the true definition of Marriage and children to have the right to a mum and father by concluding with this “Their arguments are very effective and I do believe they are making converts to the pressing cause of marriage. But in those arguments, one of the things lost is the real lives of gay men. It is as if we really do not care about them.” Their Argument? Who’s side is this person on who wrote this? Its not an argument, its a necessity and an honorable thing to do to honor God!

    We are fighting a real spiritual battle here folks and to have an ugly comment such as that, as if we need to water down the importance of the truth about the natural law, marriage and children needing a mum and pa. I see that not all see through the same eye’s when we have goals to defend what our Lord has always taught us to hold so dear. It is our letting go of things that have brought us to the current crises we are now faced with. Blame it on the liberals who did away with therapy (or at least discourage any help that one is trying to do with love for those suffering) for homosexuals. Yes the Psychiatry board changed it and is no longer calling homosexuality a disorder but the church still holds on to the truth that it is a disorder that needs true charity in dealing with.

    • Wm. Hamilton says:

      Obviously you are not familiar with the work of Austin Ruse or you would never have raised the “whose side is he on” question. Mr. Ruse — and Crisis magazine for that matter — have long-established pro-family and pro-life track records. I would suggest you take the time to carefully re-read this article.

  4. Abeca Christian says:

    What is disgusting is me is the idea that we may give out the message that we don’t care about them. Any sinner living in sin, when people who really care, try to reach out, most of the time they will feel judged and reject any love one tries to give them. But no matter what, we are all called out to do God’s will, some are called to fight and defend marriage, some are called out to reach out to all sinners even when some are more difficult and dangerous to do so, some are called out to defend the unborn etc etc.

    When we vote to protect life, to protect the unborn, it does not mean that I am neglecting the mum’s who so easily volunteer to butcher their children, no not at all…..so the same for those who are suffering with same sex attractions….just because, as Christians we are called to defend the natural law in Marriage, it does not mean that I neglect the care for those suffering with homosexuality, no not at all, it is actually showing deeply how much we care, it is that love that can help stop them from imposing their disordered standards in which they want to impose on society, that is showing true charity and some day, we pray for their healing and conversion, that they may be grateful for our perseverance.

    • Abeca, I don’t know what article you were reading. The whole point is that gay men don’t have relationships that are anything like marriage. To me, the clear implication is that “gay marriage” is a political pretext and that gay men don’t want to live anything approaching the christian idea of monogamy.

      Of course, all of this “help” and “reaching out” Christians supposedly do, pretty much loses any credibility whatsoever when, for example, the Catholic Church support laws criminalizing sodomy, fight on behalf of the right of employers to fire someone for being homosexual, and fight for the right of people, in general, to exclude someone for having gay sex.

      To me, denying the ability of people engaging in homosexual acts from participating in commerce or socializing with others is preventing them fulfilling God’s will for their lives in one area because they’re failing in another area. The message of “we love you”, and “come to Jesus” carries much less weight when you also want to empower the state to prevent a gay doctor from treating patients.

    • Abeca, I don’t know what article you were reading. The whole point is that gay men don’t have relationships that are anything like marriage. To me, the clear implication is that “gay marriage” is a political pretext and that gay men don’t want to live anything approaching the christian idea of monogamy.

      Of course, all of this “help” and “reaching out” Christians supposedly do, pretty much loses any credibility whatsoever when, for example, the Catholic Church support laws criminalizing sodomy, fight on behalf of the right of employers to fire someone for being homosexual, and fight for the right of people, in general, to exclude someone for having gay sex.

      To me, denying the ability of people engaging in homosexual acts from participating in commerce or socializing with others is preventing them fulfilling God’s will for their lives in one area because they’re failing in another area. The message of “we love you”, and “come to Jesus” carries much less weight when you also want to empower the state to prevent a gay doctor from treating patients.

      Let’s suppose for a moment that society decided that celibacy was “disgusting” and that people who aren’t having sex were complete failures and “unreliable”. As a consequence, some entity wanted to support the right of employers to fire people for living a celibate lifestyle.

      Now, in this world, suppose someone were to decide to fire Tim Tebow from his job as an NFL quarterback because he’s not having sex. Would you not support Tim when he says, “What does playing quarterback have anything to do with my behavior in the bedroom?”

      The question for a Catholic, isn’t whether gay sex is moral or immoral. The question is: what is moral when it comes to trying to prevent others from engaging in sinful behavior? Too often, the presumption is that anything that succeeds in stopping someone from engaging in immoral behavior is moral.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        JonJ I hope you feel better….it still doesn’t chance my opinion about this poorly conveyed article…..

  5. Aaron in Spain says:

    I am not surprised that gay men tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Fact is, that if a couple is unlikely to have children, reasons for monogamy are clearly reduced.

    That said, there are some of us that have maintained a monogamous relationship over long periods. My partner and I have been together for 12 years and have remained in a 100% committed, monogamous relationship. It is a personal choice.

    • Catherine says:

      “My partner and I have been together for 12 years and have remained in a 100% committed, monogamous relationship. It is a personal choice.”

      It is a 100% illusion to think that one can seriously betray and offend God while committing sinful acts and claiming at the same time to be loyal to that someone who was also created in the image and likeness of God. Homosexual acts offend God. Helping another person land in hell is the most disloyal act of all.

      Why do so many souls land in hell? …. Sadly, as Aaron rightfully states, “It is a personal choice.”

      • johnsiple says:

        Catherine I like your response. The “personal choice” is very highly protested by the powers that be in the gay community. It used to be the ‘gene’ belief that “I was born this way”. Not. It’s simply a learning curve. It’s a choice.
        I was hounded by my first lover until I finally came to believe his notion that nobody could be ‘bisexual’. I rationalized that I need to choose one side or the other so as not to confuse myself or women I might be with during a night of partying. AIDS was only beginning then, but I knew it would soon become a local affair.
        The gay life is practiced until one ‘gets it down’. Practice times many, many times. Then one is no longer a ‘beginner’. Monogamy is out the window after a few years and a few parties.
        I hate to think of children being raised with the secrets one must hide from the kids, or not.
        Yeah, it is a sin crying for God’s wrath. Thank God for Our Lady & countless Saints teaching us to pray for sinners & their conversion.
        I had many praying for me from childhood. Finally I realized the truth in Christ. It can happen, but it is rare.
        In a major gay ‘Mecca’ nearby only 4-8 men in the whole city might attend the local Courage meeting. They’re out partying. Once those souls mature a little they want to move to a less rigorous place, plant roots, adopt, etc. or not. To those singles some complain they’ve been celibate for X number of months or years but the pornography is always there for self-gratification. That is celibacy.
        I’ve rambled enough. Very glad for the conversation. It needs a think tank.

        • Ann Malley says:

          Thanks for sharing Johnsiple. Your sharing the reality of your situation is most appreciated and needed on CCD.

        • johnsiple,

          Thank you for your excellent and truthful post. How very wise and generous of you to help us all in our daily struggles to see the full providential value of Our Lady’s protective mantle as well as the helpful examples of the saints. Also, Ann Malley is right. “Your sharing the reality is most appreciated and needed on CCD.” Very glad for the conversation too!

        • johnsiple, you sound to me like you are a man grateful to have found true freedom! God Bless you.

          Please correct me if you think I am wrong, but from what you shared, it sounds to me as if we should NEVER expect to see two men saving their sexual intimacy for so called “same-sex” Marriage, as men and women traditionally have.

    • Bless you Aaron, and your partner! What grace, in the face of poisonous opposition! Carry on.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Emery who is blessing Aaron? There is no blessing in that lifestyle in which he is choosing…..blessings don’t come just because you say them……

        • I’d rather bless than curse, Abeca. I’d rather bless than damn. I’d rather bless than judge. I’d rather bless than dismiss. I’d rather try to be Christ like…truly.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            and for the record Appalled…no one here has cursed or damned anyone….people do it to themselves and their fruit when they choose to sin. We only bless and pray that we all choose NOT TO SIN.

            Praise Be Jesus Christ! The Lord has already judged my friend, we learn from Him….let it be known that we must remove ourselves from actions, views etc that promote anything against purity and the faith. In this instance its a good thing to be like a coward and run from impure things and run like a coward when the faith is being scandalized. These sinful lifestyles do nothing but curse anyone that cross their path if people choose to accept them and embrace them. Look once but look twice…then we are guilty of fully participating.

          • Anonymous says:

            God desires for all men to be saved. Jesus died on the Cross so that sins could be forgiven. His Sacred Heart is an infinite ocean of mercy for sinners. He knows our weakness. He is always ready to forgive.

          • Catherine says:

            Appalled,

            What nonsense! Is that you kanonymous? Abeca IS being Christ like, truly! Abeca is obeying God first! Poor Eve wasn’t appalled enough when she was able to be duped and dismiss God’s commands. Instead of obeying God, she used her own weak and flawed judgment and then blessed the apple right before she took a big disobedient bite. Eve also stood by and dismissed God again while she blessed Adam while he was taking a big bite of disobedience too. Of course God knows our weakness and is always ready to forgive. Abeca has never once disputed that!

            As for your being appalled, you are really not quite as appalled as you should be when it comes to pulling someone out of the deadly lethal quicksand of habitual grievous mortal sin. It is time to truly forgive yourself appalled, because God has forgiven you.

            Trust in God! Trust in His Mercy! Greater love hath no woman or man when it comes to reaching out to all, than to have the ability to lay down their own past forgiven sins as well as their own personal desire to only be seen as the MR. nice guy who blesses others and smiles at others while they are riding on a speeding bullet train to hell. YOU Are supposed to be The Salt of The Earth!

            “Today let us resolve to be the salt of the earth, like Jesus told us we were in Matthew 5:13: “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.”

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Thank you Catherine…God bless you.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Appalled but you missed the real deeper point. There is no blessing in homosexual unions…whether they be together forever or with different partners. Sodomy has been cursed ……..its biblical. So you don’t think our Lord admonished sinful behaviors? What are the circumstances in choosing to sin? A true blessing would be for the better of another soul to choose away from sin.

          Your comments are just foolish, thrown out without any substance or real truth. But who can’t blame you because everyone has to grow spiritually in their own time, if they seek to. We are always growing.

          True blessings are those that involve the good in others to please God, true blessings lead to virtue and gratitude, true blessings are only defined by the creator himself, His will be done, even through others that honor God. Etc…..

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      Aaron,

      It may be a personal choice but it is also a choice that put those making that choice in Eternal damnation!

      May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
      Viva Cristo Rey!
      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
      Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.

    • Aaron in Spain, aren’t you Thomas Edward Miles partner? I don’t care if any homosexual couple has been together for 100 years, it is still mortally sinful to be an ACTIVE homosexual. It is against God’s laws and the laws of the Church to commit acts of sodomy wether monogamous or not. What don’t you get about the fact that ACTIVE homosexuality is mortally sinful and an abomination? I think you and Thomas get it, but totally thumb your noses at God and keep living in the state of mortal sin.

  6. YFC, this article is in Cal Cath in order to break the lie that homosexuals who are living in that subculture are “just the same” as married heterosexual couples: monogamous, run-of-the-mill, normal, sane, respectable. No, “homosexual lifestyle” as some people call it is promiscuous, sexually irresponsible, and hedonistic. Some gay advocates would argue, “well, aren’t there some straight folks who are like that too?!” The difference is that hedonism and sexually irresponsibility is GLORIFIED in the “gay” subculture. That’s why this in here–to help expose the lie that supporting the “gay lifestyle” and “gay marriage” is just the same as supporting any other kind of “normal” marriage and lifestyle.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Jon, the article does a very poor job of making that case. If there is a moral difference between having 100 lovers over having one lover, then the Church members ought to be the first to vote in favor of same sex marriage. Extending the freedom to marry to gay people has exactly the same affect that it has on straight people: to stem the biological drive towards promiscuity. Marriage promotes and honors fidelity, commitment, and true abiding love.

      If, on the other hand, there is no moral difference between having one hundred lovers and having one lover, then what is the point of the article? Why NOT succumb to biological drives and live lives devoid of deep relationships?

      But we can’t have it both ways. We can’t encumber gay people by denying them the most important tool that promotes fidelity and then at the same time castigate them for being unfaithful.

      • What you refuse to comprehend YFC is that the homosexual act, any of it, is a MORTAL SIN! Therefore, your red-herring question from the start (is there “a moral difference between having 100 lovers over having one lover”) is silly, moot, inconsequential! Look at your logic! It’s skewed. Better still, look at your conscience: it needs a lot of FORMATION!

        The article did a good job in making the point THAT THE CHURCH CARES for homosexuals by teaching that any homosexual act (whether with one or many) IS WRONG! Learn this.

        Supporting “gay” marriage is not supporting something akin to the classic understanding of a heterosexual marriage. It is not. It is supporting a hedonistic, amoral lifestyle.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          A lifetime of love and commitment is not the same as a hedonistic life, anymore than sexual activity in a classical marriage can be said to be hedonistic. And a marriage – whether yours or mine – is a whole lot more than the sexual act. This is what the Church has never fully considered. It pretends that gay people do not have intimacy needs, or the need to build families.

          • “This is what the Church has never fully considered” and never will you do not have the right to build families since what you build is based on sodomy…..

          • YFC, your logic that a hypothetical “gay” marriage is inimical to a “lifetime of love and commitment” is refuted by the facts, partly represented by this article: namely, that your typical “gay” couple out there DO NOT live out the normative heterosexual marriage; they do not live out a “lifetime of love and commitment” as UNDERSTOOD in a classic heterosexual marriage where FIDELITY and EXCLUSIVITY (monogamy) are upheld. Basically, your point is refuted by the facts on the ground. It is refuted by the facts of this article.

            And YFC, you have just shot your entire argument on the foot by saying, ” And a marriage – whether yours or mine – is a whole lot more than the sexual act.” Indeed marriage is more than just sex. It is about bringing the genders together in love, it is about life, it is about complementarity—all of which “gay marriage” lacks!

          • johnsiple says:

            YFC, the Church’s role is to call-out sin and to teach holiness. Yeah, we talk much about ‘community-building’ yet I am mostly a loner yet not very lonely. I have waited my 65 years for a Church social gathering in which I could find fellowship, but no, not yet. I hope for such joy.

          • Anonymous says:

            When you go outside the path of the Lord to fulfill your desires (not needs) you increase your sorrows. We have to accept that same-gender marriage and even romantic relationships are not God’s will. It is easy to fool yourself by thinking that the good that you discover in these relationships is a blessing from God. Faith is a paradox. You have to believe before you can see.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          jon said it well YFC….you need to listen to him. You mention that “gay” men have needs to form families etc but remember that is because of the natural law. But you refuse to understand that the natural law demands one not to cohabit-ate outside of God’s natural law. The natural law that our Lord has placed on mankind is one that is good and right. God is perfect, the Alpha and Omega.

      • YFC, this article does a great job in pointing out that a monogamous same sex relationship is an aberration. One can usually find at least one aberration in any institution which includes human beings. For example, I am sure that somewhere or at sometime during the history of mankind, there has been at least one person with a mindset of a “serial killer” who murdered only one person and then stopped there. While most of us would be relieved by this fact, no sane person would suggest that the one murder he did commit was ok. Neither would any sane person suggest that we pass a law which says “one murder per person(‘s) with a “serial killer mindset” would be an acceptable quota”! You can never regulate evil with the hopes of making it virtuous.

        I think that Ronald G. Lee’s book would be a worthwhile read. I wish him all the best.

      • “We can’t encumber gay people by denying them the most important tool that promotes fidelity and then at the same time castigate them for being unfaithful.”

        The wandering Israelites also felt they were being denied when they were told to stop worshipping the golden calf. As Catholics, one of the most important tools that helps us to promote fidelity to others is by demonstrating fidelity to God first. Fidelity to God helps us to remain in the state of sanctifying grace. YFC, At this present time you clearly reject the Church’s Teachings and this is why you are still wandering in a state of confusion. All sin offends God. The Israelites also felt encumbered and castigated while still wandering in the desert and showing their unfaithfulness by worshipping false idols. Your false idol just happens to be the worshipping of the false god of homosexuality.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          You are not correct Catherine, but nice try. Homosexuality is not an object of worship for me or for any other gay person. Since you are so concerned with sin and offending God, then you will stop with the false witness that you seem to have polished into quite a gleaming example of hypocrisy. Or are you only concerned with other people’s sin, or too busy imagining other peoples sins that you don’t have time to look at your own?

          • 3. I invite all Christians, everywhere, at this very moment, to a renewed personal encounter with Jesus Christ, or at least an openness to letting him encounter them; I ask all of you to do this unfailingly each day. No one should think that this invitation is not meant for him or her, since “no one is excluded from the joy brought by the Lord”.[1] The Lord does not disappoint those who take this risk; whenever we take a step towards Jesus, we come to realize that he is already there, waiting for us with open arms.
            Evangelii Gaudium

          • Ann Malley says:

            You may not believe that you idolize homosexuality, YFC, but the reality is that you are seemingly putting homosexuality in the primary position (your human understanding of things in contrast to revealed Truth) when it comes to HOW you will worship God and/or show Him your love.

            The golden calf analogy is perfect as the Israelites knew the Truth, had heard the Truth, but rejected the Truth. They wanted God to conform to their needs/standards.

            It’s like telling God that you love Him and that you have chosen to express that love by spitting in His face instead of doing what He asks of you. But in your estimation, spitting is love and that should be good enough.

            “…Since you are so concerned with sin and offending God, then you will stop with the false witness that you seem to have polished into quite a gleaming example of hypocrisy. Or are you only concerned with other people’s sin, or too busy imagining other peoples sins that you don’t have time to look at your own?”

            Say this to yourself, YFC.

        • Now is the time to say to Jesus: “Lord, I have let myself be deceived; in a thousand ways I have shunned your love, yet here I am once more, to renew my covenant with you. I need you. Save me once again, Lord, take me once more into your redeeming embrace”. How good it feels to come back to him whenever we are lost! Let me say this once more: God never tires of forgiving us; we are the ones who tire of seeking his mercy. Christ, who told us to forgive one another “seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) has given us his example: he has forgiven us seventy times seven. Time and time again he bears us on his shoulders. No one can strip us of the dignity bestowed upon us by this boundless and unfailing love. With a tenderness which never disappoints, but is always capable of restoring our joy, he makes it possible for us to lift up our heads and to start anew. Let us not flee from the resurrection of Jesus, let us never give up, come what will. May nothing inspire more than his life, which impels us onwards!
          Evangelii Gaudium (3)

      • And YFC, get off your high horse. “Gay marriage” will NOT promote “fidelity and true abiding love” as you laughably opine. That’s hilarious. “Gay marriage” makes a mockery of what true marriage is: true marriage is about the joining together of the genders, it is about complementarity (including and especially physical complementarity), it is about bringing new human life into the world!

        The “gay” lifestyle (which this article exposes) wrecks havoc in the psycho-social health of those who enter into this dark, dead, empty world—made glamorous by Hollywood—a world called “gay.”

        And therefore supporting “gay” marriage is not about supporting something that might engender true love. NO! It is supporting something which God has not ordained for the expression of human sexuality and human love. YFC, you’re very wrong!

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          It must be a shame to deny love when it stares you in the face.

          • It is an even GREATER shame to accept a lesser love (from a homosexual attraction) by refusing the DEEPER, GRANDER, and ETERNAL love God has in store for those who carry the Cross of Christ by living celibate chastity as a homosexual. Think well upon this!

          • Abeca Christian says:

            YFC you have a different definition of love Mr. I suggest you look up the true definition from the real author of love…the author being from Christ…He is true love..not your man made one, that only fills you up temporarily.

          • Ann Malley says:

            “…It must be a shame to deny love when it stares you in the face.”

            It is a shame to deny Truth Crucified for true and eternal love of you and me. That said, define love, YFC. The line you stated above is one of the oldest in the book when justifying all manner of me-isms. Especially that of the unfaithful husband or wife.

          • YFC … clear evidence that gays are always about themselves….

          • Abeca Christian says:

            jon very good said on your post from December 3, 2013 at 2:01 pm. How big of you….I am surprised and grateful that you are expressing what we always have tried to convey here….glad to read these comments from you. You seem to carry a different tone on this thread than I was accustomed from you in the past. Good for you….God bless you as you continue to soul search and grow spiritually. We continue to pray for you and continue to pray for us please. God’s will be done.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            “It must be a shame to deny love when it stares you in the face.”

            But people often deny Christ’s love all the time and trade it in for their man made one.

            Correct it is a not only a shame but also a tragedy to deny Christ’s love…He is true love, He is the reason I live! So to answer that above quotation, yes it is but many deny Christ’s love so they can have their man made disordered version of love. We have pearls here but some still choose to keep their fake pearls….

            Fake love is temporary but real love which only comes from Christ(and sets us free), is forever. Which one do you prefer…the temporary one that is a complicated fake one here that pleases the flesh and doesn’t test your comfort zone, or would you prefer real love which comes from the real author and creator of love, Christ, whom is love….His love disturbs our fleshly desires, it tests our loyalty and it helps us persevere in fortitude. and much more….

      • Anonymous says:

        CONTINENCE
        The virtue by which a person controls the unruly movements of sexual desire or other bodily emotions. It is connected with the virtue of temperance. It generally means the chastity to be observed by the unmarried. But it may also refer to the abstinence, in marriage, voluntarily agreed upon by both parties or forced by circumstances to abstain from marital intercourse. (Etym. Latin continentia, holding together, coherence; containing in itself, inclusion, restraint.)
        Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary
        Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Now according to Christian tradition and the Church’s teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.” (Persona Humana, n. X.)

      • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

        IF YOU DIE WITH JUST ONE MORTAL SIN STILL ON YOUR SOUL, YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE IS TO BE WITH SATAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS FOR ALL ETERNITY!

        May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
        Viva Cristo Rey!
        God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
        Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
        Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.

      • johnsiple says:

        This is a good argument. Social & moral arguments can find us in a vortex of confusion.
        I have to look at this from our Creator’s perspective. Just as God was quite jealous for Israel & often called them adulterous and worse. He pounced on them bigtime. We are loved today with God’s mercy at work rather than His anger. This is the time of Mercy for all of us. Prayer changes things eventually. Not many gays even wish for marriage. It was a hurdle to jump through by the think tanks of the darkness.
        I got out by the Catechism & a holy priest. Who would have believed it? Yet Truth is what saved me. Brilliant, radiant Truth. It was logical and full of hope.
        Thanks for reading.

        • johnsiple, you said, “Not many gays even wish for marriage. It was a hurdle to jump through by the think tanks of the darkness.”

          Thank you for speaking the truth. This redefinition of marriage movement is designed for one reason and one reason only, which is to put the final nail in the coffin of the already struggling nuclear family. If the majority of men and women returned to saving sex for the marriage bed, avoided contraception and/or sterilization, avoided adultery and divorce, then this “same-sex” marriage movement would disappear in one giant poof of smoke!

        • Abeca Christian says:

          johnsiple God bless you…I am grateful for your honest comments. You are a beautiful soul who is setting a great example and shining the light of Christ with your love for Him. Real love from Christ. God bless you always, keep on!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      jon what you say may in part be true: promiscuity has been glorified in parts of the gay subculture. But 2 points: I’m not at all sure that promiscuity is glorified among lesbians. It is certainly not rampant. and Secondly, one must always keep in mind that without the institution that glorifies a lifetime of committment, it is less likely that gay people would see VALUE in committment. In fact, having multiple partners was seen as an expression of liberty: a thumbing the nose, if you will, at people and cultures and religions that said that gay people couldn’t have sex.

      I’m not so sure any of us knows whether having marriage will have the same effect it has in straight people: to “settle” the men in those relationships. I’m betting that it will.

      • Ann Malley says:

        Marriage isn’t a magic social bullet to settle men, YFC. It’s not about glorifying anything. It’s about solidifying that which is natural by God’s design and sanctifying it by way of sacramental union.

        If what you propose were true there would be no cheating, no divorce, no broken homes. That said, what society needs is a call back to what marriage actually is. The lifetime bond between one man and one woman, entered into freely for the primary purpose of founding a family.

        So experiment elsewhere when it comes to trying to ‘settle’ men.

        IOW: You shouldn’t lay ‘bets’ on the off chance that your convoluted logic might just do the trick. Certainly not when God Himself stands against it.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Ann Malley – The “settling” argument is definitely one of the things the National Organization for Marriage uses. They don’t call it that, they call it “chanelling”. They want to channel men into marriages so that kids get raised by their biological parents, rather than have the men wonder off. In their view, if men are bound by marriage vows, they won’t sleep around and abandon their kids. So if you have an issue with the “settling” argument, you might take it up with maggie Gallagher and her friends at NOM.

          As for God’s sanctification and the sacramental union: The context here is not sacramental marriage, it is civil marriage licenses, but the settling argument applies equally well to civil and religious marriages. We are discussing whether there are advantages for civil society to allow same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses, and I posit that access to marriage licenses will change the behavior of gay men in a positive way, much more than it will have any other effects on the rest of society. All we need do is look at what happens to straight men when they get married to guess that it will have a similar effect, over time, on gay men. That is not twisted logic, it is quite logical logic.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Interesting that you take your terminology from Ms. Gallagher regarding ‘settling’, YFC. I mean, ‘channeling’ – a trendy little term. The National Organization for Marriage is a non-profit ‘POLITICAL’ institution. The issue of homosexuals attempting marriage or rather its redefinition is not political at it’s root. Not at all. Those who pursue the defense of marriage on primarily political grounds are on the foundation of sand – which is why YOU are able to twist and claw and manipulate their purpose by word mincing. No doubt you enjoy it immensely, too.

            Truth, however, will not be minced or legalized into obscurity. Even if, at times, it appears hidden. But I appreciate your continued commentary. It has shown me increasingly that while you may be Catholic, you do not think as one. Being a change agent comes first.

          • No YFC, this is twisted logic indeed. Yours is twisted logic because it is contradicted by the facts on the ground, based on what’s going on in the “gay subculture” even with the option to enter into some sort of “domestic partnership.” And so the question becomes, “Well, what’s going on?”

            What’s going on is what you perhaps see among your own “gay friends”: the normalization of having other partners outside the union! To say (as you do) that extending marriage to “gay” people will help settle them is CONTRADICTED by the facts and by the intent of homosexuals themselves as they enter “gay marriage.” The intent is not at all exclusive fidelity, which is the expectation in heterosexual marriages. The intent is quite the reverse in “gay unions.” As the article reveals: “of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.”

            So YFC, yours is an argument that is losing ground and credibility because the reality contradicts it. Nice try, but won’t work.

      • Anonymous says:

        My fellow Catholic YFC, it is very important to obey the Church and to stand up for marriage as being between one man and one woman, exclusive and life-long. It is important to stand up for marriage as being instituted by God for the raising of children in a holy environment. If you are not yet where you understand it, then you should just say, “I don’t understand this all myself, but I trust God and I trust those who He has given the power to bind and loose.” The Catholic Church is not an institution run by men. It is a communion with Jesus Christ and in Him and through Him and with Him, a communion with the Holy Trinity. Secular and worldly things must fade so that we can see Him and follow Him more closely every day. Pope Francis has asked us to have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ every day, unfailingly. This is most important. God bless you and all your family.

      • YFC, You’re still wrong. Marriage was not created “to ‘settle’ the men in those relationships.” Marriage is built in every human heart: for man and woman to come together, raise children, love each other in faithfulness and in fidelity all the days of their life.

        It is NOT in the nature of human beings to marry a member of the same sex. The nature and genesis of homosexual attraction is not settled science, though the Church in her wisdom recognizes it as a result of sin, (yes, original sin. You still believe in that?). The homosexual inclination (which is ordered towards sin) is a manifestation of concupiscence.

        Therefore, the question you ask (whether marriage being extended to homosexuals will have the effect of settling “gay men”) is still flawed. How so? Why assign an institution like marriage (which comes from the nature of human beings) to an inclination judged by the Church and by nature to be unnatural in the human soul?

        • Ann Malley says:

          Well said. May God continue to bless and fuel you, jon!

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          The nature of a gay person is not to come together and raise children with a member of the opposite sex. For “every” human to have opposite sex marriage built into every heart, gay people would have to deny their very selves. Trust me, you don’t want people like me listening to people like you, and then turn around and marry your daughter. If you want your daughter to marry a gay man, well you must be a special kind of father.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Unlike you may believe, having sex is not absolutely necessary to a fulfilled life, YFC. There are heterosexual couples who cannot have sex for various reasons. Should couples thus wounded abandon their partner simply because sex is no longer on the table and, well, men have needs?

            All things are possible with God. That includes celibacy.

      • YFC, if what you wish for ever became a universal reality, do you foresee a movement encouraging Queers to “save themselves” for marriage? In other words might we expect some of them to refrain from fornicating prior to marriage?

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Tracy, sorry I missed your question until just now. I can’t predict the future. Right now, there are very few pressures in our culture for even straight people to “save” oneself for marriage, and I don’t forsee one consequence of gay marriage being that gay people lead us back to a 1950’s mentality about no-sex-before-marriage. But I think if society in general ever does, then I think gay people would feel similar pressure.

          I have known guys who refused to have sex until they found someone they wanted to settle down with. They are rare, to be sure. In one case, he wanted to settle down and have kids and he wouldn’t even continue dating someone who wasn’t interested in settling down and having kids.

  7. Abeca, you clearly either have not read the article, or do not understand where the article is coming from. You sound confused (not unusual). But I suggest you re-read this article because you are responding in a knee-jerk way which is making you sound insipid.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      jon goes to prove that it was poorly written…Like I said people can draw different conclusions…..wasn’t a good piece of if you ask me…..could go both ways.

      • WRONG! I have proven that your comprehension of this article is NOT COMPLETE!

      • Abeca Christian says:

        jon and for you to state that it’s not unusual….well how little you know me….. : )I forgive you….carry on but not without repentance…..fear the Lord with all your heart. He is what matters the most….God bless you.

        • I insist Abeca that it is not unusual that you sound confused on some of the articles here. Your confusion is reflected in some of your comments.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            OK Ill work on conveying…..but that does not change the reality of this article….

  8. Thomas Edward Miles says:

    I just don’t understand, if the conclusions reached in this poorly constructed article regarding rampant gay sex are correct, when do these so called fallen souls have time to work for a living or attend parish bingo!!

    • Thomas Edward Miles, I’ll try to keep this as clean as possible. I think you would agree with me that many people in our country, who work full time jobs, choose to go out for various forms of entertainment, on the weekends, year after year. Now imagine, during these same hours of entertainment, how many sexual encounters one could have if that was what he was interested in doing? Bathhouses were created for such entertainment. I hope this explanation cleared things up for you!

  9. Haven’t I been saying the exact same thing for years?

    I don’t expect to hear any of this true story from people who are still caught up in the homosexual ideology. Truth and the this ideology do not get along. In fact that aren’t even acquainted. As you can see from the comment above, keeping this mask on is very important, more important than the truth. It is the homosexual ideology that does the real damage. It’s the ideology that causes people to lie about the reality of what homosexual men experience and causes them to never experience contrition and repentance.

    What has always surprised me though is the total hostility to the truth that I get from what I assume are well meaning straight people. I’ve long said that the real societal problem is the acceptance of the gay ideology by straight people. In fact in many secular circles, the acceptance and promotion of the homosexual ideology is a prerequisite for being accepted in the group. Use your ears and listen to how people talk today. The promotion of gay marriage is the litmus test for whether you’re an acceptable, modern, (ant-Christian) person. You can’t be cool anymore and still believe in traditional marriage. This is coming from straight people. There just are not enough gay people to cause society to even pivot slightly in this direction. In other words, the biggest promoters of the gay ideology are straight people. The promotion of homosexuality is mostly a straight phenomenon.

    Why is this so, and what does it matter? Lots of straight people want to live their lives free of moral restraints too. The gay people are just the shock troops for this movement. The real army is made up of straight people.

    • johnsiple says:

      Straights need to comfort themselves to cover their own grievous sins. I have thought along these lines, have listened to this trend by some conservative bishops and Cardinals– that artificial birth control and abortion by heterosexual people is the beginning for the allowance for homosexuality to become another lifestyle like their own.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        hey johnsiple you are not far from the truth….the sins of men produce consequences and their children pay for it…but it still does not excuse everyone personally……sin is still sin….we are all accountable. Once we reach an age of reason, the truth is always there waiting patiently to be embraced.

      • Ann Malley says:

        “…that artificial birth control and abortion by heterosexual people is the beginning for the allowance for homosexuality to become another lifestyle like their own.”

        Well said, Johnsiple. That is why we should advocate for the fullness of Truth, for without that the cracks lead to fissures lead to falling apart.

  10. St. Christopher says:

    “Your Fellow Catholic”: To your question, this article is highly relevant to CalCatholic Daily readers. This is so for a number of reasons, but, most specifically due to enormity of the destructive force of homosexuals within the Catholic Church. Whether it is due to molestation of young altar boys, or to the feminization of the Mass, or to the corruption of the catechism, or to the sophistry of priests trying to explain the inherent right of homosexual sexual people to fornicate, and to marry (and many, many clerics so argue), Catholics should know all they can about the lies told to society about the homosexual sexual lifestyle. It is laughable — like being sympathetic to the Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost — that homosexuals sex to profess themselves as wanting only to be just like good ol’ Middle America: one man, one wife, er one man, forever, raising children, working, paying taxes, growing old together, and all of that. The truth of this society, however, is far different: promiscuous sex is the order of the day, with the resulting disease, and moral corruption that it brings. Children, too, will suffer, as is now being shown in several studies (although the APA, which has been corrupted, continues to sing the praises of homosexual sexual “families”). For practicising Catholics, the stain of this lifestyle goes deeper than mere behavior of certain neighbors: homosexuals, by a number of accounts, hold sway over many of the post-Vatican II changes in the Church, and continue to insist on treatment of its activities as “normal.” The victory of the “Bologona” school in electing Francis as Pope might well introduce a number of nuances of the condemnation of homosexual sexual behavior, and here we will need to see the guidance of the Holy Ghost. But, Catholics have the right to know what evil they are dealing with, when confronted with the tsunami of demands of the homosexual sexual lobby: it is a matter of moral life and death.

    • As silly as YFC’s assertion is, equally silly I find is St. Christopher’s illogical connection with Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and being gay! St. Christopher, you may not like the Ordinary Form, but to equate it with the “destructive force of homosexuality” is ridiculous, silly, bordering on heretical and irreverence. Very serious association you’re pulling up here.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Well you clearly have made up your mind about gay people, so there is not much more education that needs to be done, right? You are not at all open-minded into learning the truth about gay people, as you demonstrate by alluding to one Regnerus study – which was one of the worst papers ever to appear in print – and ignoring the whole of the rest of social science that demonstrates that gay people can be good parents, that gays contribute much that is good to both Church and society, and that gay people are constantly being used by folks like you as scapegoats for things that go wrong in the world. So, tell me, what did you learn from this article that you hadn’t already made up your mind about?

      • Abeca Christian says:

        YFC for the record I am leaning towards what you said why did CCD decide to print this? Especially when readers can draw from it different conclusions and may be off ……

        • At long last: something at which YFC and Abeca can agree upon. This is interesting. An agreement between both based on their misreading (or deliberate misreading) of the article. C0ngratulations to you both.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            wrong jon……wrong again……you are stubborn I see WHO CARES…..

          • Abeca Christian says:

            jon your issue is that you say good fruitful things one moment and then you just seem to insult the very faithful who defend the faith…..its confusing to me, you are not consistent. For example…..you have some here who are consistent and I don’t question their integrity and loyalty to the faith even with ones flaws, we can still tell who is of good will, but you, I have to wonder…..why are you so angry….what have I done to you.

            Well its pointless….I will continue to pray for you, even as you visit here from time to time.

          • Abeca, I am very consistent. It is folks like you who are not consistent. Why? Because you pick and choose what you want to believe and adhere to from the Bishops’ and the Pope’s teachings. I am the one who is consistent.

            I reiterate my point here, namely that your misunderstanding of this article has caused you to agree with the likes of YFC. Interesting isn’t it?

          • Abeca Christian says:

            jon that is a blatant lie, down right lie and ill assumption of yours…..Ill continue to pray for you Mr.

          • Ann Malley says:

            You may not understand, Abeca’s points, Jon, and be put off by her seeming misunderstanding of your position, but she is surely not what you outline in your December 4, 2013 at 11:33pm posting. Attacking her in this manner will do no one any good, especially if you believe that:

            “…It is an even GREATER shame to accept a lesser love (from a homosexual attraction) by refusing the DEEPER, GRANDER, and ETERNAL love God has in store for those who carry the Cross of Christ by living celibate chastity as a homosexual. Think well upon this!”

            So let’s stop the infighting that only serves to distract us from battling that which is the real issue: The Smoke of Satan, not only entering Church, but swirling about, saturating our clothing, our hair, our skin. The same smoke that seeks to thicken and blind, choke, and ultimately asphyxiate.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Thank you Ann Malley. God bless you. jon has been posting here for a while too….we’ve had our little spats on “his” interpretation on church teachings some other topics especially heated ones on the death penalty….In the past he use to seem like he was for “gay” rights as well but this article, he has set a new tone on that, so I actually tried affirming him but he is still back to his old ways with his attacks on my person. I remain the same since I have been posting here, I don’t have an agenda, mine is just to seek to honor God.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            and for the record, if he was upset because I agreed with YFC on why this article here for this Catholic website, well its true. I guess people drew different conclusions. I tried explaining it on my first posts above. I think and trust that YFC understands my stand and my morals, its been made very clear to him.

            If jon is following Christ and His church, I just don’t get why he stoops so low on the personal attacks, but I forgive him. I respect that he tries to tell me why he disagrees with me, that is not the issue but it’s his put down comments on my person, that is a little disturbing and annoying. But I am not taking it personal either…kinda like hmmmm…OK jon Ill work better to convey, but something tells me that if I tried, he may still find something wrong ……..lol

          • Abeca, the fact that you characterized me above as someone who “use to seem like he was for “gay” rights as well but this article, he has set a new tone on that,” shows that you haven’t really read anything of what I have written ANYWHERE HERE. Ironically that is the SAME critique I am making on this thread: that you haven’t seemed to have read well this article, which caused you to erroneously agree with YFC. The fact that you agreed with YFC on this issue of homosexuality should raise red flags for you Abeca. Don’t you see that?

          • Abeca Christian says:

            jon I do agree with what you stated from your post of December 1, 2013 at 10:52 pm….yes I am not arguing that but I think it could have been written better. Just because I felt that this should not be on a Catholic website, because I feel that it draws different conclusions, does not make me what you assume just because I agree with YFC…maybe YFC took it personal since he is in a gay relationship and may have different reasons as to why he didn’t like this article here but mine is purely innocent…more about concern on how poorly it was conveyed in some points, not in all.

            well anyhoo you are just being plain petty jon, YFC knows very well that on moral issues we do not agree but on non moral issues could be a different thing, for instance you didn’t agree with Fr. M and you drew a different understanding of what he was trying to convey, I agreed with YFC that it was wrong of you to admonish Father M…..I didn’t commit a sin jon. See how petty it is. I agree with you from your post of December 1, 2013 at 10:52 pm but clearly you do not understand when I tried to explain a few points as to why I disagree and thought it could draw the reader to different conclusions. Its OK jon….let this one go…..don’t fret and worry that I am becoming a fan of YFC( but I am deeply concerned for his salvation) just because I too wondered why this article was published here since I felt it was not written well in my opinion….now whatever reason YFC questioned that as well…then that is one thing you can question, but mine is not agenda driven OK… I do applaud you for your charitable posts here in defense of the natural law…I was impressed because I have never read any of your posts, from the past, like that expressed with conviction in regards to homosexuality as you have conveyed here….Congrats and be humble enough to also accept compliments OK……

      • The Lord God said, “Honor your mother and father,” not Steve and John or Melissa and Alice.

        • Anonymous says:

          Nevertheless, Mark F. is right about “homosexual marriage” being a heterosexual thing too. All but one of the homosexuals and lesbians I have known during my lifetime came from very messed up families with cheating by either one or both of the parents — not a good example to set. There are exceptions, of course, but from my experience very few. It is certainly hard for any parent or anyone else who is living a very sinful life to tell someone else a sexual sin is wrong when they are engaged in the same thing themselves. Such people need to “clean their own house” as the Lord Jesus said, and then they can see clearly to set others straight before it is too late. On the other hand, there are those wise ones who see the mistakes their parents and others make and are determined not to do the same thing, but it is hard when one does not have good examples to follow. All this is a sign of a decaying civilization if things do not change. Some say the Muslims will take over, but even some of them have fallen into these kinds of traps. In fact, their whole idea of marriage is skewered.

          • A correction to my “Anonymous” post. The word should be “skewed” not “skewered”.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Anony homosexuality is complex. and for the record there is no such thing as homosexual marriage…never was and never is…..they may mock it but still does it make it a marriage…..not at all.

          • Abeca, that was my post. Notice that I put quotation marks around “homosexual marriage”. My point was that most of the people who approve such so-called marriages are committing sexual sins themselves, including most of the heterosexuals who approve them. The rest approve from misguided compassion. They really never consider the damage that those who engage in such activity do to one another, even if they call themselves “faithful” to one partner, and also most who approve do not consider how it damages children living in such an environment without a good mother and father. It sets an extremely poor example.

    • johnsiple says:

      Thank you, St. Chris

  11. FrMichael says:

    YFC, in answer to another question of yours, Catholic youth attending public schools are fed the demonic propaganda that same-sex activity is ok. Given the large number of Catholic youth in the public schools, this is a crisis of the first-order for the Church in our state and it is quite fitting that California Catholic Daily cover this sordid topic.

    And to your last question– what did I take away from the article– I learned from first-hand testimony about the Potemkin Village of the “mainstream” gay movement, the personal depravity of ex-priest mentioned in Mr. Lee’s article who still has a bit of a following among progressive Catholic mortal theologians, and how succumbing to one perverse sexual temptation (gay) leads to other sexual bizarreness (the discussion of the weird leather fetish).

  12. St. Christopher says:

    “Jon” and “Your Fellow Catholic”: You make the liberal debater’s classic argument of moving away from the issue — homosexual sex, here — and into silly and irrelevant accusations about “gay” people can be good, or can do good things. You purposefully obfuscate, as many, many clergy do (also on purpose), the real issue: homosexual sex is evil and immoral, each and every time. It is a mortal sin, and one that has and will lead people to Hell. There, pretty easy to understand. It does not matter, not at all, that homosexual people do kind or charitable things; homosexual sex remains evil and forbidden each and every time. You just refuse to accept this, as do virtually all homosexual sexual practitioners. As to children, homosexuals should not be parents; no, not ever. Children need a mother and a father. Period, and easy to understand. Homosexual men (or women) simply cannot provide the sort of balance and gender identity that young children need. And the fact that their homosexual “parents” actually sleep together, right in their home, is anathema to the entire idea of family. The first miracle of Christ was at a wedding, and He spoke fervently about its sanctity. Homosexuals cannot licitly marry and have sex. Period. The fact that society has lost it moral compass and refuses to call out homosexuals on their perversions is unfortunate, but this fact does not make homosexual sexual activities any more acceptable in any kind of moral sense.

    • AAAMEN, St. Christopher!!!!!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      St. Christopher, you skirt the question begged by the article, which I made explicit: Is there a moral difference between having many lovers or having only one lover. If there is no moral difference, then, I posit, the promiscuity of gay people is irrelevant. Highlighting it only serves to titillate, not to enlighten.

      Further, you seem to have forgotten the Church’s many teachings on culpability, conscience, and casting judgement on others.

      Lastly, you express an opinion about the suitability of gay couples to be parents. This is your opinion, which I respect, but disagree with. There is a lot of science underlying the idea that gay people can make perfectly acceptable parents. On the other side of that scientific coin is the highly doubtful Regnerus study, which is being used to condemn same sex parenthood, yet surveyed only 2…yes TWO children raised for 18 or more years by their same sex partners.

      • YFC, you don’t want to accept the fact that gay marriage and homo-sex is an affront to God Almighty,… For every pro-gay study you can show , I can give my personal life experience to show the horror of being raised by same sex “parents” and the destructive results that followed. But people like you YFC, are only concerned with the “truth” that supports your political and personal beliefs……

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Canisius, I repeat what I have offerred to you before: It is a very sad thing that you were raised by what you seem to describe as horrible parents. But just because your set of lesbian parents were horrible does not mean that EVERY set of lesbian parents are horrible, anymore than horrible straight parents mean that all of them are. I genuinely am sorry for what you went through, and I wish you much healing.

        • Why is it Canisius that that only YOUR life experience matters?

          • Stop hating on Canisius. He make it clear in his answer that God’s teachings matter. For you to say that to him only his life experience matters is dishonest. Besides, what do you expect him to believe, something he can see with his own eyes or some claim that some guy on the Internet made?

          • Well Peter since you are self absorbed gay man whose only concerning is cruising the gay bars, why don’t we turn that question around. Why is it that morally corrupt people like you and YFC are hell bent on destroying society just so you can have your gay sex and not be judge for it..Why is it so important to perverts like you that your exchange of body fluids be blessed by law and accepted by the rest of us>> TELL ME NOW…

      • St. Christopher says:

        “Your Fellow Catholic:” Your question is not a question asking for an answer. Homosexual sex is wrong each and every time, so every time there is a homosexual sexual encounter it is wrong. However, the promiscuity of homosexual sexual people — which is widely documented — is worthy of note, not for “titillation” but to show the likely impossibility of homosexual sexual unions ever reaching a level of continuity.

        Your point on the “Church’s many teachings,” is simply wrong. You may well find a priest or bishop or some lay persona writing about being “charitable” toward homosexual sexual persons by not saying that what they do is a “mortal sin.” Certainly, the Church does teach that homosexual sexual persons are worthy of respect, love, and honesty; that must be accepted by all Catholics. But no Catholic, include the Pope, can say that homosexual sex is morally acceptable, under any circumstances. It is not and can never be, ever. And, only fools believe that homosexuals can continue to have homosexual sex, particularly if they are Catholic, without putting their souls into jeopardy. Yes, only God ultimately decides who is written into the Book of Life, but homosexual sex represents — each and every time it is engaged in — a dire threat to salvation. You do the math.

        It cannot be argued that homosexual people that potentially enact circumstances of moral outrage in their eyes of their children can ever be fit parents. Yes, many people who act immorally in other ways have children, and children suffer for it.

      • No YFC, it is you who continue to skip the real intent of the article’s relating the promiscuity of “gay” men. It is to show the hedonism, the amoralism, the sin, the baseness that makes up the “gay subculture.”

        Supporting the “gay cause” and “gay marriage” is to support hedonism and sin, because the “gay subculture” GLORIFIES and CELEBRATES SIN! MORTAL SIN!

  13. Homosexual activity is a deviant behavior unequivocal to race, color, creed, or gender; therefore discrimination against homosexuals behavior is warranted. This discrimination is and should be permissible. Homosexuals should be admonished and their sinful “unnatural to the laws of God” behavior should be rectified, because it offend God. Yes homosexuals defy God, and snub Him to His face, only risking certain death in the eternal flames of hell, forever! St. Paul made it very clear in his apostle to the Romans, Chapter 1 verses 26 through 32, as well as to those who sympathize with homosexuals. How can sinful homosexual pleasure be worth the risk of forever suffering the eternal flames of hell? Why would anyone wish to offend God? Have they no fear of offending God and inturn reaping the sufferings and pain in hell for eternity? Oh how deceiving and powerful Satan and his minions are to confuse so many. How they must enjoy themselves knowing they are leading others to offend God. How they must enjoy themselves knowing they are filling the spaces in hell, because misery loves company. There is only one way to see God and live with Him eternally in Heaven, and that is doing His Holy Will to the letter of His laws! Yes God is forgiving and will do so if we are sorry for our sins, confess, and receive absolution before we die. (Mortal sins require confession and absolution by a holy Catholic priest, plus the sinner doing his/her penance to save their souls.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      That is true Tom B. I agree with you. God bless you for your charity.

      With that said, I have also learned that in order to reach out to them, we must first begin with reaching their person hood, beginning with helping them acquire a healthy and truthful relationship with Christ. It’s essential in helping them heal. It takes a great patience of love and prayers. In God’s only timing not ours. Because of their disordered nature, there are certain virtues that many lack, any normal and faithful heterosexual can’t possibly understand, but its OK, we can’t understand all sinful nature because not all of us contain those same temptations.
      Its a humble beginning to embrace that understanding but we must be warned not to try to be pleasing to them or to those who have prejudges against them either….we must always put Christ first, put on His Armour of Truth in order for us to approach with true charity and to be careful not to scandalize the innocent because we may not want to appear lukewarm either.

  14. YFC: I’m going to tackle your question posed to St. Christopher:

    “Is there a moral difference between having many lovers or having only one lover.”

    Among heterosexual couples, if that “one lover” is one’s spouse, then it makes all the moral difference in the world, since sexual union between married spouses is a moral good.

    Among homosexual couples, there is some slight hope for a “one lover” couple. Since they demonstrate a small amount of control over their lust, perhaps they can grow through the mercy of God into a greater degree of self-control such that they would appreciate each other as friends without accompanying that friendship with the vice of lust. Given the number of “monogamous” homosexual couples that have sexual partners outside the “union,” I don’t think we’re speaking of a large number. But given Mr. Lee’s article cited here and some gay folks I have met who have gotten out of the lifestyle, I know it is possible for same-sex attracted people to have true friendships, free of lust, with members of the same sex.

  15. YFC, regarding the issue of same sex parents:

    Science is very poor at morality. It is primarily a way of knowing things, not an infallible guide to the moral good. The social sciences are even poorer in this regard than the natural and medical sciences.

    Without having to look at any social survey, since one of the roles of the family is to properly model the harmonious relationship between fathers and mothers of the children, how could a same-sex couple possibly model that? It is intrinsically disordered to this end of marriage.

    • Great posts Fr. Michael. Little eyes see and hear, and the Lord judges harshly anyone who leads children into serious sin. I remember when I was a sales clerk and a man in his mid to late thirties put some gloves in his back pocket in front of his young son. The store detective clued me in as to what he had done. My register was in the middle of the store, in the yard goods department, and I asked him if he would like to pay for his purchases. He put them on the counter except for the gloves. I rang up his other purchases, then I asked him in front of his son, “Would you like to pay for the gloves you have in your back pocket?” He took them out and paid for them, too. I hope that taught both him and his child a lesson they would not forget — that if one steals, sooner or later one will get caught. Things could have been a lot worse and more embarrassing for him had he stole them from another store and gone outside the store.

    • Ann Malley says:

      It is interesting how many will advocate that homosexual couples will make excellent, loving parents while at the same time lamenting the fact that their families misunderstood them as children because of their homosexuality.

      That is, if it is so difficult for children apparently afflicted by SSA to grow up in a family where father and mother are the example, how much more difficult will it be for a heterosexual child to grow up in an environment with SSA modeled as the ‘norm’?

      • SSA parents are just better at it, maybe?

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Does not follow, Ann Malley. If a child grows up in a household who does not repsect their sexuality, why, logically, would they not also want to respect the sexuality of their children? Your logic makes no sense.

        As an example, my mother was tought by her father that she would never amount to nothing. That no matter how hard she tried she would never amount to anything. Horriffic!!! Yet by her inner strenght she vowed that she WOULD amount to something, that she WOULD raise children who believed that they would amount to something.

        That despicable human being is my grandfather. Thanks entirely to my mother’s faith in me, I rose above him, to show him that he was wrong in this world and the next. And that love conquers all such hatred.

        • Ann Malley says:

          YFC, I’m sorry about the abusive situation your mother faced. We could likely swap many a tale on that subject. As to the logic of my post, I’m speaking *on a natural level* of being raised in a family where your supposed particular ‘brand’ of sexuality isn’t modeled.

          If you believe it is difficult for a supposedly homosexual child, think how difficult it would be for the heterosexual child witnessing homosexuality modeled on a daily basis. Highly confusing.

          As to the potential ‘ruination’ of children, the reality is that children are very apt to do/try what is modeled for them. (Think smoking or drinking) They want to ‘be’ like their parents… often even the bad ones which is why abuse cycles often repeat themselves.

          I hope you actually read this posting and try to understand what I’m trying to say instead of moving on.

          That comes from 20+ years of raising kids, YFC.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley, I think you have made some great posts in the past, but really your logic just lacks here. You seem to think that it would be more confusing for the straight kid of gay parents than it would be for the gay kid of straight parents. This makes absolutely no sense. The gay kid is not getting “gay modelling”, to coin a phrase from his or her parents. In fact, up until recently, the gay kid probably didn’t have ANY gay role models. THAT is confusing. And on top of that, authority figures like yourself constantly remind them that they are disordered and going to hell. THAT is confusing so the adolescent who is listening to God in prayer and in her heart, when she experiences a Christ who accepts her totally, even to die for her.

            On the other hand, the straight kid of gay parents may not have role modelling in their nuclear family, but they have role models ALL AROUND them. Their friends probably all have straight parents. They see straight parents in Church, in school, on TV, in the short stories they are reading in their English classes, etc etc. What they MAY find confusing is that, while they feel loved and cared for and protected at home, they hear SOME authority figures (like some of you who post on CCD), who say that no love can come from same sex relationships. What is a child to make of outsiders who make bold claims that their parents are abusing them and that they will go to hell and that there can be no love between them or flow from them. How bizarre for a child to hear these things about their parents. How cruel it is to subject these kids to this kind of rash and ill-thought-out judgement. No child should ever be told that their parents not only don’t love each other but can’t love each other.

            By the way, there is no comparison from modelling smoking and modelling sexual orientation. The comparison is ridiculous on its face.

            This comes form 50+ years of being a son.

          • YFC, despite the other ‘role models’ you site, the modeling of the parents is actually the strongest with regard to the formation of children. As for telling a child they are going to hell for what they ‘feel’, there are many things children ‘feel’ that are bad or at least not the best.

            The notion of scaring a child by introducing the concept of consequences for misplaced action is not horrible – it is necessary, YFC.

            In all of your posts you seem to put forward the notion that homosexuals are incapable of controlling sexual passions and therefore shouldn’t try. Again, I would level the comparison of the randy-man-syndrome. Translation: men don’t have their eyes gouged out upon marriage. Neither do they get castrated when it comes to other women. The idea involved is self-control.

            It is necessary, it is possible, and often, it is difficult. And it is something that every child needs to be empowered with. IOW: You’re not an animal with uncontrollable instincts, but rather a man with gift of free will and God’s abundant grace. You can choose and you are quite capable of saying ‘no.’

          • As for bizarre, how bizarre for a child to be reared as coming from parents that didn’t produce him. Could never produce him on a natural level. That’s one of the reasons adoptive children feel a drive to find birth parents. To discover where they came from.

            So yes, I think it would be a strain and a lie and cruel for society to approve the rearing of children on a wholesale basis by ‘gay’ couples. The ‘confusing’ them and the ‘hateful’ notion of ‘people like me’ saying their parents cannot ‘love’ one another is an after the fact fait acompli that your faction wants to pawn off.

            The reality, again as I see it, is homosexuals who put their offspring and those of others in the position of confusion first, expecting to use these children a a shield to say ‘yes we can’ while calling out reality as mean.

            That’s mean, YFC.

  16. Anonymous says:

    This article speaks of a book by Father John McNeil. “John J. McNeill, an ordained priest and practicing psychotherapist, was expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1987 for refusing to cease his ministry to gay men and lesbians.” Amazon author profile.

  17. Sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a MORTAL SIN.

    Those supporting sex outside of marriage or sodomy marriage may not receive Holy Communion.

    • CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”

      • If the point here is to point out how grave and awful homosexuality is, you’re doing so by illustrating how the Church places equal condemnation on three other mortal sins, at least one of which a vast majority of heterosexual males in their teens-30s (Catholic or otherwise) will be committing on a regular basis.

        That’s telling, because it illustrates how the issue with homosexuality is less about the sex than the fact that it challenges gender norms. While the other three are easily concealed, or never acknowledged, homosexuality now brings with it a social identity, and that’s what freaks people out.

        • Everyone is called to practice self control, Siollan. And nobody is advocating wholesale masturbation or the use of pornography. That said, you are correct in that some sins are ‘secret’ and therefore easier to conceal. This is why many who post here regarding this issue call for the teaching of the fullness of Truth. That is the preaching of and striving for purity across the board – by the single and the married.

          Your assertion that the vast majority of males teens-30s commit these sins on a regular basis, denies the reality that many who do commit these sins also confess them with true repentance, all-the-while struggling to maintain purity according to their state in life.

          So, yes, if the reality of Catholics is that they happily commit their own private sexual sins while calling out homosexuals, that is hypocritical and a sign of one’s discomfort not with mortal sin, but just those of a homosexual nature.

          Regarding SSM there is a difference though as it is public and therefore potentially scandalous as well. Catholics must speak out against it. Just like they would have to speak out against someone openly masturbating in a park or flipping through a porno mag on a bus or say, taking their adulterous lover to mass and proceeding forward to receive Holy Communion.

          • God bless you Ann Malley! Those are such beautiful responses to YFC and Siollan. Ann Malley, It is also a suffering to hear cruel and vicious attacks on those who sought the Fullness of Truth and were forced in so many unspoken ways to find a parish where the diabolical wasn’t running the show. I have witnessed fellow Catholics who left and went to independent chapels because they were so very close to completely losing all of their faith. How difficult for a parent to have their child repeatedly molested and the pastor and bishop take the side of the predator. Imagine being that parent and then hearing everyone clapping all around you at Mass when the pastor announces from the pulpit that the popular predator will not face any charges because he is innocent. Imagine when a few years later this very same predator is caught, arrested and jailed in Mexico for continuing to do what he was being protected to do in your diocese. According to some in leadership, the predator’s only mistake is that he didn’t have the wisdom or control to seek out a consenting homosexual adult. One might say, “Oh those devastated broken-hearted parents shouldn’t have gone to SSPX or an independent chapel, but in many unspeakable circumstances, as Pope Francis says, “Who am I to Judge?” Of course we are ALL supposed to be in “full communion” no one is disputing that. Many wolves in sheep’s clothing have undermined and continue to undermine the Fullness of Truth while having the strategic benefit of distorting Church Teaching while getting the permission to say, “I am in full communion as I undermine and you are not so we have carte blanche to continue the destruction.” Jesus’s sheep have been deliberately scattered! …… cont.

          • Ann Malley, Even Cardinal Arinze recently said, “God writes straight on crooked lines.” God is gathering up all of His own we should support one another by supporting the Fullness of Truth. Meanwhile, this pervasive problem continues and not all of the beautiful teachings are taught or enforced so homosexuals are going to claim that it is only homosexuals who are being picked on. Take for example: Catholic teachers who should not be using artificial contraception. Catholic school teachers should not be shacking up. Catholic school teachers should not be unwed mothers while teaching. If in each of these cases they also choose to publicly go against or openly brag about and share these particular sins then they also should be asked to leave their teaching positions. Enforcing Canon 915 would also help in showing the discipline that is meant as a remedy and not a punishment but if the political party of the culture of death is supported by bishops and priests then the imbalance of truth stands out like a sore thumb. Do we still love the sinner? Yes, but if we do not teach and enforce the Fullness of Truth then there is a perceived imbalance of justice. We know from being taught the Fullness of Truth, that there is really no such thing as secret sin because God sees our every action. Grace means favor and if a teacher or individual thinks that they are pulling a hidden fast one, then they are only fooling themselves. There is no such thing as favorably getting away with serious mortal sin. The consequences are always present even if the sinner is blind to that reality. ..cont.

          • Ann Malley, If the Fullness of Truth was taught and enforced then everyone would receive the same instruction and consequences when it comes to committing and publicly promoting mortal sins while teaching in a Catholic school. The Church is going through this great turmoil because of the different collective sins of each and every one of us. The reason that homosexuality is brought up quite often here on CCD is because it is often the case where a bishop, a priest or a pastor or a university or a parish supports the homosexual agenda and they do have an absolute choke hold on what can and cannot be taught. The Fullness of Truth is rarely taught in schools or from the pulpits. Snippets of partial truths are more the norm. There are some very courageous priests and the sheep recognize them when they speak. If the Fullness of Truth was consistently taught and upheld then everyone would see and know that no group, or individual is exempt from hearing this rich and beautiful treasury of Truth that instructs so justly, and so clearly.

          • In Catholic teaching, the Fullness of Truth is Jesus Christ. It is not a term for a complete and thorough catechesis, or, as you seem to mean it. a rebuke of sins.

          • “In Catholic teaching, the Fullness of Truth is Jesus Christ. It is not a term for a complete and thorough catechesis, or, as you seem to mean it. a rebuke of sins.”

            Anonymous, You also didn’t like the term “re-enactment” of Our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary. Anonymous this is not about rebuking. This is about fully equipping and fully teaching. Jesus Christ is indeed the Fullness of Truth and he founded his Church which contains the Fullness of His Revealed Truth in the Magisterial Teachings. – aka Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the CCC Second edition. If *all* of the Teachings are not “fully taught” and fully realized the sheep will not be fully equipped to understand or transmit the Fullness of Revealed Truth which flows from Jesus Christ.

            CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH – SECOND EDITION

            One common source. . .

            80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, *flowing out from the same divine well-spring,* come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

            . . . two distinct modes of transmission

            81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42

            “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its *entirety* the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43

            82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

          • Ann Malley says:

            Even so, Anonymous, there are those who desire to recast Jesus Christ into some sin embracing mercy-man – not the ‘sinner’ embracing God-man who calls us to embrace Him in return. Fully. Not in the half measures that would have us hug him with one arm while holding fast to Satan with the other.

        • Ann Malley says:

          That’s precisely why it is important for folks like, Siollan, who I believe to be of good will at heart, to know that the hypocrisy they believe they have uncovered truly does exist. That hypocrisy is everywhere promoted. Everywhere. Not so much to put forward a particular sin either, but rather to destroy the entire structure of action/inaction and accountability and the consequences of free will and the glorious fruits of grace that God in His mercy has conveyed to us.

          There was a time I used to think very much like Siollan. Not on the level of grace – tosh. Not striving to see as God sees – medieval man-in-the-sky lunacy. Not as I had been taught. Science and human reasoning and academia were king. I mistakenly bought into the idea that Science, Human reasoning, and Academia were unbiased. What a crock. The entire world is nothing but spin. All of it.

          But using only what I saw and learned in the pride of present culture, I made many a foolish headstrong scientifically sound assertion that I repent of heartily as I not only sinned, but led others into error. What I didn’t see was that I was being roped in like so many others by the Powers and Principalities that seek nothing but to tear down, mock, deride and CHANGE. As if one could change God. What height of foolishness is that.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley writes “I mistakenly bought into the idea that Science, Human reasoning, and Academia were unbiased. What a crock. The entire world is nothing but spin. All of it.”

            I would just observe that it is fine to say that bias creeps in despite the best intentions of academics, to say ‘the entire world is nothing but spin. All of it’, is a very modernist construct. Is says, in effect, that there is nothing objectively knowable and therefore we all get to ‘spin’ in whichever direction suits us.

            Perhaps you overstated your case?

          • “That hypocrisy is everywhere promoted. Everywhere. Not so much to put forward a particular sin either, but rather to destroy the entire structure of action/inaction and accountability and the consequences of free will and the glorious fruits of grace that God in His mercy has conveyed to us.” = Excellent!

            Ann Malley, Praise God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Ann Malley, Your free will response to God’s merciful grace is a very heartwarming and appreciated testimony to the power of God’s love for each and every one of us.

            While our hearts are beating on this earth, God the Father is consistently pulling us back into His arms. – if we would only listen and trust in Him!

          • “Perhaps you overstated your case?”

            More spin from YFC, simply because the truth means an acknowledging of the fact that homosexual acts greatly offend God. No doubt that in your case YFC you have understated your own rejection in asking for the necessary graces to faithfully serve Christ and deny yourself. Perhaps YOU should reflect on the reality that you are denying Christ while first serving the false god of homosexuality and yourself.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            There goes Catherine again, avoiding my legitimate point, because she is obsessed with the only thing she knows about me: I’m gay.

          • Ann Malley says:

            “…I would just observe that it is fine to say that bias creeps in despite the best intentions of academics, to say ‘the entire world is nothing but spin. All of it’, is a very modernist construct. Is says, in effect, that there is nothing objectively knowable and therefore.”

            Your selective use of spin regarding what is objectively knowable and or modernist is astounding, YFC. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stand up for Christ and Truth.

          • Ann Malley says:

            YFC, you avoid everyone else’s legitimate points so why do you have such a problem when others follow the example you are so desperate to give?

          • Ann Malley says:

            My response to God’s call was purchased by the prayers and suffrage of many – most of whom I derided quite vocally and for a good number of haughty years. He was/is exceedingly patient with me….

  18. Fr Michael has just entered the trap laid out by YFC, and he fell into it head long. FrMichael, look what you ended up saying by addressing YFC’s logically fallacious question! You have just erroneously asserted that homosexual relationships are approved as long as it doesn’t involve lust. As long as two men have sex “out of love” (not out of “lust”, mind you, because “lust” would be wrong), then you’re ok. WRONG!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      jon, with all respect to you and to FrMichael, I think you are being unfair to FrMichael. I don’t think he ever asserted that sex “out of love” makes it right. While I disagree with Fr Michael on many points, I think he deserves to be quoted accurately, and I think he also deserves credit for struggling with the actual pastoral issues at hand. While I disagree on some instances, I respect him as to all of them.

      • YFC, your initial question (“is there a moral difference between having one homosexual lover as opposed to a 100 serial lovers?”) is ridiculous because regardless of the number of partners the action is a MORTAL SIN! By even trying to “theorize” on an answer, FrMichael lept headlong to your fallacious question.

        YFC, your question seeks to sidetrack from the main point of the article which is the hedonism, the amoralism, the sinfulness of the “gay lifestyle” and by extension “gay marriage.” How do I know you’re not being serious about your question? Simple. Your question has been dealt with in the Catechism (1750-1754). I mean, this is a long-standing moral teaching of the Church. If you were serious about asking your question you would have gone to the Catechism first and sought the answer there–from an authoritative source.

        Instead you ask it here thereby attempting to obfuscate the point of the article and attempting to trap folks like FrMichael who could have gone to the Catechism for the answer, rather than awkwardly having to say “Oh, well, having one homosexual partner is a sign of hope as long as it is not ‘out of lust.'” Ridiculous! That is NOT the teaching of the Church!

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          So, jon, as I pointed out before, if there is no moral difference between one lover or one hundred lovers, then there is not point to this article other than to titillate and bring heat without light.

          And seriously, I entrapped FrMichael? You give him far to little credit, and me far too much.

          • You’re wrong again YFC. The details in the article (which you despise by branding it as “titillation”) are meant to show the moral poverty that makes up “gay marriage” and the “gay lifestyle.”

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            “Whatever”

      • YFC, there is nothing for Fr Michael or any other Catholic to “struggle” about.
        Read and live by your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” in entirety if you want to be Catholic .
        Either you want to be Catholic or not. God has given you a free will to choose Heaven or Hell.

        jon is correct. Any homosexual acts are mortal sins, and must be clearly discouraged.

    • LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

      ” 15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses.
      No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.
      A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”

      CCC regarding homosexuals: 2357 – 2359, and 2396.
      Bible regarding homosexual sin: Rom 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10.

      If you love your neighbor as commanded by Jesus you will want him or her to get to Heaven for eternity. This is true love. One should NEVER encourage sexual activity by those with same sex attraction (SSA).

    • Jon, that is not the way I read it. Fr. Michael just said that there was more hope for more monogamous practicing homosexuals to change to celibacy. Remember, the more serious sins one commits, the deeper one digs themselves into purgatory or hell, depending on their state of conscience at their death. I think that was the other point Fr. Michael was making.

  19. A point of this article, that the Church cares about homosexuals, is right on the dot: a point which many supporters of “gay marriage” would want us to forget.

    Opposing “gay marriage” is not just about protecting children (although that is reason enough), rather the “gay lifestyle” itself is HARMFUL to the adults in that relationship. YES, the “gay lifestyle” is MORALLY HARMFUL to men and women. It affects their psycho-sexual health, their ability to relate in an adult and mature way. THIS IS A POINT OF THE ARTICLE!

    That point must not be forgotten. The Church cares about men and women that she counsels them NEVER to enter into homosexual relationships, regardless of the number of partners (take note YFC) and regardless of its intent–whether “lustfully” or “lovingly”–(take note FrMichael).

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Assertions made without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

      • “Supporting evidence”??!! You’ve either deliberately blinded yourself to reality or are deluding yourself. Evidence is legendary. Just consider, as one of the “evidence” you require, the commonplace fixture of “gay pornography” in the “gay subculture” to which this article alludes! Haven’t you even read this article to which you are commenting?? I mean, just re-read the manner to which those men responded to the ad posted by “Lee.” I mean, where is the “baseness” coming from?? PORN! As the article itself says: “the big lie that active homosexuality was normal and non-threatening to any straight person looking in the front window. The reality, though, was that everyone was in the back room with the porn. This was the reality of his life and the lives of gay men.”

        If you are wanting more proof, the further evidence you need is also referred to in the article: the overwhelming promiscuity among gay men. The furtive sexual encounter engaged by many practicing male homosexuals is established, as this article reveals.

        YFC, you are grasping on straws by even asking the question, “where is the evidence.” Grasping on straws. Fess up to the fact that the “gay lifestyle, sub-culture, marriage” is vapid, empty, dead.

  20. Western Schnieder says:

    The word love should not enter such a dark and dehumanizing world. It sounds to me like its a true hell on earth.

  21. Dr. carl stoner says:

    gays are repugnant…savages who delight in buggery…you will pay now, or pay later…paying later is an eternal furnace blast of misery, despair and non-stop aids symptoms in perdition…bad, bad, juju…

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.