On Tape: Homosexual Activist U.S. Priest Blasts Vatican Cardinal and Archbishop over Homosexuality During Homily
Dante and Virgil in Hell by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1850)
Special thanks to St. John's Valdosta Blog (which is excellent) for pointing out this LifeSite News story.
Here's the story: ON TAPE: U.S. Priest Blasts Vatican Cardinal and Archbishop over Homosexuality During Homily
Here's a quote:
In the diocese of Saint Paul-Minneapolis, Fr. Leo Tibesar has been controversial for years when it comes to homosexuality and the Church's teaching. Last year LifeSiteNews.com reported that the website of Dignity USA, the most prominent US lobby organization fighting Catholic teaching on human sexuality "from within" the Church, featured Fr. Tibesar as a member of the organization's National Leadership Team.Now an audio recording of a homily which Fr. Tibesar gave on Saturday October 27 which took aim at an Archbishop, a Vatican Cardinal, and a prominent Evangelical preacher has been posted online. The Archdiocesan spokesman had only recently heard of the incident and could not provide comment when contacted by LifeSiteNews.com
The Gospel reading for that Sunday (also the Saturday evening liturgy) concerned the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector recorded in Luke 18:9-14, where Christ praises the repentant sinner over the self-righteous Pharisee.
However in his homily Fr. Tibesar, pastor of Saint Frances Cabrini Church, cast the Archbishop and Cardinal in the role of Pharisee and those who unrepentantly counter Church teaching on homosexuality as worthy of the praise of Christ.
"What would Jesus say today if he were telling the parable in our Gospel of Luke?," asked the priest as he began a series of four versions of his retelling.
In version 3 of his retelling, Fr. Tibesar preached: "Two people came into Church to pray, one was a Catholic Archbishop who refuses communion to Rainbow Sash people at the Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday who prayed "I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy, dishonest or like others who need to make their dissent from official Church teaching so public and divisive."
"The other were Rainbow parents of GLBT people at the Cathedral on Pentecost who stood off on the side and prayed, "Oh God be merciful to us for failing to attend our own Churches more often; they say they love God then turn there backs on us in hate directly contrary to 1:John,4 - whoever loves God must also love the neighbor."
He concluded the point: "Jesus concluded the last ones went home more worthy in God's sight than the first."
With regard to the Vatican Cardinal, Fr. Tibesar took issue with the prohibition on the use of condoms. "Two people came into Church to pray, one was a Roman Catholic Cardinal in Charge of Church doctrine who prayed "I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy dishonest or like those living in Africa where AIDS is killing everyone even there we can never allow condoms to be used."
"The other was an African widow dying of AIDS who stood off to the side and prayed "Oh God, be merciful to me for not refusing the advances of my husband without a condom, soon I will follow him to the grave and leave our six children orphans," he continued.
"Jesus concluded - the last person went home more worthy in God's sight than the first."
Finally taking aim at the Evangelical pastor, Fr. Tibesar recited the fourth version of his narrative. "Two people came into Church to pray. One was an Evangelical pastor whose regional services are broadcast nationally who prayed "I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy, dishonest or like others who give into same gender sex drives which the bible calls an abomination."
"The others who came into Church to pray for a same sex couple raising children born by way of donor insemination who prayed: "Oh god, be merciful to us for not finding our own medium to share with the broader audience the biblical passage of 1 John 4:16 - God is love and when we abide in love we abide in God and God in us."
The homily grossly distorts Catholic teaching which teaches that all persons must be loved, and that the sin of homosexual sex acts are disordered and hurtful to the individuals involved in them.
To hear the homily online click here: Fr. Leo Tibesar's homily on homosexuality
My thoughts:
I wonder what Fr. Tibesar would say about this: French police detain 'drag queen' over 18 gay murders
Homosexuals represent 4% to 6% of the general population, at most. Some statistics have the number at 1% of the population. Why are so many serial killers homosexuals? Here's a few I came up with off the top of my head: Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Aileen Wuornos, Andrew Cunanan. Here is a list of over fifty homosexuals who were serial killers: Homosexual Serial Killers
More after the jump...
Despite constant efforts to portray homosexuality as a harmless human variant by homosexual activists like Fr. Leo Tibesar, the grim realities associated with the homosexual lifestyle keep bubbling to the surface.
As Catholic Answers’ special report on Gay Marriage relates:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide successfully. Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight. Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers). Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.
Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.
It's not loving to encourage people to believe that a lifestyle that shortens lives (and destroys souls) is healthy and normal and should be tolerated and even embraced. In the face of such evidence, it becomes clear that any pronouncements of tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle or the gifts that flow from a homosexual orientation run contrary, not only to Church teaching, but also authentic charity. Homosexuality hurts people. It’s a serious disorder, not a gift. Telling people otherwise isn’t Christian and loving. It’s ignorant, cowardly, and irresponsible. Imagine embracing an alcoholic, drug addict, anorexic, or bulimic and telling them that you accept, respect, and support their lifestyle choice! Imagine telling someone diagnosed with the beginning stages of cancer that you support their decision to continue smoking and continuing their other unhealthy lifestyle choices. Yet this is what progressives ask of Christians in regard to the homosexual lifestyle, ignoring evidence that homosexuality is bodily harmful.
These enablers are outraged at Christian concern for the immortal souls of persons who actively engage in this spiritually deadly lifestyle, and they'll almost invariably point to this or that active homosexual and offer as anecdotal evidence that the person is happy ad well adjusted.
It's sad.
Does the post linked below sound well adjusted to you?
Advice for Recent Arrivals Dos & Don'ts & More Don'ts for Gay Boy Refugees
Again, sad.
I believe the Holy See should force the hands of those who subvert Church teaching and lead souls into error by formally defining Church teaching on matters of sexual morality, not just about homosexuality, but about all aspects of human sexuality and making it clear that those who disagree are not Catholic.
Nobody can force these people to live a certain way, but we can at least prevent them from deceiving people into believing that anyone can remain faithful to Christ and inherit eternal life even while committing themselves to a sinful lifestyle (which is not the same thing as experiencing periodic or regular temptations, periodically falling into serious sin (but always repenting and honestly working to amend one's life and avoid future occasions of sin), or having a predominant fault, as some who charge Catholics with hypocrisy for repeating Church teaching on sexual morality claim attempt to claim).
Any thoughts?
One wonders what he is hiding.
Posted by: ASimpleSinner | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five."
... and many of them are probably Catholic bishops.
Seriously, this is a very sad story, which shows how Satan mixes a little truth with outright falsehoods to confuse the faithful. What kind of bishop and diocese would let a priest preach a sermon like this?
Posted by: CatholicCrusader | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:20 AM
God have mercy on his soul.
I'm from the archdiocese but currently live abroad. Let's not forget that one of the best things we can do is pray for our priests and clergy daily.
On a positive note, one can listen to the heroic Father Robert Altier (same archdiocese) homilies at this site: http://www.desertvoice.excerptsofinri.com/index.html#2006_Homilies
Enjoy and God bless
Posted by: Jeffrey | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Whether you take issue with him or not, nobody put it better and more succinctly than Scott Hahn: "We have been called by our Lord to affirm Christ's gospel and reform our lifestyles; we have NOT been called to affirm our lifestyles and reform Christ's gospel." Either you deny yourslf in taking up your CROSS every day, or you deny Christ in taking up your own selfish CAUSE every day. Which one will it be for you, Father Leo?
Posted by: Thomas A. | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Whether you take issue with him or not, nobody put it better and more succinctly than Scott Hahn: "We have been called by our Lord to affirm Christ's gospel and reform our lifestyles; we have NOT been called to affirm our lifestyles and reform Christ's gospel." Either you deny yourslf in taking up your CROSS every day, or you deny Christ in taking up your own selfish CAUSE every day. Which one will it be for you, Father Leo?
Posted by: Thomas A. | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 01:03 PM
Why are the analogies these people make sooo pathetically predictable? Just once, can't the protaganist be an orthodox, conservative male and the antagonist be the gay/lesbian, tatooed liberal?
... a gay, tatooed man goes into church.
He prays, thank God that there is no such thing as sin anymore. Thank you, o' God, for the wisdom to see that so many of superstitions and taboos--and, Lord, I said taboo, not tattoos--that we once held were put there by the homophobic, racist power structure to preserve their power and dominate others who were merely different. Thank you that your indignation is mainly directed at people who think you have any indignation or righteous anger. Thank you, O' Lord, that I am not like those conservative, orthodox catholic/conservative-types who want to once again genuflect before the latin Mass, the Catechism, and the Magisterium. You gave me a brain to use, o' Lord, not to merely parrot what they say.
...while the orthdox Catholic comes into Church and prays, "I am disturbed by so many wretched things in this American culture--and I pray for the grace needed to change us--yet, I am way more disturbed by my own sins. Forgive me, Lord, I am a sinner. ...Hail, Mary, ...
Can we just once have it this way, you liberals. You're so tired and predictable.
Posted by: Jimbo | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Why was this male ordained a priest?
The Catholic Church over the past forty years proved that homosexuality is a profound mental illness which makes individuals so burdened to be utterly unable to function as "father."
Homosexual males are mentally-emotionally immature burdened with unusual infantile affinity for their mothers and complete disconnect from their fathers and thus are utterly unable to counsel a normal man or woman, husband or wife, girl or boy, daughter or son.
The ordained priest is an intimate, a family member or great distinction and authority, given tremendous power to guide and mold and influence all members of the natural human family, throughtout their natural lives.
We witness indisputable catastrophe, crimes, wickedness, destruction resulting from homosexual males ordained into our clergy in the pastoral setting and a horrific destructive fickle-fashion caprice regarding the eternal Truth of our Faith and Worship.
ALL of this is entirely completely under the absolute control and authority of the popes, John Paul II for over twenty five years of the worst of it, and now Benedict fritters about at the perimeter or little bitty issues as a "great diplomat" in a complete militaristic absolute monarchy.
These popes will answer for all of it, the corrupt bishops are merely bitter fruits of sowing sinfullness into our clergy by our utterly abysmally corrupt and rotten post Vatican II popes.
There is NO other issue in our Church until this scourge is corrected and removed.
Posted by: Joseph-USA | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 02:07 PM
"There is NO other issue in our Church until this scourge is corrected and removed."
Unfortunately for our Church, I would have to agree. There will always be liberalism, but until liberalism stops being a clergy problem and remains a laity problem, we can go no further.
Posted by: anthony | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 04:34 PM
finally someone catholic has spoken out against the hypocracy of the cathoic position.scripture(1thess) says test everything keep the good. yet for the catholic they will not test the teaching. and i say teaching because there is no specific verse that declares homosexuality a sin. denoting sins in the commission of same sex acts has nothing to do with human bonding out of mutual love, trust, attraction, and respect.
for those who think it is a sin consider that it is the covenant in christ(coming against loving your neighbor as yourself) not anything specifically in scripture that declares slavery a sin. the new covenant's expanded understanding of neighbor. likewise it is thru the covenant of christ that homosexuality is not a sin because it does not come against the loving your neighbor as yourself(the summation of the law)the covenant giving new meaning to the term neighbor which is everybody.
Posted by: feetxxxl | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 10:54 AM
According to this lifesite article, the apostate Fr. Tibesar is now going to bless same sex "unions" in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112807.html
Anybody besides me know anyone in Minnesota that can work to help inform his parishoners that they are in a grave situation if they continue to support him?
God have mercy on us all, poor sheep who find our shepherds are just wolves dressed up to fool us.
Posted by: Jeffrey | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Feetxxxl:
Your argument is hard to understand, but let me attempt to interpret and refute.
First, Sacred Scripture DOES speak of homosexuality being evil in both Old Testament (Sodom and Gomorrah) and New Testament (Jesus speaks that effeminates will not inherent the Kingdom).
Does Sacred Scripture show a POSITIVE homosexual pair? No. Why not? Is this just something Jesus forgot to tell His Church? (Or worse, those horrible awful intolerant Catholics took out all the good role models and stuff!) No. Homosexuality is universally repugnant to natural law, to God's law, and therefore homosexual acts are not tolerated by the Church.
Third,
The Bible points to Sacred Tradition as important for all believers 2Thes2:15 "Stand fast, brethren, and hold the traditions you have learned, whether by word, or our epistle"
Those traditions learned by word are none other than the teachings of the Catholic Church. See the Catechism for more details.
God bless, and take a second look at the evils of homosexuality from a health perspective (high mortality/shorter lifespan/mental health issues/disease) and natural law before assuming the Church is simply against homosexuality for no good reason.
Posted by: Jeffrey | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 01:46 PM
A serious question that wasn't answered in the post or the commentary. What would you do? Not later, at the keyboard in a blog post. What would you do right then, right there, as you see satan preaching the homily. Jesus said "get thee behind me satan" and that rebuke helped form Peter into the rock he needed to be. How are we to do that today?
I personally have a lot of conflicting impulses as what to do and don't have a good answer.
Posted by: TM Lutas | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 07:53 PM
I've got lots of practice on this. I get up tell my wife and kids "We're leaving" and we leave the Church.
Then I write a letter to one of the horrid "Bishops" which they pass around among themselves and their horrid subordinates and occasionally (though not lately) one of them writes back and sometimes returns my original letter (and then subsequently I've received stupid additional letter from yet another of the lackies in the Diocese).
There really is no other issue until this homosexual clergy situation is resolved.
If the pope won't DISMISS all homosexuals from our clergy, then he should announce that there are in fact homosexuals in the Catholic Church clergy (how many and where located and names and dates ordained) and offer a refund of all the zillions of dollars of contributions and tuition payments and every other type of tribute which was given to the Church under the false and dangerously false assumption that no one with a known severe mental illness was put into direct at risk association with our children (to mention only one aspect of the absolute pollution of the pastoral duties and involvement of priests with Catholic families which was absolutely corrupted and ruined by mentally ill "priests").
Posted by: Joseph-USA | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Joseph,
I seriously can only come to the conclusion that you are completely unhinged. The anger and rage consistently expressed in your screeds are an embarrassment to yourself. I have no problem with anger, but yours approaches complete absurdity.
Do yourself a favor and tone down your vitriol. Perhaps when you don't sound so adolescent people might actually be able to hear what you're saying.
Posted by: Jimbo | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 02:22 AM
The church will not fix the problem. That is the problem.
What would Jesus do, what a secular smokescreen
God help us all.
Posted by: Jeffersonranch | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 08:13 AM
Jimbo
Are you homosexual as I see nothing wrong with what was written by Joseph and actually I would have taken it one step further and handed out copies of your letter to all of the parishoners after mass, as I have done countless times with respect to the liturgical abuse present in the new mass which by many theologians accounts makes this mass invalid (when abused), the four forms of consecration which also are questionable, and our need for a restoration in full of the Traditional Latin Mass because a mass is not a mass without a true sacrifice and if you dont have mass you dont receive the graces you are supposed to receive
Recall your Baltimore Catechism Jimbo or are you looking at the John Paul II watered down we are all One and worship the same God version?
Posted by: Frank | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 09:00 AM
Frank & Joseph-USA,
I am frequently embarrassed by the comments made by the both of you (if you are, in fact, two people).
I have banned Joseph-USA more than once and he keeps comping back with a new IP address.
I have frequently had to erase his comments, something I almost never do, because of his attacks on the Holy Father.
Frank, your personaility comes across more as well meaning, but (in many ways) misinformed. You appear to have a rudimentary understanding of the fundamentals (the Baltimore Catechism, etc.) but you frequently come to false conclusions because your reasoning often begins with a false premise, or you make equivocations, or you fall into using other logical fallicies.
Both Frank and Joseph-USA (as well as many of the other "-USA" personas)frequently come across as people who, while "conservative" and "traditional" are also bitter and reactionary.
You don't even seem to care that the way you come across turns people off, causes them to suspect you are unbalanced, and consequently causes people to tune you out.
If you want to rant, nobody can stop you, but very few people will listen to you, which means you won't have much influence.
I'm not asking anyone to deny the faith or compromise the truth. I'm merely suggesting that if you aren't trolls, you really need to work on expressing yourselves appropriately, because you come across as either trolls, or unbalanced reactionaries with an axe to grind.
Pax,
Thomistic
Posted by: Thomistic | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 09:43 AM
Thomistic -
You nailed me exactly, as "reactionary." That is, one who is conservative and wishes to return to the conditions which prevailed in a former time. Since your blog deals primarily with the Catholic Church, you are completely correct, I wish to return to a former time, i.e. prior to the Vatican Council II, at which and through which all of the destructive groundwork was set for that which we presently endure in our Church.
You did ban me from your site previously, as I ventilated my anger about the homosexuals in the priesthood which I then unrelentingly attributed to pope John Paul II and his cohorts. My uncharitable and unconfirmable attribution to him of a homosexual orientation as the motivation or "explanation" of this obvious 180 degree change in orientation in our Catholic clergy entirely under his "watch" was beyond your endurance (and you thus banned me from participating here). Subsequently, I would occasionally return to read articles which you would glean in response to whatever timely matter was at hand concerning the Church (your work is always instant-timely and issues concerning our Church are of great importance to me).
I started to comment once again, after I detected what appeared to me to be a definite shift toward a much more realistic selection of topics which regularly and accurately revealed and criticized the OUTRAGE of homosexual corruption among clergy in our Church.
I comment anonymously for good reasons which have nothing to do with my interests but for the protection of others associated with me in various activities. I conduct myself and speak forthrightly in every forum, and anyone who can actually answer me with enlightening reasoned argument benefits me as well as any other reader. But merely responding and drowning out a voice because it calls a spade a spade, when the entire problem is the fact of deception and misrepresentation and fraud, is hardly a valid or valuable response.
But it's your blog, and far better than the one or two others I've stumbled upon.
By the way, I've been deliberately on my "best behavior" here in the past several days as I've begun commenting again, and consequently I have felt quite uncomfortable and often phony speaking in such muted tones.
If my comments-insights are such an affront to you or to your more valued readers, I will refrain from posting here unless informed otherwise. And if your objective is to make your site comfortable for homosexuals, you might ask them why they see no problem in making the Church and the schools and all other formerly safe and protected institutions, not only uncomfortable but absolutely dangerous for innocents?
Posted by: Joseph-USA | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Thomastic
I agree with Joseph and have no idea what you are talking about
With regards to the Baltimore Catechism, I later had to be retaught such because the catechism I had learned (the new John Paul version) was so horrible, as well as his new code of canon law that it was like being a new convert and mad as heck that I never truly was taught my faith as a youngster
I think you as millions need to come to the realization that it was the church who "changed" after Vatican II and there was no "poor implementation" of this council as it was meant to be vague so as to appear to be in line with past teachings, and by creating the synod of Bishops, the blame now falls onto each individual diocese and not Rome, which was a master stroke by Paul VI so not to appear to be defecting from the church teachings while at the same time permitting abuse after abuse
We have a new mass, new customs, new code of canon law in 1983 that now permits 60,000 annulments a year and eucharistic hospitality as compared to the 1917 version to name only a few of the loopholes created by "santo subito", along with new rites for the sacraments, dress, retranslated NAB bible 4 or 5 x (anyone counting?), and pedophilia and lawsuits swept under the rug, etc etc. It was the church that changed, not traditionalists or conservatives, yet when you ask not to change,they label you as an apostate, schismatic and so called "Conservative" Catholic blogs delete your posts, which if they were really so out in left field, why delete them? Why do posts that have to do with traditionalism seem to draw the most comments? Simple, because the Devil is struggling to keep the church in its present form and he wants us to fight. Good vs Evil has been around for centuries, and with corrupt clergy today, the evil one is winning as he tried for years to attack the church from the outside and failed but finally succeeded and tried to do so from within, this way not only do you have corrupt shepherds, but brainwashed sheep
Posted by: Frank | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 11:50 AM
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA:
"We've had enough exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence."
Posted by: Atlanta Catholic | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Ok..so gospel passages can only be used against "others" but if it challenges US as catholics...then it is wrong. Why? Jesus will always challenge us...to love. And there is no more subtle way to NOT love than take religious rules to isolate people and descriminate.
Posted by: Jean | Friday, November 30, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Recent comments indicate that some people posting here have bought into the propaganda that homosexual activity and homosexual unions are harmless.
In reality, homosexual activity and homosexual unions are harmful to individuals and to society, both inside the Catholic Church and outside the Church.
In other posts on the subject of homosexuality, some have attempted to claim that the legal recognition of homosexual unions will not harm the institution of marriage.
I reply:
The state of marriage in American society is already undermined by high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates.
Homosexual marriages and/or homosexual civil unions will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment are out, and alternative partnerships are in. Look at the results of decade of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating couples has risen.
Check out this article: The death of marriage in Scandinavia
See also: Modern Sweden: The declining importance of marriage
This is an excellent resource: The case against "Same-sex marriage"
Check out this article: How would same-sex 'marriage' legalization impact America?
Moreover, supporting the legal recognition of homosexual unions is not compatible with Catholicism.
Read this document: Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons.
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons is Church teaching. You'll note the document is on the Vatican website and was authored by some of the same people who authored the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have read.
Speaking of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, people should reread this section:
You will note that the Catechism makes several things clear:
1) Sacred Scripture presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity.
2) Tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."
3) The inclination to homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered.
4) Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law because close the sexual act to the gift of life and they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
5) Under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.
6) Every sign of unjust discrimination against persons with homosexual tendencies should be avoided. (Note: the use of the word "unjust" means that there is such a thing as "just" discrimination, and Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons explains that further, which is why you need to read it and realize that your opinions run contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church.)
Homosexual activists who have a passing familiarity with Sacred Scripture and liberals who fantasize that the only ones Jesus condemned were the theologically conservative Pharisees or even that Christ was a liberal (in the modern sense of the word) have been trying to make arguments similar to the ones made by those sympathetic to homosexuality who post on this blog. The rhetoric used to support homosexual activity as a licit variant of human sexual activity has been used for decades.
I've already covered the fact that Jesus was not a liberal here: Jesus Was Not A Liberal
Before I go any further, I would like to point out that Jesus was addressing his own disciples in many of the passages I will be quoting. I will add that the notion that Jesus reserved his condemnations for the Pharisees, Sadducees, or other religious leaders in power during His public ministry is entirely erroneous. Jesus frequently warned sinners that they are in danger of hell.
Jesus agreed with the Pharisees more than he disagreed with them. He said to do as they say, not as they do, because they were hypocrites:
Some claim that hypocrisy among religious leaders (whether they be Christian leaders of the present age, or the Jewish leaders during the public ministry of Christ) makes their doctrinal teaching false. That is a mistake.
Just because some Christian religious leaders (or even many) and many Christians do not live up to the doctrinal teachings of their professed belief (on matters of faith and/or morals) does not mean that the religious faith they profess is false. It means they are poor examples of what their religion says they are meant to be. It means that they are sinners.
This is especially true of Christians who commit sins of the flesh. Their sinfulness does not make sins of the flesh okay, nor does it mean those who have fallen into sin must forever remain silent about the sinfulness of such activity. I have far more respect for a sinner who acknowledges his or her sin, than for a sinner who insists on denying that he or she is guilty of sin at all.
There were good Pharisees who were friends of Jesus, and they were not required to renounce their beliefs in order to be friends of Our Lord. Although Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13–28), he also dined with Pharisees (Luke 7:36–50), taught in their synagogues (Mark 1:21), specified their teachings to his followers (Matthew 23:1–3), and counted Pharisees such as Nicodemus among his disciples (John 7:50–51).
The Sadducees (many of whom were of the priestly class) were the religious liberals of the day during the public ministry of Jesus. They did not believe in angels or thee resurrection. Jesus disagreed with them doctrinally, but so did the Pharisees. Yet very often, people who know little of Sacred Scripture lump these groups together.
Getting back to the subject of homosexuality:
Although homosexual activity was common among the pagans, Jesus’ ministry was primarily to the Jewish people. Homosexuality was universally understood to be an abomination among the Jews. Jesus didn’t need to correct the Jewish people’s understanding of the nature of homosexuality because they had the right understanding of it already (which means the silence of Christ on this subject isn’t in favor of homosexuality). Moreover, as homosexuality was considered an abomination to the Jews, it wasn’t a common sin among the Jewish people. Jesus did not need to preach to the choir on this issue.
Moreover, Jesus wasn't merely capitulating to the culture of His times. Jesus spoke to women and counted women among His disciples. He healed on the Sabbath and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. If the Jews were misinterpreting the law, or taking it to extremes, Jesus remedied these errors by His examples and teachings, but he never did this with homosexuality, because the Jews had the correct view of homosexual activity: it is a serious offense against God's eternal law, an act of grave depravity, and an abomination in the sight of the Lord.
Now, I will demonstrate, from Sacred Scripture, that the Jewish people understood that homosexual activity is an abomination. I will then show that Jesus' disciples did not repudiate this teaching, even while they showed that the ceremonial elements of Old Testament law were no longer binding.
The Old Testament explicitly condemns homosexual acts:
St. Paul and the apostles explicitly condemned homosexual activity:
Here's a quote from, Early Teachings on Homosexuality:
As you can see, the Jewish people understood that homosexual acts are sinful, Jesus did not correct them on this point, His disciples continued to teach that such activity separates one from the Lord, and so did their successors (linked in this post).
Homosexual activity violates the natural law and the inclination to violate the natural law is a disorder:
Natural law doesn't apply to animals. it only applies to creatures who have the use of reason or an intellectual faculty. Animals lack this and are, therefore, not bound by the natural law. Moreover, because of the sin of Adam, Sacred Scripture says that suffering mysteriously entered the ranks of the animal kingdom (because Adam had dominion over all the animals). It is not surprising, then, that animals should be given to disordered acts. Dolphins and chimps have been observed to force sex on unwilling partners, would that, then, justify rape? A praying mantis eats the head of its mate. Would that, then, justify murder?
The natural law is the response of right reason to the world around us. It is a reasoned response to reality. Through the natural law we recognize that we treat a thing in accordance with its nature. Therefore, we treat a head of lettuce one way, a puppy is treated another way, and a human being is treated differently from a puppy or a head of lettuce. When you use a thing in a manner contrary to its nature you violate the natural law and do something wrong. Some violations are more sinful than others, just as some acts are more or less unnatural.
Lets take an example: a pencil. A pencil achieves its end when it is used in accordance with its nature. The end, or purpose for being, of a pencil is to write. When a pencil is used properly, it is "happy". (I'm being simplistic and applying personification to illustrate a point, not to be condescending.) If we were to use a pencil as though it were a screw driver, we would hurt the pencil. It would be damaged by our action that ran contrary to its nature. If we ignored the fact that we were destroying the pencil and continued to use it as a screwdriver, ultimately, we would destroy it completely.
Now let's take a human function: eating. Eating has a purpose: nourishment. It has pleasure united to it in order to facilitate that purpose. However, when someone overeats for pleasure, they get fat. If they eat purely for the pleasure and then vomit to prevent weight gain, that is called an eating disorder. It is an abuse of the bodies faculties. It's a sickness. Bulimic individuals need help. They are disordered. Their sinful use of food and their inordinate need t control their appearance becomes so habitual that they do all sorts of terrible things to their bodies, vomiting, starving themselves, gorging, using laxatives, etc.
The inclination to homosexuality, while not sinful in itself, is a disorder. It is a disorder in the same sense that anorexia, bulimia, alcoholism, or drug addiction is a disorder, only it touches on an area even more intimate: sexuality. Disorders are not something to be proud of and sharing the fact that one struggles with any kind of temptation, especially if it is one that involves serious sin is not to be undertaken without serious reason, not only for the safeguard of one's own reputation, but also so as not to cause scandal.
Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will, that habitual sin does this all the more and makes turning back from any sin more difficult. Sin also impedes the reception of actual grace. Mortal sin robs the soul of sanctifying grace (the loss of charity), habitual mortal sin inclines one to depression and possible despair (the loss of hope), and the incongruity of living as though there is no God slowly becomes incompatible with belief in the supernatural (the loss of faith).
The sole weapon left to restore a soul is the gift of faith, and when that is lost, the soul is placed in tremendous peril, because there is nothing left to bring the soul back to God unless the light of faith is rekindled.
Back to the natural law aspect:
You compare homosexuality to heterosexuality as though they are just variants of behavior, but they aren't. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. They are incapable of transmitting life and cannot provide the true union that heterosexual complementarity provides because they aren't acts of self-donation, the total gift of self to other, or open to the possibility of life.
Heterosexual acts within the context of marriage are moral and just because they are natural in every way, down to the cellular levels of sperm and egg. Whatever the intention of any sexual act, the body's nature, down to the actions of sex cells, shouts God's plan. God's design is clear. Sperm always seeks an egg. To do so is its nature. When that design is followed and nature's function is working properly, new life can result, and because of marriage, the children have the possibility of a stable, loving family to nurture them. When the supernatural element of the sacrament of marriage is added to the natural beauty and goodness of such a relationship, marriage becomes an even greater means of sanctification.
The design of sex says I love you completely; because it involves complete self donation.
It says I love you exclusively; because you can't love more than one person with complete self donation.
It says I love you forever; because such a total gift of self may not be taken back.
To say such things with one's body, but not mean it in one's heart, is a lie. Doing so is to use one's own body and that of another person simply for personal gratification. That is not love.
When compounded with the fact that love seeks the good of the beloved, the fact that such acts do not involve love becomes all the more clear, as such action places the person with whom we have acted out sexually in danger of losing their soul. It would be more loving to shove their face in a puddle of vomit than cause their soul to be separated from God.
Yes, heterosexuals sin sexually, but that doesn't justify homosexual sin. It just means that homosexually active people aren't the only sinners.
All deliberate sexual acts (whether they are actions done alone or with others) outside of the context of marriage, or which are deliberately closed to the creation of new life (within marriage) are objectively serious matter and to engage in such acts with sufficient reflection and full consent is a mortal sin.
Any sexual act that does not comply with Church teaching is not an act of love. It is an act of masturbation, whether alone, or through the use of another person's body.
This teaching is a cross for everyone, not just homosexuals, because of our fallen nature and the war of our passions against right reason. We can all pray for deliverance from such temptations, but nobody can reasonably expect that they will forever remain free from any temptation in this area, regardless of the specific nature of the temptation. We are simply called to pray and struggle. Through our struggle we are constantly reminded of our frailty and therefore our total dependence upon God. Such temptations, understood properly, are a means of keeping us close to God, even though they are a cross.
I still don't understand this: To embrace the homosexual lifestyle seems to be just giving up and deciding that relief can be found in no longer struggling against a predominant tendency to sin. Should other people give in to all of their temptations to sin and instead of turning and repenting accept it as their very nature, as something to reconcile with themselves and be at peace about? Is that the solution for alcoholism, eating disorders, every manner of sexual temptation, and the rest of the seven deadly sins? Should they just be accepted and embraced as lifestyles?
Was Jesus wrong when He asked what it profits a man to gain the entire world and yet suffer the loss of his own soul?
I link the following to help make it even more clear what I mean when speaking of the natural law:
The Various Kinds Of Law
The Effects Of Law
The Eternal Law
Whether the natural law is a habit?
Whether the natural law contains several precepts, or only one?
Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?
Whether the natural law is the same in all men?
Whether the natural law can be changed?
Whether the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man?
Whether every human law is derived from the natural law?
The Old Law
The Precepts Of The Old Law
The Moral Precepts Of The Old Law
The Ceremonial Precepts Of The Old Law In Themselves
The Judicial Precepts Of The Old Law
The Causes Of The Ceremonial Precepts Of The Old Law
The Duration Of The Ceremonial Precepts Of The Old Law
The Reason For The Judicial Precepts
The Law Of The Gospel, Called The New Law, Considered In Itself
The New Law As Compared With The Old
Things That Are Contained In The New Law
Additional reading:
Natural Law
Moral Aspect of Divine Law
This article ties things together: Homosexuality
For an excellent explanation of the natural law, in a more reader friendly layman's style, I highly recommend: Mere Christianity
Some, wishing to justify homosexual activity on this blog have said:
I reply...
Christ also said:
Here are some passages which demonstrate that the view of an ever-affirming Jesus is wholly misguided:
Homosexuality is harmful to society and the Catholic Church:
The culture of death is the most pervasive evil in our present age and culture of death is intrinsically rooted in sexual sins.
Artificial contraception, deliberate sterilization, and homosexual acts are all unnatural acts, and there is a link between them, because heterosexual couples who deliberately render their sexual activity a sterile, barren act that seeks pleasure and a misguided sense of love essentially distort their heterosexual acts in such a way that they more closely resemble homosexual acts.
Moreover, the widespread acceptance of homosexual activity is directly correlated to the widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality.
The media is saturated with positive references to the homosexual lifestyle. My posts are wholly insignificant when contrasted with the tidal wave of media supporting the active homosexual lifestyle Americans are subjected to on a daily basis, yet you have expressed displeasure with a handful of posts I offered on this blog articulating my perspective on the subject through the lens of my Catholic faith.
As I said before, homosexuality is a pervasive evil in our time. It is celebrated unlike ever before in human history. Entire cable networks now exist to cater to homosexuals. Homosexual marriages and/or civil unions are legal in Britain and other places in Europe, as well as in Massachusetts and Vermont.
Homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage, showing up at Easter egg hunts on the White House lawn, going to communion in rainbow sashes, and promoting movies like Brokeback Mountain, a movie that initially got a breathless, glowing review from USCCB film critic, Harry Forbes and was only changed (and dramatically so) after the USCCB was flooded with complaints.
Here is the original review by USCCB film critic, Harry Forbes.
The review has been almost completely rewritten; a testimony to how the original review was truly offensive to Catholic sensibilities.
Jimmy Akin had some excellent commentary on the review.
Here is some more commentary about the review: US Bishops' Organization Gives Glowing Review of Homosexual-Sex Propaganda Film
Homosexuality is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ, His apostles, and both the Old and New Testament.
Society is becoming increasingly pagan in this post-Christian era.
There has been an active campaign among homosexuals, many in the media, and those on the political left (as well as the "Log Cabin Republicans" on the right), to change the cultural perception of homosexuality.
This isn't a wild conspiracy theory, it is a verifiable, documented fact. The article, "How 'gay rights' is being sold to America" is just one example of such documentation.
Propaganda masked as entertainment is also being utilized to the same end, namely, getting people to not only accept homosexuality, but to protect and defend it.
Homosexually themed movies are coming out with more and more frequency. Brokeback Mountain, Boys Don't Cry, Philadelphia, and American Beauty, all won significant Academy Awards. There have been so many homosexually themed movies in the last ten years that I can't even remember them all, but a lot of that work has been done for me by this site which lists 50 Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender themed films. Several of the movies nominated for Academy Awards recently have had homosexual themes or characters, including, Brokeback Mountain and TransAmerica.
"Brokeback Mountain" is well produced propaganda.
"Brokeback Mountain" also subtly manipulated viewers into seeing heterosexual marriage as a trap.
The first two X-Men movies were directed by an openly homosexual director, Brian Singer, who wove homosexual allegories in the first two films (and the trend continued with the third under another director). The question of whether or not Superman is a homosexual icon was been all over the media when Superman Returns, also directed by Bryan Singer, was first being released in theaters. I did a post about it here: Superman Is Not A Homosexual
Homosexual characters are now commonplace on television shows. Will & Grace is popular in syndication. Ellen Degeneres' talk show is winning Emmy Awards left and right. Oprah is very homosexual friendly and talks about homosexual issues all the time (including how so many married and/or professedly "straight" black men go "on the down low", meaning they enjoy homosexual sex on the side and put women at risk for AIDS and STDs). She has a homosexual designer, Nate Berkus, on the show all the time. In December 2004 Berkus and his partner, photographer Fernando Bengoechea, were vacationing at a beach resort in Sri Lanka when the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami hit. While Berkus survived, Bengoechea is still missing and presumed dead.
As this post indicates, As The World Turns currently features a plot line about a male character in his late teens, Luke Snyder, "coming out of the closet". I did a post about that here: Propaganda 101: As The World Turns' Progressive Plot Line. Since doing the post, I discovered that there are fan sites devoted to encouraging young people to watch the story of the relationship between the characters of Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer unfold. Here are two examples: Luke & Noah & NoahandLuke.com
Here is a list of television shows with Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgendered characters.
Homosexual activists get very excited about any shows that feature homosexuality, as is evidenced by this Wikipedia article on a Cold Case episode that had a plot similar to that of Brokeback Mountain: Forever Blue (Cold Case Episode)
The Cold Case episode is laden with sentimentality and appeals to emotion, is devoid of factual support for the arguments made in support of the acceptance of homosexual activity, and completely ignores objective arguments against homosexual activity, though it does offer a few straw man arguments. Instead it portrays those who oppose homosexuality as crude, ignorant, thugs who will hurt and/or kill "innocent" homosexuals who only want to "love" one another. This type of propaganda is typical of the demagoguery commonly used in homosexual activism.
You can see the episode yourself here:
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 1/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 2/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 3/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 4/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 5/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 6/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 7/8
Forever Blue (The Lucky Ones) Part 8/8
The media and homosexual activists have spread lies about the motive for Matthew Shepard’s brutal, absolutely unjustified murder. His death was, and still is, invoked as a kind of homosexual martyrdom. ABC News has demonstrated that Matthew Shepard's murder was not a so-called "hate" crime: New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder. Yet Matthew Shepard's tragic murder is still used as a means of silencing any objection to the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, many liberals and homosexual activists frequently imply that all Christian opposition to homosexuality is not only "homophobic" but also shares the blame for what happened to Matthew Shepard or any other homosexually oriented crime victim.
The movies "Boys Don't Cry" and "Brokeback Mountain" also perpetuate the idea that homosexuals need to be cherished and protected by society because those who oppose homosexuality are dangerous and will kill homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a death-style. It is very sad to say this, but homosexual activity basically facilitates the spread of disease and turns countless homosexual men (and some women) into vectors.
Read this article: The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement. A homosexual wrote it and he is very honest about what homosexuality actually involves. it isn't graphic or disgusting in its detail. It is an honest, heartfelt life story and it is extremely eye-opening.
Catholic Answers has an excellent article, titled, Gay Marriage, which is well researched and discusses in detail the various diseases and pathologies associated with homosexuality.
Quote:
Here is what homosexuals admit about themselves: 'The Gay Report'
Another reason to be concerned with the widespread acceptance of homosexuality within our culture and in the Church is this ugly secret: Pedophilia is more common among 'gays'.
Here is another article supporting the same premise: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Support for homosexuality will eventually lead to the acceptance of pedophilia. In fact, the movement to normalize pedophilia has already begun: The Problem of Pedophilia
Here is evidence of more efforts at normalization: Gay-Affirming Psychologists Propose Redefining Child Sexual Abuse
Something to consider: Woman Reared In Same-Sex Household Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage
Additionally, homosexuality is a serious problem within the Church. In January of 2001, The Kansas City Star reported that Catholic priests are dying of AIDS at a rate four times higher than the general population.
A significant number of priests, some say as high as 40% are thought to be homosexuals.
This article gives further evidence that Catholics have good reason to be concerned about the homosexual subculture within the Catholic priesthood: 'Gay' culture in Catholic Church grows
Despite the recent Vatican instruction entitled, “Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders”, stating that the Church "cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"", U.S. Bishop's president, Bishop William Skylstad, supports the ordination of homosexual men to priesthood, and by all indications California prelates will continue to ordain homosexuals.
Bishop Tod Brown explicitly told his priests, "We need priests who see themselves in a wider and more mature way, whatever their sexual orientation."
Fr. Arthur Holquin, pastor of the Mission San Juan Capistrano Basilica (which is located in the Diocese of Orange, California), published the following article in his December 4, 2005, parish bulletin: Can gays be priests? by Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, former Master General of the Dominican Order. In his bulletin, Fr. Holquin proclaimed the article, which calls homosexual priests a gift to the Church, "a helpful and wise commentary".
Fr. Radcliffe’s article was written for the November 26, 2005 issue of the progressive international Catholic weekly magazine, The Tablet. It is interesting to note that the article actually pre-dates the November 29, 2005 release date of the Vatican instruction. The article was written in response, not to the actual Vatican document, but rather a leak of the document, which, while accurate, did not include the other documents released simultaneously by the Vatican with the instruction.
Fr. Radcliffe’s hasty spin on the instruction was clearly meant to soothe the impending apoplexy of Catholic priests and lay persons who have a progressive mindset about homosexuality, and a deeply vested interest in the acceptance of homosexual clergy, over the wording of the soon to be released Vatican document. It reads like a heartfelt attempt to mollify the anxiety of homosexually-oriented priests, seminarians, and vocation candidates. However, the balm Fr. Radcliffe offers to ease the pain is offered by obfuscating the truth.
You may be aware that Fr. Radcliffe has had much to say about homosexuality lately. He was recently quoted in the April 7, 2006, issue of the National Catholic Reporter:
Rev. Donald Cozzens, former rector at the Archdiocese of Cleveland seminary, suggested in his 2000 book, "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," that each bishop should determine what percentage of homosexuals priests would be acceptable in his diocese.
In the same book, Fr. Cozzens famously said that the priesthood is becoming a homosexual profession.
Catholic bishops, like retired Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, have engaged in homosexual activism. Bishops Kenneth Utener (Saginaw, Michigan), Walter Sullivan (Richmond, Virginia), Joseph Imesch (Springfield, Illinois), Matthew Clark (Rochester, New York), Howard Hubbard (Albany, New York), and John Cummins (Oakland, California), have all promoted and enabled the homosexual agenda.
Here’s more information about Bishop Thomas Gumbleton
In February of 2000, Bishop Tod Brown sent each priest in the Diocese of Orange two articles by Fr. Gerald D. Coleman dealing with the Prop. 22 ban on homosexual marriage. In the message accompanying the articles, Bishop Brown wrote that Fr. Coleman's article "expresses very well my own thoughts on this subject." Fr. Coleman’s article, “Is Prop 22 Discriminatory?” argued: "Some homosexual persons have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnerships."
Bishop Brown has shown support for the homosexual lifestyle on numerous occasions for years, as the Open Letter To Bishop Brown ably demonstrates. In fact, the Rainbow Sash movement has praised Bishop Tod Brown.
Cardinal Roger Mahony has also promoted and enabled the homosexual agenda, both through questionable ministries to homosexuals, and public statements by Tod M. Tamberg, Director of Media Relations for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles welcoming members of the Rainbow Sash Movement who come to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels to receive Holy Communion at Mass while wearing their rainbow sashes, which represent their commitment to the homosexual lifestyle and their belief that Church teaching on homosexuality is discriminatory.
Cardinal McCarrick said he would be fine with homosexual civil unions on CNN. He later said that he was misunderstood, but never actually withdrew his statement or explained exactly how he was misunderstood. See: Cardinal McCarrick Says He 'Misspoke' On CNN
About eight U.S. bishops have been forced into resignation over homosexual affairs (or homosexual activity with minors) within the past sixteen years. See: Bishops Besieged
Additionally, Bishop J. Kendrick Williams (Lexington, Kentucky), was accused by three plaintiffs of sex abuse. He resigned on June 11, 2002.
Studies of the sex abuse scandals revealed that 81.9 % of sex crimes committed against young people by Catholic priests during the past 52 years involved homosexual men preying on boys. Only 5.8% of victims were under age 7; 16% percent were between ages 8-10; and over 78% were between the ages of 11-17. 44% of the accused priests were accused by more than one person, and contrary to the suggestions implied by the media, the victims have not been preadolescent children; they were generally teenage boys. It is reasonable to conclude from this data that the majority of sexual abuse within the Church has involved homosexual men who have a sexual appetite for teenaged boys.
Sadly, according to a June 12, 2002 article by Fox News, “A review of American bishops found leaders of 111 of the nation's 178 mainstream Roman Catholic dioceses allowed priests, religious brothers and lay employees accused of sex abuse to keep working.”
I, personally, know a number of agenda driven homosexual priests. I know over ten priests, personally, who molested boys. About five of them were from Orange County (and more than five priests in Orange County have engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, I’m just talking about the ones I have personally encountered).
In addition to all the other evidence I have presented, here are some more articles that demonstrate that homosexuality is a significant problem within the Church:
(Warning: The site immediately below contains quotes with profanity and censored graphic pictures.)
Roman Catholic Faithful ~ St. Sebastian’s Angel’s Website Exposed:
http://rcf.org/Old_web/REMOVESEB/angels/confidentialhomosexualpri