My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Transcript Of Papal Q & A On Shepherd One | Main | Text Of Pope's Speech At The White House »

Wednesday, April 16, 2008


Anne Danielson

Dominic, Thanks for your prayers. I will keep The Letter of Jude in mind as I continue to pray for my daughter that she might be "snatched out of the fire" before it is too late.


My constant prayer is that these people that pretend to be Catholics,yet steadfastly advanced agendas inimical to Holy Mother Church will be exposed for the apostates that they truly are.
You have seen and experienced for yourself the darts of these enemies of Christ,as have I;
some of them even supposed priests and ''fellow Catholics'' who have attacked and cajoled us on the matter of our ''lack of Charity'' towards those who dissent from Church teaching.
Yes,I am guilty of hating them.
But I hate them not for their sins,but for their duplicity,their hypocrisy,and their refusal to acknowledge Rome's primacy in these areas.Also for the eagerness they show in support of the corruption of our young.
Most of all,I hate the Evil that they so unwittingly[or not]serve with such abandon.

Perhaps they are right to a degree:that I am somewhat of a fanatic,and I will plead guilty to that charge.
But I would rather be a fanatic on God's side,rather than the side of the Devil,which they serve.
I am so tired of the liberals,the leftists,and the myriad kinds of sexually-motivated politicals out there trying to ram this filth down all our throats.Especially the kids.
They expect us as Christians to simply roll over,play dead,and turn the other cheek.
Christ never said to be a doormat!
Christian is turning out to be a liabilty.
If i have to get rough verbally ,then by God,I will!

There was a time when we could fight back against Evil,and send it reeling back into the abyss.
We need to be doing that again.



What I meant to say above was that the meek non-resistant Christian is turning out to be a liability ,emboldening the Enemy to become even more outrageous in their offenses against the Church
My keyboard is acting up today.


Anne Danielson

Dominic, do you know why, "Always Our Children" remains on the U.S.C.C.B website despite the cast of characters involved in putting that document together? Is it for the same reason that the movie reviews remained? Who is in charge there? What can be done so that it is removed and replaced with the Truthful document, "Theology of the Body"?

Michael Maedoc

I agree we must pray!! This post is quite comprehensive and deals with those issues that Gerald won't address, that is Church teaching.

My biggest concern are all the people that may be mislead by his teachings - they are not informed by Church teaching but by psychology.


forgive please, you have been kick off to may lists to have any credibility.

Although this article is very well written, I find it insensitive and overly scholastic. It defines a problem very well, but offers little compassion for the people in need.


I can't read all the comments. I got through many of them, but began to see the disintegration of courtesy.

I just want to offer the opinion that what has happened to Gerald is what happens to a number of folks who blog just one day too long--and who take themselves far too seriously (and/or others do) the whole while. And if comments are allowed, it risks being polemic. Anyway, as I say, for more than him there seems to come a day when, after insult, anger and defense, they do a 180 degree turn on some teaching (or go off on the Council or the conciliar popes). At best, a weblog is still only an opinion journal--no one here is going to either topple the catechism, nor best it. For the sake of fraternity, best to let it die down.


The issue of Gerald's stance on gayness and gay unions is one thing. His open hostility towards Mexicans, and other persons of Spanish speaking provenance is quite another. He is eager to embrace the gay as brother, yet he incites and inveighs against the Hispanic. Basically, he gives faux-Catholic misguidance with his red meat and beer fueled "speak English or go back to Mexico" ideology to those who fear an alien planet, a planet in which the Anglophone risks becoming the alien himself. Sort of like Will Smith in the recent adaptation of Omega Man.

Being outspokenly pro-gay is just ONE of Gerald's inconsistencies with Catholic social teaching.

His xenophobia (odd considering his own provenance) is perhaps the GREATER offense. YET, again few if any of the self-proclaimed "good Catholics" critique him on THAT point but are fixated on the gayness issue which IMHO speaks volumes about the wrong headed focus of many of those folk.

"I was a stranger and you did not welcome me" Matthew 25.


Pal,it's got jack to do with them being strangers and not being welcomed.
It's got everything to do with the attempted manipulation of the schools,the political arena ,the Church and the culture at large.
The gays that keep to themselves and remain chaste have no worries .I applaud the ones that can and do remain Faithful to HMC,and have found their seat at God's table.At least they have come to the laudable conclusion that what they have been doing is a Sin,and have left that sickness behind them,and found themselves in Christ,as He would have them exist.

The ones that use political force,subterfuge and infiltration to influence the rest of us into acclimatization with their filthy practices,the militant homosexuals that you see in public demonstrations,the Rainbow Sashers that desecrate the Mass with thier presence,and others,are the ones that we worry about.Take a look at the footage from the Folsom Street Fair,if you think you can honestly stomach a glimpse of Sodom and Gomorrah in microcosm.
Are you aware that a couple of years ago,violent ''gays'' broke into Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York during one of their protests, siezed the Eucharist in unclean hands,and then cast It onto the floor and trampled The Body of Christ underfoot?
Nice people ,huh?
And they have done much worse[?]in other places at other times,but I leave that for you to research,I have lunch to fix.

My point is that the ones that draw fire are the outrageous,over the top freaks that dress strangely,and act like stereotypical ass-pirates.They seem to be the ones that form the core element of the gay agenda's ''shock troops'',
if you will.
Frankly,if I saw these animals doing what they did in Saint Patricks,I'd be against them too,speaking from a purely sacrilege standpoint if I were you.Just on that one point of their actions.Like Gerald said recently,they shoot themselves in the foot every time they flounce into a place and start acting like stereotypical queers.
Now,tell me that you would welcome these plainly virulent anti-Catholic marauders into your home or Church,without them first being converted away from their addiction.

I am merely trying to explain to you that most people have no idea about the reality of this unholy enemy that we are facing,and are very innocent on the subject.
And Gerald's arrogance on his support of these fiends has an influence on his treatment of others.
It's like he's their pet mouthpiece or something.
Still,Leo,take hope in the knowledge that Gerald Augustinus' days as a blogmaster might be numbered,since the word of his treason against the Church has spread quite far and fast.
Expect to be castigated by the likes of Carthusian,Emma,Mark D and parkerhalperin because you ''dared'' to call GA 's integrity as a Catholic or as a humanitarian into question.
They'll worry at you like a pack of starving jackals.
So be on your guard.
The leftist-liberal elite never sleeps,and it never forgives.

Wakeful evidence of their true nature as totalitarians.


Paul Priest

Sorry , just one clarification after having read only the first few paragraphs:
In regards to Catholic Fundamental Moral Theology there is a deep distinction between the [indiscriminate] intrinsic moral disorder of willed Homosexual Acts and the moral disorder of the inclination towards the act which is only attributed with the 'intrinsic' form when direct or indirect [personal, nurtural ,convivial oe socio-cultural] conspiracy and co-respondency are involved.

'Intrinsic' is not merely some exigent that can be applied at whim to any form of moral disorder - it's a specific classification ; one that distinguishes the act's acessibility to performance within the remit of either the double effect or within moral dillemma to prevent objective evil.
Intrinsic in fundamental moral terminology means it may never be used on any occasion to promote any 'greater' good.

This may seem somewhat irrelevant but it is of the utmost import as the implication within what you have said misrepresents the nature of original sin which is never axiomatically linked with intrinsic moral disorder - believe it or not you're inadvertently submerging into Donatism, Calvinism and, most ironically through the back door, Pelagianism !
The Church always leaves it open to the posibility for there to be naturally born people with inherant [non-externally influenced] homosexual inclination devoid of personal intent or act of deliberate will to that end.
If you state that all inclination is categorically intrinsically morally disordered this possibility is abrogated and precluded ; as the scarring of original sin prevents sanctifying grace to the extent of 'natural' moral disorder; but it cannot automatically deny the grace afforded to human dignity [Councils of Arles, Quiercy, Nancy, Valencia,Trent {after Romans 8}]

I believe this to be a simple misunderstanding ; but please understand that you have to be exceedingly careful when you throw words like 'intrinsic' around; because ultimately you fall into all manner of traps which consequently suggest that rather than allowing an absence of grace [ as St Thomas Aquinas assures us MUST be for the greater good], you're implying either God creates an entity directed towards Evil [impossible!] or every Homosexual inclination is manifestly willed by the person [Pelagianism] which inadvertently condemns around a sixth [as clinical psychologists inform us] of all [projecting ipsissive]adolescents within their sexual maturation towards heterosexuality .

In plain speak the church accepts it's possible for one possessing same-sex attraction to be born that way ; and for many adolescents their sexual awakening 'compels' them to externalise their narcissistic self-discovery towards the same-sex other - what is actually self-desire is enacted as homosexual desire for an exclusive limited period [averaging around three years] Although not homosexual, their heterosexual maturation includes a pseudo-'homosexual' phase which includes the misdirected desire. To afford this with an 'intrinsic' handle condemns this as either an exclusive act of will [which it most definitely isn't] or the direct result of the culpable forces of another [nurture , socio-cultural , peer etc - which is not necessarily the case].
We have to beware the sin of scrupulosity in this regard.

God's grace can be thwarted by original sin for moral disorder to arise ; but intrinsic moral disorder is a direct result of volition [irrespective of the culpability of the individual - it is a consequence]. To say anything else leads to all manner of theological and ethical problems.


Perhaps we need to define our terms: intrinsic

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered":

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons

Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

US Bishops: Homosexual Inclination is "Intrinsically Disordered" Act is "Evil"

The US bishops have approved and released a letter entitled "Ministry to Persons With a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care." The document was approved at the bishops' meeting in Baltimore yesterday.

As reported on previously by LifeSiteNews, the document treats homosexuality - carefully distinguishing between the disorder and intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the innate dignity and value of the homosexual person.

In accord with the teachings of the Church, the recent document calls homosexuals to live a life of chastity. It says "Chaste living is an affirmation of all that is human, and is the will of God. It is we who suffer when we violate the dictates of our own human nature."

The document does not shy away from the teaching of the Church that says "The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered." It explains that "There is the intrinsic disorder of what is directed toward that which is evil in all cases (contra naturam)."

This is also worth reading: Reason, Faith and Homosexual Acts

The Church observes that in some homosexual persons the homosexual inclination (= orientation) comes, it seems, “from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable.”[5] But the Church also observes that “the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible,”[6] and that some homosexual persons may be “definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.”[7] Acknowledging the last-mentioned class of persons, the Church is well aware of people who “conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, insofar as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.”[8] But the Church, today as always, rejects that way of arguing from “nature”. The Christian teaching from the outset, has been that no homosexual acts are ever justified, even the acts of someone whose inclination to engage in them is “innate” (that is, present at birth) and, in one sense of the word, “natural.” Accordingly, the Church’s Catechism reaffirms that every such inclination, whether innate or pathological, incurable or curable, permanent or transitory, is an objective disorder,[9] an intrinsically disordered inclination.[10]

The reason why even the most deep-seated homosexual tendency must be called disordered is straightforward. Every such tendency, inclination or orientation[11] “is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.”[12] Of course, “the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin”[13] – for a sin is committed only in a choice. But the inclination is precisely an inclination to choose a homosexual act – a sex act with a person of the same sex. And, like every other kind of non-marital sex act, any and every homosexual act is a seriously disordered kind of activity which, if freely and deliberately chosen, is a serious sin. An inclination which one cannot choose to pursue without serious moral evil is obviously a disordered inclination. So: “the particular inclination of the homosexual a more or less strong tendency ordered [i.e. directed] toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”[14] The definitive edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church first points out that homosexual acts are always “intrinsically disordered” (para. 2357) and then goes on, in the following paragraph, to describe the inclination in precisely the same terms: “intrinsically disordered.”




Read this:

Got Morals? You're Sub-Human.
A Washington Post video cartoon uses Nazi propaganda techniques to define and enforce the new American apartheid
Bulletin from the Underground - Jan 19, 2007
It was Blacks. Then it was Jews. Then babies waiting silently in their mothers' wombs. Now, if you believe there's a moral code in the universe that the elites don't get to tinker with, it's your turn. You're officially sub-human, unless you wake up and see things our way.
Fascist hate propaganda always uses the same techniques: scorn, dehumanize and scapegoat the targets to unify the conformist masses against them. As long as their cash flow continues, most of the scapegoats' "leaders" will respond defensively -- or cower silently under their beds. Some will defect to the new regime, like Quisling, Petain, Herod -- meticulously cultivating the appearance of not having changed sides at all. Money, vanity and perks caused most of them to forget long ago how to fight, what to fight for and what exactly fighting means.
Professor Kenneth Clarke observed in the BBC series Civilisation that small enclaves of normalcy persisted surprisingly long after the fall of Roman Empire. The chattering "conservative" and "pro-family" elites no longer have the faintest hope of rescuing civilization. None. Not one glimmer.

After all, they've been bartering it away for several decades. But they can't tell you that. They need your trust and your money to set up their enclaves. And, too, there's the little problem of their own denial. There are a thousand and one ways to rationalize selling out. "Realism" is the favorite excuse.
Meanwhile, the New Fascism is out of the closet, proud... and extremely fashionable. It is bursting with irrational hatred. Dangerous hatred that is building to some unknown culmination. Its target is morality of any recognizable kind and faith in any Deity that objects to the reduction of humanity to animal debauchery. Sexual morality -- or even the innocent asking of common-sense questions about the personal or cultural consequences of sexual deviance -- must be viciously mocked, criminalized and eliminated from American life.
There will be no fencing the dogma off into one sector or another. Acquiescence -- at a minimum -- to the new anti-moral Stalinism is now a prerequisite for advancement or even survival in many corporate or government jobs. Your church is next, if it hasn't already surrendered. And, as always with modern totalitarianism, it's really your children's and grandchildren's minds they want.
The schools are rapidly joining the entertainment and news media in executing within the current generation an indoctrination program no less revolutionary than those of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Tens of millions of children will reject the morality and common sense of their own parents.
Yet the placebo "leadership" of social conservatism and even traditional orthodox religion are in deep denial. They cling to their prestige, perks, access to the media and power or, of course, their precious cash flow, now consumed entirely by organizations and individuals who are part of the problem. As with any movement living off the memories of heroes and giants of the past, criticism from within "the ranks" is heresy. Like the pre-revolutionary elites of 1789 France and 1917 Russia, they will take everything down with them rather than yield their place of privilege.
And the foundations of civilization, family and faith will be torn down with the simplest of devices: mockery. This Washington Post video cartoon merely one manifestation. Sheer terror of that weapon or warfare has locked the placebo "conservative" establishment into three decades of relentless surrender on the moral issues that define every society.
There is a rapidly growing consensus that what we thought of as the "conservative movement" is now dead, except as a pyramid scheme defrauding the trusting peasants of their money and time. Moral cowardice and unchecked fondness for money, prestige and access to power have turned the "conservative" elites into the reluctant, pragmatic, realist enforcers of the new Stalinism.
The Orwellian force of the video propaganda at the link below is in this unspoken question: If Mike Huckabee is subhuman, then what are you?
Well, that entirely depends. If you follow the National Review, the celebrities selling their pseudo-conservative opium at Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the paycheck "conservative" elites... if, for example, you join Jay Sekulow and Ann Coulter in ignoring the plain English in the Massachusetts Constitution and pretend Mitt Romney resisted sodomy-based "marriage," sodomy-based adoption and $50-dollar abortions... well, you're still human. For now. But that's just the beginning.
They may believe they are still "social conservatives." And constitutionalists. And patriots, and heroes. But for "pragmatic" conservatives who have surrendered the boundaries of morality and constitutions, "conservatism" is last year's liberalism. If that's fine with you, keep on donating, take their word as gospel and buy their books, And when they're finished with you, you too will be a liberal that thinks he is a conservative. In other words, you will have lost your soul.
Obsessive, materialistic conformism has emasculated what we delusionally think is our "conservatism" and "Christianity." No threat of violence or martyrdom is necessary to vanquish a civilization that worships at the shopping mall and the home entertainment center.
The sheer terror of being laughed at will do it. Before clicking on the link below to see a particularly pungent example of the snickering bigotry that has the paycheck conservative elites so terrified, register in your mind the Orwellian-fascist hypocrisy of the Washington Post.

So it's official. Stubbornly clinging to Biblical morality? You're an ape.

Well,the only way that they will silence me is to have me killed.
And we know that is well within their demonstrated range of temperament,don't we?
Given the vicious assaults on churchgoers and Faithful clergy.
Not to mention the deliberate and wilfull desecration of the Holy Eucharist.


Anne Danielson

Thomistic, do you know why the inconsistent statement of "Always Our Children" remains on the USCCB website? How can any Bishop allow that statement to remain when it is not consistent with Catholic Doctrine?

Anne Danielson

Here is the false assumption that began the debate regarding homosexual acts. God created only Man and Woman, Male and Female. God would never refer to anyone as heterosexual or homosexual because such terms do not respect the Sacredness and Dignity of Human Life. We are Human persons, created as Male and Female.

Chris Hawley

Wow. Stumbled across this by accident. You people are ideologues who live in a cave and embrace a strange worldview.

Of course his views are in conflict with the Teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church is flawed. The Teachings are flawed. The Holy Father is only another dude - a very scholarly, very smart one, for sure - but he is only another dude. He, too, is flawed, as is all mankind.

I'm certain there are things I hold to be true about God that are also not factual. Yet homosexuality is such a complex topic theologically, and your views seem to be based on very dubious foundations - core beliefs that have merit only in as much as you find them unquestionably true even in the total absence of evidence. The biggest of these is that the Teachings of the Catholic Church are perfect. If the Church says x, then x must be divinely sancrosanct, like the idea that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolve around it.

When Church Teaching is not sufficient, ridiculous secular arguments are concocted, like the supposed death rate of homosexuals... I would never have any idea where to begin in responding.

Chris Hawley

Here's a question for you: If a married couple is sterile, for any of a number of possible reasons, and the possibility of creating life is absent, is it still okay for them to have a sexual relationship? If not, did God condemn Abraham and Sarah for getting it on while in their 90s when children seemed to them no longer a possibility?

It's these kind of ridiculous foundational arguments - like God's only purpose for sex is to make children - that I have to question.



For someone who has no "idea where to begin in responding", you've said a mouthful.

Here are some answers:

Christ entrusted the power of binding and loosing to St. Peter and his successors. Christ also taught that the man who will not hear the Church should be as treated as his listeners would treat the heathen and the tax collector.

You are correct, for a human perspective, that the Holy Father is an ordinary man, but you lack faith and consequently fail to see things from a supernatural perspective.

To understand that perspective, you would have to learn and understand the teachings of the Catholic Faith, as well as the reasons behind those teachings. That takes time and effort, which may be why you may never attempt to do so, especially given your clear disdain for what you perceive to be the impact of those teachings.

With respect to infertile couples, if the infertility is not deliberate, there is no sin. Sex between one man and one woman, united in marriage, does not always have to result in conceiving a child. if that were the case, the Church would require that Catholics only have sex when they are capable of conceiving a child, which is not the case and has never been the case.

Homosexual acts are unnatural. They are infertile by nature, not by defect of nature. Their sinfulness is due the fact that they abuse the design of nature and God's plan for sexuality. The same can be said of any sexual activity within or outside the context of marriage which is unnatural (due to the fact that it is incapable, by nature not defect of nature of achieving the natural end of a sexual act).

Moreover, an infertile couple does not will their infertility. It is, as I've said, a defect of nature. If the defect were not present, their actions would potentially result in conception.

Homosexual acts and other unnatural sexual acts (whether performed alone or with others) which are, by nature, incapable of fecundity because they seek the pleasure of sexual gratification, but without the benefit of an authentically unitive, potentially procreative act between one man and one woman united in marriage, which is the true design of sex, are sinful and disordered acts. People who eat for pleasure, vomit, and then eat more are rightly understood to have an eating disorder. they are thwarting the design of the act of eating. They are seeking the pleasure involved in tasting, swallowing, and feeling full, but divorcing that pleasure from the nutritive element designed to be part of that process. People who seek sexual gratification, but seek to divorce it from the procreative design of sexual acts become just as ill, mentally and physically, as people with eating disorders. If people took the time to actually consider what sex involves, they'd have a better chance of realizing this.



The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic