Calif. bishop says ‘gay marriage’ unjust to children

Only one definition can stand

Bishop Cordileone

The following comes from a July 3 story on the Catholic News Agency website.

The legalization of “gay marriage” in America, even on a civil level, is unjust to children and poses a threat to religious liberty, warned Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, Calif.

“Marriage is the only institution we have that connects children to their mothers and fathers,” he said. “So really, the question is, do you support that institution?”

In a June interview with Catholic News Agency, Bishop Cordileone, who leads the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, explained that Church teaching against the redefinition of marriage on a civil level as well as a sacramental level is a matter of justice.

“Marriage is about fundamental justice for children,” he said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

He acknowledged that advocates of “same-sex marriage” point to studies that appear to indicate that children can do just as well with two parents of the same sex as with two parents of the opposite sex.

However, he called much of this research “flawed” and pointed to a recent article published in the leading peer-reviewed journal, Social Science Research. The article analyzed the 59 studies on the topic used by American Psychological Association and found that they were problematic because they utilized self-selecting or “small, non-representative samples” of the population.

In contrast, he said, a recent social science study conducted at the University of Texas at Austin – entitled “The New Family Structures Study” – examined a very large, nationally-representative and random sample of American young adults who were raised in different family environments, including with same-sex couples and with their married, biological parents.

The study measured various areas of wellbeing, including social and economic condition, psychological and physical health and sexual identity and behavior. It found significant differences between the individuals raised by their married biological parents and those raised in other situations, and “in no area were children better off in an alternative arrangement.”

Based on sound social science, this study complements common sense and “demonstrates what we’ve always known,” Bishop Cordileone said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

The bishop explained that this issue is of crucial importance because “we cannot have two different definitions of marriage simultaneously in the country.”

“Only one definition of marriage can stand,” he said. “This is not expanding the right of marriage. It’s changing the definition, or taking away something is essential to marriage – that it’s the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the binding of the two and the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring.”

Bishop Cordileone also warned that the redefinition of marriage poses a serious threat to religious freedom. This is not merely a potential threat, he said, but one that is already being manifest in numerous ways.

For example, he observed, Catholic Charities agencies in numerous archdioceses have already been forced out of the adoption business because they believed it was best to place children only with a mother and a father.

The “rights of conscience and parental rights” are also at risk, particularly when it comes to education of children.

He pointed to an instance in Massachusetts in which a couple objected to their kindergarten-age child being taught about same-sex families at school. The parents tried to pull their child out of class but were prohibited from doing so. When the father went to the school to object, he was arrested and taken to jail.

If the definition of marriage is redefined and “to object to that is being a bigot,” Bishop Cordileone said, “well then the state is justified in not allowing a parent to pull his child out when the child is being taught what they believe are fundamental principles of justice.”

“But we know it’s contrary to fundamental principles of justice,” he continued, “because out of justice for children, we need to do the best that we can to help them grow up with their mother and their father, married to each other in a stable relationship.”

Bishop Cordileone then emphasized that “gay marriage” is not an isolated problem but is rather connected to the broader issue of misunderstanding sexuality.

“This isn’t a new threat to marriage,” he explained. “It’s a huge problem, and it’s gone on for decades.”

He noted that the advent of the birth control pill led to an “explosion of contraception” that “divorced procreation from the conjugal act.” Other erosions to marriage quickly followed, including no-fault divorce, which was “a huge blow to marriage,” and experimenting with “open marriages.”

Suddenly, the traditional marks of marriage – fidelity, permanence and openness to children – were all gone, he said. Eventually, this led to a culture of “widespread promiscuity” as sex lost its meaning, a phenomenon that was serious “facilitated” by the common use of contraception.

Now, the bishop pointed out, marriage is seen merely as being about the legal benefits offered to the individuals entering into it, rather than as “a child-centered institution.”

But if marriage is simply about intimate relationships between adults, he asked, “why should the law even get involved at all?”

He observed that there is no real governmental reason to recognize sexual relationships between adults.

What governments throughout history have had a societal interest in, he said, is the well-being of dependent children who are born into the society. These children are necessarily born from the union of a man and woman, and this is why the government has an interest in encouraging stable marriages as a type of union with the potential to bring new life into the world.

The Church likewise acknowledges the importance of marriage for the sake of children and society, Bishop Cordileone said. Its members are therefore called to work to defend marriage in civil law, recognizing that “intact, healthy families make for a healthy society.”

To read original interview, click here.


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.



    2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

    • judith crary says:

      How about:
      “Honor your Mother and your Father”…..not your Dad and your Dad or your Mom and your Mom or your Mom and her partner, or your Dad and the test tube and the surrogate and/or the petri dish.

      Honor your Mother and Father.

  2. Thomas Edward Miles says:

    What absolute nonsense!! The way the Bishop’s continue to attack homosexuals is, appalling, and offensive to any individual that proclaims JESUS as the Redeemer, the Lord of mercy!!! Somewhere along the line the Bishop’s missed the class on compassionate care along with an educated understanding of psycho-sexual development! The Bishop’s are an embarrassment to the church!!

    • Thomas Edward Miles, do you believe homosexuals should show their love of Jesus in some manner? If so, how? Jesus said un-repentent sinners will not enter Heaven. Do homosexuals engaging in sexual acts need to repent of this sin and try to lead a better life to show their love of Jesus?

    • True compassion means correcting those on the wayward path and leading them from danger to the truth. There was nothing but truth and compassion in the Bishop’s letter, and the recognition that same-sex attractions are, in fact, disordered. We are all called to live chastely in our chosen vocation, but those with same-sex attraction have a different cross to bear, but one that can be carried only with our Savior’s help. To try to live against the Natural Law infused in us from creation only brings confusion and hurt.
      Jesus never backed down from sharing the truth despite the anger and rejection of the message of those whose pride kept them from accepting those truths. Please be open to the message of Christ through His Bishops who are in union with our Holy Father. Truth is truth and no rewording or redefinition will ever change that. Ask God to guide you to His truth. Remember, we might be ‘in the world’, but we are not ‘of the world’. We are called to walk in Christ’s light and follow Him.
      Peace be with you.

    • so…thomas…i may be wayyyyyyyyy off base here, but i get the feeling you don’t agree with bishop codileone?

    • Only Truth is absolute, lies are nonsense. Having compassion is not indulging or condoning sin. Our Shepards in this country must stand for Truth, even if it burns our hearts. Truth drives us to holiness, or creates conviction in our hearts. It’s God’s design for the family, they defend.Salvation came by through the family, The Holy Family. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Marriage: One man and one woman…how else does life come into this world?

    • John Siple says:

      So glad we enjoy freedom of speech!

    • Thomas Edward Miles: You clearly do not read Sacred Scripture because if you truly understood Jesus Christ you would understand that in love for humanity He condemned sin and when people asked our Lord for Mercy He said “sin no more.” You have a disordered concept of compassion and mercy. Mercy is the leading people to Christ and to sanctity, not allowing of promoting sinful behavior that will lead people to hell. The bishops have the authority from Christ to proclaim His word, to teach morality and to lead people away from sin, from satan and the pits of hell. It would be embarrassing if the bishops did as you want and denied Christ by sins of omission in ignoring the problem of sexuality that denies life and promotes the culture of death. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you come to judgment and read the Bible. God Love You.

    • Mr. Miles, I don’t see anything in this article that attacks gays. The legalization of gay marriage, yes. And he gives his reasons and then points out injustice in heterosexual arrangements, too.

    • Bobakar says:

      Somwhere along the line, Mr. Miles forgot to realize that compassionate love itself–that would be Jesus–got nailed on the cross for standing up for the truth. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Miles forgot to read how both the old testament and the new testament condemn homosexual activity. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Miles. Somewhere along the line, Mr.Mils forgot to read that the Lord of compassionate and mercy–that would be Jesus, again–said that his followers would be hated because of him for speaking up for the truth. Bishop Cordileone is a prophet, but just like all prophets of old, he’s persecuted by the world–that includes people who claim to be faithful Cahtolics–for standing up for the truth.

    • John Siple says:

      Bro, we have no use for hating or criticizing anything except the abbe ration of rightness. We will fight to the bitter bone on the subject of impurity, lust, inordinate unions especially regarding Catholics, and the morality that develops from ‘natural law’, written in our hearts that God is One (as even the Hindu’s tell me), God is Good, and God is Truth.
      Faith is a gift for the seeker. One who believes otherwise has already his own reward. There is always mercy & redemption for the actual seeker of Truth & wisdom. Holy Spirit is not simply an insignificant title, but the fruit of love between the Father & Son. The Gift is given to believers, seekers, and the lost soul who knows he is lost in nothingness, doomed to a natural death, eternally for that matter. Yeah, it’s rough, but the yoke of Our LORD is easy, light and able to be hooked into God himself. Not sexism, reality of Faith. Not all are ready for this.

    • Thomas Miles, if you are a Catholic, you are an embarrassment to God. Read what St. Paul says about the sin of what is now called homosexuality. The Bishops are finally doing and saying something that is right and you and your kind are showing how cruel you are by helping those confused people into the gates of hell by your so called compassion. +JMJ+

  3. B. Cordileone is truely a first class shepherd!

  4. John Siple says:

    I happen to agree with the Bishop! I lived in the gay community for 30 years, and still mostly attended Mass and the Sacraments, as I had rationalized my Catholic training to my own theology through saying, loopholes and self-wise logic.
    Then I listened to a priest and received the Spirit’s unction about 5 years ago, not returning to the lifestyle.
    Now as a man practicing chastiity and in obedience to the Magisterium I have to tell my story.
    Santa Rosa Diocese

    • The Other Rose says:

      John, I’m so happy for you and the freedom you have found in The Truth. Still waiting for a loved one of mine to come back, always gives me hope to hear of someone like yourself. Thanks for posting.

      • John Siple says:

        Thanks Rose! Only the Spirit of Christ can move one’s soul to liberty, not license.
        Courage is a Catholic Program, approved by our Church. They also in some areas have a program for wives of SSA men. I believe.
        My prayers are with you,

        • The Other Rose says:

          I attended meetings for Encourage for many years. Most helpful to me and other parents who I met during that time and remain friends with still. Thank The Lord for Fr. Harvey and all the good accomplished through Courage and Encourage. The wonderful humble people I know from Courage have always inspired my hope for my very special loved one. Thank you so much for your prayers. God bless you!

      • John Siple says:

        Patience really is a surrender, trusting the Master to work out all things in good time. We keep praying, but it’s wise to shoulder the burden with the Cross of suffering. His Cross, not ours. Never an easy thing without Sacramental Grace!

    • Abeca Christian says:

      God bless you John Siple! You are not alone and I trust that as time goes by, there will be more faithful as you, whom will leave that lifestyle and live to tell about it! James Hartline is also another success story! Praise Be Jesus Christ!

    • Happy the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commands. Ps 112:1

  5. Pope Leo XIII over 100 years ago, gave us some very important Encyclical Letters that should be read by every Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Nun and all of us laymen. If we didn’t know better, it would seem that this very holy Pope was writing to us right now. I have only read his first 9 letters, as they are long, but, mostly very easy to understand (I have been blessed with a very simple mind), and even though he doesn’t mention same-sex (not Gay) marriage in his “Arcanum Divinae (Christian Marriage) as it wasn’t put into practice at that time, he does show us what will happen when we try to “correct” God’s Holy Way into man’s way. P.S.: I love your new look and site. God Bless all of you and all of those that come onto this site. +JMJ+

  6. Juergensen says:

    On the homosexual front, Catholic World News reports that “Father Marcel Guarnizo, who became the focus of a nationwide controversy when he refused to administer the Eucharist to an avowed lesbian, is no longer engaged in priestly ministry in the Washington archdiocese” [www.bit[dot]ly/Nrsr3D]. Notice how it’s always the faithful priests who get dismissed?

    • Father Michael Guarnizo is a priest of the archdiocese of Moscow, Russia who was on temporary assignment at a St. John Nueman parish in the Washinton diocese. That assignment period has ended and Father Guarnizo is no longer engaged in priestly ministry in the Washington diocese.

      • did father michael guarnizo return to russia, where his bishop is?

        • No, he is still in the Washington area. He has recently spoke at religious freedom and pro-life events.

          • Anne T. says:

            Juergensen, I am sorry for the misspelling of your name the first time. Furthermore, there is an article on the web entitled “Improvising Illinois Priest Barred from Pulpit” that I think you will find very interesting.

          • MacDonald says:

            Anne T.’s message led me to find this about a pastor who decided to make up his own Mass prayers (God help us), and whose bishop fired him: “Father Rowe had deviated from the text for decades. He said he did so when the official words didn’t connect precisely with the message he was hoping to convey.” Please note the repeated use of the pronoun “he,” which makes me wonder what “he” did to the Bible readings when they didn’t suit “his” purposes or agenda.

      • Juergensen says:

        k ~ Father Guarnizo was terminated because he enforced Canon 915 and refused the Holy Eucharist to an open and defiant lesbian, not because his “assignment period ended”, as you claim. The Archdiocese of Washington issued this statement after the incident: “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.” In other words, the Archdiocese does not allow enforcement of Canon 915, and the dismissal of Father Guarnizo had nothing to do with his “assignment period ending”, as you claim.

        • Mr. Jeurgensen, you are referring to a different thing. I cannot fully explain without throwing Father Guarnizo under the bus, which I do not wish to do. The quote from the diocese is from the intitial response-there was a clarification later. The full story about the incident came out later.

          • Catherine says:

            k wrote, “Mr. Juergensen, I cannot fully explain without throwing Father Guarnizo under the bus, which I do not wish to do.” The poster named k has been throwing Father Guarnizo under the bus for months and k still expects everyone to believe that she is a little ol’ housewife who is privy to the inside workings of Father Guarzino’s situation. If k has inside knowledge it is only due to the fact that others who also want to silence the Father Guarzinos’ of the priesthood, are feeding it to the poster who calls herself or himself k.

    • Anne T. says:

      Jurgenson, one can make calls to that diocese to help him. I did quite a while back. Sometimes, too, they might take a priest out for his own protection if the surroundings are really, really bad. I do not know. Nevertheless, in the end it will be Washington DC that is the loser.

  7. Camille says:

    Thank goodness for Bishop Cordileone’s courageous stand. I’m sure he also is aware that Senator Mark Leno is now trying to re-define who is and is not a natural parent. He is promoting through legislation that children can have more than two parents, excluding foster and adoptive parents, i.e. one mother and two fathers.

  8. Steve Izo says:

    I support our Bishop 100% to everything the article says. It’s important to all of us to back-up our Bishops who proclaim our faith’s teachings!

  9. Laurette Elsberry says:

    This is a strong well thought out statement. Now if only the Catholic bureaucrats would heed what is being said here. The bureaucrats need to be asked why they are so promotional of the annulment industry in the Church, so weak on contraception and so supportive of “civil unions”.

    • why don’t you write them?

      • max, every time I go to write the bureaucrats, their names always come out mud. It’s hard to read that way.

    • Francis says:


      Could you explain what the “annulment industry” is? Is somebody making money through annulments? As best I can see, the Church is not making any kind of industry from annulments, but working hard to support our marriages, to make up for what our communities used to do. We have engaged encounter and pre-cana programs, marriage encounter and retrouvaille. I just don’t see how it makes sense to blame the Church hierarchy for failed marriages.

      Who are the “Catholic bureaucrats” supporting contraception and civil unions?

      • Liberals always couch matters in spacey theoretical terms, as if it is some kind of a sophomoric level argument. The Church doctors however do not write in this abstract manner, but articulate each iota … which amazingly the traditionalists tend to do also.

  10. Bishop Cordileone nailed it on the head when he said this is a result of contraception. So-called gay marriage is the fruit of contraception along with abortion. Our society needs to re-learn the meaning of sexuality and the fruitfulness of marriage. We have a lot of work to do to change our culture because so-called gay marriage is a travesty that undermines the very freedoms we hold near and dear to our hearts as Christians and is supported by a true left Marxist ideology which aims to destroy the natural family. The examples we have seen in Catholic adoption agencies and the case of the photographer who was sewed because she refused to photograph a gay union are just the beginning of what is to come with legalized homosexual marriage. This agenda is the demanding of acceptance of an immoral lifestyle and denies our freedom as Christians to promote the true sanctity of marriage. God Love You.

    • John Siple says:

      Hey, the good Bishop ain’t just whistling Dixie. Contraception and the ‘freedom of misinformed/ignorant Church teaching of [conscience]‘ as good-’ole Ms Boxer & like ilk have done insurmountable evil in giving scandal for millions of Catholics.
      Vatican II & the instability it initially caused, as well as the Pope’s prohibition of the kind of medical birth control which is not natural to Christian sexuality further exacerbated the dilemma. There IS natural family planning allowed by the Church, and it requires discipline, chastity within Marriage, and works hella better than the rhythm method. Only Catholics with real faith would peruse that. It takes two. Cheap thrills within marriage were never respected, only secret. Pornography also contributes to the demise of Western culture.
      Ramblings. Hope one doesn’t mind. :)
      Patience really is a surrender, trusting the Master to work out all things in good time. We keep praying, but it’s wise to shoulder the burden with the Cross of suffering. His Cross, not ours. Never an easy thing without Sacramental Grace!

      • JOHN SIPLE: it was not Vatican II that caused the problems, it was the Bishop’s and Priests that went crazy doing their own thing. +JMJ+

        • John Siple says:

          I truly agree with you. It wasn’t VAT II, but the new freedom everybody reveled in by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
          Thanks for correcting me.

  11. Catherine says:

    “The Church likewise acknowledges the importance of marriage for the sake of children and society, Bishop Cordileone said. It’s members are therefore called to work to defend marriage in civil law, recognizing that “intact healthy families make for a healthy society.” Thank you Bishop Cordileone!

  12. Abeca Christian says:

    God bless Bishop Cordileone! Now lets make this message known and not allow this evil secular world to continue to scandalize our children! Spread the word and do not bow down to gay agenda’s!

  13. FIRE THE EDITOR FOR GIVING Thomas Edward Miles THE TIME OF DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Laurette Elsberry says:

      Peter, I agree. Thomas Edward Miles’ main effort in life seems to be watching for CalCatholic to put forward some item of authentic Catholic teaching about the evils of sodomy/homosexuality, and then trying to obscure or deny that teaching. He is also not able to process the truth that hating the sin of sodomy does NOT mean hating homosexual persons. Well, no, I’m giving him credit for not being perceptive. He is very perceptive and day after day, and time after time, he will try to undo the truth. CalCatholic allows him to do this day after day and time after time. This is like the machinations of Satan who keeps on putting temptations in our path. TEM wants readers to see evil as good and good as hateful. St. Michael the Archangel pray to God for the truth to prevail.

      • Thomas Edward Miles says:

        Laurette, After reading your post I now understand “my main effort in life” and it amazes me that you have experienced INFUSED KNOWLEDGE, be assured, Laurette, I respect your special gift, however, I pray GOD that it never happens to me! I have NEVER stated that was in disagreement with regard to the teaching of the CHURCH!! What said was this: The Bishops need to speak with love, kindness and the gentleness of heart; they the Bishops should follow the stellar enlightment of our, Holy Father, Benedict XVI, EMPLOY A COMPETENT PUBLIC RELATION PERSON!!! Thank you, Laurette, you always make me LAUGH without even trying, that is a great gift from the LORD! Also, the REASON, The California Catholic Daily, has any credibility is because they made the wise decision to allow different opinions to be made available for the good of all, for that, I will always be appreciative! WHY, Laurette, do you FEAR the FREEDOM of EXPRESSION?! Did you celebrate the FOURTH of JULY?!

        • Thomas, are you in disagreement with the Church in regards to its teaching on homosexuality? thankyou,

    • oh, PETER, the editor makes this entire webssite possible, so don’t get all cranky-pants with him or her. how else would you get the chance to yell in all CAPS? furthermore, it’s healthy for us to experience the give and take of discourse, rather than hearing a sort of stepford-wives agreement on every single point. i, for one, am grateful to read the posts even of people i find nutty, even if for no other reason than to thank GOD for the non-nutty people who make life more grace-filled.

      • max, why are you so fixated on “pants”? You’re always using terms such as “cranky pants” and other “pants” phrases.

    • Thomas Miles has a proven agenda which is almost always against the teachings of the Church. He should not be given a platform in any Catholic or Christian media format. I agree that he should not be published on this site. I hope the editor will consider not publishing him and go back and read Miles posts for documentation of his actions.

  14. Catherine says:

    John Siple, Thank you for your words and thank you for having the courage to speak up. May God continue to bless you and may God bless the fine priest who spoke with you. Courageous holy bishops and courageous holy priests are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and in return John you were also inspired to give thanks to God and share your truthful and hope filled message. Your words will truly inspire many hearts! Please listen to this beautiful YouTube, ‘Veni Sancte Spiritus-Catholic Hyms, Gregorian Chant.” Luke 17:15-19 “One of them when he saw he was healed, came back praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleaned?” Where are the other nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

  15. Not me, though. I’m with Thomas Edward Miles 100%. He’s the only one here that makes any real sense.

    • Catherine says:

      peter, You have been given the gift of free will. We have already seen in many of your previous posts that you are with Thomas Edward Miles100%. Does this mean you are finally coming out of the shadows in rebelliously admitting that you are 100% against God? Since God is the only One that makes perfect sense, you must realize that you are using that free will to slavishly serve the wrong master. Thomas Edward Miles will not stand next to or have any say on where you will spend your eternity. peter, I feel such sorrow for you. I don’t know how you have been wounded to have such hatred for God and His Holy Church. How tormented you must be to feel the way that you do yet still be slavishly driven to hang around in the dark shadows of a Catholic website to lash out at anyone who tells you and all of us to love and trust 100% in God first. Your vitriol is what aids and assists in the negative stereotyping of all homosexuals. That is wrong Peter because there are individuals such as the poster above who have been given the grace to open their hearts to 100% receive the grace of a great conversion of heart. That grace is there for you too peter.

    • peter, Thomas says he is in full agreement with Church teaching on homosexuality. Do you agree with Thomas?

  16. Susanne says:

    Hopefully Bishop Cordielone could persuade Archbishop Gomez from speaking at LaRaza conferences since LaRaza is promoting the LGBT agenda at their National Conference in Las Vegas. Why do Marxists and LGBT groups get along so well?

    • Anne T. says:

      Suzanne, part of Carl Marx’s philosophy was to destroy a country from within by encouraging immorality, then after it falls, the Maxists come in and “pick up” the pieces. The problem for them is that it never works for very long. Rebellion only breeds more rebellion, and in the end they not only kill others but each other.

      • Anne T. says:

        My apologies for misspelling your name also, Susanne. When I push reply the name of the person to whom I am replying does not show up for me to make sure I spelled it correctly, and I failed to scroll up to see if I had done so. Anyway, I am learning new things which is always profitable.

  17. Rick DeLano says:

    Well, pete, in that case the anecdotal evidence here suggests you two are going to have a very difficult time on your hands come November- not to mention a very, very difficult time in the face of the resplendently Christian defense of marriage by His Excellency Bishop Cordileone.

    This is a very good thing.

    The bishops are speaking clearly and forceful against the attempted imposition of pseudo-marriage against the will of the people, and the Supreme Court has just made it absolutely clear that it will not impose by fiat what the people reject by a free and fair election.

    “Gay marriage” is headed for a disastrous defeat at the polls in November (the Catholic vote will be the game changer), and a subsequent crushing defeat at SCOTUS in 2013.

  18. Mark from PA says:

    Kathy, I don’t really consider it compassion to smugly throw it in people’s face how disordered they are. To me it feels more like contempt. It appears that there are two Peters here and they don’t seem to agree.

    • Jesus demonstrated compassion by being visible on the Cross, the supreme act of charity. So, whatever PA imagines about compassion makes no sense … I think he means how he feels, especially when pumped up with his gay sexuality.

  19. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I want to share with you the story of a man that I know. He is active in the United Church of Christ and married another man in his church. The two men are taking care of two boys. They are guardians of the older boy. He is the son of a single mother and has learning disabilities. Because of his disabilities his mother could not give him the proper care so the two men, one a teacher and the other a social worker, became his guardians. The boy still sees his mother but the men have primary custody of him. The younger boy is their adopted son. He is bi-racial. His birth mother had her parental rights terminated and the boy was adopted by the two men. So here we have a case of two boys that are better off living with two dads than with a single mom. People talk about “lifestyles” but being an active and involved dad is also a lifestyle. The lifestyle of these men revolves around taking care of their sons, work and activities in their church.

    • Mark from PA, the child should have been given to a heterosexual couple who were living moral lifestyles. The mother might have agreed to this situation, but she does not have very good character herself, so a good judge would have found a better situation for these children. Taking them from one disfunctional home only to put them into another is not the right answer.

    • Mark from PA-More anti-Catholic rhetoric from you again on CCD. Now you think your so-called experience with two homosexual men is more significant than a good and holy bishop? Really? Come back to reality and Catholicism. You think it is OK to raise a child exposed to mortal sin as a good act? This is exactly what you just said in saying that these boys are better off with two homosexual men than being with their mother and father. These boys are being taught that there is NO morality in sexuality by the actions of the two men they are living with. What you wrote above is heretical my friend and extremely hateful not only to the Lord the creator of our humanity and sexuality, but to the boys by teaching them means of justifying sinful behavior. I pray for you, but more importantly all the children you catechize that you don’t mislead them into sinful thought because of your contempt for authentic Catholic Doctrine. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA: One last point. Matthew 18:6-7 says “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” In John 14:15 Jesus says that we will keep His commandments if we love Him. In Romans 3:8 and 6:1 we are shown that it is wrong to do sinful acts even if good will be the outcome. You continuously promote sinful acts such as supporting this homosexual couple as being better parents than the true biological parents or supporting groups that promote the homosexual lifestyle under the guise of doing good like preventing suicide like trevor project. Please stop pretending to be naïve and innocent because many good people have given you sound Catholic theology, Church teaching and Scripture that points you in the right direction away from sinful ideals, yet you continually reject these kind and loving gestures and post ill-conceived comments that deny the dignity of human sexuality for secular and worldly ideals. Make the decision if you love Jesus or not and strive to do His will for you are either with the Lord or against Him; there is no middle ground. God Love You.

      • Anne T. says:

        MD, do not let those who are opposing you get you down. You are exactly correct. Mark from PA and one of the Peter’s is doing what is called in the LGBT commmunity as “jamming”. Jamming is done by LGBT people who get several members to go to open websites where correct morals are being taught, whether Catholic or another religion or denomination and “jam” them with opposite teachings. Sometimes it is done on prupose — they e-mail each other about websites — and at other times it just happens when they troll faithful websites.

        • Anne T. says:

          I do have one correction to my last post, MD, the mother in this case is probably as bad an influence on the children as the two practicing homosexual men. None of the three should have the child since she is doing drugs, and they are living in sin.. That this is even considered shows how far the moral decline in our country in some areas has increased.

    • Mark from PA, this is very disturbing. Children have a great range of needs. Beyond having their physical needs for food, water, shelter, cleanliness met and having physical, psychological and emotional safety, they deserve to have a home where they can see a healthy man-woman relationship. Not many kids get that these days, I admit. One of the biggest sufferings of adult children of dysfunctional homes is that they do not know what normal is.

    • An innocent arrangement if ever there were one!

  20. Catherine says:

    Yes, CCD is being targeted by MarkfromPA and others to soft sell the same indoctrinations with the hopes of attaining another Canada situation where preachers are hamstrung into silence or they will get arrested for hate speech. PA is the aggressor and there are trolls or minions who are ardent silent supporters who are not as vocal in their hustling but they will attack posters such as MacDonald did to Laurette. They run interference to silence others. They might seem very orthodox on other issues but their selective silence is very obvious, especially when they jump out of the cyberspace woodwork to attack Laurette. MarkfromPA is not the helpless poster that many have come to believe. He knows exactly what he is doing. His latest hustle for the homosexual agenda is this comment.. “So here we have a case of two boys that are better off living with two dads than a mom.” Who knows if this story of Mark’s is fabricated like yesterday’s story of the homosexual partners who raised two Catholic priests, a nun and a doctor. I am still waiting to learn the names of these two priests. I would love to have them come visit us on CCD to let us know how wonderful their life was. Let us all hear about the parishes that these two priests are stationed and we will all learn. Until then, make no mistake, let us remind our tirelessly clever resident activist named Markfromindoctrination that based on the many reports of grown children such as Dawn, if Mark’s story about these boys is true, then it looks like another sad story is coming in the future from Jim Graves, the writer of Dawn’s story. Bud, said it best. “Speak up openly” and I will add, or we will be joining Canada.

    • MacDonald says:

      Oh, Catherine, you are really something. You see enemies and plots behind every word. Sad, really.

      • Anne T. says:

        Mac Donald, although I believe Catherine has been a little hard on K at times and perhaps on others, too, occasionally, we all tend to get a little paranoid in this current culture to say the least, and it is hard to know exactly what people mean since we cannot see their facial expressions. Futhermore, the editors read far worse than what they allow to be posted here from the “jamming” from the LGBT community. One such vile post slipped through a couple of months back, so I really feel sorry for what the editors have to go through, and perhaps Catherine has misinterpretated some posts as being part of the “jamming”. Anyway, I am getting off of here for awhile to give others an oportunity to write, and, MacDonald and Catherine, pax tecum.

      • Catherine says:

        MacDonald, Actually it is you who sadly sees enemies and plots behind every post that defends Church Teaching on homosexual issues. You proved this when you attacked Laurette who is defending Church Teaching. Your plotting mind pre-judged the good intentions of Laurette and your fingers lost their temper on the keyboard. Yes, MacDonald, for some reason, Laurette’s post got the best of you and you lost your usual measure of self-control and then you retaliated against Laurette, treating her as an enemy. MacDonald, You are the one who got caught and this is why you are now attacking me. A guilty conscience is very often it’s own accuser.

        • MacDonald says:

          Catherine, in the sage words of Anne T., “pax tecum.” I don’t know what you are going through, but it must be rough.

          The origin of your name seems to mean “pure,” καθαρός (katharos), so I hope your postings on here are cathartic for you.

          As Saint Paul recommends in Ephesians (4:26), “In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry.”

          • MacDonald says:

            By the way, I am NOT in favor of homosexual marriages, for the sake of clarity. When I am in favor of something, I will state it for the record.

          • Catherine says:

            MacDonald, You want Anne’s words to be sage, not for the reasons of sageness or charity but for the reasons that it deflects responsibility from you, k, and others having to clearly support Church teaching when it comes to homosexual issues. I love Anne T. She defends Church teaching.

        • Catherine, I support all Church Teaching-on homosexual issues and everything else. I agree with all Church Teaching. Homosexual sexual activities are gravely sinful. When done with full knowledge and full consent of the will, they are mortal sins. Like all mortal sins, they need to be confessed before one receives communion (and especially before one dies.) Homosexual acts are condemned in Holy Scripture which is the Word of God. It is infallible. It is not sinful to experience homosexual temptation as long as one does not indulge it. It is not sinful to have a deep-seated tendency or inclination toward homosexuality. Again, one must not act on it. All sexual activity outside of a marriage (meaning one man and one woman, of course) is gravely sinful. Marriage is intended by God to be one man and one woman, exclusively and permanently until the death of one of the spouses. Catholics cannot support legislation that changes the definition of marriage to include same sex unions. Anti-discrimantion laws concerning sexual orientation have been opposed by Catholic bishops because of the possibility that it would impact the ability of Christians to fully preach the Word of God and interfere with the free practice of religion in regards to the sacrament of matrimony. Homosexual persons (like all persons) are to be treated with respect and love.

    • Anne T. says:

      What is never brought up here by those selling same-sex marriage adoptions is that in some states they already ask good heterosexual couples if they believe homosexuall couples should adopt, and if they say “No”, they refuse to let the heterosexual couples adopt. Then they turn around and say that there are not enough heterosexual couples who want to adopt, so they need to let same-sex couples adopt. Some are being very, very, deceptive if they know about this.

      • Sodomites have given up their choice to be honest and truthful, and this is why they aren’t. The devil owns them.

  21. Back in the day, people believed that someone’s parents might be creatures other than human beings. Mark Leno and possibly TEM may have parents who are gay pigs or lizards … Oh, hey, wasn’t it Jesus who said that some people have the devil for their father … and since the devil is aka the serpent, then hey hey hey we have Jesus saying that some people have animals for parents. Now the thing important here is this, that whereas God is fusing nature and supernature through the Church, the ungodly such as Leno are attempting to fuse mythology and reality, trying to bring their spiritual visions into material being. This elementary story is told over and over in especially the Old Testament, and we can see the visual telling of this story on ancient artifacts especially from Egypt and the middle East, and the ancient West. Hmn, we also see this in India and the far east … gee, the return of paganism to the formerly Catholic western civilization. God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was an act of compassion for the rest of His creation.

  22. MD – Actually PA said that these two boys are better off with two homosexual men than being with their SINGLE mothers, neither of whom had the ability to take care of these children, but who are still allowed to be part of their lives. This is fact. And even if hypothetical, it is certainly not anti-catholic rhetoric or an attack on CCD. You have the nerve to cite scripture – and even as you do so, you would still deny that they are much better off and will have a better chance in life. You would rather see them living in abject poverty and under whatever dark shadow might thus engulf them? Shame on you.

    • Yes Peter, I quote scripture. Homosexuality is an abomination to the flesh, immoral and violates nature. It would be better for these children to live with their single mother than two men who violate the very nature of humanity by living a sinful lifestyle. Peter, homosexuality is the spawn of satan and perpetuated by an army of demons from hell. You spew hatred and malice on this site of God, the creator of the universe. You will know one day and discover that as Phillipians 2: 10-11 “at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Your love of the flesh denies the glory of God, is a hatred of life and evil. I pray for your soul that the Divine and Merciful Heart of Jesus covers you with His Blood and Water and you embrace His Mercy one day. God Love You.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        MD AMEN! To all that you just said! Praise Be Jesus Christ!

      • peter and MD, I thought “what if it was two brothers-not gay men- who had adopted the kids”. And I would still feel that they are being deprived of something important by not seeing healthy interaction of an adult male and female in the home. Now, admittedly a lot of male-famale relationships are unhealthy and a lot of the current problems in marriage, family and society come from that, too. I found Mark from PAs post really disturbing on so many levels. Why are there so few resources to help woman-single or married- provide an enriched environment for learning disabled children? And the idea of a mother having her parental rights terminated-yikes. Then I thought, can you imagine having your child taken from you by the state and then put in a home-any home-where you were uncomfortable with the foster parents? I know people who take in foster kids and when some of the birth parents found out they were Catholic, the kids were removed. (Many people here think the Catholic Church is evil.) I can’t say that these boys would be better off with their single mothers because there is so much mental illness, drugs, alcohol and some parents seriously hurt or even kill their young children. Stability is important but I would still be very uncomfortable with this arrangement. There are so many kids waiting for a foster home and so few people will take them.

    • PETER, shame on you!! You should read the horror stories about what goes on in the homes of homosexuals, not nice nor pretty, and very dangerous for the children. At least when two women have a boy in the house, most likely the boy won’t be sexually abused, but, when the boy is with two men, it is just a matter of time. It is much better for the children to be in physical poverty than to be in moral and spiritual poverty. Mark from PA is one very confused person caused by his college “education” and he is not helping his clients at all. To condone sin is to destroy your own salvation and it will give you a free pass into the gates of hell. +JMJ+

  23. Mark from PA says:

    Anne T, in regard to the older boy, he is a teen with learning disabilities. He needed to be in a more structured environment than his mother could provide so the two men became his guardians. If my friend’s home was dysfunctional, the boys would not be there. MD, as Peter has pointed out, the boys had lived with their single mothers, certainly it would have been better for them to live in with a mother and father who were competent to deal with their disabilities. Unfortunately the biological fathers of these boys do not have any involvement in their lives. You say that these boys are exposed to mortal sin but you don’t know that. The two men belong to the United Church of Christ, they are not Catholic. They are married in their church and so they are not considered to be “committing adultery” in the eyes of their church. I am not targeting the CCD, I am talking about two men who are not Catholic.

    • Mark from PA, I am sure you can understand that if a teenage boy is in this environment he could become confused as to right and wrong. It does not become right just because a human being or institution approves of it. United Church of Christ is pro-gay marriage or marriage equality as they say. But this is not how God made things. Kids have so many challenges these days that we did not have in ours.

    • Mark from PA: not mortal sin? Despite what that false ‘church’ says, they are in mortal sin as it is God’s Law, not man’s that we have to obey. You claim that you had a “catholic” education, complete with “nuns” for 12 years, but, what you post, says something far different, unless, of course, you only had an American catholic education, which is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Your blindness is very dangerous to all those that you are suppose to be helping. +JMJ+

  24. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I think you have been listening to much to those Westboro Baptists. “Homosexuality is an abomination to the flesh, immoral and violates nature.” “Homosexuality is the spawn of satan and perpetuated by an army of demons from hell.” These are your own personal beliefs not the teachings of the Catholic Church. Nowhere in Church teachings is there anything about the sexual orientation of homosexuals being caused by satan and demons from hell. You may believe that Peter, I and others are somehow the spawn of satan but to me you are just fanning the flames. We are human beings just like everyone else, not abominations, who we are is not an abomination. Read your words and think of how harmful such coarse rhetoric is to young gay people. Labeling people in such a manner hurts people and can lead to violence. Some people could think that in physically attacking gay people that they are fighting satan and his demons. You confess such love for Christ but some of your words here are far from Christian in my opinion.

    • I think we are getting into the problems with the definition of homosexuality again. Some posters use it to mean acting sexually with another person of the same sex, which is gravely sinful. Mark from Pa always means the homosexual orientation or condition, which is not sinful.

      • Anne T. says:

        Kay, Mark from PA causes a lot of confusion when he says he is talking just about orientation, then he turns around and says that so-called same-sex marraige is all right, and that it is all right that two men who have clearly stated they are lovers live together in a “marriage”, and he has clearly stated that he approves of that in the past. We all know that the only reason two men or two women would want to get “married” is to receive society’s approval of their relationship, including sex acts. Since they can already get any benefirs they are really entitled to just by filling out certain documents, such as a power of attorney for healthcare, they is no other reason for them to even want to be “married” other than the approval for the sex acts. Also, the Church clearly teaches that one is not to put oneself in an occasion of sin, It teaches that we are to avoid occasions of sin, so a heterosexual couple living together without benefit of marriage or a same-sex couple who are practicing sodomy living together is an occasion of sin and a scandal and to be avoided.

        • Anne T., I am very strict on this. I believe that two gay men or two gay women should not live together or a man or woman should not live together if they are not married because it gives the semblence of sin which I think is what you mean by scandal and it may also become an occasion of sin. However, if they are chaste, there is no sin. Times being what they are sometimes people have to live where they can rather than where they want to, so I do not judge and I do not assume sin is occuring. I do not believe that same sex people should be in romantic relationships even if they are chaste. I think it crosses the boundary that God intends. However, again, that is not a sin. No one is bound to abide by my restrictions. I disagree with those who say that love is what is important because I think it is a selfish love. One needs to love God above all things. As for Mark from PA, what he actually says becomes generalized by other posters. If people are specific and address exactly what he said, that is fine. When people distort what he says and exagerate it or attribute to him things he did not say, it adds to the confusion. Every time someone posts that homosexuality is a sin, he is going to post that the orientation is not a sin. Then people try to talk to him to change beliefs that he doesn’t even have. I understand that people are sensitized to the ubiquitous attempts to normalize homosexual relationships in the media. And I see why they react the way they do. But they often go way beyond anything that is just.

          • K, sometimes certain people do not state clearly whether they mean the orientation or the sexual behavior, and Mark has called them on it, but that is not what I am talking about. I am falking about the fact that Mark from PA has clearly defended at times both the orientation AND the behavior of other homosexuals. He has said before that it was all right for two men to be lovers in a “marriage” if they were faithful to each other. That is NOT church teaching. In other words he has told other people that it is all right to do what he says he does not do himself. As far as people living in the same house chastely, they certainly are not guilty of a sexual sin, but it does give scandal quite often and should be avoided as much as possible. I never let a man in my house when my husband is not home unless it is for a very short time and the door is open, or the person is a close relative who came to see my husband or has been invited by him to stay the night. It keeps one out of trouble, and one’s reputation intact. And you do not have an angry wife knocking on your door if he is married.

      • Catherine says:

        k, You wrote, “I think we are getting into the problem with the definition of homosexuality again.” No k, we are not getting into the problem with definitions. You are! You are the one who is getting into the problem of either not reading or ignoring MD and Mark’s dialogue. MD has on numerous occasions made it abundantly clear that it is not the orientation that is sinful. When you are a homosexual activist on a Catholic website you must deflect and distract. When you do not want clarity you deflect, distract or get others named k to help you deflect.

        • Catherine, I am sure that when MD says “homosexuality is an abomination to the flesh, immoral and violates nature’ he is speaking of sodomy or another sexual relationship between members of the same sex. Mark from PA views the word homosexuality to mean the “orientation” or tendency to be attracted to those of the same sex. He believes that it is a natural condition which MD protests. (Again, definitional) The Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John Hardon states that “Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes includes every conceivable kind of impluse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled.” The Catholic Church does not teach that all sins come from Satan. It teaches that temptation comes from the devil, the flesh and the world. Mark from PA could again ask MD to clarify; MD could be more precise when speaking of it. Mark from PA is going to protest anything that says homosexuality is a sin because he is talking about the orientation and he is correct; it is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation, according to the Catholic Church. Those who define homosexuality as sexual relationship will say it is a sin and they will be correct because sexual relations with those of the same sex are sinful. This thing between MD and MarkfromPA has been going on for over a year. I am sure they are both weary of it.

          • Mark from PA says:

            K, you are pretty much on target with your post of 7/14, 12:55 PM. I suppose I shouldn’t let some of the comments get to me.

      • Anne T. says:

        K, you are wrong about Mark from PA ALWAYS meaning just the orientation because he has said in the past several times that he thinks it is all right for two men to live togehter in a “marriage” if they are FAITHFUl to one other. He did not say CELEBATE, but Faithful, and so-called homosexual marriages ARE always against Church teaching, whether they are “celebate” or not. Also, although he and we have said certain heterosexual behaviors are wrong, I have never heard him say that what goes on in the decadent homosexula parades is wrong. He just gets upset if they are ever mentioned. He has a real problem with saying the behavior is just plain wrong, but just gets angry if it is mentioned at all. The editor used to correct him, and sometimes us, when we made wrong statements too often, or if they were blatently wrong the first time, but that does not seem to be happening any more. Catherine is right about him defending the behavior at times and not just the orientation. Anyway, I have had enough of posting on this article. I have said all I am going to say.

        • Anne T., I believe from what he has posted that MarkfromPA belief is not in conformity to the Catholic faith on gay marriage. I think that MarkfromPA wants people here to understand that most people with same-sex attraction are not lewd and do not behave the way that some of the people in the parades behave. Most heterosexuals do not behave like the young people on Jersey Shore. He gets upset with the stereotypes. Some posters do portray negative stereotypes of gay people. It does not matter whether those who engage in same gender sexual encounters are faithful to one person, not lewd, pillars of the community. What they do sexually is wrong in the eyes of God.

    • Mark from PA: You love to twist words to suit your “delicate nature.” I never referred to you or peter as being the spawn of satan. I many times have made the distinction between homosexuality, the engaging in homosexual activity and SSA, the desire and attraction of people of the same sex and desire for same sex relations. PA, ALL sin is from satan and homosexual sex is a sin, it does in fact violate nature and is a direct contradiction of the flesh. Mark what are your motives here to spew such filth? Mark, from what you write on this site, you would rather lead people to sin than to virtue. I have great pity for you and am dumbfounded by the hatred you continually express in a subtle and passive-aggressive manner playing the victim card all the time. Mark, its time to grow up and be a man and decide if you are with Christ or against Him. You can’t be divided in your love of the flesh and love of the Lord; either you love Him or you don’t. This is your decision. If you love Him as you claim, then proclaim His word, the teachings of the Church and stop spreading lies of hatred and deceit. Mark, you read my words and be a man with intellect and use your will to follow Christ. God Love You.

    • PA, you said “. Nowhere in Church teachings is there anything about the sexual orientation of homosexuals being caused by satan and demons from hell. ” There is nothing in scripture that says God created homosexuality either, yet in past posts you have invited people to infer God created homosexuals. If MD is wrong, why arn’t you ?

    • Mark from PA: your opinion means nothing, just like any of ours, when it is not in tune with God’s Holy Word. To call those homosexuals “gay” is a sin in itself and an insult to normal people that have Gay as or in part of their name, and it is also a big lie which is why so many of them are on drugs or commit suicide. Now, just maybe, that lad will make it through life, unscathed, but the odds are against him, and when it comes to our salvation, there just isn’t room to take such chances. +JMJ+

  25. You’re right, PA. They are not comitting adultery because they are not married in the eyes of God. There is NO such thing as gay marriage. God DOES NOT recognize “gay marriage” in any church. Instead of committing adultery, they are commiting the mortal sins of sodomy, fornication, oral sex…I know from the past and from the post above that you will ask me how do I know these two homosexuals are committing these sins. Well, if they are “married” according to you, do you suppose that they will remain chaste and virgins? If you think they are not, then you are really living in a naive and dream world. ALL homosexual sex IS mortally sinful, PA! What part of that don’t you understand?

  26. Thomas Edward Miles says:

    In answer to your questions; I know this will disappoint many of you, YES, I am in complete, total, absolute agreement and without any reservation whatsoever with regard to the church teaching on human sexuality! Sorry folks, no burning me at the stake this time round!! The good news is that there is always tomorrow, let the game begin!!!

    • Anne T. says:

      Thomas Edward Miles, some of your previous posts completely, totally, absolutely and without reservation show that you are not in absolute agreement on Church teahing about human sexuality, and burning at the stake went out a long time ago, so please do not make yourself out to be a victim. It is wishful thinking on your part. My husband has a somewhat vulgar name for people like you. He calls them s—t disturbers. In other words you are very good at stirring up trouble.

    • Thomas, that is good to hear. thankyou,

  27. MD – You know nothing of which you speak.

    • Peter: The logic you and Mark from PA suggest in your posts is absolutely absurd. You miss the fact that these two homosexual men expose these children serious sin, even though you don’t believe homosexual sex is a sin contrary to the reality found the Bible, Church teaching and human biology. If two people who abused cocaine were raising children, they would lose this privilege because of the evil they are doing and passively teaching the children. The example being set is a flawed and immoral example and children deserve better than that. The example Mark set forth is WRONG!!! Peter, you can deny the bible, the Church, but how can you deny the human reproductive system, the biological reality of your flesh and live as a homosexual? This has distorted your perception of reality, of human nature etc. Open your heart to Jesus and He will heal you because you are clearly in great pain. God Love You.

  28. Anne T. says:

    Catherine, MacDonald and Others, one thing that is not mentioned on here by those who are pushing so-called same-sex marriage adoptions is that already in some states good heterosexual families who want to adopt are being asked if they believe in same-sex adoptions. If they say “No’, they are not allowed to adopt, and others turn around and then say that there are not enough heterosexual couples to adopt, That is very deceptive, and some who come to this website I am sure know that this is happening.

    • Catherine says:

      Anne T, Yes, I have heard about this deceptive practice of asking heterosexual couples if they believe in same-sex adoptions and then being penalized for telling the truth. This is precisely why we have to speak out and support fellow Christians who do speak up. This is crucial when our religious freedom is being threatened.

  29. Mark from PA says:

    MD, it is one thing to call gay people queers or fags or make fun of them or tell jokes about gay people but to speak of abominations and the “spawn of satan” is really crossing the line. To me such representations are filth because they demonize people. I am a good Christian person and I am truly horrified by some of the things that you say but it makes me more able to understand why gay people are often the objects of violence. K, I note what you are saying but it is still very offensive to me how some here characterize gay people.

    • Mark from PA-Where is sin from if not from Satan? I never called people with SSA any name, I called the sin a name. There are one of two things at play here. 1) You are intentionally twisting my words to an outcome of sympathy for homosexual sin. 2) You don’t want to differentiate between the act of homosexuality and SSA. Either way, grow up. The reality is Mark, you promote the sin of homosexuality and are extremely deceitful in your reactions just as you have twisted my words into what is obviously an incorrect understanding of what I said. Mark, all sin is the spawn of satan and homosexuality is the second worst sin plaguing the planet today to abortion. Mark, I have never said anything about one person with SSA, I have only spoken of the sin of homosexuality. Read my posts my friend and stop lying. More importantly, stop being a hypocrite and claiming you are a faithful Catholic and slandering the Lord in your support and praise of the homosexual agenda. I am praying for your soul. God Love You.

      • Catherine says:

        MD, You are right about Mark intentionally twisting words. This is what a homosexual activist does. I am also very sorry to read that the individual who posts under the name k is also deliberately deflecting from the beautiful and patient way that you have explained the truth. Other posters have also recognized this duplicitous trait. If k sounds orthodox on other issues but runs interference for homosexual issues then something is clearly wrong. The reason that k has garnered sympathy is from coming across as a victim and also sounding very orthodox and knowledgeable sometimes. If readers have paid attention to all of the posts, then they will recognize that some game is being played. Of course this will be denied but this is what you can expect when a faithful Catholic website consistently exposes dissent. I know that many other people will still benefit from reading your posts MD. I know it is your good intention to help the individual who posts as Mark too but this individual has a free will. CCD is very unique in the sense that they have consistently reported on the dissent within the Church. Many of these stories do revolve around dissent from homosexuals. This is why the poster who calls himself MarkfromPA is here. Mark truly slipped up when he mocked those men in Rome. Mark is lying and distorting every good word that you have tried to express. I know that you realize this too but I still want to commend you for helping *everyone* who will read your exceptional and charitable words. God Bless You MD!

        • Catherine, maybe you could help MD to speak more in conformity with Catholic doctrine. Maybe you could talk to Mark from PA in a way that would not be so offensive. Instead of insinuating false things about me and other posters, why don’t you help? You could clarify-you know the faith, don’t you?

          • Catherine says:

            k, I am not surprised to see you respond so very quickly to my post. You certainly know how to respond very quickly to me, Abeca, JLS, Kenneth Fisher and even Sedavacantists to nit pick and clarify Church teaching. I don’t mind that k. The problem is….you DO NOT do the same when it comes to Church dissenters on the topic of homosexuality. You distract, protect and deflect. This makes you culpable for being able to understand that Mark is an activist. You knew how to respond very quickly to Juergensen to deflect the issue that involved the true mistreatment of Father Guarnizo. You know how to respond to everyone very quickly except MarkfromPA’s consistent distortion or twisting of Church teaching. k, You are now sounding hypocritical because Father Guarzino did speak with conformity to Catholic Doctrine and you did not support him. You deflected attention away from the fact that this priest was not supported properly for teaching what the church teaches. You ran interference in the same way that you consistently run interference on many homosexual topics. Shame on you k, for undermining the very fine posts of MD. Your undermining of MD’s good works are despicably evil. I sincerely believe that the root of your undermining MD has nothing to do with wanting to clarify issues for an individual who posts as Mark. Based on your mistreatment of Father Guarzino and Father Rodriguez in Texas, this is an issue that you do not want clarified or else you would be rushing as fast to clarify Mark’s nonsense as fast you rushed to correct MD (who did not need correcting) and also address me. k, Perhaps you could learn to speak about Father Guarzino and Father Rodriguez of Texas in a way that was less offensive. Perhaps you could stop making them out to be the bad guys when they do teach in Conformity with Catholic doctrine. Otherwise you a showing that you have an agenda too. You are just disguising it better. What are you hiding or protecting k?

          • Catherine, neither Father Guarnizo or Father Rodriguez got in trouble for teaching in conformity with Catholic teaching. Catherine, every time someone irritates you, you accuse them of somehow being pro-gay. I don’t correct and nit pick every post. If I feel something needs clarifying I do that. Usually it is just neutral information-like what I posted on Father Guarnizo. Most secular newspapers reported what Juergensen posted. The Catholic media had more detail which is what I posted. I assume since you are calling me despicably evil for undermining MDs posts that you agree with him, which means you either don’t know the faith well enough to correct him or you only stand up for the Church teachings that you like. Your criticism of me, again, does not bear any real relation to what I have posted. I have no agenda. Honest.

        • Mark from PA says:

          Catherine, I used to think that pretty much all Church leaders were holy men but I don’t feel that way now. A monsignor in Philadelphia was just convicted of endangering the welfare of minors. According to him, he was just following orders. If he had turned in abusing priests to the police, I have no doubt that he would have been punished. He put his loyalty to the Cardinal ahead of his conscience. He was probably afraid of the Cardinal. A pastor who refused to accept a pedophile as his assistant was punished. It is obvious that Cardinal Bevilacqua cared more about his reputation than he did about the safety of children. Maybe you think I am slipping up by criticizing Church leaders but they are men and they will have to answer to a higher power if they played a part in the harming of innocents.

          • Catherine says:

            MarkfromPA, First of all, when you mocked the men in Rome it was in the context of the topic of religious women who were being asked to conform to Church teaching. Many of these religious women are admitted lesbians and they support the homosexual agenda. This is the reason you mocked *those* men in Rome. You are not fooling anyone except the naive when you now claim to care about the holiness of *those men in Rome.” Mark, If you had just been worried about their holiness you would have supported *those* men in Rome because those men in Rome are teaching in conformity to Church doctrine. You have been caught again with twisting intentions to support your homosexual agenda. Mark until you post Catholic teaching you will not be allowed to twist your real intended meaning to undermine authority that upholds Church teaching. Mark you also informed the Catholic blogosphere that you voted for Obama who is pro-death for helpless babies in their mother’s womb. How dare you criticize Cardinal Bevilacqua when there is public evidence on CCD of your own support in choosing to vote for a candidate who promotes the killing of innocent babies. Murdering a baby in the womb does come in the category of harming children yet you still voted for Obama. Secondly, Scroll back up to your July 11, 6:37 PM post. Re-read your own words that prove you are not really interested in following Church teaching regarding the adoption of children by homosexuals. Do not make condemning statements about Cardinal Bevilaqua caring about his own reputation more than the safety of children when your very own words clearly demonstrate a rejection of Church teaching with your public proclamation of support for your homosexual friend who adopted those innocent helpless children. These children are being greatly harmed because they are not being formed in an environment that protects their innocence. Pope Benedict wrote that homosexual adoption actually *does violence* to the innocent formation of children. In this same post you even wrote the words *married to another man* which is not possible in the eyes of God. Now you have the unmitigated nerve to call a Cardinal on the carpet for caring about his own reputation over caring about children. Your posting history clearly shows that you care first about yourself and that you disobey Church teaching by promoting disordered unions on public communication forums. Do not criticize a lead shepherd for not caring about harming children when *YOU* are the individual who publicly celebrates and promotes the harming of children being adopted by two homosexual men on a faithful Catholic website.

        • Catherine: Thank you for the kind words. I try my best to remain orthodox and loving and am thankful to see faithful Catholics like you also striving to spread the word. Mark from PA may and will probably never admit to or recognize the Truth as proclaimed by the Church, but I am glad people object to his false postings. You have tremendous orthodoxy and I thank you for that. God Love You.

    • Canisius says:

      PA do me a favor stand along 5th ave in NYC the next gay shame parade and you will see MD’s comments are close to the mark. You will grown see called men screaming shame while giving the fingering toward the direction of St. Patrick’s Cathedral….and that is the tame part….

    • Mark from PA: ask Anita Bryant, Brad Pitt’s mother and all of the thousands that have been or still are being attacked by the homosexual communities about violence; their take is completely different than yours. Look at the pictures that are taken at the homosexual parades or on their web-sites, etc. and what do you see?: signs with terms such as fags, queers, etc. the very same names that you find insulting, but, the names that they call themselves. Confusing for you, isn’t it? +JMJ+

  30. Mark from PA says:

    MD, you seem to imply that homosexuality is from satan and I find that offensive. I do not believe that people get their sexual orientation from satan. I find it disturbing that sometimes you seem to attribute divine powers to satan. As I have said before, I am just a little nobody, hopefully I am not even on the devil’s radar screen. Do you honestly believe that homosexuality, (having a homosexual orientation, being gay) is the second worst sin on the planet? Being gay is worse than committing rape, murder, child abuse, theft, assault and so on?

    • Mark from PA: I am glad that you are offended as you should be by sin, although it is not the sin that offends you, but the fact that the Catholic Church illuminates homosexuality as being sinful. I asked you a specific question about the nature of sin and its origins and you once again twist my words. Mark, read my posts and stop twisting words. You should have no need to ask if I think SSA is a sin. I have made this abundantly clear to you more than several times and stand with the Church on this topic and agree 100% with the CCC. Mark, as I have said several times, I speak of the sin of homosexuality, and yes this sin is destroying and has the intent to destroy life and the family. It promotes the culture of death, denies life in both morally and physically and is contrary to the structure of the family. Mark, the more you reply to posts, the more it is becoming clear that you merely pretend to agree with the Church on the teachings of homosexuality and a means to promote immoral half truths to gain sympathy for the sin of homosexuality and the disordered actions of same sex unions. Mark, may God send His grace into your soul, may Our Lord cover you with his Precious Blood and heal you of the wounds that blind you to His Truth. God Love You.

      • C.mon MarkfromPA, you can do it. Where is sin from if not from Satan? It is from the heart of ____ . ( i think they are getting sin confused with temptation and, even in that case, not all temptations come from Satan, according to Church Teaching.

  31. Well, peter, at least you admit that MD speaks; which is more than your posts indicate about you.

  32. k, there is no way to offend a gay advocate. The very nature of what they do is offensive to God. MD is patiently and with great compassion trying to convey soul saving instruction to PA, who ardently rejects it

  33. Rick DeLano says:

    “Where is sin from if not from Satan?” Imagine, that such a simple, obvious Truth of the Catholic Faith should be a matter of controversy. MD, you speak very well. You speak what the Catholic Faith teaches here.

  34. JLS, I’m sure that if MD would stick to Church teaching, it would help a lot. He has strong opinions on things; some of which are real jawdroppers. Let’s get holy.

    • Catherine says:

      k, Mark’s real foolish jaw dropper was mocking *those men in Rome* Your real foolish jaw dropper is your decision to publicly criticize MD’s excellent Catholic posts. This exposes both of you.

      • Catherine, I spent a lot of time searching the sources that MD claimed his teaching was in: Bible, Catechism, Theology of the Body. It was not in any of them. I found much that would refute it. Now, if you know of a Catholic source that teaches what MD teaches I would be grateful for the information.

      • Also, Catherine, I mentioned this before when MD and I were discussing the errors that he was teaching. I contacted a priest who is the cousin of Fr. John Harvey who started the COURAGE apostolate. He confirmed the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is one of the “weaknesses and imperfections brought into the world by man’s rebellion.” If you read the story of the fall in Genesis 3, you can see that the devil instigated the first sin, but also present were temptations of the flesh and the world. The devil did not tempt Adam to sin; Eve did. Do you remember from catechism class:concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh and the pride of life? There is a ubiquitous American folk understanding of all sin coming from the devil, such as Devil in Blue Dress, devil’s food cake, “the devil made me do it” (if you are old enough to remember Flip Wilson) but it is not from Catholic Tradition.

    • K-Please show one instance where I have not conveyed authentic Catholic theology and I will be happy to recant my statement. K, it is Mark from PA who is straying from Catholic Doctrine. I use the CCC, Code of Canon Law, Sacred Scripture and several Catholic sources I have accumulated and learned to trust through the years for their orthodoxy as points of reference in my posts. I may present things in ways you find objectionable at times, but what I say is not heretical by any means. God Love You.

      • You say that all sin comes from Satan. You also said that homosexuality was the second worse sin in the world. Those are not authentic Catholic teachings. “Homosexuality is the spawn of satan and is perpetuated by an army of demons from hell.” Even asuming that you mean homosexual sex, I don’t think that is the authentic teaching of the Church. My personal belief is that there is a demonic element to the increase in acceptance of homosexual relationships (although that would be “the world”) and especially in the attacks on the Catholic Church that are stemming from the social and legal acceptance of same-sex unions.

      • I am not accusing you of heresy. There is nothing in the CCC, Scripture, or Canon Law that says that all sin comes from Satan, that homosexuality (meaning sexual conduct) is the second worse sin or that it is “the spawn of satan and perpetuated by an army of demons from hell.” There is nothing in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body that says these things. I would like for you, if you have a source which says this, to quote it and document it.

  35. Rick DeLano says:

    The homosexual “marriage” movement is a spear aimed directly at the heart of the Catholic Church’s liberty to practice and propagate the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Please be very sure to mark and avoid the simpering bomfoggery of any who, even at this late date, are either unable, or too cowardly, to oppose this deadly assault upon the Gospel and the Church.

    • Catherine says:

      Rick DeLano@ 4:09am May God continue to bless you for these eloquently stated words that bear repeating, “The homosexual “marriage” movement is a spear aimed directly at the heart of the Catholic Church’s liberty to practice and propagate the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    • Anne T. says:

      Good post, Catherine. It is great that Mark from PA is finally told off about his “concern” for those who get abused, when he often promotes the behavior and charcter that leads to such abuse.

  36. Mark from PA says:

    Catherine, these children were not harmed by being adopted by homosexual men. They lived with single mothers who could not adequately care for them. They lived in homes without a father. To adopt a child, people need to have home studies and it needs to be proven that they can adequately care for the child. If they are not fit (gay or straight) then they don’t get to adopt the child. However, it is discrimination to say that no homosexual should be allowed to adopt a child. If they can provide a good home fine. Perhaps I do have nerve to criticize Cardinal Bevilacqua, but I am upset at what he did. Do you feel that Msgr. Lynn was unfairly charged? Please defend the actions of Cardinal Bevilacqua. I would like to hear why you feel that what he did was right. I am not going to discuss President Obama here. I realize that many of the posters here loathe, detest and despise the man so it is better if I just remain silent about him.

    • Mark from PA: you are wrong. You fail to see the true harm being done, the exposure to sin as normal and acceptable behavior. Mark, how can you justify putting children into an environment that is detrimental to their eternal souls? Mark, these children being with these two men committing mortal sin on a regular basis is extremely dangerous for the souls of these young people. Mark, wake up. Do you want people to go to hell? How would you say such things as saying these children are not being harmed? Mark, do you ever think of the everlasting life after we leave this earth? Your posts put the temporal above the eternal and this is dangerous because it blinds you to the consequences of sin and the lures of sin satan uses to destroy your soul. I hope God touches your heart. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA: you say that if the homosexuals are not “fit”, they won’t be allowed to “adopt” children? This is one big lie as the State which is so afraid of the homosexual agenda, won’t ever stop them from “adopting” as they don’t want to be sued and the attacks from the activists would be alarming!! Why is there such disgust for Obama on this site? Is it because he is the son of the devil and his idol is Hitler himself? +JMJ+

  37. Anne T. says:

    Rick De Lano, Catherine, K and Concerned Others, I will telll you briefly why I do not believe in the adoption of children by those who pracitce homosexual or lesbian behavior, and I will never ever give any approval to it whether the couple are so-called “married” or not. There was a case of underaged male teen abuse in my own family by another male family member. By the time I found out about it and discussed it with the proper authorities, it was too late for anything to be done about it as the young man was already of age, and either he or his mother would have had to charge the person with the molestation. His father was out of the picture completely.The victim later was beaten and left town and even later disappeared completely. Drugs and the overuse of alcohol was rampant in this situation.The mother sent her son to visit the relative and his male lover because she trusted the relative, and he and probably both, from what I heard later, committed sodomy on the teen and the relative committed incest on her son. I also knew a public school teacher, who was married to a woman and was not a Catholic, who was eventually accused and convicted of molesting boys, and possibly girls too, at his apartment and church. He had everyone fooled. We all though he was a good teacher. I have heard of a lot of these cases, including the recent infamous Sandusky case. Most of these molestations, as I am sure most of you know, are done by live in boy friends, praciticng homosexuals and on rarer occasions an acutal father or step-father. I assume that is probably the case with female on female molestation which is not as prevalent. Many will tell us that not all homosexuals molest, but according to how many there are compared to heterosexuals, there actually is more molestation of boys by men going on than molestation among the heterosexual community. The father figures in my life, a grandfather and step-father, never molested anyone. A man who is willing to do the right thing and marry the mother and his children, or the mother of someone else’s children is less likely to molest those children according to all the facts.

    • Anne T. says:

      Cont. Concerning my grandfather and step-father, they never molested anyone, at least to my knowledge, and certainly not me, and I am sure I would have heard about it if something such as that had happened. Those things always have a way of finally getting out to other family members as I and others would warn other relatives.

      • Anne T. says:

        BTW, I was NOT saying that ALL homosexuals molest children, lest Mark from PA twists my words, just that it is more common among those who pracitce homosexualal acts because there are fewer of them and more molesting of victims by them as compared to the the same amount of heterosexuls. The end.

    • I understand. However, the Church is opposed to homosexual adoption because of the lack of proper socialization; because it is not a family the way God envisioned the family. It is a deprivation of something that is so important that there is no replacement for it. Elton John (who with his partner has a young son by surrogacy) recently said in an interview that it will be heartbreading when his son realizes that he does not have a mother. I am sorry for the situation in your family. 1 in 6 male children are sexually abused before the age of 18. The potential for abuse in these arrangements is a concern that many people have.

  38. PA, could you address my July 13th 9:40 am question to you? You cite lack of Church teaching as being a reason MD is wrong, yet you do the same thing when it comes to homosexuality coming from God.

    PA, you said “. Nowhere in Church teachings is there anything about the sexual orientation of homosexuals being caused by satan and demons from hell. ” There is nothing in scripture that says God created homosexuality either, yet in past posts you have invited people to infer God created homosexuals. If MD is wrong, why arn’t you ?

  39. Mark from PA says:

    According to statistics 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are victims of molestation. Most of the victims are girls molested by men.

  40. PA, your credibility with statistics is non-existent.

    • Canisius says:

      JLS, the NY Mets put up better stats than PA

    • These are the accepted statistics for males and females up to the age of 18. There are many more resources for women and girls that for men and boys. There is a blog called toysoldiers which highlights the abuse of males.

  41. Actually, my step-father, who was white, once saved a young black boy from molestation by a caucasian man. The rest of the family was along at the time, and I saw the situation, but as a teen I did not have a clue as to why the man was trying to get the child to come with him. My step-father went over and told the little boy, about seven, to leave, and then he went over to talk to the man. He was upset because no one else going by did anything,

  42. k, God is a family. Homosexuals are not. The Church is God’s work, and the homosexuals have no part in it.

    • >:O

    • Abeca Christian says:

      JLS you are correct. Homosexual acts are not part of God’s plan at all. The natural law states that and is very clear! Sodomy is a sin! A grave sin!

      • Anne T. says:

        JLS and Abeca Christian, everyone, whatever temptation they have or sin they have committed is called to repentence. I just hope that the man who was going to harm that little boy; the relative of mine that did what he did and the man who tried to molest me as a child in a threatre learned their lesson and never did or do such a thing again, and at the end makes their peace with God. People can and do change for the better. Nevertheless, I do not think that we should put children in a position where they can be harmed that way, or give someone a chance to do it again. One’s children should not be taken care of by anyone of bad character, at least not alone in an emergency. I know many people will bash me for saying “bad character” but that is precisely what it is if someone is permanately in serious sin. I never let my children stay at anyone’s home whom I knew was not lawfully married and just living with someone, nor with those who were using illegal drugs or with an alcoholics and so forth..It just is not worth taking the chance with one’s precious children. I NEVER drink alcoholic beverages when I am taking care of children. Otherwise, I am not overprotective as far as sports, play, etc.Boys will be boys and need to roughhouse as long as they are not seriously hurting each other.

  43. Why is it that Catholics are so adept at hurting each other?

  44. Abeca Christian says:

    I met Bishop Cordileone this past weekend at the National Catholic Conference! He gave us a blessing! What a holy Bishop! He is so humble and kind! God bless him!

  45. Mark from PA says:

    Kaves1 and JLS, please read “A Convert’s Story” from July 12. The statistics that I quoted are in that story and I am familiar with them and knew them before I read the article. Kaves1, I believe that human beings were created by God. Since homosexual persons are also human beings then they are also created by God. Gay people are part of the human family. I don’t think that many people believe that some people are created by God and others are not.

    • PA, so pedophiles were created by God to be pedophiles? Are not pedophiles God’s children also? Like you said to MD concerning homosexuals and demons, I see nothing in Church teaching or scripture that says God created homosexuality, which is what you are implying. Homosexuality is a disorder and a consequence of Original Sin, (which MD logically concludes is therefore caused by satan), this coupled with the lack of mention of God creating homosexuality, coupled with the mention of God specifically creating heterosexuality, coupled with the fact that both the Old and New Testaments maintian that homosexual acts are always grave immoral acts argues that God did not create homosexuals as you imply. Why would God create homosexuality and then say all homosexual acts were immoral? You derive that God created homosexuals because God created everything; but did God create death? Death and all disorders (including homosexuality) is not something, rather it is what remains when God’s original grace is absent. It is the lack of something. MD logically concludes that homosexuality orginated with satan and demons, yet you deride him because it is not specifically found in Church teaching . Yet you (wrongly) analogoulsy derive the same thing concerning homosexuality because you infer God created everything even though there is nothing to support that God created homosexuality. Please be consistent.

  46. Mark from PA says:

    Kaves1, I think it is dangerous to say that homosexuality (and thus gay persons) originated with satan and demons. To do such a thing separates gay people from the rest of humanity and gives them a demonic origin. This can very well lead to violence against them. I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that any group of people are from satan.

    • Mark from PA: It is far more dangerous to ignore the nature of sin and the origins of sin. Mark, the origin of sin is satan, Period. When people partake in homosexuality, they are sinning. How can you argue against that? Why do you argue against that? Mark, when you justify and allow for this behavior, you commit the worst kind of violence one can permit, not turning a soul away from hell. All sin is from satan because satan wants us all to spend eternity in hell. God does not tempt us Mark. Do you understand this? God created us to love Him, not to love the temporal, but to love the Eternal. Please stop twisting the meaning of people’s posts. What Kaves1 said is theologically sound and you twist the meaning in a way that is submissive to the homosexual agenda. Follow Christ not the persuasion of the homosexual movement. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA says:

        When people partake of homosexuality, they are sinning? Homosexuality is a state of being. How can a state of being be a sin? Do you believe that God created homosexual persons? It seems that some people view gay people as disordered and less than fully human. So some think that they ask for that they get when they are mistreated. But this is not what Jesus taught. He taught that we love our neighbors as ourselves so those that believe gay people are fully human feel that they should be treated as Jesus commanded.

        • John Siple says:

          We have only to read and incorporate the teachings of the Magisterium for 2000 years & back into Judaism for another 5000 years. No Christian is ignorant of the Word, the Risen & Living Christ!

        • Mark from PA: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexuality is a sexual action with two people of the same sex, it is NOT a state of being. Your comment is in complete contradiction with the CCC. Mark, I think the suitable question here is why as a self-proclaiming Catholic do you contradict Church teaching? What you are doing is no worse than Kathleen Sebelius or Nancy Pelosi who spread lies as self-professed Catholics. You directly oppose the Catechism by stating that homosexuality is not an action when is specifically states it is indeed an action. There is no question on semantics here because it has been explained to you several times. It is clear to me that you simply oppose Church teaching on this subject and will continue to be an advocate for an immoral lifestyle on this site under the false pretense of defending the innocent people with SSA. I hope and pray people are smart enough not to listen to you and be led to serious sin. God Love You.

    • Rick DeLano says:

      Mark from PA, what you think is dangerous is of course irrelevant, if what you think is dangerous is instead the Truth, that comes to us from God, in His Revelation. You have to answered kaves1 very clear, concise, and legitimate challenges above.

    • Mark: Homosexuality is the sin of fornication with people of the same sex, so yes it is a sin. It is not a condition or orientation, but an action. Read the Catechism my friend because it specifically states that “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” Mark, “relations” is sex if you have not understood that. Your twisting of the words here show that you do NOT agree with the CCC. Homosexuality is a sin, a disorder of the flesh. It is in the CCC in black and white. How can you object to this if you agree with the Catechism? God Love You.

  47. PA, I think it is dangerous to imply, as you do, that God created homosexuality. It is false teaching. It is you who define people by their sexuality – not the Church. The Church says the condition is disordered, not the person. Yet, you act as though the Church either does or should define people by their sexuality. Please stop your false teaching ; you are putting the souls of people who buy into your false teaching in danger. Violence against the soul is far more dangerous than violence against the body. You ignore this at the peril of your own soul. All sin originated with Satan (not just homosexual acts) – Jesus Himself said Satan is the Father of lies.

  48. To define homosexuality as “a state of being”, which PA defines it as in his post above, is to slur God. God is being; ie, “I am who am”. To claim that there are several states of “I am who am” is A. to divide God, and B. to put God at odds with Himself by claiming that He has a homosexual aspect or state. Either claim is bearing false witness against God, and doing so buys a ticket to Hell. The evident fact in the continuous claims that PA makes that homosexuality is God given and a good thing prove that PA is not the naiive character he pawns himself off as. Rather he is an ardent and intentful apologist for the gay political and religious movement … PA is in fact a very evil person.

    • JLS, for most people who are gay or lesbian or transgender, it is a great trial. I am sure that Mark fromPA went through some very difficult times in his life. For now, lets not discuss what happens when someone gives in to the temptations, but just when they recognize that something is different in them, they are not like the others. Many of them date the opposite sex because that is what people do. They get married, like PA. Or like some priests who identify as gay, they have never acted on any sexual impulse. Mark from PA is talking about these people. Not everyone with the orientation acts on it? The Vatican has indicated that they believe it is an immaturity- that is why persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not to be admitted to the priesthood. They have said that its psychological genesis is unknown. It is possible that in some people it is innate. A homosexual person can accept that they have this in their personhood and live life chastely: if married, fulfilling the duties of the married state; if in the priesthood or religious life, fulfilling their duties there; if single, to live a life a service to God Unfortunately, because of promiscuity, this has gotten lost and actively gay people are seeking approval for their lifestyle and civil recognition of their unions. Because of loss of stigma for promiscuity, straight people do not see the difference between their lifestyles and those of the active gays. Sin wounds and sin blinds.

  49. If Satan had not tempted Adam and Eve, then would they have ever sinned? St Paul discusses how sin came into the world … by Satan.

    • JLS, are you talking about Romans 5:12 “just as sin entered the world through one man, and through sin, death…” ?

  50. Mark from PA says:

    JLS, I am not evil, just different. When I was a young person I never realized that some people viewed people like me as evil because they were different. But I am coming to a better understanding of why some people feel such hatred for gay people.

  51. Mark from PA says:

    K, I am aware that the Catechism says that the genesis of homosexuality is unknown. But I have also become aware that some people do not believe that God created homosexual persons. They do not believe that God would create such defective and imperfect people. Some people seem to have the idea that homosexual persons are creatures of the devil. Because of this some feel that attacks on gay people, verbal and physical attacks, are justified because in attacking gay people they are fighting the devil. The Westboro Baptists have such beliefs and from reading some of the comments here, some of the posters here also have similar beliefs.

    • Mark from PA: We have been over this many times and you say the same things over and over again. No one on here says people with SSA were not created by God, they are saying that the SSA is not created by God. Do you see the difference? There is a major difference. God made no one with an inclination to sin in any faculty of sin, but because of concupiscence, we have the inclination to sin. Concupiscence is the first fruit of original sin. Why do you not accept that sin is from satan? Mark, all sin is from satan; this does NOT mean sinners are created by satan. We are all sinners, but it is satan who lures us into sin. Please learn how to differentiate between a sin and a sinner for once you understand this difference the Church’s teaching on homosexuality will be easier for you to accept, that is if you have any openness to the Truth of Jesus Christ as professed by His Bride, our One and Holy Apostolic Church. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA, they are not saying that God did not create homosexual persons. They are saying that God did not create homosexuality-the condition where others are attracted to the same sex. We know that God created all things. They know that too. Our fallen nature came as a result of Adam’s sin, and since the devil tempted Eve to sin and Eve gave Adam the fruit of the tree, they are saying that the devil is the origin of all sin. I don’t think anyone justifies physical attacks on gay people. They have verbally attacked gay people. In addition to the sexual actions of individual gay persons which are sinful (you admit this) they are also concerned about what they term “the gay agenda.” There is, obviously, in the media a concerted effort to change the stereotypes of gay people and to mock those who speak up for traditional sexual morality. There is a political movement to obtain legal matrimony for gay couples. The media is sympathetic to this and is making an effort to cast those who protest because they hold traditonal morals as bigots or followers of an antiquated moral system. When the posters fight this social trend, they feel they are fighting the devil. They seem to be genuinely concerned for your soul. Many of them have said that when they use the term homosexuallity they are meaning a sexually active person. You could post in a way that would clarify the Church’s teaching. I would like to see all who post here develop the ability to respond to the idea in a post without insulting or making assumptions about the poster. You could ask the poster to clarify. And when you don’t answer questions, I have found, they think you are hiding something. Sometimes, the way they phrase their questions makes it hard to answer. I still haven’t figured out “What are you protecting?” And, you did not answer my question and I will not ask twice. I make no assumptions. This new format has good things and bad things about it. But it is easy to miss if someone replies to your post. I guess that is what those check boxes at the bottom are for.

      • K: I once asked MarkfromPA if he thought it was ok for a “committed” homosexual couple to have sexual relations and he told me that he thought it was ok. He did not think it was wrong if they are committed to each other and “married”. He said homosexual acts are only wrong when they are promiscuous and outside of a committed relationship or gay “marriage”. So, no, PA doesn’t agree that homosexual actions are sinful in some situations. MarkfromPA dissents on Church teaching when it comes to homosexual acts. If you don’t believe what I said here, ask him yourself. ALL homosexual acts are mortally sinful and worthy of hell. I don’t understand what part of that Church teaching he refuses to adhere to and believe. He obviously has an agenda here.

        • k, I can corroborate what RR says. In fact, I replied to you a while back saying where he said this.

        • Do you remember the article?

        • I think the title of the article was “For the way the Church has treated them” dated 6/2/11.
          “Posted Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:55 PM By kaves1 PA, are there any conditions under which you believe the Church should recognize homosexual sexual acts as something good? Say, for example, in a loving, committed relationship blessed by the Church?”
          Posted Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:18 PM By Mark from PA
          Kaves1, in regard to your questions of 6/7 at 12:55 PM. I think a year or so ago, I discussed this. The answers are yes and yes. I don’t care to get into another long discussion about this. I believe that all people deserve to be treated with respect”
          Furthermore, on Posted Monday, June 13, 2011 8:58 PM By k you said.” I do not agree with Mark’s answers to Kaves1 questions, I support the Church in her teachings. But, also, just because he disagrees with the Church does not mean he disobeys the Church.”

          • kaves 1, yes I remember that now. Well, you said it would be a relationship blessed by the Church. What were you thinking? No, Mark from PA views are not in total conformity to this teaching of the church. There are people who wish the Church would change the rule on going to communion by divorced and remarried, but they do not take communion. They disagree with the Church’s teaching but they obey it. What are they guilty of? There are people who stay married when they really want to divorce because of the Church’s teaching. What are they guilty of? There are women who would like to be deacons or even priests but they do not approach anyone about that. They obey the Church’s teaching although they do not agree with it. What are they guilty of? They are obedient. Obedience is necessary; it is a good thing that allows people to perform at a level higher than their own understanding. Do you think God is offended by that? Kaves 1, the way you phrased the questions, his answer to question number one would indicate a lack of understanding of the intrinsic disorder of sexual acts that are not open to life and the unitive purpose of marriage. He would be in error. Then you added question 2, which is something that should never happen, so you kind of led him into that error. No one should be so concerned with finding fault in others. It is enough to teach the Truth. I think MarkfromPA honestly is confused because of some counseling that he received from a priest. I have seen this happen before. I think MarkfromPA is still suffering from the loss of idealism that occured in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals. He came from a time and place where priests were looked up to and seen as another Christ. At the time of that article you mentioned, MarkfromPA was being treated as if he was an active gay person and there were posters who honestly didn’t know that he wasn’t. I think at that time I did not know he was married to a woman and I did not know his position on it until you asked. My concern at that time was how he was being treated by other posters. I have always corrected any error I saw him make. He does not argue for his postitions.

      • Mark from PA says:

        K, sadly some people do justify physical attacks on gay people and some people physically attack gay people. But this is less common than in the past as people are more tolerant now. I think it is important for young gay kids to be aware of this for their own protection. As I have said before a person who is homosexual is not necessarily sexually active. Yes, some homosexual acts are sins just as some heterosexual acts are sins. But people should not make assumptions about the private lives of others. In my opinion that is immodest.

        • No, PA. ALL(NOT SOME) ACTIVE homosexual acts are mortally sinful wether they are committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

        • All I know is that I stood up for them and one of them just ***** on my head.

          • Catherine says:

            k, You are not fooling anyone but yourself. You are not standing up for “them”, (you are the one who chose to use the word *them*) as much as you think you are. You are just making excuses and deflecting responsibility. Also In your posting history you never once stood up in support for the poster named Mark F. If you were truly interested in standing up for *them*, you would have stood up for Mark F”s posts that did conform to Church Teaching.

            You are always a johnny on the spot when it comes to deflecting responsibility away from those who promote homosexuality, gender identity issues, drag queen shows etc. You are also a johnny on the spot when it comes to twisting the real reasons why faithful priests such as Father Guarzino and Father Martinez of Texas are being silenced. On July 8, 2010 CCD did an article titled ‘Sneak him through without public scrutiny” On July, 21, 3:50 2010 MarkfromPA wrote, “Actually, RR if two gay men or two lesbians were in a *chaste gay committed relationship*, the Church would consider that to be morally right. The Church may say that certain acts are wrong but, the Church nowhere says that it is wrong for two people to love each other.” k, you know very well that there are homosexuals who are trying to distort Church teaching by twisting the intended meaning of certain words. Mark used the words *chaste* gay committed relationship.”

            k, The word *chaste* is falsely being used to mean the condition of having only one partner therefore even a sexual relationship is still considered chaste because they are committed and they love each other. We clearly see that MarkfromPA often deliberately twists words. The focus is not on MarkfromPA, because we know where Mark stands. The focus of this post is your continued pattern of deflection with homosexual issues. It has become even clearer that your support for *them* is not as fair, or as balanced, as in your silent lack of support of posters like Mark F., or as just, as in the case of supporting faithful priests like Father Guarzino. k, you wrote, “most people wish they could stop being gay,” you sound as if being a homosexual is the only type of cross in the world.

          • Where is Mark F? Mark F. was a former gay activist- a really active gay activist who converted. I like him, he had a lot to offer. He kept telling people just to ignore Mark from PA, I remember. Maybe he is reading and just not posting. I hope he is well and happy.

      • Mark from PA says:

        K, you ask “What are you protecting?” I think young people need to be protected. I think hated, discrimination and prejudice can have the consequences of damaging young people.

        • No Mark from Pa, I was being taunted with that question “What are you protecting?” by another poster. It was not my question to you.

          • Mark from PA, I think maybe that question is insinuating that I have a family member or friend that is gay and I am trying to protect them. I do not know any people who are gay or lesbian or transgender or intersex. None. That is probably why it took me so long to figure out the question.

    • Mark from PA: Something dawned on me that I actually find quite funny. I find it quite interesting that any time anyone states the reality that homosexuality is caused by satan you get bent out of shape and exclaim that you are not from satan. Mark, by making this comment, you identify yourself not only as being defined by a condition, but are making the statement that you are the condition. Homosexuality is a desire, an attribute, a condition, not a person Mark, a condition created by satan for the destruction of souls. God did NOT create people to desire people of the same sex, satan distorted human sexuality and human nature causing this effect. I will continue to pray for you. God Love You.

      • Then anybody can turn gay anytime Satan decides to do that to them?

        • Yes, k. The devil puts the temptation to sin there and man has free will to decide wether he chooses God or man. Therefore, all sin comes and starts from the devil.

        • Mark from PA says:

          Not really, K.

        • No K, satan does not tempt everyone in the same manner, satan tempts us in our weakness, he preys on our vulnerability in our brokenness. K, we went over this a few months back and I showed you in Sacred scripture where it says that satan is the father of lies, the tempter, the father of sin. God allows sin, He does not ordain sin, He did not create us with an inclination to sin, our inclination to sin (concupiscence) is a result of original sin. SSA is a result of original sin. God Love You.

          • Original sin is the fault of Adam. You are confusing sin with temptation. It is not Ok to say that homosexuality (the orientation) comes from Satan because Satan tempted Adam to sin. You would not say that poor eyesight, or Muscular dystrophy or Down’s syndrome comes from Satan. Physical evils are also a result of the fall. I know you honestly believe what you are saying, and you probably honestly think it is a teaching of the Church. But you can’t correct anyone elses error when you don’t teach accurately. Also you say that Satan caused the weakness that he plays on-so why doesn’t he give everybody SSA and murderous impulses and kleptomania? It does not make sense. I thnk you are granting a power to Satan that he does not have.

          • Mark from PA says:

            MD, I don’t think having a homosexual orientation is a result of original sin. If it was then the orientation would be taken away by baptism. A certain percentage of people have this orientation and whether or not they are baptized doesn’t have anything to do with it.

          • K: If all the things you described above are from the fall, then please go one step further and address the source of the fall…satan. Death, disease, weakness, pain, etc are a result and consequence of original sin. Satan is the source of all sin, this is not an error, it is Church teaching K. I have said this repeatedly and it is fact, not my opinion, but Church teaching. All temptation towards sin is from satan. If you disagree with this, then it is Scripture you are disagreeing with, not my idea of sin. I have been very consistent in saying what I just said here and am NOT giving you opinion. SSA is a temptation of the flesh, it is from concupiscence and not created by God. The desire or temptation of sin does NOT come from God. Does this make sense to you? God did not create SSA as you and PA are trying to say. The CCC states that SSA is “objectively disordered;” contrary to the natural order. Lastly, I am not granting power to satan what I am saying, I am sharing Scripture with you and Church Teaching. Don’t forget that satan has dominion over the earth and has legions of demons who work for the destruction of souls precisely by tempting the flesh. God Love You.

          • MD, it is possibly that you are just not phrasing it the way the Church does. And that is what is making the difference. OK, so you are saying that because Satan tempted Eve and she sinned and Eve tempted Adam and Adam sinned, that Satan is the source of sin. God had made man capable of choosing to sin. When Adam sinned, he lost his original “state of holiness and justice.” He now could suffer and die. All of his descendents now are subject to suffering and death. Except for the Virgin Mary who was preserved from original sin and never sinned during her life on earth due to special grace from God (and Jesus of course) each person has sinned. Every human person’s soul is created by God. Every human person is created by God. I know some people believe in evolution but I don’t. God knows before a person is conceived the whole course of their life. As for all temptation to sin coming from Satan, it is not that way in the fall (Genesis 3:6) and it is not that way now. I think you are defining SSA as a temptation and it is not. Objectively disordered means that the object of the desire is against the natural order created by God, You are mixing the teaching of the Church with some of your own ideas. I did not say that God created SSA nor did Mark from PA. He makes human beings. All of them desire things that are not good and holy. You are saying that the only two people God made are Adam and Eve? What you are saying does not make sense-unless you are an evolutionist. But then Satan wouldn’t have any power in that either. And the Catechism does say, as Mark points out “God made me.”

      • Mark from PA says:

        MD, I don’t really find it funny. I am saying that the sexual orientation of gay people does not come from satan. I am saying that my sexual orientation is not from satan. I am not saying that I am defined by a condition or that I am a condition. I am saying that homosexuality is not a condition created by satan. I think saying such a thing does a grave injustice to gay people. Such talk stirs up hatred against gay people because it implies that their sexuality is somehow satanic. As I have stated, I do not label myself with the word homosexual and I am not openly gay so how could I be defined by that condition. What I am doing here is expressing my opinion just as you are expressing your opinions.

        • Mark from PA: Where does your sexual orientation come from? Are you saying that God created you to desire something that will lead you away from Him? Why would God crate you to desire mortal sin, or a mortally sinful act? This is precisely what you are telling everyone in your posts above. I don’t know about you, but I see and have a major problem with an all Good God who would create someone with a desire to sin. Please address this because you keep swing that God gave you your homosexual desire, but can’t prove how this is actually the case. Please don’t beat around the bush in your response, be succinct and refrain from talking about when you were a boy, but answer the questions I asked. You have never done so and am hoping for a first in this thread, but won’t hold my breath. I will look forward to your reply. God Love You.

          • Mark from PA says:

            Do you actually believe that satan has dominion over the earth, MD? I think you give satan divine powers when you say this. I don’t really know many people that think like this. I looked at a sedavacantist site once and it had stuff like that on it so I quickly left. I asked a priest about it and he said that those people were “out there” and not to interest myself with stuff like that.

        • Mark from PA: Why would you think that SSA, or the homosexual orientation would be removed by baptism? None of the physical effects of original sin are removed by baptism. If your argument were true, we would ever suffer pain, hurt, disease, death, distrust, etc. All these things are a result of original sin just like SSA is. Mark, baptism removes the punishment of sin, that is the eternal punishment of sin, not the temporal effects. This is Church teaching. Please read your Catechism, and if you don’t have one please go buy one. God Love You.

  52. The genesis of homosexuality is not unknown; it is the devil as practiced by deviant men and women.

  53. k, living in this world is a great trial for every single soul. Gay people need to stop being gay and start worshiping God instead of following their father the devil.

    • Defining gay as having a homosexual orientation, most gay people wish they could stop being gay.

      • Catherine says:

        k says, “Most gay people wish they could stop being gay.” What has that got to do with Bishop Cordileone’s defense of Church teaching and homosexuals adopting children. Many other people also wish that they did not have disordered passions and temptations too. By your standards and school of thought, fellow posters are supposed to say, “Oh, I see, PA has a worse cross than anyone else on the entire face of the planet so leave him alone (like you have k?) and let him misrepresent Church teaching to the Catholic blogosphere because a priest confused him.”

        While your statement that most gays wish they could stop being gay may be true, it still hasn’t stopped an alleged CCD teacher named MarkfromPA from trying to reinvent his own teachings of the Catholic Church on California Catholic Daily. It still has not stopped a poster named k, from running interference for topics on homosexuality. Your priority here seems to be defending the feelings of Church dissenting homosexuals over the charitable truths of the Catholic Church that MD provided.

        • Anonymous says:

          Catherine, I think if you read Bishop Bruskewitz’ article on homosexuality on the Lincoln diocese’ website you will see a very good, thorough Cathholic explanation of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. It is 4 pages long so I cannot reproduce it here. Better for you to just read it yourself.

        • Catherine,if I might just add my little mite, it is very faithful of you and others to try to reason with people who you think might profit from it, but would you try to convince a heterosexual man to become a homosexual man using logic and reason? I still often refer to what is to me a watershed article when I read Anne Barbeau Gardiner’s’ An Army Arises from the Smoke’ in New Oxford Review, June 2010, a short guest essay on homosexuality. I wish everyone would read it before discussing this apparently all-encompassing subject. Homosexuality has taken on a life of its own, just as a cloud of locusts takes over the environment when they devour everything in site once they have joined together and become a strong army. They seem invincible. These people do NOT see that they suffer from is a disorder. They have become their sin! It is important to let that sink in a bit. They could no more change than you could grow wings. Just as you can not convince a pedophile that it is not love to have sex with children, you can not convince these people that what they’re doing is unnatural. They feel it is biological in nature…hereditary and completely sinless. Those who have not succumbed to this delusion still feel a deep sadness and want to be free of it, but have tremendous pressure on them now not to try to seek help. These are the ones who need our prayers and arguments, love and support. The hardened souls who mock Christ and seek to undermine the very foundations of our culture are the same who were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorra. They will end with destruction. Lot at first begged God not to destroy the city by trying to find 50 worth saving, then finally got down to bargaining for even five worth saving and NONE could be found. All were destroyed. I’m sorry, but for me, it’s time to move on. When someone comes to this website that expresses a deep sadness and regret for his or her homosexual lifestyle, do you not think the vast majority of us would be very loving and supportive? Of course we would. We must pray for those who are frightened now of making a break. You feel some may be hanging by a thread, and argument with help. It is prayer that will help, now. God is merciful and just. But until one is able to see that it is not hereditary or natural, it’s just impossible for words to help. At least that’s how I see it. I’m just thankful to God that I don’t have to deal with that particular cross. We all have something, that’s for sure.

  54. Rick DeLano says:

    The one who hates homosexuals is the one who fails to assure them of the consequences in eternity of embracing the homosexual disorder as a virtue, and especially of following through from that false foundation to the homosexual act itself, which is always objectively disordered, and gravely sinful.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      Rick we must be careful not to be vague or even assume that one hates homosexuals. We can’t judge ones heart when it comes to this very sinful lifestyle choice. It does cause scandal in ones soul, it does provoke ill sentiments but after all sin always does when one is striding to be good, these sins especially the ones that attack the natural law, such as the grave sinful act as sodomy, one can not act so uncharitable to those who fear the Lord and find these sin’s offensive. Those opposing the Lord, will always attack and suppress righteousness by accusations of hating homosexuals. There is a fine line with accusations of hate, especially when good God fearing individuals usually get attacked with those accusations. One must be very careful to make such statements of what really defines hate!

  55. Mark from PA: I find it interesting that anytime someone directly, succinctly and unarguably corrects the lies you present with truth, you do not reply. A few people illustrated that there is a difference between a sin and a sinner, between a person with SSA and homosexuality and you refuse to acknowledge this difference. This is not the first thread that people have clearly made this distinction for you and it has gone ignored only for you to post on subsequent articles how you feel sexuality is on a continuum and that people have to stop being so judgmental. Mark, please stop being a coward and hiding behind the lies you present, the twisting of words to be a victim and be a man and admit that you do not agree with Church teaching. I don’t agree with peter, but at least he is man enough to say he disagrees with Catholic Doctrine. You pretend to agree and then slander the truth. Mark, you can’t play for two opposing teams and it is time for you to pick. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA says:

      MD, we are all sinners, but we have different sins. Where I live the term SSA is not used. I never heard this term before I came on this site. To me saying someone is a person with SSA, a person is homosexual and a person is gay, is pretty much all the same. There is certainly a difference between sexual orientation and acts. So called homosexual acts can be committed by people who are not actually homosexual in a biological sense. You say that I disagree with Church teaching but the Church does not teach that a homosexual orientation is in and of itself sinful and some disagree with that. If some people find certain acts to be offensive or sinful, they have a right to feel that way.

      • Mark from PA, I think everybody here understands that a homosexual orientation is not sinful, but they may not really understand what it is. It is not a state of lust. We started using SSA because the words gay and homosexual were causing so many problems. It indicates an innocent state with no sin, just having the orientation, which is how you use the other two words but other posters feel that a person is not a homosexual unless they have acted out the deed, and that “gay” indicates a person who engages in same gender sex and has an agressive posture toward changing society. You have pointed out many times that any person, even young persons struggling with issues of sexuality, can come onto this site and become even more confused by things that are written by some posters. Itt is a vailid point. If they think of gay as anyone who is not straight even if not engaging in any sexual activity, and read a post that says Satan is the source of homosexuality, they may not have a good grounding in Catholicism or theories of sexuality to process that idea. They may call a priest for an exorcism or attempt suicide or decide “well, I’m going to hell anyway I may as well do whatever…” We son’t always know how our words will impact another, I can tell that I get people mad, usually I’m surprised by how they take things.

        • K: I understand your desire to be sympathetic, but by denying the source of sin is harmful and not a true nurturing of the soul. We all have to discern the motive of our desires so to avoid sin in our lives and examine why we have particular desires and if the desire is from God or from satan. If a person has SSA it is no different and they too have to learn to discern the desires given to them by God and the desires given to them by satan. We know from Sacred Scripture, from the CCC and from the Church that God did NOT create SSA, but it is a result of original sin. This is a fact. K, satan is the source of original sin. By being dishonest and covering the truth to make it sound pretty, you hurt people because you are not providing the tools of sanctity. The more we seek to understand sin the more God will give us the strength to overcome our desires to sin. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA: Please directly address what I am saying if you are going to make a rebuttal. The Catechism says Homosexuality is disordered and you have objected to this. This is saying the act is disordered. Second, speaking biologically homosexuality is disordered and contrary to the human reproductive system. Mark, the orientation is NOT natural, not the way God created people. Mark if God created us not to sin, why would He crate someone with a desire to sin or towards a sinful act? Do you not see the error in your logic? Your argument says that God does not know what He was doing in creating man. Mark, God did NOT create the desire of homosexuality, He cannot do create a desire in us that separates us from Him. All sin and all desire from sin (i.e. temptation) is from satan. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I don’t think you want to understand this. We all have to recognize the source of our desires in relation to any temptation we have so we can discern how to do God’s will and avoid sin. God Love You.

        • Mark from PA says:

          MD, I understand what the Catechism says and I understand that homosexual acts are seen as disordered, that is not ordered to procreation. The Catholic Church views all sexual acts that are not ordered to procreation to be disordered. I also realize that sexual desire is viewed as sinful in the eyes of the Church. This is why in the history of the Church, the celibate life was seen as superior to the married state. It seems that you believe that sexual desire is from satan. I admit that this is somewhat difficult for me to understand. But then again I don’t really know a lot about satan, I never had that much of an interest in the devil, the occult and such things. In regard to saying that the orientation is not natural I do not believe this because it does occur in nature. You say it is not the way that God created people but some people were created that way. You may view gay people as freaks of nature but they are still part of nature. I never said that God does not know what He was doing in creating man. Maybe there is a reason that He created gay people.

          • John Siple says:

            I’m afraid you think we Catholics from the Judeo-Christian tradition is sinful to have impure thoughts/temptations. Not the case. To dwell on temptation is impure, not sinful, unless we indulge in the thoughts, adding fantasy, etc.
            We humankind have inherited sin from the Garden, but in Christ we have a new Law: To Love. Purely. Within a herero & hopeful search for a complimentary mate, and so we are taught, to love our highest Good first.
            As we do, sinful thinking as I have said is pushed away once we realize what we are about. Lusting after anyone or anything is always sinful, to some degree. Our commandment is to avoid evil thinking and actions, so we may remain in right relationship with the Lover of our Souls.
            Does this explain?

          • John Siple says:

            “The celibate life was seen as superior to the married state.”
            Again maybe in history, in ignorant times, but Vatican II clarified this false notion as no more holy as the Married state.
            The Catechism is also clear on this, & can be opened at, or
            Good conversation, friend!

          • Mark from PA: The error is that God creates people to have SSA. This is NOT the case. God allows SSA, He did NOT create it. This is the fundamental flaw to your argument and why your argument is contrary to Church teaching. God does not create any human being with an inclination to sin. Mark, you did not address my question. I asked you to explain how it is God can create a person with an orientation that is contrary to human design if this orientation will lead someone to separation from God? Mark, SSA is a result of original sin, not designed by God. In Sacred Scripture, God’s first commandment to man is to be fruitful and multiply. Mark, there is NO fruit from SSA. Why is it so difficult for you to admit this desire is a result of original sin? Mark, understanding the effects of original sin will help you accept Church teaching. God Love You.

      • John Siple says:

        Right. Having the orientation is never sinful, but all disciples of the Master obey his teaching. If we look upon someone in lust (I use the 3 second rule when I see an attractive person). I have accustomed myself not to lust, as I did for all my life of 50 years plus. By frequent Reconciliation, the forgiveness of my sin, we accrue more special graces to become more like unto our Master.
        Sure, gay sex is natural in nature, but we are much more than animals, having a conscience, having self awareness, and so in the Incarnation, or God coming in the flesh, as man, has modeled the rightness for his followers.
        This is Jewish & Christian tradition, and things aren’t about to change regardless of what other Communities have succumbed to.

  56. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I would direct you to a letter, “An Open Letter to the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Pastoral Care of Gay and Lesbian Persons” signed by several Chicago priests. Some quotes, “We find particularly troubling the increasing use of violent and abusive language directed at any human persons.” “Has any other group of persons within the body of Christ been so assaulted by such mean-spirited language.” “While we do not know the reasons for the increasingly violent and abusive language, we deplore it as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ and ask the it stop immediately.” As a young person I mostly felt nurtured by the Church. The documents referred to by the priests were issued when I was well into adulthood so I was not exposed to such negativity and language as a young person. K gives us the quote, “Well, I’m going to hell anyway so I may as well do whatever.” Sadly, I think dehumanizing people has the effect of pushing young people to a philosophy like that in K’s quote. We are all called to goodness and a chaste life but engaging in “spiritual violence” is certainly not going to help anyone to achieve those lofty goals. There is a definite need for respectful dialogue.

    • Mark from PA: What you fail to realize is that sin is the most dehumanizing thing that can be done to a person and the promotion of sin, especially sexual sin is extremely dehumanizing. It is not dehumanizing to illustrate the source of sin, but an opportunity to grow in virtue and true human nature. Mark, a young person with SSA cannot learn how to be fully human apart from God, they cannot learn why God has allowed them to suffer the effects of sin without His grace. Everyone in their life has to suffer the effects of original sin in one way or another in life; some more than others. By denying that SSA is an effect of original sin is the denial of the redemptive power of the Cross for it is through the Cross that this desire will be sanctified and purified. This is why God allows it, it is why He allows all the effects of sin, for the us to freely ask for sanctification and purification. Mark, God created humans perfect, but the perfection was lost because of sin. SSA is an imperfection, it does not glorify God, but is redeemed by God if a person with SSA allows it to be. God Love You.

  57. Mark from PA says:

    K, I just read your post of 7/19, 9:30 PM, and a lot of what you said is correct. Yes, I did look up to priests and looked at them as another Christ. I know several really great priests. As I have mentioned, one priest did not like me, so I knew that priests were also human and not perfect, even though the above mentioned priest referred to himself as “the perfect one.” The abuse crisis has upset me very much as you also referred to. What I have a hard time wrapping my brain around is that many of the same Church leaders who speak out against gay people in committed relationships had no problem in looking the other way when some of their clergy exploited gay teens. Only a minority of the victims were gay teens but some were. What did they think when it dawned on them that they were good enough to be used and exploited sexually by a priest but not good enough to be in a committed relationship? Those kids were considered dispensable by the Church, they were outcasts. No, I don’t see all homosexual acts as gravely sinful but I do see what was done to these kids by priests to be gravely sinful and I also see the actions of the higher ups that covered up and enabled such sin to also be gravely sinful. What happened in the Philadelphia Archdiocese was surely gravely sinful.

    • PA, do you see some homosexual sexual acts as something good?

      • kaves1: PA has told me before that he thinks ACTIVE homosexual sex inside a “committed relationship” or “gay marriage” is morally right. He thinks only promiscuous ACTIVE homosexual acts are wrong.

  58. Mark from Pa, thank you for your honest answer. You know that the church’s teaching is that in all sexuality, the possiblity of conception must exist. Therefore any sexual act that concludes without that possiblity is immoral. Don’t want to be too graphic here. Also, sexuality is for a man and woman in marriage only. These teachings are from God. We have them in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Catholic priests and bishops have to teach this-it is their job. As a catechist, you know that we must transmit the teaching of the Lord faithfully even if we have been unfaithful. We must teach the sermon on the Mount even if we have become angry, or served mammon or looked at a woman with lust. We need to strive to live the teaching, but at various times we all fail. Some failures are so criminial that they should prohibit us from being in positions of trust. What was done to kids and adults by some priests and bishops was heinously immoral. It should never have happened and should never have been covered up. Perhaps more of those involved in the cover up should have resigned. The Catholic Church gets laughed at and sneered at a lot for trying to be a moral compass after such a dismal failure. So I understand your being upset, but we have to strive for “higher ground.”

  59. Mark from PA, ddo you believe God created the inclination toward homosexuality in the same manner as we know he did for heterosexuality? Do you believe God created the inclination toward pedophilia ?

    • Mark from PA says:

      Kaves1: Yes I do. If God did not want homosexual persons to exist, the would not exist. I don’t know the reason why gay people exist but they do and this is with God’s knowledge and consent. If people have sex with others they have the free will do this. God gave us all free will. Sometimes when people have sex they are committing a sin.

      • Mark from PA: If you believe that God created people to desire homosexual sex, a sin, are you saying he created them to desire sin? This is what you are saying when you say that god created homosexuality, you are saying that God created a sinful act. Why would God create an act that would destroy a person’s soul? Please answer this question. God Love You.

      • Many things exists not intended by God but allowed by him – sin for example. Also Death, disease, disorders exist. Again, I do not believe these are created things, per se, but rather what happens when Creation gets distorted from Man’s Fall and perhaps the Fall of the Angels. Why is homosexuality not a consequence of Original Sin in Man? You have not proven God created homosexuality – you merely assert it and expect everyone to accept your assertion. You leave legitimate questions un-answered, which I think is rude.

  60. k, PA says he answered the question before I addressed it toward him.

  61. PA, do you believe the Church is in anyway in error on it’s teaching concerning homosexuality? If so, in what way?

    • Mark from PA says:

      I have read some Church documents on homosexuality and they seem to be contradictory and confusing. Some seem like they were written by people with opposite views and they tried to put both views in the document. It is hard to understand some of these documents, some of the language is demeaning and insulting and leaves one with a feeling of discouragement. For example, I read what Bishop Bruskeiwicz wrote about the subject and a lot of what he wrote was a rehash of what I had read in the past from some documents. Particularly upsetting was his take on the issue that homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against. He turned this on his head to make it sound like it was good to discriminate against gay people. He brought up examples of pyromaniacs and kleptomaniacs and how you were protecting people by discriminating against such people. Then he talked about pedophilia and not so subtly linked pedophilia with homosexuality. Then he went on to say that it was right to discriminate against gay people when it came to housing. After reading this section, I thought of black people and how many southerners justified discrimination against black people before civil rights laws were enacted. Yes, if you label a group of people as somewhat less than fully human it is OK to justify discrimination against that group. To me that part pretty much stood Catholic teaching on its head. I think the Chicago priests I mentioned in my previous post were addressing a mindset like that in the Bishop’s letter. Reading much of that letter pretty much made me feel like trash, it was like the man was discussing lab rats instead of people. It is not so much Church teaching but the opinions of some people in the Church that I have issue with. Viewing homosexual persons as something less than fully human is not really a matter of Church dogma in my opinion.

      • PA, you did not answer my question. The position of the Catholic Church is shown in the CCC and you know that. Please stop being evasive, it is rude.

  62. Mark from PA, should male homosexuals engaging in the typical homosexual sexual act always use condoms? Even if AIDS was not an issue?

    • Mark from PA says:

      Kaves1, I have never used condoms so I am not an expert on this. Please give me your opinion on this and I will tell you if I agree.

      • You imply that homosexual sex under certain conditions is OK. Should the homosexuals in these conditions use condoms?

        • Mark from PA says:

          If a person is HIV positive it is better if they refrain from sexual activity. But if they do have sex, this includes homosexual sex, then they should use a condom. It is sinful to expose a person to the HIV virus.

          • So only HIV?, what about other diseases? Is there any time a homosexual engaging in typical homosexual sex should not use a condom?

          • Mark from PA says:

            Kaves1, I am not really that qualified in that matter. Really people should discuss this with their medical doctor and if they are a Catholic they should discuss it with a priest.

          • PA, no, that is not your real reason, you are avoiding a deeper issue and you know it.

  63. catechism of the catholic church:

    “2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

    “2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality.

    “Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.”

    don’t waste — be chaste!

    (in spite of today’s media which celebrates sex at the drop of a pin…)

    • Mark from PA says:

      Thanks for sharing this, max. These are good thoughts except that the word disinterested should be removed. Most people don’t want disinterested friends.

      • MARK FROM PA: thanks for the laugh. you are right in that no one wants friends who aren’t interested in your well-being!

        of course, the church here means “disinterested” in the sense of platonic friendship, rather than wanting the other person for sex.

        • Max is correct. PA, we had this discussion in the past. You know perfectly well what the Church means by ‘disinterseted’ (it is used elsewhere in the CCC), But of course you ignore this usage and distort its meaning just as you do with homosexuality. Again, you lead people astray caring more for their physical well being at the expense of their spirtual well being.

          • KAVES: disinterested (ajective) 1.Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.

            you are truly nuts. this is what the CHURCH means by the word in this context, which any thinnking person could figure out for themselves.

            as i said before, the church encourages people to be involved in friendship not for what they can get out of it – like sex.

        • Mark from PA says:

          That really wouldn’t be friendship it would be something else. The word “disinterested” is a poor translation and is misplaced in that sentence.

          • MARK, as I just tried to post in response to kaves, the church probably means this in this particular context:

            DISINTERESTED: (adjective) 1.Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.

            “free from selfish motive or interest” is yet another definition of this word that explains what the church means – in this context, at least.

        • Max, I am not disagreeing with you.

  64. Mark from PA & K: I have one question I would like to pose to both of you as you find it difficult to accept that satan is the source of SSA. If a heterosexual person wants to have sex outside of marriage, is God or satan the source of this desire? If you answered satan, you are correct. Like SSA, the desire to fornicate outside of marriage is a desire to misuse human sexuality. Saying satan created SSA is not picking on people with SSA, it is a means of identifying how satan attacks the soul just as identifying that the desire to fornicate is from satan so a person knows it is not from God and it will destroy the human relationship with God. Some of the greatest saints would go to extreme measures just to avoid the temptation of sin because they identified it correctly, as an attack from satan. God Love You.

    • MD, in your above post at 8:20 you said that SSA is an effect of original sin. That is fine to say. In your post at 8:31 you say that satan is the source of SSA. That is not correct. Do you see the difference? I understand that you think that since Satan tempted Eve and she sinned because of his suggestion and other reasons (Genesis 3:6) and Eve tempted Adam that satan is the source of all sin, not just SSA. The Catholic Church teaches that original sin is the fault of Adam. (Notice that it does not say the fault of Adam and Eve.) You are correct when you say that SSA is an effect of original sin. Anyway, I am now being lied about on another article because of this. Would you go talk about Satan being the source of sin to that person?

      • K: Satan is the source of sin, the essence of sin and sin itself. Sin is the absence of God, and satan is the complete absence of God. I have shown you in Scripture where satan is called the father of lies, and a sin is a lie, a distortion of something good, something created by God. In John 8:44 this is shown directly that not only is satan the father of lies, but he is the essence of lies. What you write about is a result, not a source of sin. Adam did not invent sin, nor did Eve, they brought the first fruits of sin upon man in their action to distrust God. I understand your point, but if not for the temptation of satan, there would be no sin. It is man’s fault when man chooses sin over God, but satan is always the one who lures man into sin. Our Lord described satan as being completely absent of truth whereas God is the fullness or essence of truth. The Church teaches us that satan is the complete absence of God and all that God is, i.e. love, truth, etc. Satan is the father of sin, it is his creation because of his disobedience outside of time. I hope this helps. God Love You.

        • MD, Thanks for your patience.

          • K: No problem. I have enjoyed the dialogue. I understand the point you were making about sin entering the world because of adam, but we must never forget that satan is sin and is the complete absence of God and wants us to be void of God; this is why he tempts us and strives to lure us to fall. Satan distorts all that is good and one of our greatest frailties as humans is our sexuality. The worst sins of our time come from our sexuality; abortion, homosexuality and promiscuity outside of marriage. Satan is trying to destroy the family and these sins of the flesh are deteriorating our culture. God Love You.

        • Anonymous says:

          MD, Satan is a being. He is a fallen angel. There are many more than just him.

      • K: are you asking me to chime in on a different thread?

      • Mark from PA says:

        It is hard for me to understand how SSA (a homosexual orientation) would be the result of original sin. So being a homosexual person is a divine punishment for the sins of Adam and Eve? That doesn’t ring true to me.

        • Mark from PA: All people suffer the effects of original sin in one capacity or another. Death, disease, distrust, abuse, crime, etc. are all a result of original sin. The desire to fornicate outside of marriage for heterosexual people is a result of original sin. Subsequent to original sin, man began to desire disordered passions, things that would be contrary to the will of God. The desire to desire homosexual relations is contrary to the will of God, it is an act that separates man from God and He does not will anything that removes people from His Love. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA says:

      MD, in my opinion saying that satan is the source of SSA (your term for a homosexual orientation) in my opinion is demonizing homosexual persons. It appears to me that you believe that sexual desire is from satan and I don’t believe that the Church teaches that.

      • Mark from PA: Disordered desire is from satan. This is what I am saying and have been saying all along. SSA is a disordered desire, the CCC says so. This is fact, not opinion. God Love You.

        • Mark from PA says:

          MD, you say it is fact but it is your opinion. Just think of a parent of a gay teen taking their child to a doctor and telling the doctor that their child was gay because of satan. I remember one man who told of his father beating him almost every day after finding out that he was gay. He was trying to beat the devil out of him. The man made a serious error telling his father about this. I think that believing that homosexuality has a demonic origin is an opinion that is dangerous as some that believe this think that by violence towards gay people they are fighting satan.

          • Mark from PA: The child has SSA because of original sin. Mark, SSA is contrary to the design of the human person, do you not understand this? At least with SSA one has a choice to glorify God by choosing abstenance or follow the temptation towards sin. Mark, why would God create the desire in our hearts that would lead us to sin? Do you really believe God gives us desires to sin? If you believe this, you are sadly mistaken. God Love You.

          • Mark from PA: The fact that SSA is disordered is not my opinion, the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that the homosexual inclination is disordered. Read the CCC and see it for yourself. You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the Magisterium, the Holy Church you should remain faithful to as a catechist. God Love You.

      • PA, in my opinion your implying God created homosexuality is showing hatred of God.

        • Mark from PA says:

          Kaves1, if God created all people then he created gay people also. It seems that you and others don’t believe that God created sexual desire. If so than it is just a part of nature then. I don’t believe that homosexuality (the sexual orientation) is a sin so I am speaking from a different perspective here.

          • Mark from PA: you are twisting logic here. Orientation is not a sin, it is a temptation. Temptation is not from God. Does this make sense to you? God does NOT create or give temptation to any sinful act. Orientation is a form of temptation. The creation of human sexuality as the CCC, Scripture, and the Theology of the Body show us is for the unitive and procreative act of marriage. It is the sign of a covenant that gives life. Homosexuality denies life and God does NOT create desires that deny life. God Love You.

          • PA, God did not create homosexuality. You have no evidence to support your assertion. You can’t even answer even basic questions that result from your specualtion. Originial Sin can very well account for the presence of the disorder of homosexuality as well as pedophilia and other disorders that people with a heterosexual orientation have. You show your hatred for God’s Word by saying God created the inclination toward homosexuality. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop leading people astray. You put people’s physical safety ahead of their spiritual safety. Your beliefs will lead people to eternal damnation.

          • Per the CCC, God created each of our indivudal souls. It does not say the same for our bodies.After Adam and Eve, he setup things up for biology to take over and for us to partake in reproduction. So our biology is, at least in part, is due to our participation. And since our biologies are affected by Original Sin and homosexuality is biological (as you believe), then we and Original Sin are the cause of homosexuality.

  65. Rick DeLano says:

    Bravo, ND. You continue to speak the truth on this thread.

  66. Fornication of any sort is a sin. A sin is a sin is a sin. All the twisting of words and thought will not change that. You can only serve one master; make your choice!

  67. Mark from PA says:

    MD you say SSA (homosexual orientation) is contrary to the design of the human person. If this was true there wouldn’t be any homosexual persons. If God did not want homosexual persons to exist they would not. It must be the will of God that such people exist. I don’t know if the CCC says that a homosexual orientation is disordered. I do know that it says that acts of sodomy are disordered in that they are not ordered towards reproduction. I don’t think the people themselves are considered to have a disorder or be disordered. If I recall correctly, people at Courage told me that it was the acts that were disordered not the person.

    • PA, how about bisexuals and pedophiles. Are they not children of God? You need to address this question.

    • PA, the CCC says “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” The “inclination is obejctively disorderd.” So since the catechism says this and not ‘homosexual orientation” , does that mean the CCC is implying the orientation is normal?

  68. Mark from PA says:

    Kaves1: I am not showing my hatred of God at all. It does no disrespect to God to say that he created the souls of gay people. I realize that some people have such a loathing for gay people that they do not think that God created such defective and inferior beings. Your post of 12:27 PM is interesting. Do you believe that a homosexual orientation is a type of divine punishment due to Original Sin?

    • Yes you are showing hatred of God because you are ascribing to Him sin. A true Christian believes all people are children of God but their being children of God is unrelated to their sexual orientation. It is pitiful that you view me as loathing homosexuals. I do not. You describe as loathing the person what is really loathing of the sin. As for Original Sin, I believe God allows the natural consequences of our rebellous free will to manifest themselves. The removal of God’s original grace allows for all sorts of distorted manifestations. Sexuality gets corrupted in a variety of ways – including homosexuality. Do you believe God also created Bisexuals? You completely ignored my question as to why, if God created homosexuals, He would call homosexual sexual acts sinful in both the Old and New Testament. Why do you ignore this question.

      • Mark from PA says:

        Yes, Kaves1, God created bisexuals. God created everyone. The Baltimore Catechism asked, “Who made us? The answer is God made us. God created a variety of people. If people sin it is because they have free will.

        • God made us to know. love and serve him in this world and to be happy with him in the next. To know him we must study and pray His Word; attend Mass and receive Christ in Holy Communion; pray the rosary to get to know Him as Mary does; dialogue with him in mental prayer. Also, “the way we can be sure of our knowledge of him is to keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:4 As we come to know him we will love him, but we always battle our selfishness. “But if anyone should sin, we have, in the presence of the Father, Jesus Christ, an intercessor who is just. He is an offering for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for those of the whole world.” 1 John 2:1-2 Also, “When anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God… God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God and God in him…If anyone says “My love is fixed on God” yet hates his brother he is a liar. One who has no love for the brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen. The commandment we have from him is this, whoever loves God must also love his brother.” 1 John 4:15,20-21 1 John is a short book of the Bible but it has much to teach us.

        • Mark from PA: Kaves1 is really asking if God made the condition of bi-sexuality? You have to learn the difference between homosexuality and the homosexual. This is why you don’t accept Church teaching on this topic. Are you at all open to Church teaching here? God Love You.

        • PA, you continue to fuse the person with the sex attraction. Jesus tells us that in Heaven there won’t be a sex distinction. Here is your heretical fusion: “God created bisexuals. God created everyone.” You deceptively attempt to say that God creates people, there are same sex attracted people, and therefore God creates same sex attracted people. But this insinuates that God’s Law condemns the creatures He makes. Not Catholic doctrine, not even close, PA … you are not Catholic, and are latae sententiae excommunicated for your persistent proclaiming false doctrine as the truth. Serpent wearing wool, wolf in sheep’s clothing … are your listening PA? Your destiny depends upon your profession of faith, which defies Catholic doctrine.

          • Mark from PA says:

            JLS, you have no power to excommunicate me. If you knew where I was you could have the power to hunt me down and shot me and that is the only way you could make me not a Catholic. To excommunicate me, you don’t have this power. If you think it is heresy that God created everyone, even those less than fully human like me, then that is your right.

        • PA, God made us but Original Sin corrupted us.God made us to be heterosexual. You equate God’s created intent with post-Fall conditions. Please stop your hatred of Church teaching and God’s Word.

          • Mark from PA says:

            Kaves1, all people are not made to be heterosexual. That is just fact. Not all people are heterosexual.

        • Are you going against the Pope warning in LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
          “The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

        • PA, the catechism saying God made us is not the same as saying God made homosexuality or bisexuality.

    • PA,God created Satan too. But He did not create satan in the state satan resides today. Many of Satan’s characteritics are a result of the Fall of the angels.
      In the same manner, God created Man for heterosexuality, but Man’s fall brought on corruption and distorted his sexuality.

    • Mark from PA, no one on this site loathes gay people as much as you do. You constantly support their sodomy (mortal sin) which will send them to Hell if they do not repent. You must start helping them to get to HEAVEN by constantly telling them to avoid temptation and abstain from SEX. Those who help homosexuals get to Heaven are those who love them.

      • Mark from PA says:

        You are not following what I am saying, Pete. I don’t practice sodomy and I don’t promote sodomy. Read what Max said on 7/23, 6:58 AM. I agree with that. I say also that all people are called to chastity. I also say that gay people should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, which is what the CCC says. I also say that gay people should not be discriminated against. I am supporting human beings not their faults and failings.

    • Mark from PA: There you go again. You cloud the distinction between homosexual people and the homosexual inclination. Homosexual people are NOT disordered, but the desire or inclination is. Mark I have shown you that in 2358 the CCC says that the inclination is disordered. Disordered means contrary to the natural order. Mark, there are many consequences of original sin that are disordered, namely death, disease, disordered sexual desires, dishonesty, pain, suffering, etc. Mark, if sex is designed to be between a man and woman and someone has a desire contrary to sex being between a man and woman, don’t you think that desire is a lie and a distortion of what sex was created to be? The choice is the virtue of God’s design or the satan’s distortion of God’s design for it is satan who distorts all that is good and holy. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA says:

        MD, read what I wrote on 7/24, at 7:31 PM. I wrote that the acts are considered disordered because they are not ordered towards reproduction but that homosexual persons are not considered disordered. I still maintain however that a homosexual orientation has nothing to do with the devil. It is part of the diversity of nature.

        • Mark from PA: The Catechism does not say it is natural. I have quoted the CCC for you and still you argue that you think that the homosexual desire is natural. Mark, you are wrong. This is not opinion, God designed humans to be heterosexual and any desire of the contrary is contrary to human nature. Mark, the inclination is disordered. Do you understand this statement? The CCC clearly says it is disordered, but you keep trying to argue that it is part of God’s plan and He gives them this desire. Mark, you have not answered me why God would give people a desire to sin? Please answer this question. God Love You.

          • Mark from PA says:

            Perhaps God does not give human beings sexual desire. I don’t really know. He gives them free will and perhaps that is how it ties in.

          • Mark from PA: God designed sexuality. It is written in the Genesis when God says “be fruitful and multiply.” Mark, particularly in 2333 of the CCC, it states that man and woman must accept their identity as male or female. God created male and female to marry and procreate. It is through the fall, though original sin that the meaning of the body has been distorted. I don’t know why you can’t accept that fact that sin has corrupted what is good and that it is because of concupiscence that the homosexual desire even exists. This is fact, Church teaching my friend. God Love You.

        • No PA, it is part of corruption in Man brought on by Original Sin. The CCC teaches that creation is not perfect. Some theologians believe God created Man perfect in order to give Man the task of raising up the rest of Creation.

    • PA, your argument is woefully lacking. You speculate that God created homosexuals simply because homosexuals exist. You equate their existence as ‘something’ God created. You totally disregard the corruptive influence of Original Sin on souls and bodies as a plausible causative reason for homosexuality. The argument that homosexuality is an example of something God created is undermined by the idea that it is not really something wholly created by God , but rather what creation looks like when God’s original grace is removed. Homosexuality is one example of what can happen to heterosexuality when God’s original grace is removed thru Original Sin.
      In addition, your speculation is undermined by the existence of bisexuals and pedophiles who are children of God and yet you do not account for their existence in God’s plan because you know that doing so would undermine your homosexual hypothesis. So you ignore them.
      Nor does your speculation account for why God’s creation of homosexuals is not mentioned in scripture though heterosexuality is. Nor does you speculation explain why homosexual acts are considered gravely immoral in both the Old and New Testaments if it was God’s intention to create homosexuality.
      Also, you constantly ignore the admonition given by Pope Benedict in LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
      “The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”
      Please stop your false teaching. Your soul is in danger.

      • Mark from PA says:

        Kaves1, since human sexuality is on a continuum, as explained to me by a priest, bisexual persons are in the middle of the continuum. Of course, 90% of people are heterosexual or lean towards heterosexual, the people in the middle are bisexual and the people on the other end are homosexual. It is interesting to read scientific studies that have been done on people’s brains and differences have been found in the brains of homosexual men compared to heterosexual men. Why do these differences in brains exist? Perhaps advances in science will tell us more about this. But it is interesting to me to follow the conversations here and to note the difference in thinking of different people. Yes, I am on a different wavelength than many of the other men that post here. Kaves1, let me take you and Canisius as examples. A study of my brain compared to your brains would probably show differences. For example, I am a very non-agressive person. What is the physical reason for this? For whatever reason, God made me different, not bad, just different. Yes, we are all creatures of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life, I am not challenging that.

        • PA, These comparisons are post-Fall conditions. They do not represent God’s created intent for man and woman. The reflect the effects of Original Sin. So the continuum explanation is theologically not sound.

        • God didn’t make you bad. Original Sin did. Please stop hating Church teaching and God’s Word.

        • PA, if God made homosexuals and bisexuals, why does His Word say homosexual acts are gravely immoral in both the Old and New Testaments? How do you make sense of this?

        • PA, we are all bad due to Original Sin.

          • Mark from PA says:

            Kaves1, do you view innocent children who have been baptized as “bad”? Many people view God’s creation, including human beings as good.

      • Mark from PA says:

        Kaves1: I never heard of the LETTER TO THE BISHOPS that you mentioned until about 6 years ago. I was on a religious site and I got into an argument with a man who had a strong dislike for the Catholic faith. He said that the Catholic Church viewed gay people as disordered. He also said that the Bible was a silly book. I told him that the Catholic Church didn’t have a problem with gay people and that in our Church that gays were just as good as everyone else. I also told him that a lot of priests and nuns were gay. A priest came into the discussion and said similar things to what I said. Well, the man got mad at me and posted the letter that you had mentioned. While there is much positive in that letter there are also expressions like disordered and intrinsically evil. I had never heard people characterized like that in Church documents. So all this stuff was new to me. It was upsetting to me to read some of the stuff. The guy pretty much told me that because I was a Catholic I was a bad person and I was giving my approval to the mistreatment of some people. After that the guy pretty much went after me a lot and kept asking me when I was going to leave the Catholic Church. But before that I had never heard anything negative about homosexuality or gay people from teachers in Catholic school, at Mass, in Catholic magazines or in our diocesan newspaper.

  69. Mark from PA says:

    Kaves1, I believe that people are born with a predisposition to be heterosexual or homosexual, a very small number are bisexual. I consider pedophilia to be a mental illness. This isn’t something that people are born with. From what I understand a large number of pedophiles were sexually abused as children so they grew up with a warped sexuality due to what was done to them. I don’t know a lot about it but I think these people need to be studied so we can learn how to prevent people from developing into pedophiles. In the past, it seems that this kind of behavior was not uncommon and people pretty much got away with it. Now a lot more people are speaking about this. It is not a rare thing as 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men were molested as children. Much more needs to be done to study this phenomenom and what can be done to stop it.

    • PA, Even if the number of bisexuals is small, are they not also God’s children? If there can be a gay soul why not a bisexual soul. You are avoiding the issue.
      As for pedophilia, there are numerous studies that indicate a biological component. So, by your standard, it must be God’s doing. Pedophiles raise the same type of arguments you do. They claim they were born this way. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness at one time. So the concept of pedophilia can ‘evolve’.

  70. PA, you consistently go against this statement from the Pope – “ Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual”. You do this when saying God created the inclination to homosexuality and bisexuality.

  71. Mark from PA: You did not reply to my 11:41 AM Post from the 26th about the design of human sexuality according the Sacred Scripture. Mark, male is created to desire the female and the female is created to desire the male; both obviously within the sanctity of marriage. Any desire aside from this is contrary to the design of human sexuality. This is what makes SSA disordered, the fact that it denies the nuptial meaning of human sexuality. I know you have said that you read the CCC, but either you are forgetting the part that specifically states that the homosexual desire is disordered, or you are overlooking it because you don’t agree. Regardless, the CCC says the desire is disordered and it is Church teaching and as a Catechist you are bound to teach and proclaim the truth. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA says:

      MD, yes I acknowledge what you are saying. If this is true, then homosexual persons are inferior and defective human beings. I don’t think in the past that people were set aside in this manner. But if one takes that literally then homosexual persons have been set aside from the rest of humanity as a group of beings less than fully human.

      • Mark from PA says:

        Franky, MD, it is very depressing to be constantly reminded that one is disordered, evil, bad, a sodomite, and so on and so on. It is depressing to think that some people seem to get a lot of satisfaction out of putting down people that they consider beneath them.

        • Pa, quit being a victim. Frankly, it is so annoying every day to read that you are once again feeling sorry for yourself. NOBODY here has EVER said that anyone is beneath them. All anyone has ever done is tell you and other gay people that ACTIVE homosexuality is mortally sinful and the homosexual INCLINATION is disordered. Nobody has ever said the homosexual person is disordered. If you feel less inferior or defective, then that is your problem. NOBODY has ever said anything of the sort here. You need to cry me a river, build a big bridge, and get the heck over it. I am so sick and tired of people repeating the same thing over and over to you and you twist the words and meanings. People, stop trying to get PA to agree with Church teaching. It isn’t going to happen. He is obviously dissenting from Church teaching here ALL the time. We all know it. His only hope is through God’s graces. He has been warned and he has free will to either choose Christ’s Church or the God of homosexuality. It’s his choice.

        • Mark from PA: Your comments are laughable. You repeatedly make the same arguments that reflect a distorted understanding of Catholic Doctrine. Mark, where did anyone say anything about a person being called disordered, a sodomite, etc.? The CCC says the inclination is disordered, not the person. Why do you constantly twist the action to mean the person? Mark, The Catechism is explicitly clear on this topic and if you don’t agree, then you should NOT be a Catechist. Mark there is a distinctive difference between an inclination toward sin and being a sinner. Having a disordered inclination does not mean you are disordered, it means you have to be aware of this disordered inclination so to avoid serious sin. It is in the acknowledgement of the disordered desire that one received the freedom and grace to avoid such sin. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA: That is not correct. No sinner is less of a person because of their desire or inclination to sin. A person lessens their humanity by actually sinning, not by having an inclination. The whole point is to recognize the source of the desire and where the desire will lead to. SSA is a desire that leads to sin, but does not dehumanize anyone in and of itself for it is not a sin, but an inclination towards a sin. I do not understand why you cannot make this distinction. SSA is disordered, but the person who has the desire is not disordered, but a child of God. The desire is disordered my friend, it is contrary to nature. Does this make sense? God Love You.

        • Mark from PA says:

          RR and MD, I agree that sin is disordered. However, sexual orientation is a state of being, not a sin. What some don’t seem to understand is that by labeling a person’s sexual orientation as disordered it appears that they are also labeling the person as disordered as orientation is part of a person’s being. So many gay people see it as an insult to be told that a homosexual inclination is disordered because to them it labels them as disordered.

          • Mark from PA: And once again your “state of being” argument. Mark, SSA is a disordered orientation. Mark, as I stated earlier, labeling an orientation disordered is NOT labeling a person disordered. It is you Mark who are labeling the person disordered by inferring false meaning and distorting the truth. Mark, how is it that I specifically pointed out to you that the Catechism states that the homosexual desire is disordered and yet you repeat the same false argument that has been debunked long ago? Mark, please try to be more honest here. God Love You.

          • I do think that the word can be interpreted in that way, It is a Catholic term which means not oriented toward the purpose of God, but if you use it in a secular context it can be interpreted as having a fatal flaw in one’s personality.

          • K: I get your point, but there is a distinctive difference between identifying an action or behavior in lieu of claiming a person is disordered. We cannot call people disordered and no one on here has attempted to do so from my knowledge, but we have the Christian obligation to identify immoral and disordered behavior to keep one another from sin, i.e. fraternal correction. Mark refuses to identify the difference between the two. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA, every person except Mary and Jesus was born with an inclination to sin.

        • Mark from PA says:

          K, there may be some people who do not have an inclination to sin. A close friend of mine has a teenage niece who cannot walk or talk. She can’t even feed herself. She has probably never committed a sin. I remember my friend telling me how he felt bad because he showed family pictures to people in his office and one woman was annoyed because he had pictures of his niece in the pictures. Some people do not have the capacity to sin.

          • Mark from PA: K is correct, every person has an inclination to sin because we are all born into concupiscence. A person can sin by thought. This does not mean the little girl is a sinner, but she too was born into original sin into the state of concupiscence and satan too wants to keep her from the Lord as he does with all of us. God Love You.

          • “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” aka “For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God”: Romans 3; 23

  72. Mark from PA says:

    MD, what sins would a teenage girl that has the mental capacity of a six month old baby have an inclination towards? I don’t fully understand the word concupisence but what kind of concupisence would this girl have? How would satan keep this girl from the Lord? I realize that all are born with Original sin but if this girl is baptized she would be free from that sin.

  73. Mark from PA: Have you really read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Concupiscence is our appetite towards things that are good in manners that are not pleasing to God as a simple way to put it. The CCC 2515 says “Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.” Mark, we are all born with the effects of original sin. For some reason, you think that when a person is baptized the effects of original sin disappear. This is absolutely incorrect…you cannot be more wrong on this point. I am not going to make an assessment on whether or not the girl you speak of has actual sin, but she has the effects of original sin; we all do. Only 2 people in the history of the world have not had the effects of original sin, Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Mark, please spend more time reading your CCC and prayerfully reflect on it. PS: please respond to my 8:01 & 7:55 comments from yesterday. God Love You.

  74. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I was always taught that Baptism wiped away original sin. In regard to being disordered. I don’t view being gay as having a disordered orientation. So I am not labeling gay people as disordered because I don’t view being gay as disordered. I understand that you view this differently.

    • Mark from PA: You really need to read the Catechism. Baptism takes away the punishment of original sin, but not concupiscence, not the effects of original sin. As far as orientation is concerned, the it is not my opinion that you say you are disagreeing with, but the Catechism which specifically states that the homosexual desire is disordered. I gave you a direct quote and cited the paragraph, yet you keep repeating you disagree with me. Read the CCC. Why do you have such a tough time accepting Church teaching?

    • PA, is St Paul the only one you do not believe? You continually reference your religion on some nuns you claim taught you the truth. What you never say is that other than that you really do not know what is true. And you say you are teaching religion to children. If you are so confused between Church teaching and your opinions and what the nuns told you, and you consistently have no qualms about deceiving others, then I hope those children have someone watching after their well being. I for one would not believe anything you said about it.

  75. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I still don’t understand how babies and young children and people who are severely disabled, like my friend’s niece, can sin.

    • Rick DeLano says:

      Sin is in the will, and obviously the mental capacity of a six year old does not allow a willed choice for sin.

      It is incredible to me that only Mark from PA has this right.


      No six month old can sin.

      Sin requires the attainment of reason, the “age of consent”, and from Pius IX forward to the present Instruction from the Congregation for the Clergy, puts this age at about seven or eight.

      It is completely impossible for a child to commit a personal sin in the absence of the attainment of reason; that is, of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

      How on earth can someone sin if they can;t even tell right from wrong?

      Sin is in the will.

      If an act is not willed, it is neither sinful, nor virtuous.

      Mark from PA has this one right.

      • Mark from PA says:

        Thank you, Rick. I also remember being taught that seven was the age of reason when I was a child. I was told this is why children could receive First Holy Communion at the age of seven. From what I remember Pope St. Pius X advocated children receiving their First Holy Communion from the age of seven.

      • Rick DeLano: I agree that PA has it right there, but for different reasons than you think. He is trying to prove that people are not born with concupiscence and have no effects of original sin after being baptized. He has been trying to argue this point for quite some time. The reality is, all people have concupiscence as part of our fallen nature. A sin is a sin with consent of the will, this is absolutely correct. One think Mark does not realize is that although someone is not of the age of reason, they can commit a sinful act. Take a three year old for instance that has a new born sibling and hits the new born sibling out of jealousy. The three year old is not of the age of reason, but is committing an act that is contrary to love. This act contrary to love is because of our fallen nature and although the child may be baptized, the effects of original sin, i.e. concupiscence still remain. Mark does not understand this point. God Love You.

      • Rick DeLano: To be clear, (my above post may have not been so clear) I am not saying the tree year old is sinning because they don’t have full consent of the will. I am merely showing that they are doing an act contrary to love because of our fallen nature. This is an action that when done by someone of the age of reason is a sin because it is an act that denies love. The point being, due to concupiscence we are subject to things contrary to love although we were created for love. In denying concupiscence, Mark is trying to prove that God intends for people to have same sex desires and SSA is not a result of the fall and he is absolutely incorrect. God Love You.

        • Catherine says:

          Mark and others are trying to prove that God intends for people to have same sex desires and that SSA is not a result of the fall. This is the homosexual agenda method of attempting to justify same sex unions and homosexual adoption. Of course we know that this is false.

          Please Google and see the powerfully encouraging leadership video “Political Ticker – Black Pastors Group Launches Anti-Obama Campaign around Gay Marriage.” Listen and view the Christian courage of this black pastor who was an original civil rights leader. This pastor compares Obama to Judas. Like Judas, Obama also caved in for the $money$ and abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

          This black pastor explains how he was one of the original leaders in the civil rights movement and the civil rights movement IS what allowed Obama to be elected in the first place.

          This courageous pastor in the video says, “I DID NOT MARCH ONE INCH, ONE FOOT, OR ONE YARD, FOR A MAN TO MARRY A MAN OR A WOMAN TO MARRY A WOMAN” Black pastors across the United States are outraged that homosexuals are using the civil rights movement as a comparison. The pastor said that what Obama has done is disgraceful. This video helps to remove the false spin of those who try to sanction perversion by comparing their unnaturally disordered quests to the black civil rights movement.

          This video was put out on the internet by CNN and there is no doubt that CNN did this so these courageous black pastors would be marginalized and mocked. Praise God for these courageous black pastors who are speaking out about the terrible injustice of homosexuals attempting to hijack the true meaning of the black civil rights movement.

        • Rick DeLano says:


          If Mark from PA denies that the homosexual orientation is objectively disordered; that is, it is contrary to God’s Law and its expression as natural law, then he is in error on that point.

          If he denies that sin is the consequence of Adam’s Fall, and that all human beings receive the consequences of original sin by generation, then he is an heretic.

          But on the point at issue here he was right.

          I am glad to see you acknowledge this.

  76. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I understand your point in the post of 8:10 AM. I also agree that most people still have a sinful part of their nature even after Baptism. So I agree with you in most cases but not in ALL cases, such as the examples that I gave you. So we are in general agreement. I am not saying that God gives people these desires. I would say that I am predominately gay but I do not have any desire to actually have sex with a man, I am talking about orientation. I do not view a homosexual orientation as being a result of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. You have no way of knowing that this is the case, either.

    • Mark from PA: Of course we can now that God did NOT create homosexual orientation as man had NO desire or inclination towards any sin or sinful act prior to the fall. The Bible says so Mark. How is it you do not understand that ALL desire for sinful acts is a result of the fall? Orientation is NOT natural Mark. Death, disease, lying, deceit, hatred, despair, etc. are all a result of the fall. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why are you clinging to the idea that SSA is naturally created by God? Mark, this is heresy. The flesh became corrupted because of original sin; all corruption of the flesh is due to original sin and SSA is a corruption of the flesh for it denies the nuptial and procreative meaning of human sexuality. God Love You.

    • Mark from PA: Don’t you think that there is a specific reality that God allows the corruption of the flesh? The Lord does not allow corruption as a means of punishment for original sin, but as a means of coming closer to Him. SSA is a corruption of the flesh and can be used as a means of developing a deeper relationship with the Father. What you do when you say God made SSA is place limitations on His omnipotence. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA says:

        MD, you say that sexual orientation is not natural but it is part of man’s nature. It is difficult for me to understand that sexual orientation is a result of the fall. So you see human sexuality as a corruption of the flesh? In your post of 3:47 PM, you seem to be saying that God allows the homosexual orientation as a means of coming closer to Him and to developing a deeper relationship with the Father. I agree with this but those words seem to imply that God did create this and it is his will that it exists and he allows it to exist.

        • Mark from PA: First, I did NOT say that all orientation is because of original sin, but the homosexual orientation is caused by the fall. Please stop twisting my words to a completely different meaning. Mark, do you know the difference between what God creates and what He allows? God does not make people sin, He allows it. God did NOT create disease, He allows it. God did NOT create homosexuality, He allows it. How do you deduce that my 3:37 post implies that God created homosexuality? Mark, God did NOT create sin, desire for sin; NO sinful act is of God. There is a difference between what God created and what He allows, hence if an act exists that is contrary to God, it is not created by God for God cannot deny Himself. SSA leads to an action that denies God Mark and the CCC specifically states that the homosexual desire is disordered. Why is this so difficult to understand? God Love You.

          • Mark from PA says:

            Again, MD, I say that if God did not want gay people to exist, they would not. You say that God did not create a homosexual orientation but you have no way of knowing this. You have no way of knowing that the homosexual orientation is caused by Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. The homosexual orientation is not a sin so God did not create sin by creating sexual orientations.

          • Mark from PA: It is not a matter of God wanting the sin of homosexuality to exist, it is allowing man to freely choose to sin or to follow His Will. For some reason, you refuse to understand the simple teachings of the Catechism and repeat your incorrect arguments over and over again. Mark, I know SSA is a result of original sin for both Sacred Scripture and the Catechism tell me so and show specifically the meaning of human sexuality. Why do you refuse to accept this Mark? The orientation is disordered as stated in the CCC and God only creates order. Disorder came about because of disobedience God and the fall from grace. Because people sin and have the freewill to sin does not mean God has ordained it so; He has ordained the freewill for man to choose Him or not. Once again, learn the difference between what God creates and what He allows. This distinctive difference is what is making your argument heresy. God Love You.

          • Mark from PA: God could stop sin right now if He so wanted, but He allows it. Do you understand the difference between God wanting something and allowing something? Do you want to know the difference? Any time someone tries to illustrate the difference between the freedom that God permits and the brokenness you think He purposely imposes on people. Mark, does God give people disease, are psychological disorders or retardation intentionally created by God. The answer is no and we know this because God has revealed through Scripture that man was created in the full grace of God and suffered no afflictions of the flesh, no desire towards evil, only a love and desire for God. Man and woman were able to be naked without shame in the garden because they were in complete grace. Mark, we have the ability and we do know that God did NOT create the SSA desire, but merely allows it as He allows all temptation. We must recognize all temptation and turn it to the Lord so we have the strength to overcome our own weakness. God Love You.

  77. Abeca Christian says:

    Mark of PA you sure get everyone rattled all up. The fact is Mr. Mark of PA is that for years now, those who obey God and His almighty ordained natural law, have been sharing with you the truth and yet, this repetition has done nothing good in you as of yet….you continue to be heretical in your embrace and defense of homosexual lifestyles.

    • Mark from PA says:

      Abeca Christian, the conversations here have been doing good as they have been leading me to truth. They have increased my understanding. Yes, I have learned much. Perhaps, you are not so happy at what I have learned. But I have also seen darkness in the hearts of some who seem to get satisfaction in pointing fingers and laying burdens. As a person who tends to see the good in everyone, trying to keep up has been a challenge. Your comment “you continue to be heretical” leaves me somewhat stunned. In my whole life nobody has ever said such a mean-spirited thing to my face. I was raised in a different culture.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        PA if you have learned something then why on earth would you continue the same on views of homosexuality? PA you always act like the victim or offended. Why can’t you see that you have victimized us all into endless dialogue and keep on offending us with your pro-gay sentiments. So get off your high horse, will you? PA for the record I did not say anything mean spirited to your face, this is a website, in case you didn’t know it! By golly!

        • Mark from PA says:

          Actually I don’t consider myself a victim. In my day to day life people are very kind to me. The other day a woman in a store called me darling. Women are always calling me honey and most women are very sweet to me. I suppose that is why I react to the way some of the ladies here react to me as it is something foreign to me. I don’t really experience things like being called heretic or sodomite in my day to day life. When I was in high school and college the girls were always nice to me so that was what I was used to.

  78. Mark from PA: I am still waiting for a response to my 9:56 PM and 8:46 AM posts to you. Mark, the CCC says specifically that the homosexual desire is disordered. God does not create disorder Mark. God is an ordered God, brings order out of chaos. Please read your CCC. God Love You.

  79. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I replied to those posts but it didn’t go through. I will be brief. I have read the CCC and certain documents and am aware that according to them the homosexual orientation is considered disordered. By reading them I understand that gay people are viewed as defective by the Church. You seem to get some kind of satisfaction by reminding me this. I don’t really know what you want me to say.

    • Mark from PA: if you put it into those terms, then all people are defective. Mark, we all have defects that are caused by original sin. By defects, I am referring to the sickness, disease, desires toward sin, etc. that all people have. The whole point is to identify that it is not of God. Does this make sense Mark? We should remind ourselves every day that we are defective without God and it is only by His Grace that we can attain perfection, although the perfection will not be in our earthly lifetime. As long as we are alive in this life, we will have defects in our body and desires until we are with God in Heaven. God allows these defects out of love and we must accept His Love to fulfill and satisfy our longing for Him. I hope this helps. God Love You.

  80. Mark from PA: I hope you understand my previous post. The whole point at what I have been trying to convey to you is that we are all inadequate in our flesh because of original sin and each have inadequacies we struggle with. The whole point is to identify our inadequacies and lift them to Our Lord so He can make strong what is lacking in our flesh. When a person acknowledges that their SSA is not from God, it is something that God can use to purify a person if this person allows God to do so. We must all look at the disordered desires we have, our inclinations to sin and ask God to purify us and strengthen us to avoid sin. The Church is not saying that people with SSA are disordered, the Church is saying the desire is disordered and that it is necessary for the person to not succumb to disordered desires. All people have to avoid disordered desires and rely on God to provide the strength to avoid sin. God Love You.

  81. Mark from PA says:

    MD, I understand what you are saying. You believe that sexual desire does not come from God but is a result of original sin. I never really thought about that stuff. You are correct, we can strive for perfection but we will not attain it in this life. We hope to attain it in the next life. Perhaps the closest we get to perfection is when we unite ourselves to Christ’s perfection when we receive His body and blood in the Holy Eucharist. In our common union with Christ we share in His perfection.

  82. Mark from PA: Praise God for your response. Sexuality is a gift from God for us to be in deeper communion with God and like any gift it can be misused. I am going to provide you with an analogy here. Let’s look at food for instance to draw a conclusion on how our appetites can be both good and dangerous. We know it is necessary to eat to sustain life and that through food we even receive pleasure of the senses, but we can enter into sinful behavior for food when we become gluttonous and over indulge. As humans, we have to identify when we misuse the gifts God has given us. This is true of our sexuality and God gave us this gift as a means of sustaining human life, receiving pleasure and participating in His Triune Life, but like food, we can misuse our sexuality and have desires that distort the true meaning of why the Lord gave us this gift. This is why we rely on the CCC and trust when it says that if we have disordered desires, we have to give those disordered desires to the Lord so He can strengthen us and bring us to perfection. This life we live is a battle zone for our souls and the enemy hates us because we are created in the image and likeness of God and wants to destroy the goodness in our flesh to remove us from God. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak and we have to rely on the Grace of God to provide the strength of the flesh we need to achieve ultimate unity with Our Lord in heaven. God Love You.

  83. Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui says:

    Same-sex marriage is an injustice, an insult to the noble faculty of reason, and an absolute mockery of: the Laws of Nature, civil society, and the preservation and perfection of mankind.

    The broken families which same-sex marriages purposely create are necessarily vicious toward those naturally occurring consanguineous obligations from which nations, sociability, and benevolence have naturally emanated.

    Children are not pets one purchases from rescue shelters(adoption clinics) and puppy mills(insemination and surrogacy). Children are human beings endowed with a natural desire to be procreated from an engendered act of love between a husband and a wife. Same-sex marriage is adulterous by nature and thereby destructive to not only children, but to our civilization.

    Same-sex marriage couples selfishly demand “Marriage Equality”, yet, in return, they offer LESS-THAN-EQUAL protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents. In the name of “Marriage Equality”, same-sex marriage leaves the child fully aware that his family is, in all truth, not at all “equal”, natural, nor complete. The use of the term “Marriage Equality” by same-sex marriage proponents selfishly ignores the child’s perspective of “equality”.

    Same-sex marriage couples profess that it is love which gives the right to join the institution of marriage, yet, in doing so, they selfishly violate the principle LOVING objective of this noble institution; to protect a child’s Natural Right to be raised by both biological parents.

    Same-sex marriage is not justice in the eyes of a child. Same-sex marriage is an abuse of power, a tyrannical subversion of the fundamental principles of marriage and the duties which it enjoins; contrary to the nature and state of man, same-sex marriage is merely the unwarranted whims of an ignorant and selfish generation whose conduct is nothing less that an embarrassment to the dignity of mankind.

    Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

    In fine, same-sex marriage is an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”.

    “No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” —Immanuel Kant

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and 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.

Post your comment

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and 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.