Cardinal McCarrick Says He 'Misspoke' On CNN

Cardinal McCarrick has downplayed his words in support of homosexual civil unions on CNN last week. He now says that he 'misspoke'. He says that he only meant that the fact that the proposed amendment might allow for civil unions was something that he could live with, as that might make it easier for the amendment to pass.

Interesting.

However, looking over his comments, and remembering that words actually mean things, the only possible way that Cardinal McCarrick's current spin would have worked would to have been for him to say that he didn't mean what he actually said.

Here's what he said:

MCCARRICK: Now, I think the legislation as it is proposed would not throw out the possibility of a civil union. And I think we can -- we can live with that if this is what -- if this is what the Constitution will provide for. But to say that you can take this concept of marriage, this word of marriage and use it in ways that it has never been used before, as far as I know, in the history of the world, I think that makes no sense.

BLITZER: So just explain. You think that you could live with -- you could support civil unions between gays and lesbians, but you wouldn't like them to get formally married, is that right?

MCCARRICK: Yes. I think -- I think basically the ideal would be that everybody was – was able to enter a union with a man and a woman and bring children into the world and have the wonderful relationship of man and wife that is so mutually supportive and is really so much part of our society and what keeps our society together. That's the ideal.

If you can't meet that ideal, if there are people who for one reason or another just cannot do that or feel they cannot do that, then in order to protect their right to take care of each other, in order to take care of their right to have visitation in a hospital or something like that, I think that you could allow, not the ideal, but you could allow for that for a civil union.

These liberal cardinals, bishops, priests and religious are a slippery kettle of fish! They use nuance and semantics to bob and weave, dodging any attempt to pin them down and commit to any clear statement of their actual beliefs.

Note that he admits that he 'misspoke'. He suggests that he meant something else. He says that he 'realized that my words could have given the wrong impression to someone who did not take my remarks in context', and that he 'regret[s] any confusion my words may have caused', but he never once articulates what he perceives to be the wrong interpretation of his words.

In other words, he never says: I didn't mean for people to think I support homosexual civil unions.

Additionally, he never reiterates Church teaching that such unions are completely contrary to Christian doctrine and that all Catholics must oppose them.

He simply blames listeners for misinterpreting his words (which appear to be a nuanced endorsement of homosexual civil unions, despite his attempt to back away from said endorsement).

Wolf Blitzer even got him to clarify that he is okay with homosexual civil unions, and he did it!

Yet the Cardinal's apology and admission that he 'misspoke' creates the appearance of a retraction, when, on analysis, a retraction never actually happened. He never took back his words. He just says that some (or many) people misinterpreted him (without even clarifying how his words were misinterpreted so as to remove any confusion about his actual stance on homosexual civil unions).

Bishop Tod Brown must feel disappointed with Cardinal McCarrick. Bishop Brown's own endorsement of homosexual civil unions, an endorsement he has yet to retract, along with his other efforts to support homosexual 'rights' at what seems to be every opportunity have gotten him a lot of criticism. He may have felt relieved to have a cardinal saying, essentially the same thing.

Cardinal McCarrick's clarification was lame and slippery, but at least he said that he 'misspoke'. Bishop Brown had Fr. Gerald Coleman attempt to reconcile his [Coleman's] heretical position with authentic Catholic doctrine in the Diocese of Orange newspaper, Orange County Catholic.

Comments

[Nathan Hicks]

As a bishop, this dude is in charge of teaching the truth, all of it, convenient or NOT. It's nice to know that he's taking it back, but I doubt that he's changed internally from it. Hopefully I'm wrong. It's a good thing God judges that and not me.

[JDM]

The bishop is backing down...

Can I share a liberal thought here? Ahem...
God gave us free will, why doesn't the Catholic Church? Is there really something wrong with recognizing that even homosexuals have free will to do what they please? They know it's "wrong" but that "wrong" doesn't apply to them, so they REALLY think. As much as it's "wrong" for me, as a female, to go outside without my head covered. I'm not muslim - that rule doesn't mean diddly to me.

The Catholic Church can instruct homosexuals, but can't really force anything. We all have free will.

I'm very sorry to have to reveal my ignorance in Catholicism. Ah well.

[mark]

Does this mean we can expect a retraction from Bishop Tod Brown's memo to all priests in the Diocese of Orange supporting homosexual domestic partnership? I thought that Bishops were supposed to be obedient to the Holy See!

[Logos]

JDM,

The problem with Same-sex marriage and civil unions is that they represent a de facto state endorsement of something that many people feel undermines society. For instance, homosexual marriage would undermine the traditional family which is essential for a healthy society, as well as lead us down the path towards the atrocious birth rates current in western Europe (since it is somewhat more difficult for same sex couples to have children than it is for traditional couples) and less children of course means less workers to help pay for social security and healthcare benefits in the future. These are but a few examples. So you see, this has nothing to do with free will (what one does in one's privacy is up to them). But marriage and civil unions are very public acts, and the state, much less the church, cannot endorse something that would so undermine society. One thing many modern societies forget is that concerns for society as a whole have to be weighed along with individual concerns. Same-sex couples are free to express their free will, but this does not mean society should endorse it. And let us not forget that the church is expressing its own free will in its public discourse, to deny the church this right is somewhat unfair I think.

[James]

I always like when public officials "apologize" for mis-speaking, and then don't clearly say what they actually meant to say. How about you tell us exactly what you DID mean to say so that we can understand you perfectly. The problem is, we think we understood perfectly.

[fedup]

JDM:
Of course people have free will to practice homosexuality, if they choose. They have free will to commit a litany of sins. However, the fact that they possess this free will does not change the fact that the Bible clearly finds this conduct to be sinful and this is recognized, rightly, by the Catholic Church as sinful conduct. The problem with your line of thinking is that you want people to be able to exercise free will, and freely sin, without suffering any moral consequences. There are a number of Protestant denominations that essentially allow this. However, the Catholic Church, at least in theory, is much more demanding and actually follows the Bible. Of course, the Catholic Church is not in charge of the federal government or the governments of the individual states, so sins such as abortion and homosexual marriage can become legal, as they have. However, the Church and its officials, if they are true to the Church's beliefs, should never condone or promote sinful conduct, as Bishop Brown and others have done.

You have the free will to go to Hell.
Yet as to endorse it and make it "OK" or even allow it publicly.
The Inquisition only sought and had a right to stop the spreading or promoting of error.
You can think and do in private all you want, but you can't tell others.
That is killing the soul, which is worst than the body. We don't allow killing people on the streets or at all right, the same SHOULD apply to matters of the soul.
But this world is atheist, immoral, ammoral, relative and satisfied with sprinting to Hell after death, and Hell on Earth. This is gonna end soon though. God, is slow to anger, but it has been too long.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

McCarrick, like his fellow American bishops, is nothing but a useless bureaucrat. He's primarily interested in protecting his own backside. Just look at the collective episcopal reaction to the clerical sex-abuse crisis -- not only in the U.S. but worldwide. Are these bishops interested in justice and sound teaching? No, they're interested in protecting their own little fiefdoms, their political influence and their personal prestige.

You know why Rome does nothing about them? Rome doesn't care because Rome is in the same mode. Bishops like McCarrick are doing nothing but exhibiting their professional training -- training that devalues God and His Gospel.

[Alex Lotorto]

As a Catholic Democrat I don't feel it is necessary to forward our doctrine into state and federal politics. We can lead through integrity, good works, and tradition, not mandates or referendums on minority rights. You're creating animosity.

We must preserve marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman WITHIN OUR CHURCH. It isn't up to us to crusade around trying to change the ideologies of God's children who follow other faiths. Let them find us and hear the good word.

And besides, if I was going to try and change an ideology, I wouldn't start with gay rights. Get your priorities straight. What about a real solution to the abortion problem through EFFECTIVE, comprehensive sexual education that prevents unwanted pregnancy, the direct cause of the issue.

Find something else to pressure the Cardinals on and let homosexuals have civil unions and get married as long as its not in our Church.

[Thomistic]

Alex,

First of all, the fact that anyone opposes giving legal recognition and protection to homosexual unions does not in any way diminish their ability to be committed to the pro-life movement. You are correct in understanding abortion to be a more important issue, but you are mistaken in thinking that making abortion a priority requires allowing other moral issues to slip through the cracks.

Second, marriage isn't just a sacrament (although it is that, as well, and that's not unimportant). Marriage is a fundamental building block within society. Nullifying marriage of its fundamental meaning (which is what legitimizing homosexual relationships would do) will only further serve to further destabilize the institution of marriage.

Easy divorce laws and lax sexual morality have already done immeasurable damage to the institution of marriage, and this affects society as a whole, which is why society has legitimate interests in regulating the institution of marriage. (Issues like welfare, poverty, the difficulties of single parent households, abortion, child abuse, and even the crime rate are all tied to the institution of marriage.)

Moreover...

Homosexual relationships tend to be compulsive, as does the need for homosexual activity. This leads to rampant promiscuity, high risk behavior, drug-use, and deeper and deeper spiritual darkness. The intellect is darkened and the will is weakened. God's grace is lost, as are opportunities for grace.

Homosexual relationships that involve sexual activity are unnatural and it is partly because of this that such relationships tend to be extremely unstable. Persons with homosexual tendencies who act out sexually tend to be far more promiscuous than people with heterosexual tendencies, and most homosexual relationships do not last. Yes, there are exceptions, but those exceptions are rare (statistically speaking).

Although many heterosexual unions end badly, and the divorce rate is as high as 50%, that is not a reason to turn and declare homosexual relationships equal in nature, because to do so denies fundamental facts of reality. Homosexual relationships are inherently incapable of producing children. They involve barren, selfish sexual acts that are portrayed in Sacred Scripture as acts of grave depravity. These unnatural acts also make people extremely vulnerable to disease, because they involve doing things for which the human body was never designed and in so doing, frequently create tissue damage that facilitates the spread of virulently infectious diseases (some of which end in death).

Persons with homosexual tendencies also tend to abuse drugs and alcohol (in part to numb the conscience and facilitate their willingness to commit unnatural acts, and in part to escape any kind of meaningful self-reflection).

I'm sorry to tell you this, but your comments are not in line with Church teaching.

Catholics cannot support civil unions for persons with homosexual tendencies. More than one document has been issued from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the issue, and those documents were written when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of that congregation. As I'm sure you know, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI.

You can't be paying much attention to the things the Holy See has been saying (in documents and in speeches by Pope Benedict XVI and other prominent cardinals who work in various offices within the Holy See) to say the things you have said.

As far as letting people discover the truth for themselves, would you do that if someone were about to drink something poisonous?

As far as the fantasy that sexual education prevents "unwanted" pregnancy, I can assure you that however well educated a person is, whatever information that education provided is almost invariably forgotten or disregarded in the heat of passion.

Most people know how babies are made, and most people know about sexually transmitted diseases, yet people frequently disregard what they know in moments of temptation. People rationalize things and take risks. Education won't change that.

Catholicism has educated people about the nature of sin and to avoid personal sin for centuries, but that hasn't stopped people from sinning.

The only thing that can stop these evils you speak of is adherence to the moral law (as taught by the Catholic Church, oddly enough). People need more than education. They need do grow in virtue through discipline and self-control. Such things aren't learned in a classroom. They are learned through watching the models others present to us, recognizing the value of virtue and the good that comes from an unburdened conscience, and through doing the hard, personal work involved in forming good habits.

Society rejects that work, because it is difficult. Society promises easy solutions (abortion and artificial contraception) and believes that education, in conjunction with the availability of the easy solutions, will solve all the problems that come from what Catholics rightly understand to be sexual immorality.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Alex Lotorto]

Homosexuality is not a poison tainting our society. Regardless of Church teaching, I know that if something exists, self-evidently, God has created it with good intention.

I do not want to force our doctrine on society as we are doing without civil unions, I want Roman Catholic morals to be freely chosen, in line with the United States tenet of liberty.

Reading your response, Pax, I begin to question how many homosexuals you've met in your life. Most are precious human beings who are boundless wells of art, science, literature, and other gems of society. They were created as homosexuals by God's will and deserve the rights and liberties afforded to hetereosexual couples.

I sincerely disagree with both you and the Pope and did not support his conservative candidacy prior to his being chosen.

[Thomistic]

So by your logic Cancer, blindness, and chronic pain, as well as every other infirmity that plagues mankind is good because God created them and we should embrace them too.

God created serial killers and the fallen angels as well. Are they good in the sense you believe as well?

Whether or not you want to force "our doctrine" on society, Catholic teaching is the truth. I don't want to force the truth on anyone either. People are free to reject the truth. However, I am sad to think so many souls will be lost because so many wishy-washy Catholics were afraid of offending them by letting them know they are in error and are placing their eternity in serious jeopardy.

I'm not speaking only of active homosexuals when I speak of people the wishy-washy brainwashd Catholics who have bought the lie that tolerance is the only virtue neglect to evangelize either.

But there's a bigger problem with your perspective, Alex, and that's the fact that it's heretical. Homosexual activity is portrayed in Sacred Scripture as being acts of grave depravity and crying to heaven for vengeance.

I'm sorry that you have bought into the lie that something that is intrinsically evil (homosexual activity) is the equal of something that is actually holy; namely, Christian marriage and the marital union of one man and one woman, consummated in the marriage act.

I sincerely disagree with you and am sorry you have rejected the Catholic faith and are in rebellion against the Holy Father.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Alex Lotorto]

Pax,

The sermon at my saintly grandfather's funeral was of acceptance. By loving and living as he did, my grampa touched the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Every life he touched was touched by his loss. People crowded into that mass out of respect for him.

God took him to his side by means of heart disease so I could sit in that pew, that day, and learn that lesson of loss and acceptance. I grew infinitely in my love of Christ.

God created chronic diseases and he created our minds that can research cures for them.

We shouldn't embrace these diseases. We should embrace our gifts of science, using every avenue to cure the sick with miracles of discovery.

We shouldn't embrace the act of becoming a serial killer.

We should embrace the virtue of forgiveness and tolerance. Becoming an example of Christ is the best way to evangelize. Proclaim your love of humanity, your self-evident forgiveness for their sins.

Then take action inspired by that love.

End the death penalty, for example. We are all sinners and on judgment day, we will all be judged and we will all be forgiven. Jesus will lay his hand on the lepers and the tax collectors, the bigots and the haughty.

Serial killers will not be the exception, and so we should, in Christ's light, forgive them by allowing them to live and atone in confinement.

Homosexual couples love one another. They have found the love that Christ imbued in our hearts that can only be completed with a life commitment of love. A civil union provides a means to fulfill that and in my mind, is perfectly acceptable because it is NOT marriage and therefore circumvents the issue of gay marriage.

The legal circumstances, including civil rights and liberties and right to property, are also a great argument, but if you're arguing the moral integrity of the issue, I'll meet you on that front.

I'm not wishy-washy. Scripture, old and new, prescribes MANY VIRTUES that the church ignores or contradicts, mostly because of their relevance. To me, picking and choosing that scripture, written 2000 years ago, as a premise to justify your point on a current event inconceivable in that millennium is just as wishy-washy as you accuse me of being.

Instead, I'm building my argument on a foundation of love, respect, and forgiveness that I believe Christ, living today, would share.

The metaphorical nature of the scripture REQUIRES us to interpret issues according the guiding light of Christ's life on Earth. They can cause us to diverge as we search our hearts for the correct interpretation.

On every political issue, Catholics can disagree. The Holy Father is not a constitutional lawyer. In my mind, civil discourse in the church, since not all of us can be ordained, SHOULD actively involve the international congregation. We all are facing new and different issues. I believe and would suggest that we should reconsider our stance on civil unions.

That's why I posted here in the first place.

Thanks for putting up with me.

-Alex

[Thomistic]

Alex,

I'm sorry to inform you that you are deeply confused about many things.

1) Jesus isn't going to "forgive" everybody, as you claim. Only repentant sinners receive Christ's forgiveness. Repentance requires admitting that something is a sin, regretting having offended God and hurt your fellow man (even our secret sins hurt the body of Christ). Repentance also requires a firm resolve to change your life and not to sin anymore. Yes, people may fall again, but they then need to repent again.

2) The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual activity may never be tolerated under any circumstances, so Catholics can never support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Ever.

3) Homosexual activity hurts people with homosexual tendencies. It's a deathstyle, not a lifestyle.

4) Two people of the same gender cannot compliment one another and assist one another in having a happy, healthy, fulfilling life in the same way as a man and a woman can.

5) The preamble to the Constitution says that the document was written to promote the general welfare. So the general welfare of U.S. citizens is a government interest. The general welfare includes marriage and family. Families are the building block of society. Allowing states to recognize homosexual unions as a legal marriage or even a civil union is destructive to marriage and families, as is evidenced by countries like Sweden, which have done just that. The Constitution can protect the general welfare by defining marriage once and for all, or we can pass laws or amend state constitutions in order to prevent legal recognition of homosexual unions on a state by state basis.

Please read the information provided at these links:

Gay Marriage

Homosexuality

Early Teachings on Homosexuality

The Hell There Is!

Pax,

Thomistic

[Alex Lotorto]

Please read the Catechism.

1. Christ welcomed sinners in His midst...the last shall be first...His love for man is boundless. We are not excusing their acts by advocating civil unions, we are protecting their rights as citizens to legally declare union and enjoy the rights to property and tax breaks that heterosexual couples enjoy. It in NO WAY affects my, or any other rational person's perception of marriage. If anything, it reinforces and inspires me to find a girl I can share the same love with.

2. The Catechism is very clear:
[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

3. I don't know where you reaped this talking point from, but the only "hurting" to their lifestyle is from gay-fearing God-fearing types like you who condemn them. They're usually pretty content and fulfilled...something I have yet to experience in my heterosexual life.

4. I don't know who told you that, but it probably wasn't a gay couple. I would imagine their separation rates are similar if not lower than heterosexual couples...which somehow convinces you that they aren't complimenting each other? If you're on a righteous campaign to save traditional marriage, why don't you start with all the dysfunctional heterosexuals?

5. Again, civil unions have no affect on my attraction to females. My marriage will not be weakened. The institution of marriage will not be weakened. Civil unions are as fundamental as civil rights. It IS a civil right. Construe conservative constructionist philosophy however you want, the Catechism says "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." If that's your moral foundation, then I suggest you side with me.

-Alex

[Thomistic]

Alex,

Your recent comments indicate that you 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.

You 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?

I'm confused as to why you say thinking about homosexual couples committing acts of sodomy "reinforces and inspires [you] to find a girl [you] can share the same love with". Why do you find homosexual activity inspiring?

Although you cited one line from the Catechism of the Catholic Church out of context in an effort to support the erroneous notion that supporting so-called "civil unions" is actually a Christian and Catholic position, I assure you that 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, I'd like you to reread this section:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

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.

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 you've made for a long time.

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:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:1-3)

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).

"...unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)

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:

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, "Please, gentlemen, come aside into your servant's house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey." But they replied, "No, we shall pass the night in the town square." He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking cakes without leaven, and they dined. Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old--all the people to the last man--closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them." Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him. He said, "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof." They replied, "Stand back! This fellow," they sneered, "came here as an immigrant, and now he dares to give orders! We'll treat you worse than them!" With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But his guests put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door; at the same time they struck the men at the entrance of the house, one and all, with such a blinding light that they were utterly unable to reach the doorway. Then the angels said to Lot: "Who else belongs to you here? Your sons (sons-in-law) and your daughters and all who belong to you in the city--take them away from it. We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had contracted marriage with his daughters. "Get up and leave this place," he told them; "the LORD is about to destroy the city." But his sons-in-law thought he was joking. As dawn was breaking, the angels urged Lot on, saying, "On your way! Take with you your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city." When he hesitated, the men, by the LORD'S mercy, seized his hand and the hands of his wife and his two daughters and led them to safety outside the city. As soon as they had been brought outside, he was told: "Flee for your life! Don't look back or stop anywhere on the Plain. Get off to the hills at once, or you will be swept away."

"Oh, no, my lord!" replied Lot.

"You have already thought enough of your servant to do me the great kindness of intervening to save my life. But I cannot flee to the hills to keep the disaster from overtaking me, and so I shall die. Look, this town ahead is near enough to escape to. It's only a small place. Let me flee there--it's a small place, isn't it?--that my life may be saved."

"Well, then," he replied, "I will also grant you the favor you now ask. I will not overthrow the town you speak of. Hurry, escape there! I cannot do anything until you arrive there." That is why the town is called Zoar. The sun was just rising over the earth as Lot arrived in Zoar; at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (from the LORD out of heaven). He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil. But Lot's wife looked back, and she was turned into a pillar of salt. Early the next morning Abraham went to the place where he had stood in the LORD'S presence. As he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and the whole region of the Plain, he saw dense smoke over the land rising like fumes from a furnace. Thus it came to pass: when God destroyed the Cities of the Plain, he was mindful of Abraham by sending Lot away from the upheaval by which God overthrew the cities where Lot had been living. (Genesis 19:1-29)

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled); lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:22-30)

“If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)

If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain. (Leviticus 20:15)

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

St. Paul and the apostles explicitly condemned homosexual activity:

“...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.”

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all (kinds of) unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, and malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, implacable, unmerciful. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.” (Romans 1:18-32)

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:1-13)

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral (fornicators), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [two different Greek words are used here denoting the different roles of the active partner and the passive partner in homosexual behavior], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God? And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

“The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two shall become one flesh. But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin, which a man commits, is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Cor. 6:13-20)

“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

“But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of “Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be joint-partakers with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:3-10)

"Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself." (Phillipians 3:17-21)

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep. For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority." (2 Peter 2:1-10)

"Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones." (Jude 1:3-8)

And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation 14:11)

"and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:10-15)

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.” (Revelation 22:12-15)

Here's a quote from, Early Teachings on Homosexuality:

Some argue that neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition condemns the practice of homosexuality. Passages such as Leviticus 18:22–30, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 7 serve as ample proof that Scripture indeed condemns homosexuality. [Early Teachings on Homosexuality] is ample proof from tradition. The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.

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 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

You said:

"Christ welcomed sinners in His midst...the last shall be first...His love for man is boundless."

I reply...

Christ also said:

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

Here are some passages to help you see that your view of an ever-affirming Jesus is wholly misguided:

"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.” (Matthew 5:13)

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20)

“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30)

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt. 7:13-14)

"Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matthew 7:22-23)

I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 8:11-12).

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34)

“And he called the people to him and said to them, 'Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.' Then the disciples came and said to him, 'Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?' He answered, 'Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.' But Peter said to him, 'Explain the parable to us.' And he said, 'Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries (moicheia), fornications (porneiai), thefts, false-witnessing, blasphemies. These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Matthew 15:1-20)

And Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? (Matthew 17:17)

“And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19)

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, `If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'

You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, `If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.

You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? (Matthew 23:13-33)

"Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect. "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, `My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 24:42-51)

"Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.' But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you." (Matthew 25:11-12)

"And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 25:30)

"...Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..." (Matthew 25:41)

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:42-48)

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..." (Luke 12:51)

"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:2-5)

"Likewise as it was in the days of Lot -- they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all -- so will it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed. On that day, let him who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away; and likewise let him who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot's wife. Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it." (Luke 17:28-33)

“And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: `Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said, "All these I have observed from my youth." (Luke 18:18-21)

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8:44-45)

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 are legal in Britain and other places in Europe, as well as in Massachusetts.

Homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage, showing up to 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.

Yet 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 frquency. 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 The World Turns currently features a plot line about a male teen character, Luke Snyder, "coming out of the closet". I did a post about that here: Propaganda 101: As The World Turns' Progressive Plot Line. Since then, 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:

Marriage is about more than just the feelings of two people. Feelings are important, but they aren't the whole of it. We all know that feelings change and that any marriage has its ups and downs. A good marriage has more ups than downs, a bad one more downs than ups, but emotions change from one day to the next. Sometimes they're very loving, and sometimes they're very negative.

Marriage does involve very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. As an institution, marriage is the business of everyone in society. It takes more than emotion to hold a marriage together.

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 3½ 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.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability." But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning.

Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are. Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for "cruising" will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.

Can homosexual unions be life-giving?

Homosexual sex is not procreative and thus not live-giving in the most literal and important sense of the term. Further, the health statistics are clear. Any sexual behaviors that cut longevity almost in half before the AIDS virus came on the scene are death-dealing, not life-giving. The longevity and disease numbers speak for themselves. So do the psychiatric and drug abuse numbers. Likewise, promiscuity statistics suggest that homosexual activity is not providing much fulfillment to its practitioners. If it were, they would not feel the need for sex with armies of strangers. The statistics make it very clear that homosexual behavior is not enhancing anyone's inner well-being; in that sense, too, it is anything but life-giving.

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:

On Saturday morning in Los Angeles, Dominican Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, master general of the worldwide Dominican order from 1992 to 2001, delivered a keynote lecture on "The Church as Sign of Hope and Freedom."

On the subject of the Church and homosexuality, Radcliffe called for the Church to "stand with" gay people.

"We must accompany them as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open," he said. "This means watching 'Brokeback Mountain,' reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord."

Even when we feel that gay people are moving in the wrong direction, he said, we must "walk with them."

Radcliffe, an Englishman, later addressed what he called the "ideological divisions in the Church in the United States," saying they struck him as deeper "than anywhere else in the world."

"We are not a sign of God's freedom until we can dare to belong to each other across every theological boundary," Radcliffe said, drawing sustained applause from the crowd in the Anaheim arena.

Radcliffe called for compassion for various constituencies, including sexually abusing priests, whom he described as "the lepers of the modern Church, the unclean whom we fear to touch."

Radcliffe then contrasted the spirit of the gospels with a political approach he called "expediency," meaning a willingness to treat people as means rather than ends -- the supreme instance, he said, being the attitude of "better one man should die than a risk of unrest" which led to Jesus' death on the Cross.

Radcliffe described the Allied firebombing of Dresden during the Second World War, the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay, and the practice of "special renditions," in effect meaning torture, now in use as part of the War on Terror, as examples of the logic of "expediency."

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

Bishop Thomas Dupre resigned his leadership of the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, in February 2004, just one day after a local newspaper questioned him about charges that he had molested two young men years ago.

Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida, made a $100,000 severance payment to William Urbanski, who had left his job as spokesman for the diocese protesting that the bishop had sexually harassed him. The bishop denied the charges, and insisted that the severance payment was not “hush money.” But reporters investigating the case found that Lynch had showered Urbanski with personal gifts for nearly 5 years; the bishop had also awarded $30 million in no-bid construction contracts to another friend, David Herman-who, like Urbanski, is a muscular triathlete.

Bishop Anthony O'Connell succeeded Bishop J. Keith Symons (see below) in the troubled Diocese of Palm Beach, Florida. After three years there, he resigned, admitting that he had sexually abused students during his tenure as a seminary rector in Missouri 25 years earlier. The bishop said that the memory of his past transgressions had “always hung over me,” but it had not dissuaded him from accepting the leadership of a diocese stung by the resignation of the previous bishop in similar circumstances.

Bishop Daniel Ryan resigned in October 1999 as head of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, citing health reasons. Neither the bishop nor the diocese has ever acknowledged the accuracy of evidence submitted by the group Roman Catholic Faithful to demonstrate that Bishop Ryan had preyed on young men. Even in retirement the former bishop has continued to make headlines; in July 2004 police were summoned to his residence to restore order in an incident involving Ryan and two younger male companions. Bishop J. Keith Symons was the first US bishop to resign because of the sex-abuse scandal when he relinquished his title as Bishop of Palm Beach in June 1998. (He was replaced by Bishop Anthony O'Connell, who subsequently resigned for the same reason.) In admitting to the abuse, Bishop Symons said that it had occurred 40 years earlier, and insisted that he had subsequently lived a celibate life.

Archbishop Rembert Weakland submitted his resignation as Archbishop of Milwaukee, as required under canon law, when he reached his 75th birthday on April 2, 2002. But there was no expectation that the resignation would be accepted quickly-until, just a few weeks later, a man named Paul Marcoux revealed that Weakland had paid him $450,000 to drop a sexual-assault complaint. The funds were drawn from the coffers of the Milwaukee archdiocese, prompting a local prosecutor to open a criminal investigation. Although no criminal charges were filed, Weakland asked the Vatican to speed up acceptance of his resignation; “I do not want to be an obstacle,” he said. His resignation was formally accepted on May 24, 2002. See: Archbishop Weakland's Legacy

Bishop Patrick Ziemann was accused of blackmailing one of his own priests in a bizarre case that came to light in July 1999. Father Jorge Salas, a priest from Costa Rica working in the Santa Rosa, California, diocese, charged that Ziemann pressured him to engage in homosexual acts, by threatening that otherwise the bishop would reveal that Father Salas had been caught stealing parish funds. Bishop Ziemann resigned, admitting to a sexual relationship but saying that it was consensual. California authorities declined to prosecute, saying that there was insufficient evidence to support a case against the former bishop-whose mismanagement of funds had also left the little Santa Rosa diocese with a $16-million debt. In a lawsuit brought by Father Salas, the diocese eventually settled out of court, paying the priest $535,000.

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/confidentialhomosexualpriestringstartingpage.htm (copy and paste link)

St. Sebastian’s Angels
By Jay McNally
Catholic World Report
June 2000

The Gay Priest Problem
By Rev. Paul Shaughnessy
Catholic World Report
November 2000

The Wisdom of Bishop Cawcutt
By Peter W. Miller
Seattle Catholic
August 31, 2001

‘Pedophile priests’ and Boy Scouts
By David Kupelian
WorldNetDaily
May 8, 2002

The Fallen Angels of "St. Sebastian’s"
By Peter W. Miller
Seattle Catholic
July 19, 2002

Gay priests cited in abuse of boys
The Washington Times
By Julia Duin
February 28, 2004

Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary
By Paul Pringle
Los Angeles Times
November 17, 2005

This document counters almost every point made by the dissenting homosexual organization that calls itself Dignity (and repeated by Jean here in this thread) on the subject of homosexuality & Sacred Scripture: Scripture on Homosexuality (Part 1 and Part 2)

Here are some more documents that will assist in understanding Church teaching on homosexuality:

Notification Concerning Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS

Why Pseudosex Leads To Homosex

Studies of the sex abuse scandals revealed that 80.9 % 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.

Pedophilia involves sexual attraction or contact with preadolescents, which is to say, children who have not yet developed secondary sex characteristics.

Any sexual contact with a member of the same sex is homosexual in nature (no matter what the ages of those involved). All the priests were men. 80.9 % of the victims were boys. The vast majority of the boys were teenagers.

Most of these priests were not pedophiles (check the DSM IV if you don't believe me: Pedophilia)

Ephebophilia vs. pedophilia

If you don't believe that many homosexuals are attracted to minors, check out the: Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center

I found that site when looking up ephebophilia to respond to comments made in another post a long time ago. I had never heard of it before.

You can also look up NAMBLA, but I will not link it.

Homosexual ephebophiles are sometimes called "chicken hawks" in gay culture. There is also a fetish within gay culture for men who are called "twinks". These men look (or are) under 18.

I have learned a lot about all of these things since the scandals broke. Some of these things were actually explained to me by homosexual men who spoke with me about the scandals.

The various homosexual subcultures out there are quite disturbing, especially to someone like me who lived his whole life without having heard of such things before.

Yes, heterosexual men sexually abuse girls too, and while all heterosexual men should not be persecuted for the actions of a few, all straight men still should not get a free pass and be allowed free access to young girls just because only a (statistical) few of them engage in sexual misconduct with minor females. A smart mother (or woman) would ensure that there were no opportunities for impropriety, not worry about political correctness and the feelings of all straight men.

The same holds for homosexuals. We shouldn't assume all homosexuals are predators who seek out young men under the legal age of consent, but that doesn't mean we should let them become scout leaders and go camping with them, and it doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that the percentage of homosexuals who engage in sexual activity with minors as opposed to the percentage of homosexuals who never do such things is a much higher percentage than the percentage of heterosexuals who engage in sexual activity with minors as opposed to the percentage of heterosexuals who never do such things. Ignoring things like that isn't avoiding discrimination, it's abdicating sound judgment for fear of being labeled "homophobic" by homosexual activists.

In conclusion, you are in grave error as to the nature of homosexuality and the correct moral response to proposals to grant legal recognition to homosexual unions.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Alex Lotorto]

Pax,

Since this volley years ago, and having discussed it with a member of the Rainbow Sash movement within the church, I've come to reform my view of civil unions.

I now advocate for the legal rights of gay marriage. Civil unions are separate but equal conditions like segregation and is equally apprehensible.

I stand with those who strive for legal marriage equality, but still maintain that the Catholic church can choose not to recognize gay marriage.

I still think you are ridiculous and homophobic, however, and am glad that when I google my name, our posts appear.

Peace,
Alex