We read, see, and hear a growing accumulation of stories in the news of small businesses being persecuted for not providing services to celebrate a same-sex marriage. Photographers, restaurants, inns, and bakeries are the initial targets; some law suits have had great success. It is an eerie echo of the Police song: Every move they make, every step they take, the forces of the new orthodoxy will be watching them.

Marriage and the Onslaught

Things are truly not what they seem in this age of shadows. Basic Christian morality is under an onslaught with such force that many faithful souls are likely to suffer confusion. The public pressure to conform to licentiousness on sexual issues is intense and increasing at an alarming rate.

Individuals have been increasingly singled out as well, such as Phil Roberson from Duck Dynasty, Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, and most recently Christian baker Jack Phillips, who has been told by the Colorado Court of Appeals that he may not refuse to bake cakes for same-sex couples. To argue for the self-evident truths of Catholic morality will earn you a peck of salt for your wound of sanity. It is apparently no longer enough to slander those who withhold support; there are increasing efforts to ruin the lives of those who do not agree with the redefinition of marriage.

In Portland, Oregon, a judge has ordered a bakery to pay a fine of $135,000 for emotional damages because on moral grounds they did not bake a cake in the celebration of a same-sex marriage. It ought to shock us that among the eighty-eight charges of suffering the lesbian couple allegedly endured is the outrageous accusation of “mental rape”. As Thomas D. Williams noted in his article, “The judge apparently found it unremarkable that ‘loss of appetite’ and ‘impaired digestion’ should lead to ‘weight gain.’” The list is almost entirely overstatement; more than just an insult to decency and common sense, it is an affront to the moral fabric of our society to allow such hyperbolic invention to create legal precedent.

Why We Object

We have always maintained a right to refuse service in this country and that is appropriate. Would a baker be compelled to bake a cake for the KKK celebrating a cross burning? Or a satanic cult in celebration of a black mass? Of course not … at least, not yet. For a point of clarification between these two examples and “marriage equality”, let’s examine what this comparison means.

We object to the KKK and the Satanists because of what they choose to believe and what they intend to do, not for who they are, for they are human persons imbued with intrinsic dignity and worth. In the case of those afflicted with same-sex attraction, the objection is not to who they are, for they are also human persons imbued with intrinsic dignity and worth. Just like the KKK and the Satanists, our objection is to the celebration of what they wish to do. Just like racism and satanic worship are things we should not celebrate, so is sexual activity not ordered toward procreation and family.

In the good society, it is impermissible to insist that a moral man cannot hold a morally ordered position without being persecuted, or accused at the very least of being hateful and bigoted. The grand irony in these charges is lost completely on the promoters of sexual liberty.  There is nothing more hateful or bigoted than to try to forcefully compel a free soul to believe what you believe, and when they don’t, to try to ruin their lives. The hypocrisy is glaring. The persecutors want acceptance, but accept nothing but their own agenda. They want tolerance but are intolerant of diverging views. This is not the behavior of civil rights activists.

We recognize these self-evident truths: that men and women are complementary; that they are intended by nature and divine decree to be joined in matrimony and become one flesh; that they are to remain faithful and monogamous while they raise, love and educate their biological children. This is the gold standard for building up civilization. No other type of family or institution can build up a society, not even by an efficient government attempting to engineer society.

Self-Evident Truths

We clearly recognize that children are the natural primary end of the marital act of sex, and no amount of raging against truth can change this self-evident fact. In recognizing that children come from the marital act, and that children are persons deserving of rights at least as much as the rest of us (more, because of their innocence and vulnerability), it is common sense that we consider children primarily before we commit to the marital act.

We conclude as self-evident that the primary end of the marital act is the procreation of children. It follows that children have a natural right to be loved, raised and educated by their biological parents; therefore, the marital act is only morally licit within the bounds of marriage. This fulfills the authentic ends of the human person, while at the same time leading to the well-ordered civilization which is built upon the gold-standard building block of society, the family.

The equality cry is that same-sex attracted couples want to get married. It is an impossibility if one considers the nature of marriage. Marriage is a natural and divine institution, not man-made. A marriage is “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life”.

It is by design that only one man and one woman are qualified to marry. They are eligible by the appropriateness of their relationship to one another and by virtue of their complementarity endowed by the Creator. By mutual consent they agree to be joined as one flesh, faithful and monogamous, “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, until death do [they] part.”

An Opportunity to Colonize Heaven

This is marriage, and we are not allowed to give our own interpretation of it. No amount of persecution will change the above facts; it is against all our civilization’s notions of human rights to try to compel people to believe otherwise by force of law, threat of violence, or any other kind of coercion.

This is a very difficult issue, one that divides many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is a fact that we are called to take a stand on this; while the Catholic stand is against the redefinition of marriage, because it is morally and ontologically impossible, we are still called to love our brothers and sisters with truth and charity. Our stand against “marriage equality” is an opportunity to colonize heaven. Let us take up our crosses (cf. Matthew 16:24) and follow Him.

The post Same-Sex Marriage: Every Cake You Bake appeared first on Catholic Stand.

We are indeed a peculiar lot. We evolve and change, push and pull, vote then cheer or sulk. Often the powerful just invent some feature of life that they think would be cool then force the compliance on all. We then suffer as a lot.

The powerful have done that notably with slavery and abortion. Slavery has had its day and abortion is soon to follow, as more people realize that something is wrong with abortion when they hear, “It is a child in the womb, not fetal tissue”. This overly technical description, it’s just tissue, was put in place to numb the mind when it is tempted to think of what is really going on inside that womb.

The Human Genome Project has found “nature’s complete genetic blueprint for building a human being” within the tissue of the conceived, and used throughout the decades of life, until the death of that “tissue” that you may have called Mom. (Doctors are trained to cut out faulty tissue. It can be bloody and ugly. They must block out their fear for the ultimate good. Wait…how do they determine what is good?)

Marriage has long been practiced, and understood in America and elsewhere, as mankind has always known it; the union between a man and a woman. In June 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States decided by a majority of one, to change the definition, henceforth changing the very character of that marital institution in America – it became something else completely – but only temporarily. It will change again, either returning to what it was, or more likely, plowing on into an appeasing future.

Is Marriage an Enigma?

The Oxford U.S. English dictionary defines enigma as:

An enigma is now a person or thing that is mysterious or difficult to understand, but it was originally a riddle, or an obscure speech. The word came from Latin, based on Greek ainissesthai, ‘to speak allusively’. See also riddle.

Marriage has not been an enigma to mankind for centuries. For faithful Catholics, it is like all features of life, it is to be savored; something God has given us. It is in harmony with our natural understanding so we easily comply.

Although marriage and love are not Catholic enigmas, they are often called mysteries even in Catholic literature. They are not strictly mysteries as we commonly use the word defined above. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, theologically a mystery is, “a supernatural truth , one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.” The understanding of these mysteries can be given to us directly through Sacred Scripture or has been created in our nature as both are told here:

On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign—at his mother’s request—during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus’ presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence. (CCC 1613)

Marriage for a Catholic is first the sacramental joining of a man and a woman. This is the basis on which everything else associated with marriage is justified. The Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand said, “Love is the primary meaning of marriage just as the birth of new human beings is its primary end.”

The sexual differences, psychological and emotional differences, that form a spiritual union of human creatures differs from the bond that is between humans of the same sex. Love in its many descriptions can exist among people, but true complementary married love can only exist because of the biological and spiritual nature of men and women.

Children are the fruit of a marriage that creates a family. The stable and loving family willed by God is where children learn how to approach life. The stable and loving family is where they absorb the importance of caring for each other. The stable and loving family is where they learn about order and authority from their parents. The stable and loving family is where they observe the behavior of a mature man and woman. These lessons prepare a child for adulthood. Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI said, “Yes, there is no future for humanity without the family.”

Why Is Marriage an Enigma to Secularists?

It has become an enigma for those who reject God and His creation because marriage to them can be pliable. Its pliability is because they have the power of conceptualizing. This is the use of free will not hampered by God’s intervention. They reject a fixed definition and what has always been the original purpose.

The secular mysteriousness comes when what was once accepted is now rejected, and unlimited change can begin. What it will become no one knows. Will it become entirely obsolete as it is slowly recognized that a license from the state is an unnecessary inhibition to pleasure in coupling, tripling, or more? Will enough political power be gained by polygamists and animal “lovers” to affect the same change that we thought impossible by homosexuals?

The rationale for homosexuals marrying relied on applying the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. The reasoning went like this: Marriage is a civil institution that must be open to all citizens of the United States. Whom a citizen chooses to marry is a personal choice, and there is no state purpose in restricting it by gender. An assumed state purpose exists regarding number, age, physical health, geography, mental health, species, uniformity, etc. Any restrictions can be challenged in the future. In other words, the state (in this case, a tiny portion of a third of the federal government; the Supreme Court) sees no value in gender differences in marriage, and insists that the rest of the country adopt this view – state government has been denied it’s purpose.

Civil marriage now has no fixed definition at all. At present, only a vague idea that “love” and mutually manipulating sexual organs are somehow key elements. Children and family are an afterthought; if ever a thought at all. At present in civil law it is a license to love, as if one was ever needed. The restriction of marriage to two persons is a carryover from tradition accepted without thought of debate, casually placed into friend-of-the-court briefs, until those who wish a change of this restriction, work their cases through the courts, following the successful tactic of the homosexual lobby.

Why Would Anyone Tinker With God’s Plan?

The desire to tinker with God’s plan came out of the general push towards autonomy for about 250 years since the Enlightenment period of human history began. Intellectuals gained confidence in the illusionary power of creating their own morality and ethics. In order for this illusionary scheme to work, it was necessary to eliminate any competitive higher power by ultimately denying spirituality, or at least a spirituality that dictates morality. The same result occurs as when we see adolescents accept free will as the only controlling force, then running wild with it into a miserable adulthood. This attitude leads to a more recent realization that sex can be separated from procreation with birth control devices. The result of this evolution has become the pursuit of unlimited selfish pleasure.

Justice Thomas in his dissenting opinion in Oberbfell v. Hodges (the gay marriage case decided June 2015) referenced PP v. Casey (1992). The Casey decision was about abortion and contained an amazing statement that now not only controls the lives of many of us voluntarily, but also now controls law in the mind of many:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. (emphasis is mine)

We still find ourselves behaving irrationally because “one’s own” (as stated above) refers to an individual, not a group. Instead of letting legislatures (the group) decide right and wrong, the court has become a protector of an individual’s rights that were not explicit in our Constitution – the “right” to personally conceptualize meaning. In other words, we have a protected right to psychosis.

What We Have Now

This rat’s nest of reasoning has become dependent upon not only individual citizens, but individual Justices. It has brought us to a point where the interest of the state is as pliable as marriage. The police powers of the state now choose to compel acceptance of one individual’s meaning of marriage over another in defiance of the assertion that individual choice is the heart of liberty. This choice of one meaning over another is also being compelled by the state’s public schools indoctrination programs.

This whole inconsistent idea is a call to anarchy or totalitarianism by a body that claims otherwise. It is a confusion of purpose and a lack of direction from a higher power.

Secularism must understand itself as synonymous with Materialism; the belief that everything known and experienced is declared to be the result of material causes. They believe that marriage arrived into our life by some mysterious natural selection of choices by unseen Darwinian rules that were not created by “a” God. It just happened to appear one gloomy day in a primordial swamp. It evolved from ooze into what was described as marriage. Now we feel the urge to bypass Darwinian rules and evolve it some more according to our personal concepts.

This Trend Shows Us the Future

Since sexual relationships outside of marriage have become a partial social norm after the upheaval of the 1960s, Polyamory advocates have been working towards “continued growth and increasing acceptance.” In these relationships, every conceivable combination of persons is promoted; married, single, homosexual, straight, young, old, with children, without children – a melange of human beings joined together in any way they see fit. Thus is the ultimate definition of one’s own concept of existence and pursuit of happiness. Societal acceptance is only necessary to avoid the unpleasantness of criticism by others.

Polygamists recognize a desire to have a close relationship with more than one other person as do Polyamorists, but insist on a marriage state. This desire of many Americans was rejected by the homosexual advocates during their long battle for support of inclusion into the married life even as they denied the benefits of marriage itself. The obvious reason for denying that others had a valid cause was that they would have to argue against the eventual destruction of the institution of marriage for lack of any coherent meaning. Marriage would become meaningless if a variety of combinations of persons or things could marry. So they chose exclusivity and restricted the arguments to their cause alone with success.

The future will be full of more rejection of God’s plan. Unless the bad fruit of this rejection is recognized, we will see the eventual regression to a barbaric state of civilization – a state when power over others dominates because it has been recognized as the ultimate expression of one’s own concept of existence. A concept once protected by law, until law itself becomes subservient to this simple concept.

It would be wise to listen to Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he said in 2004:

In political life, it seems almost indecent to speak of God, as if it were an attack on the freedom of those who do not believe. The world of politics follows its norms and paths, excluding God as something that does not belong to this world. The same in the world of business, the economy and private life. God remains marginalized. To me, its seems necessary to rediscover, and the energy to do so exists, that even the political and economic spheres need moral responsibility, a responsibility that is born in man’s heart and, in the end, has to do with the presence or absence of God. A society in which God is completely absent self-destructs. We saw this in the great totalitarian regimes of the last century.

The post Marriage: The Enigma in the Room appeared first on Catholic Stand.

The grocery store line was long. Really long.

“What is wrong with you idiots? Get another checker! This isn’t rocket science,” the young woman called out loud enough to be heard by everyone. “I have places to go. Come on now.” She reached into her back pocket for her iPhone. As she pulled it out of tight jeans, the draping top she wore sagged down low on one side to reveal her sports bra.

“That won’t work,” said a male voice. Jenny looked up into the eyes of the man behind her. “The cellphone I mean. They don’t work in this building.”

Jenny tried anyway, but the “No service” sign came up. She sighed.

“These people. What’s wrong with them?” she directed her voice toward the man, but she didn’t really want conversation. He had only had a handful of things in his cart. Why didn’t he just go to the fast check out? This line was going nowhere.

“I would love to get my hands on the manager of this place. I’d strangle him right here and now,” she continued.

Why was that man smiling such a nice smile? Jenny pulled her shoulders back just a bit. He was nice looking, that was for sure.

“Ah, ‘love.’ Please don’t use that word like that.”

“What are you talking about?”

“Love. It’s not for cursing. It is not a temporary good feeling either. It is a commitment of the self.”

“Heck. Love is just how my honey makes me feel. Which is pretty good.” Jenny was feeling a bit nervous. Was this guy some Bible thumper? She played with the lip balm containers and the mini-flashlights next to her.

“I know about Tessa. And before her you lived with Ralph. None of that is LOVE, dear. Don’t you want to experience real Love?”

Jenny jerked herself around to face the man. He must be a stalker! She hadn’t seen him before but stalkers hide, right?

“Who are you? You just stay out of my business!”

Jenny’s movements pushed her cart into the lady in front of her. The woman cussed loudly and pushed the cart back. Jenny fell toward the man’s cart.

He held out his hand to steady her arm. The carts stopped moving. The angry lady ahead had her hand poised to strike Jenny, but the man stopped her. “Ma’am. It was my fault. I’m so sorry. Can I buy you a soda to make up for it?” He was already reaching around to the soda case and pulled out a large Vanilla Coke.

The woman dropped her hand and grinned. “My favorite! How did you know?” The man was now looking past Jenny toward the other woman.

“Love is not a word that means a temporary source of pleasure for you. Love is when someone cares enough about you to want the best for you. The best for your life here on earth and the best for your soul.”

“You are a crazy stalker,” said Jenny. She couldn’t believe this guy knew the names of her recent lovers. Currently she was with a woman yeah. It was an experiment, an act of rebellion against the world.

“Hey, girl,” it was the large woman who wanted to slap her. “This guy has some meaningful things to say. Maybe we should just listen.”

The man was smiling with such kindness his face seemed to glow.

The big lady spoke up again. “Could you tell us more? I can’t think of anyone who cares about me like you said, except maybe my dad.”

“Ah. Parents are a wonderful example of love. Your family, Sarah, was a good one. Your mom and dad loved each other and were determined to raise their kids to be ready for heaven.”

Yup. Now Jenny knew. She had a nutcase here. A Bible thumper. But the line was not moving at all. She was stuck.

The woman, Sarah, didn’t seem to care that this guy knew her name. She asked him to say more.

Artwork © 2015 Judith Costello. All rights served.

“When a man and a woman come together and invite God into their relationship, they have the strength to really Love. They dedicate themselves to supporting each other and raising children to be godly.”

Sarah looked like she was gonna cry.

“When your mother died, your father started to drink. He stopped turning to the Church. You felt a bit lost back then.”

Sarah shook her head up and down and then looked at Jenny. “He’s right. That’s what it was like.”

“You stopped listening to the Church and started listening to the world. You’ve had three husbands. But you are getting ready for real love now. Just remember that love means sacrifice. Put Joseph in your heart. Tell him where he’s going wrong–by joining that Jehovah’s Witness group. Invite him to St. Mary’s.”

Sarah looked surprised. “Joseph is so good to me. I was planning on joining his church. It would make him happy.”
“No, dear. You have to remember that true love is concerned with the eternal…what about his soul? He needs the truth of the Church. When are you going to invite him to St. Mary’s?”

Sarah looked away for a minute. She stared over the magazine shelf. Then she turned back to the man.
“I just said a quick prayer. And I think you’re right. I do love Joseph so I have to care about the health of his soul.”

Jenny was now ready to push her cart through the man so she could go to a different aisle. But Sarah put a hand on her shoulder. “Honey, you sure are pretty. I think you’ll find real love, but don’t sell yourself short like I did.”

The man was now backing his cart out of the aisle. The people behind him were backing up too. “Jenny, if you want to leave you can. I didn’t mean to block your way.”

“OK already. Go ahead with your lecture.”

The man smiled. Sarah kept her hand on Jenny’s shoulder.

“Here is something I’d like to share with both of you…love is not defined by sex. Sex is defined by love. You have both experienced it…Sex makes people vulnerable. If that sense of being vulnerable and open is not wrapped in commitment, love and holiness, then it damages the two people. So the answer is chastity until marriage. Then, and only then, is sex a gift of the self to another.”

Sarah was looking at the man with wide eyes. She seemed to know what he was talking about. But for Jenny, she had to reach far back in her memory to find any references to this. How could people be so different?

“People today seem to think chastity restricts their freedom. But the truth is all the best things, all the love and happiness you desire, require self discipline. Discipline and self control makes you stronger. You know that…”

He was looking through Jenny. Did he know she had been on the track team before she dropped out of college? They trained three hours a day. They had to eat the right foods and avoid alcohol. She always felt better and ran better when she followed this discipline.

“There are always things we need to avoid in this life. For example, Tessa is a friend. But she is not a partner for sex. God, the Father, made his creatures male and female so that the woman would leave her parents and join with the man to create a family. That’s what marriage is, dear.”

The line was starting to move now. Sarah had to put her groceries on the conveyor belt. “Sir, can I ask who you are? If you are a priest, I’d like to come to your church,” Sarah said.

But the man was waving other people to go in front of him. He looked back toward Sarah and Jenny with that big smile. “I have one more thing I need to tell you both: you will only discover who you are, when you forget yourself and LOVE others.”

There were now two carts behind Jenny…the first cart was pushed by a couple who had a little girl in the cart seat. Behind them were two teenage girls wearing short shorts. It was hard to see the man.

Jenny called out, ”Tell us your name. And what about Sarah’s Coke?”

But the man was gone. The couple behind her looked confused. And the little girl covered her ears.

Jenny looked at them apologetically. “There was a man who was talking to us about love, did you see him? Oh, what a beautiful little girl she is.”

The mother beamed at Jenny. The father nodded. “What did the man say? We heard his last comment. Something about love means to forget yourself.” The father turned toward the back of the line. “He seems to have disappeared.”

Jenny said, “I’ll tell you what he said while we wait. But first, can you grab a Vanilla Coke from that case for me? I need to buy it for my friend Sarah.”

Jenny’s experience in the grocery line is based on the Biblical story of the Samaritan woman at the Well. Jesus talked kindly to the woman AND He named her sins. She had had five husbands and was living with a man she wasn’t married to. (John 4:7-42) Because Jesus spoke to kindly and also told her about truth and salvation she learned great lessons. She spread the word that we can be saved even if we have been sinners! Others came to believe that Jesus is the Savior of the World through the testimony of this woman! We can assume she changed her life dramatically after this amazing encounter!

Jesus showed us what LOVE is really about. He is God, the King of Kings. Yet He left behind His glory. He became one of us with the toughest of life experiences—poverty, refugee status, mockery, torture, false accusations and a cruel death. And He endured all of that out of love for each of us.

You and me—we are called to be heroic in love and virtuous in life.

No matter how we have lived up until this moment, we can change. Remember this–life on earth is temporary but the afterlife is FOREVER. No pleasure on earth is worth going to hell for.

All we have to do is Repent and turn toward the real love of Jesus Christ. Then the mercy of God will strengthen us for the next steps!!

Does this mean that Jesus doesn’t love us until after we have changed? Certainly not!

But Jesus is like a father who shows love while also correcting the child who is doing unhealthy things. Jesus loves us even in our sinfulness. And He came to earth to give us the strength to push away those temptations and renounce those sins. He loves us too much to let us stay in the misery of sin!

Like the women in the grocery line…it’s time to share the story of the love that saves. This love calls us to truth and JOY!!

“Our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.” (St. Augustine)

© 2015 Judith Costello.  All rights served.

The post The Grocery Line Love Story appeared first on Catholic Stand.

Lately, within the last 2-3 years especially, a grassroots movement has been quietly taking hold within certain circles of Catholicism. There is a group of people who, like me, have same-sex attractions (SSA) and are looking for legitimate ways to cope with their feelings while remaining true to Church teaching.  So far so good. Their umbrella name? Spiritual Friendship.

It is not my goal here to fully determine, nor am I at this point qualified to do so, if each or any of those individuals are within Catholic orthodoxy or not. As with any grassroots group, I am sure some within their ranks are closer than others. In any case, others have written on this topic extensively and I frankly think that the near-war of words within the celibate SSA community is far over the top on both sides of the subject. Instead I wish to address a number of the issues at hand and let the reader ponder and pray with me on it.

Who are they?

Names are not at issue here and this post is not directly aimed at individuals on either spectrum of this religious battleground. I wish instead to discuss, perhaps in more broad-brush terms, those within the Church who would seem to fit this category of individuals.  And my first and most salient point is that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Church. If that point is forgotten or even de-emphasized the battle for any kind of sane dialogue is lost—and, sadly, that has very nearly happened on several occasions.

But who else are they? As I mentioned, most of them deal with SSA in their daily lives. Unlike officially-sanctioned apostolates such as Courage, and numerous other Roman Catholics with SSA who quietly live out the teachings of the Church, some over-identify with their sexual desires. Many such people would not, in fact, even refer to SSA as a “cross” or disordered passion, although the Church clearly does so both in various Vatican documents and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why is this a problem? Not a few of those espousing this understanding of SSA insist on referring to themselves as “gay,” “LGBT,” or even “queer.” Something unsettling happens when this occurs. For that very reason, Courage stays away from this terminology in order to assist same sex-attracted Catholics focus on being strong believers and part of the larger Catholic Christian community. For example, I am not, in the eyes of the Church, a “gay” person at my core, but rather I have SSA. I live with something but it does not define me at my core. Though celibate, those within this movement have seemingly embraced themselves as part of the struggle itself, and the subtle danger with this thinking is in allowing it to become who we are instead of what we have. I am not a “queer Catholic.” I am a Catholic Christian man who happens to deal with SSA. I am not my condition.

We are all Disordered

I wholly agree with my Spiritual Friendship sisters and brothers that we should not vilify the SSA condition itself. In regards to sin, it is in fact neutral. The Church in numerous documents refers to it as “intrinsically disordered,” and that can sound at first glance as if we who carry it are somehow more disordered than others. I get that. At this point it is worth noting, though, that the Church began using that particular term centuries before Freud or other modern psychiatrists did. In this context, it does not mean psychological disorder as one may think of in today’s terms. This is a hugely important point in that those of us with SSA, even those who are celibate, can all too easily be over-scrutinized by those who consider themselves “normal.”  Further, it should be noted that every individual has disordered passions. For instance, a person who happily believes he or she is normal may secretly be interested in child porn or serial adultery.  All disorder comes from original sin and the Fall of humankind. But that is not the same as suggesting that passion is in itself a sin, unless it is given in to or acted.  Instead of embracing one’s disordered desires, however, St. Thomas Aquinas tells us how to build opposite and positive qualities—virtues—from them. And they are for all of us.

I concede too that some aspects of who I am have been shaped by this particular struggle in my life, and in a positive way. An example would be, hopefully, a deeper understanding of the pain and isolation that so many from the actively “LGBT” world experience.  However, I can either use that potentially positive outcome to help those with similar wounds; or I can remain stuck in it, making it a permanent part of me. On this I differ from those in the SF movement. I agree that there is positive meaning in my struggle. So do most of them.  However, just because God brings order from chaos does not make it any less disordered, and unfortunately many SF folks think otherwise.

Accepting not Reveling

To scream (or type) loudly that I am “gay and it’s okay,” while at the same moment rejecting the lifestyle or activities that generally go with it, unwittingly glorifies something that is not God’s first intention for my life nor ever was. It also plants a deep and abiding contradiction within. God did not “make me” this way. He allowed it. There is a fine but crucial line between accepting oneself and embracing our darker tendencies. Again, that may seem like spliting linguistic hairs, but I would ask the reader to ponder this a step further. Those of us with SSA are in no way second-class believers, and our very struggles do indeed enable us to help others. But never should we ignore the fact that “gayness” was not God’s original plan for us. Accepting our struggles does not necessitate that we revel in them. That, in essence, is the difference in understanding between the two sides of celibate Catholic Christians with SSA.  One leans dangerously close to such embracing, while the other is sometimes far less than charitable with those who do so. Neither represents Catholicism at her best, in my opinion. Whatever the view, I am mortified at the anger and the stone throwing of some within the Church.  I can only imagine a seeking but actively “LGBT” person who reads and watches this ongoing debacle (and that would have certainly included me a decade ago) and frankly being convinced that few from either camp are aware of the pain that person is facing daily—or worse, that they do not care. I hope and pray that is not the case. The loss of the individuals who are seeking Truth, not which terminology one does or does not use, is the real and deepest tragedy here. Winning arguments and losing souls is never God’s way.

The Answer is…

I only wish I fully knew. I will just say that two camps who have so much in common, sisters and brothers in Christ who each desire to obey His Church, ought to be more able to work through the thorniness here. There are ways to do so but that is not happening at the moment. I pray that changes. Otherwise no one wins the long race ahead. And right now no one is even close to the finish line.

The post Spiritual Friendship—Some Observations appeared first on Catholic Stand.

The terrain upon which a well-formed Catholic can comfortably discuss the LGBTQ issues in today’s intellectual and moral climate is almost non-existent. The faithful Catholic has a very narrow road upon which he can tread. To the left there is a deep valley of ideology comprised of inverted notions of freedom, rights, laws and love. To the right there is a valley of intolerant, legalistic and rigid moralism.

The seeking Catholic cannot find a middle ground or a compromise between the two valleys, but we must instead strive for the way that is above both vicious alternatives. We reject licentiousness and lawlessness. We also reject an uncharitable adherence to rigid rules. Our duty is to speak the truth with charity and in doing so we fulfill our commitment to love God and neighbor. Yet still, to covey the truth with charity is an ever more perilous proposition.

LGBTQ Issues and Church Teaching

Our job is to learn how to defend the Faith by defending the truth. We can’t do this if we don’t know Church teaching in the first place. Before one can initiate a dialogue with an opponent of the Faith, first one must know something about the different possibilities of possible positions.

Admittedly, there seem to be many possible positions on the issues swirling around gender and sexual morality. Those in and of the world would contend that there are as many positions as people, but this is absurd. As it adheres with the first principle of all reality, there are only two possibilities; either one possesses a correct understanding of the LGBTQ agenda or one does not. Those who embrace a false notion of the issues asserted by the agenda appear to have many different positions, however, they are unified by their error.

Both misguided groups to the left and the right of the properly formed Catholic mistakenly believe that a personal opinion qualifies as a proper position on an issue. This is simply a nod to the Dictatorship of Relativism and has no bearing on objective reality. Before a true dialogue can begin, let the truth-seeker know that there are ever only be two possibilities for any position: either one understands reality rightly, or one does not. Our opinions are meaningless unless they correspond to the principles of truth and reality. Ironically, even the ideologue who claims that every opinion is “valid” will disagree with Catholic Truth, thus contradicting his own claim. However, the ideologue never lets self-referential incoherence get in the way of his narrative.

Basic Prerequisites to Dialogue

Before any authentic dialogue can take place there are certain prerequisites without which a profitable discussion is impossible. First, we must make sure that our interlocutors are persons of good will. No real conversation can take place unless there are two participants willing to energetically engage in the dialogue.

To acquire an understanding requires great energy and focus.  Both participants must have as their primary goal, not victory in argument, but the acquisition of truth. In good faith, both participants must respect and take one another seriously as human persons. If an opponent does not have good will, is not willing to energetically engage in the pursuit of answers, is seeking victory instead of truth, or does not respect his opponent, then there is no hope of a fruitful dialogue.

Secondly, we must recognize the difference between the big questions and the small questions that come from those big questions. Unfortunately, in today’s halls of education, small questions usurp the place of big questions and infer assumptions about those questions.

Concerning the LGBTQ agenda, three big questions that are largely ignored are: What is justice? What is freedom? What is love? The big question of justice, which requires many small questions, is replaced with notions of equality, tolerance and fairness. The big question of freedom is replaced by notions of licentiousness. The big question of love is replace by lust and desire. If your interlocutor does not share an understanding of the nature of justice, freedom and love, this is the first order of business to clarify. If you cannot find common ground on at least these three issues, an authentic dialogue cannot take place.

Know your audience

There are at least three basic kinds of opponents: the youth, adults defending the LGBTQ agenda while not participating in it, and adults defending the LGBTQ while participating in it.

Concerning young people, that our youth have been inundated by propaganda flowing out of the cesspools we call the modern school, mass media, and pop-culture is a nearly universal phenomena. Our youth are bombarded with constant messages of sexual license, non-judgmentalism, equality, relativism, and subjectivism. They have been so thoroughly taught by external influences that the most strenuous efforts to elucidate Catholic teaching on the LGBT agenda is likely to be met with apathy at best and hostility at worst.

Adults who do not live out the LGBTQ lifestyle but yet vociferously defend it are an intractable and ossified version of our indoctrinated youth. The benefits to supporting others in their sin and subjectivism is a type of ignorant bliss concerning one’s own sins. A false sense of self-esteem flows into the darkened heart of the ideologue who pats himself on the back for his intolerance. A profitable conversation is rarely to be had with an ideologue who believes his support for vice is his greatest virtue; yet this group is the largest group of opponents to Catholic Teaching on sexual morality. They comprise the majority of secular society, and enjoy sizable numbers among nominal Catholics. What is most characteristic about this large group is that they do not acquire the necessary prerequisites for an honest dialogue; the most probable return from this stunted group is personal insults fueled by impotent rage.

The defenders of the LGBTQ agenda who embrace the lifestyle represent a different challenge altogether. The foundational assumptions they cling to directly oppose Church Teaching concerning human sexuality, freedom, justice, truth and the authentic end of the human person. Their means of attaining their assumptions is rationalistic not intellectual. Their approach to morality is the direct inverse of the faithful Catholic: they assume that it is right to allow attractions and desires dictate the norms of morality; while Catholics allow the objective principles of truth revealed by the Logos to moderate the appetites and desires.

Possible strategies for each type

We ought to engage our youth in more thoughtful debate. They are resistant to philosophical and moral inquiry because of their environment and conditioning. However, lying dormant deep inside is the unexercised reason perfectly capable of arriving at truth. When most youth say “it doesn’t bother me because it doesn’t affect me,” the door is open to examining whether or not it bothers and affects them, for surely it does both; this can be uncovered with the right line of questioning. If we begin at least to ask our youth questions about the big questions surrounding the LGBTQ agenda, at the very least we may inspire some thought-provoking debate which has the potential to awaken some to truth.

Dealing with adult defenders of the LGBTQ agenda is more difficult. This middle group tends to be more sensitive and prone to anger. It is worth the effort to ask this group the big questions about justice, love, freedom and human sexuality, but most helpful indeed to develop a thick skin as you prepare for an aggressive and personally attacking response. However, even if no common ground is found, at least you may have pricked a conscience or planted a seed of truth which may in the future have a chance to sprout.

This third group is by far the most problematic and most difficult to engage. It is advisable to leave this task to those who specialize in such things. The truth is that those caught up in the addictive lifestyle of the LGBTQ agenda have subordinate their intellect and will to their appetites. Reason and morality play little to no part in motivating their dialogue. This group’s most common response to Catholic Truth is projections of anger and hatred. This group cannot afford the exertion or the good will to search for truth, and has an interest only in victory.

Conclusion

The prerequisites for an honest dialogue and debate are almost non-existent in our institutions of learning, throughout the public square, and in our modern mass media. To learn, understand, and convey Church teaching on the LGBTQ agenda requires first that we ourselves acquire the truths She teaches by being persons of good will, open only to truth, energetic in our quest, and properly disposed intellectually and morally. After we are prepared and armed with the mind of Christ, we are then responsible for speaking to our families. After that, we may begin to approach our neighbors in an effort to expose them to truth as well.

Know well that it is our duty to speak the truth with charity, and there our obligation ends. How our interlocutors respond is out of our hands. The faithful Catholic speaks so that truth may be conveyed; how the listener responds depends on his openness to grace and truth. We are not to calculate or contrive arguments; we are simply called to love in word and deed. So arm yourself with the truths of Christ and let the breath of the Holy Spirit carry your words.

The post How to Talk to LGBTQ Supporters appeared first on Catholic Stand.

By the time you read my next article, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be elected to the office of President of the United States. That is a fact. Barring a major catastrophe, one of those two candidates will hold the highest office in the land, hold our temporal futures in their hand, and hold great sway over the entire world. I wanted to summarize the moral objections to both candidates, contrast the two in terms of intrinsic moral evil, and finally advocate why Trump is in fact a better choice based on Catholic moral teaching.

Hillary Clinton: The Evil We Know

The Democrats today are very different from Democrats of the past. Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, has proposed a fundamental sea change in morality, especially in terms of abortion, same-sex “marriage,” and religious freedom. Hillary Clinton has stated that she intends to make abortion a fundamental healthcare right for every man and woman in this country, and force us all to pay for it.  She wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment which in theory stops domestic federal funding of abortion.  She has stated that the unborn have no rights as a person under the Constitution. These stances are radical encroachments on the right to life.

Hillary is an ardent supporter of same-sex “marriage,” which is an anti-social attack on the family, harms children, and leads many to confusion over the role of men and women in an ordered society. People with same-sex attraction, of course, are loved by God as much as any of us, but acting on these passions whether or not they are codified into federal law is gravely disordered and sinful. It contributes to the erosion of complementarity and partnership between men and women that started with no-fault divorce. Children require a mother AND a father to thrive; same-sex “marriage” deprives them of this and of kinship to blood relatives.

Hillary boldly supports attacks on religious freedom. She has stated clearly that Christian beliefs opposing progressive values will have to change, and be kept out of the public square. John Podesta, Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, admitted in an e-mail that he has formed organizations to undermine the Catholic Church, and is campaigning to foment a “Catholic Spring” to eliminate our “medieval” beliefs and hierarchy. Within these communications it is stated that Catholics are “backward,” and that we are foolish to believe in Thomistic Philosophy or the principle of subsidiarity–things that once formed the basis of Western culture.

Hillary is no true friend of racial minorities, or of the poor and disadvantaged. How do we know this? We know because of the leftist policies she advocates which have put African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities at a disadvantage. The Washington Times sums it up:

“What do we have to show for all this federal largesse? The poverty rate hasn’t budged. Instead, we’ve seen the rise of multigenerational welfare dependency. For the $2 trillion the federal government has spent on education since 1965, test scores have plummeted and the achievement gap between minority students and their peers has barely budged. Families, the bedrock of an authentically great society, have suffered most in LBJ’s great social experiment. The overall out-of-wedlock birth rate has ballooned from 8 percent in the mid-1960s to more than 40 percent today; from 25 percent to 73 percent among blacks.”

Hillary proposes more of the same. Part of the solution unfortunately seems to be a promotion of the ideas of one of Hillary’s favorite people, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood: extermination of the poor and “undesirables.”  Hillary Clinton has proposed increasing tax-payer support of Planned Parenthood, which persecutes the most vulnerable among us, marketing abortion through deceptive practices and targeting minorities. Think this is crazy talk? Currently, in New York City, up to 78% of African American and Hispanic pregnancies end in abortion. In the country as a whole, upwards of 95% of children with Down’s Syndrome are now aborted. Margaret Sanger’s dream is coming true through the policies of Barack Obama and, if elected, Hillary Clinton.

Last but not least, Hillary Clinton is exceedingly dishonest. She has has lied before Congress and before the American public about her actions in the creation of a private e-mail server and handling of classified documents. 33,000 emails with classified content were illegally deleted by Hillary and her IT staff, apparently after they were subpoenaed by Congress. Laptops and other devices were destroyed with hammers. These actions alone are felonies which would disqualify her from holding the office of President. E-mails released by Wiki-leaks are revealing apparent systemic corruption between the Clinton Foundation and foreign countries. Evidence from the Wiki-leaks e-mails are demonstrating that undue influence has been placed on members of the press, including the allegation that DNC Chair Donna Brazile shared the debate questions with Hillary before the second debate. These allegations should at least give a potential voter pause for concern.

What We Know about Donald Trump

Donald J. Trump is rough around the edges. He is brash and at times egotistical. He is entertaining and speaks to the masses of ordinary people who are fed up with the aforementioned policies and attitudes from the Democrat party.  In terms of intrinsic moral evils, he has made disturbing statements about the use of torture and “going after” the families of terrorists.  He did moderate those statements to say that any activity would of course be done within the bounds of the law, which currently does not condone either of those activities.  Some have seen this as a “reversal” of those original statements.

Trump’s personal history is a mess, with two divorces, and a series of failed business dealings in the 1980s. The worst of it seems to be a series of bankruptcies, a common business practice, which left many creditors and employees without the money that was due to them. There are recent revelation of his “locker room” vulgarities in 2005, and claims of sexual mistreatment by some women in recent days. However in light of many positive statements by supportive employees, and no criminal history, these claims seem spurious and politically motivated at the current time. In any case, these items fall within the realm of bad personal behavior, not proposed public policy which represent moral intrinsic evil.

There is much evidence that he does have a good heart. Evangelical leaders Dr. James Dobson and Pat Robertson are both convinced Trump has converted and has accepted Christ in his life. As far back as 2011, Trump has been staunchly Pro-Life, and Father Frank Pavone, leader of Priests for Life, endorses Trump. Trump has signed a statement addressed to the Catholic Leadership Conference promising to support the pro-life cause, and takes the side of religious freedom when it comes to Catholic ministry in this country. No candidate that I can recall has ever done that.

Compare and Contrast

Comparing Clinton and Trump, it is obvious that they both have flawed personal lives and characters, as do most of us. Hillary contrasts with Donald in that her personal failures in terms of dishonesty (lying to Congress, deleting State Department e-mails, mishandling of Top Secret Documents, accepting payments from foreign governments, etc.) were done while acting as a public official. Donald’s peccadilloes may not turn out to be much more than nasty talk with other men and a few bankruptcies which financially hurt people depending on him; it is unlikely Trump will enact public policy mandating divorce or vulgar language. Trump, not a professional politician, made a hyperbolic statement about “torture” and “going after” the families of terrorists (intrinsic evils), which he later moderated, if not retracted. Hillary, on the other hand, advocates multiple intrinsic evils (abortion, same-sex “marriage,” etc.), including attacks on the Catholic Church and religious freedom. These will be enacted as public policy which will directly affect every man, woman, and child in America.

Applying Catholic Moral Teaching

Hillary Clinton clearly advocates several intrinsic moral evils which rule her out, but how could one propose a moral vote for Trump?

According to moral theologian Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., S.T.D., we can consider two things. The first is Cardinal Ratzinger’s teaching from 2004 in which he said that in the case of abortion or same-sex marriage for instance, you have to distinguish between: (a) voting for a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage law and (b) voting for a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage candidate. The Magisterium has only denounced the former as being always sinful. Ratzinger taught that (b) is also sinful if you vote for him/her because they are pro-choice or pro-gay marriage, since that would also be formal cooperation in sin, but it could be excusable remote material cooperation in sin if one sees some other very powerful overriding reason for voting for that candidate in spite of their position on pro-choice or pro-gay marriage.

Thus, even if Trump did propose some intrinsic moral evil, such as torture, one could morally vote for him if the powerful overriding reason was to stop a greater evil, namely the multiple intrinsic moral evils of Hillary Clinton, and the fact that our intent was to promote the greater good.

Secondly, Fr. Harrison suggests we can also apply the classical Thomistic four-point Principle of the Double Effect: the four conditions need to be met in order for it to to be morally OK to carry out an act which you foresee will have two effects, one good and one bad.

    1)  The act itself must not be intrinsically evil (we can’t do evil so that good may come, i.e., a good end doesn’t justify a bad means);

    2)  Your intention (purpose) must also be good, and you must not desire or intend the foreseen bad effect, but rather, tolerate it as something unfortunate but inevitable in the circumstances;

    3)  The good effect can’t be the result of the bad effect (for that would also amount to doing evil that good may come), but rather, the bad effect must follow, or at least be simultaneous with, the good effect;

    4)  There must be a due proportion between the good effect and the bad effect (i.e., the bad effect can’t be so absolutely awful as to outweigh the good result you’re seeking).

Applying that to a vote for Trump:

    1) is fulfilled because you’re voting for a candidate who has promised to appoint pro-life, non-activist, Scalia-type judges to the Supreme Court, which is the only possible way that Roe v. Wade and Obergefell can ever be overturned, and to support religious liberty, homeschooling, and other policies that Christian morality sees as good, or at least not intrinsically evil;

    2)  is fulfilled, because the above hoped-for good effects are your intention and purpose in voting for Trump, and you don’t intend or desire the negative side effect of having a man in the White House whose personal moral record, at least from a decade or more ago, includes lechery, adultery, a certain ruthlessness, lying and other character defects;

     3)  is fulfilled, because the good effects you hope for (see #1 above) are obviously not going to be the result of his defects mentioned n #2 above; and

    4) is fulfilled, because Hillary’s far more radical policy defects from the standpoint of Catholic and Christian ethics–she’d be the most pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, anti-religious freedom president in US history, and one of the most corrupt–far outweigh the probable shortcomings of a Trump presidency.

The Choice Before Us

As I said at the outset, by the time my next article is published in November, either Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump will be the President-elect of the United States. In reality, the only way to defeat Hillary Clinton, who has great plans to spread great evils in this country, is to make the choice for the candidate who will make the situation better. We know as a certainty that Hillary will do these evil things; the worst we have from Trump is a retracted statement on torture and a promise to follow the law. As demonstrated above, Catholic moral teaching does allow us to stop Hillary by choosing Trump because he is in fact the greater good in this instance. May the Holy Spirit guide us in our decision making, and may God’s will be done.

Our Lady of Victories, Pray for Us.

The post Trump is the Better Moral Choice appeared first on Catholic Stand.

The transgender movement is wholly incompatible with faith and reason. Even though God wants us all to achieve salvation, He gives us the unbearable compliment of a free will. Our freedom to choose our own paths, to accept or reject the gifts of grace and reason, and to direct our faith to the revealed Word is a danger if we make poor judgments. We are responsible for our own choices and man’s freedom holds out the peril of eternal separation from God, as demonstrated by Christ’s own words at the end of the Parable of the Wedding Feast: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14).

Our salvation requires us to choose the true over the false, to judge rightly. We must cooperate with grace in an attempt to perfect our natures that we might be ready to meet God face to face. We are not at liberty to invent our own schemes of reality. In an attempt to convey the truth with charity, it is our duty to commit to a program of fraternal correction after we attempt to remove the log from our own eye. To judge by the heart and mind of the matter, it is very clear that the transgender movement is not compatible with faith or reason.

Faith and Reality

St. Pope John Paul II introduces his masterful encyclical Fides et Ratio with a profound point: “Faith and reason are like two wings of the human spirit by which it soars to the truth.” Faith is the matrix out of which our reason ought to be formed. Reason is the process by which we come to attain the truth. We are in need of the truth. The saint describes truth as “a consonance between the intellect and objective reality” (op. cit., 56). We are not at liberty to invent our own truth; we are meant to discover the objective reality and to conform our minds and wills to it, not the other way around.

Faith is a type of “belief.” It is when we give assent to a declaration of fact to which we ourselves have no direct knowledge. We give our assent when we believe in the integrity and authority of the source. There is a distinction to be made between human faith and divine faith. We can have faith in the things our parents, teachers, and friends tell us if they are credible sources. We can give our human assent to assertions we encounter on the internet or in books if we believe the source is credible.

The difference between human and divine faith is that divine faith concerns the divine and is aided by supernatural grace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs us that divine Faith is “an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace” (Catechism § 155). We believe in the Word of God because we have confidence in the authority of the Creator and we embrace those things revealed by sacred sources.

Reason and Reality

The First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith instructs us with exacting clarity, “Man being wholly dependent upon God, as upon his Creator and Lord, and created reason being absolutely subject to uncreated truth, we are bound to yield to God, by faith in His revelation, the full obedience of our intelligence and will” (op. cit., 3:1). Human reason is a creature, God’s Truth is uncreated, unchanging and eternal. Reason is properly understood as the servant of truth.

Reason is a process used by the mind to acquire the truth. We use reason to verify or refute an asserted truth. In the case of divine revelation, we use our reason in the quest to give our full assent to uncreated truth. There are three things we do with our minds as we pursue truth by way of the intellect. The first act of the mind is called apprehension. This is where we apprehend what things are as we discover their essences. This first act is the basis for the terms we use to begin to make judgments, which is the second act of the mind. We put terms in right relationship to one another to make declarative judgments. The third act of the mind is the act of organizing our declarative judgments in such a way that conclusions can be drawn from clear thinking; this is what we call reasoning.

It is understood that our appetites and desires ought to be subordinated to our right use of reason; it is also sure that our reason ought to be subordinated to uncreated Truth, gifted to us by revelation and made intelligible by the supernatural graces given by God. We ought never to give ourselves license to invent our own “truths” or to attempt to create our own reality. This is precisely what the transgender movement attempts.

Cause and Form

On a website called Catholictrans is an article claiming to use Aristotle’s four causes to justify transgenderism. The article amounts to an assertion of an invented reality with an attempt to use The Philosopher to substantiate the invention; but in doing so, the author has to misuse reason and Aristotle’s four causes themselves. The attempt may well suffice to confuse by equivocation the general population, but Aristotle himself wouldn’t have it for a moment. As faithful Catholics, we must not acquiesce to this kind of sophistry, for we owe our neighbor much better than that.

The danger in presenting the four explanatory causes to a modern audience is that the material reductionism of this age renders them philosophically unintelligible. We must first recover our sense and apprehension of the immaterial order of reality before the conversation can even begin. We must appropriately ground our thinking in a proper Aristotelian metaphysics in order that we may understand the intention of the Philosopher as he gifts us the four explanatory factors of all contingent beings.

It is worth the time and effort to equip the human intellect with a deep understanding of the four causes, but it is not necessary to treat of them here. Aristotle’s four causes — material, formal, efficient, and final — are supported by his central doctrine of hylomorphism, the notion that all bodies are comprised of prime matter and substantial form. All bodies are comprised of a material and formal cause; the material composition of a thing is a manifestation of its formal principle or its substantial form. In the case of a human person, the human body is the material cause and the human soul is the formal cause of the body.

No Basis for Transgender Theory

The Book of Genesis reveals that God made both male and female (Genesis 1:27). He also made everything else in the universe including rocks, trees, and animals. To understand the four causes and hylomorphism is to understand that the vegetative soul, the animal soul, and the human spirited soul are the formal causes that manifest themselves as the things God intended. Transgender theory cannot make a claim to the four causes or hylomorphism because there is no distinction between a formal and material causes that is anything more than an abstraction from an integral unity. An apple tree is an apple tree because its formal cause is that of an apple tree; it could be nothing but the apple tree. A Siamese cat is the same; even if it made the claim it wanted to be a jaguar, its Siamese cat-ness is a manifestation of its formal cause and impossible to change.

Just so, a human person is his sex regardless of claims to the contrary. This is the case if the revealed word of God is to be believed, and if one accords his reason with Aristotle’s four explanatory causes and his doctrine of hylomorphism. By faith and reason, there is no possibility of a change in sex. There are many defects in nature, but the substantial form of a thing manifests the thing for which it is a formal cause even if its manifestation suffers a deformation. All defects and deformations are accidents and not substantial forms; therefore, there is no basis for transgender theory either in the revelations of God or in Aristotelian philosophy.

The transgender movement must look for its justification from notions of Cartesian dualism, but in doing so must also admit to leaving the faith and reason required by the Catholic Church. This does not mean that we will not embrace the transgender community with compassion and good will, but that we cannot promote, support or encourage such behaviors that contradict the eternal truths revealed to us as well as the perennial philosophy that constitutes the right use of reason. The transgender movement is a denial of revealed truths of our faith and a rejection of Aristotelian philosophy; no amount of sophistry can change that.

The post Faith, Reason, and the Transgender Movement appeared first on Catholic Stand.

Apparently, the Vatican’s Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) thinks business is business.  I sure hope that’s not the case.

A plan to open a McDonald’s restaurant in a Vatican-owned building right next door to the St. Peter’s Square is drawing fire from some Cardinals who live on the upper floors of the building that McDonald’s want to put the restaurant in.  They’ve written to Pops Francis to voice their objections to the plan.  But they might be complaining for the wrong reasons.

According to Ed Pentin, the Cardinals say the McDonald’s, “would “bring chaos” to the area, disturb the “quietness of the building” and produce unpleasant “odors” which are likely to pass along the elevator shaft.”  The restaurant plan is also not respectful to the “traditional architecture” of the area.  And if this is not enough, the decision “ignores the culinary traditions of the Roman restaurant”, is “not in line with the aesthetics of the place,” and would “inevitably penalize” other restaurateurs in the area.”  Plus, the burgers and fries menu is “far from the traditions of Roman cuisine” and it’s not all that healthy.

But according to Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith, the Vatican can use the money from the rent (reportedly 30,000 Euros per month).  Fr. Lucie-Smith says “there is a need for some sort of cheap and fast food outlet near the Vatican.”  Apparently, the cafés on the Via Della Conciliazione are a bit pricey.

Micky D is Confused

What everyone seems to be overlooking, however, is the fact that in 2008 McDonald’s was supporting same-sex ‘marriage’, then after the American Family Association threatened a boycott it was not supporting same-sex ‘marriage’, and now in 2016, Mc Donald’s is supporting same-sex ‘marriage’ again.  McDonald’s seems to be morally confused.

Perhaps this should have been the main point of the Cardinals complaint to Pope Francis. And maybe APSA, as part of the Holy See of the Catholic Church, should have a policy that says the Catholic Church will not do business with corporations or organizations that openly support same-sex marriage or abortion.

It is a bit disconcerting that the Vatican or any Catholic organization would not bother to check to see if a corporation has a stated position on homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriage’ or abortion before deciding to do business with them.  Or, worse still, that the Vatican or a Catholic organization might simply dismiss a corporation’s stated positions on homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriage’ or abortion and decide to do business with them anyway.  Either way, the message this sends to the laity is a confusing one.

Companies to Avoid

Of course in many instances today it is difficult to avoid doing business with some of the companies that support same-sex ‘marriage’ and/or abortion.

In March 2015, some 379 companies signed an amicus brief urging the SCOTUS to strike down state bans on gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). Some of the names on the list – like Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Kimberly Clarke, Procter & Gamble, and so on – are hard for even the average, everyday consumer to avoid patronizing.  But others, such as Starbucks, Target, or Bank of America, are not that difficult to avoid doing business with.

Similarly, 77 major corporations support Planned Parenthood, and some of these companies are not that difficult to avoid doing business with either.

In some cases, there is even a crossover– companies that appear on both lists.  Three such companies are Starbucks, Bank of America, and even The Walt Disney Company.

Discrimination Can Be Good

It should not be that difficult for the Vatican or any Catholic organization to avoid doing business with corporations that have immoral publicly stated policies.  I hope it just never occurred to the APSA that it might be a good idea to check.  Otherwise, it may be a case of Pharisees at the APSA.

Regardless of the confusing message the Vatican is sending, however, Catholic lay persons really should try to avoid patronizing such companies.  It’s simply a case of being a discriminating consumer, and one of the few instances where discrimination is a good thing.

The post McVatican Detractors Are Missing the Point appeared first on Catholic Stand.

The False Fundamental Option

In his landmark encyclical Veritatis Splendor (“The Splendor of Truth”) St. John Paul II condemned the erroneous moral doctrine of the fundamental option.

Some falsely believe that the fundamental option sets up a division between one’s basic orientation for or against God and one’s concrete moral acts. This false teaching allows one to commit gravely evil acts without (supposedly) committing a mortal sin because the person can claim he does not want to reject God.

This essay is not about that false moral system. Rather, it is about what is true in regard to the fundamental option. I think we need to take this truth into consideration when trying to help people whose behavior is at odds with the natural and divine law.

The True Fundamental Option

“There is no doubt,” the saintly pontiff wrote, “that Christian moral teaching, even in its Biblical roots, acknowledges the specific importance of a fundamental choice which qualifies the moral life and engages freedom on a radical level before God.” I think he means that the person freely chooses God, and in doing so, he also freely chooses the moral law that has God as its author. So, in this act of faith, “man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering ‘the full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals,’” as the First and Second Vatican Councils taught (§66).

This act of faith, St. John Paul II goes on, “which works through love, comes from the core of man, from his ‘heart’, whence it is called to bear fruit in works” (§66).

Israel and the Church

Israel made this fundamental decision for God in ratifying the Covenant on Mount Sinai. We make it in the New Covenant by choosing to follow Christ. As John Paul II explains,

The morality of the New Covenant is similarly dominated by the fundamental call of Jesus to follow him — thus he also says to the young man: ‘If you wish to be perfect . . . then come, follow me’; to this call the disciple must respond with a radical decision and choice. The Gospel parables of the treasure and the pearl of great price, for which one sells all one’s possessions, are eloquent and effective images of the radical and unconditional nature of the decision demanded by the Kingdom of God. The radical nature of the decision to follow Jesus is admirably expressed in his own words: ‘Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel’s will save it’ (Mk 8:35).

Thus, when a person says yes to Jesus’ call to “come, follow me” and acts accordingly, he or she is exercising “a fundamental option” (§66). The act of faith rightly does not become separated from “the choice of particular acts” (§66) but, in fact, the concrete acts flow from the obligations of love that flow from the act of faith.

Emotions and Passions

An old friend left the Catholic faith in his late teens. He told me that he went to Confession in high school because he was breaking the sixth commandment. Finally, in weighing his weak faith and his strong desire, he gave up Catholicism.

I think this teaching about the real fundamental option is important when it comes to friends or family who have left the faith because their affections and passions are directed in ways contrary to the natural and divine law. For whatever reason, the person’s emotions and passions are so powerful that the person feels he would die in some way if he had to give up the acts that fulfill those desires. It is better, it seems, to give up God. Thus, such a person will seem to have no interest in God and his Church due to those affections and passions.

It would seem that there is no hope for that friend to turn away from those disordered goods.

But what if that person first returns to the fundamental option of saying yes to God? This means he—maybe actually for the first time—would hear the Gospel and recognize in it a good far superior to the “good” the person has been experiencing: a true treasure and pearl of great price.

Reformation of Affections and Passions

Once a person says yes to God, then he can begin to compare his behavior to God’s law—which he now cares about—and can begin changing those outward actions, which he now wants to do (or at least wants to want to do).

With the help of grace and the little steps taken in the exercise of the theological and moral virtues, this friend can little by little begin transforming his affections and his passions in a new way and begin to exercise that freedom to do good.

The post The Real Fundamental Option: Living as a Child of God appeared first on Catholic Stand.

Paul Griffiths is an expert on Catholic thought, holding the Warren Professor of Catholic thought at Duke Divinity School but this past month he was forced to resign for questioning liberal orthodoxy.

On the other hand, last week, the Newman Society listed nine Catholic colleges who were commencement speakers who disagreed with Catholic teaching. One of these honorees went so far as to say, “New York will not tolerate any impediments or impairments of women’s rights and access to reproductive health care,” while forcing insurance companies to cover contraception and some abortions. Another commencement speaker had a 100% pro-abortion voting record, according to NARAL, during his 14 years in Congress.

Many Catholic Schools Capitulate

Catholic schools also face huge fines and protests if they fire someone for being in a gay marriage while others cave on Catholic teaching to defend their right to hire active homosexuals as staff.

This seems to follow a pattern where Catholic schools capitulate on the basis of academic freedom while secular schools discriminate against Catholicism based on their own orthodox neoliberalism. Classical liberalism is open to various opinions and will be perfectly fine with a professor who taught Catholic thought and believes what the Catholic Church teaches.

Dr. Griffiths seems to have been a well-respected scholar focusing on Augustine, Catholic thought, and Buddhism. Robert P. George observed, “Over the twenty or so years I’ve known Paul Griffiths, I have agreed with him on some things and disagreed with him about others. He is, however, indisputably an eminent scholar.”

Dr. Griffiths troubles began in February when another professor sent all the Divinity School faculty a proposal to attend a 2-day “Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training.” Dr. Griffiths responded indicating that he wanted a free exchange: the other professor had clearly indicated her preference for such a course, while he thought it would not be intellectually stimulating or needed.

He stated: “It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual.” And he stated it didn’t seem like it would be in keeping with their mission of teaching Christian theology.

Dr. Griffiths’s words may have been a little bombastic but his comment about bromides and clichés seems to match the course description on the organization’s own website. The course “helps to provide talking points, historical factors and an organizational definition of racism.” As an informed person – which I presume Dr. Griffiths also is – I could provide an outline of this without a two-day weekend course.

The later part of the course description seems to emphasize its goal of promoting an agenda over provoking thought:

“REI believes that organizations are often working in very intentionally civil ways yet operating from multiple understandings that rely more on personal feelings and popular opinion. This creates complications to the goal of eliminating racial and ethnic disparities and producing equitable outcomes.”

Let me decode that: anti-racism policies are actually misguided because they rely on understandings this organization – and academic neo-liberalism – disagrees with. Probably meaning nobody can talk about racism unless they’ve experienced it. Oddly, they seem to apply this in reverse to Christianity: you can’t talk about it if you’ve experienced it as a sincere believer.

Dr. Griffiths never said that racism didn’t exist or the goal of eliminating it was noble. He just sensed this program was not the best way of doing so. I agree that we need to eliminate racism and reading the course description, I tend to agree with him that this isn’t the best way to do so.

Robert George concurred: “What he said in his controversial email has the ring of truth to me. In any event, he had every right to say it.” Professor George’s main concern was not the retirement of a professor in his 60s but the effect of silencing young professors: “This sends a terrible signal to other scholars – especially younger ones and those who are considering the possibility of pursuing academic careers.”

On the other hand, when a Catholic school fires someone for being a married homosexual, all hell breaks loose. In Philadelphia, 23,000 signatures were collected against firing a female director of religious education who was married to another woman. This story garnered national attention with most supporting Margie Winters, the fired teacher, and even had Barack Obama inviting Margie and her “wife” to the White House for the Papal reception.

On several occasions, like Lonnie Billard in North Carolina, Catholic schools have faced significant lawsuits for firing teachers after they announced their own same-sex “weddings.” This is not about an individual’s private behavior as many claim but marriage is by nature a public act.

Some Catholic institutions have instead chosen capitulation to neo-liberal orthodoxy. When the theology chair at Fordham University married another man, the university said it was OK. One might wonder how someone in a legal homosexual “marriage” done in an Episcopal church could effectively teach Catholic theology as one would expect from a theology chair.

Catholic Teaching

Instead of defending Catholic teaching, Robert Howe, senior director of communications, argued, “Same-sex unions are now the law of the land, and Professor Hornbeck has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.”

Right now, we face an uphill battle with Catholic teaching, seeming to get the short end of the stick in academia and education. If we capitulate, Catholic teaching will be lost to this culture. If we just say “thou shall not” over and over, we face the challenge of being misunderstood. (Nonetheless, we should still fight for our rights when discriminated against.)

Instead,  we need to show the vision of the full human person. The secular neo-liberal version reduces man to his psyche and misses both his body and his soul. This is shown in the idea that you are whatever gender you affirm psychologically. They also affirm there is no objective good for man; your good is whatever you define it as.

If we show a complete Christian vision, including the beauty of all the levels of humanity, we can help people see how Christianity is freeing. The early Church spread because its fuller vision of the human person was freeing in a pagan hedonistic society. Both today’s society and the late Roman empire eliminate the transcendent and reduce man to a being of pleasure. Hopefully, presenting a full vision can spread the Church today like it did in the first centuries.

The post A Catholic Often Gets the Short End of the Stick on Both Sides of Academia appeared first on Catholic Stand.

While I’m neither a theologian nor a Bible Scholar, I’ve always thought that the Bible is really very clear and straightforward in regard to both marriage and homosexuality.

In Matthew 19:16, Jesus says about marriage “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” What exactly do these words mean? Deconstructing the sentences is not all that difficult.

The first phrase, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh” says that the husband and wife are now one in mind (faith and love), body (their union will create offspring, literally becoming one), and spirit (together for eternity in His Kingdom).  It’s even possible that God created the circumstances which brought this man and woman together. Marriage is holy not only because God ordained it so; it is also holy because of the miracle of life it creates.

The second phrase reads:  ” Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” This phrase may mean two different things, depending on how you look at it. Some may understand it to mean that no one on earth can come between the two people taking the holy vows of matrimony. I believe it to also mean that no one on earth can ever change the order of matrimony, and its intended meaning for us. The vows of matrimony are holy. This means they cannot be rewritten to suit our needs and desires.

In Ephesians 5:25, Paul says: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her.” And in Genesis 2:24 we read: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”

Marriage Is Between a Man and Woman

Marriage is both an emotional bond and a physical one. Same sex unions, however, cannot function in the same manner. God has given us Scripture and Commandments that He desires us to obey. However, if we decide to turn our backs on His Word, we are left to fend for ourselves in the consequences of our actions. No matter how much we wish for things to be our way, in the end His own divine will should be done.

While God does not make mistakes, He has blessed us with free will, and this means we can make mistakes. So we can choose to live a path that is not in our best interests, spiritually or physically, or one that is not in keeping with His will.

Only a man and a woman can become one body, one flesh, and this in the creation of  child. Same sex unions do not and cannot produce offspring. While the female is a beautiful being, she is not intended for another female to mate with biologically. The same is true for male same-sex unions.

The Bible speaks of such unions as being unholy: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

Therefore, we may only interpret same-sex unions as ungodly and sinful. This does not mean that we are to hate or turn our backs on those who experience same-sax attraction or are confused about this Scripture. As Catholics, we are called to evangelize, not judge.

A Difficult Cross to Carry

Same-sex attraction must be a difficult cross to carry, and we should all remember that there are those who are hurting with this burden. But in such instances Church council should be sought out immediately. Many dioceses have same sex attraction counseling for those who are interested. The Catholic Diocese of Wichita, and many other dioceses, encourages those with same sex attraction to contact the organization Courage [https://couragerc.org/]. Courage can help equip those with same-sex attraction with the tools to fight the temptations they feel.

We all have sin in our lives to varying degrees, and it is healthy to speak to someone (a counselor or priest) about these issues. It is also our Catholic duty to uphold Scripture.

As St. Jerome said “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

The post Some Thoughts on the Holiness of Matrimony appeared first on Catholic Stand.

We read, see, and hear a growing accumulation of stories in the news of small businesses being persecuted for not providing services to celebrate a same-sex marriage. Photographers, restaurants, inns, and bakeries are the initial targets; some law suits have had great success. It is an eerie echo of the Police song: Every move they make, every step they take, the forces of the new orthodoxy will be watching them.

Marriage and the Onslaught

Things are truly not what they seem in this age of shadows. Basic Christian morality is under an onslaught with such force that many faithful souls are likely to suffer confusion. The public pressure to conform to licentiousness on sexual issues is intense and increasing at an alarming rate.

Individuals have been increasingly singled out as well, such as Phil Roberson from Duck Dynasty, Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, and most recently Christian baker Jack Phillips, who has been told by the Colorado Court of Appeals that he may not refuse to bake cakes for same-sex couples. To argue for the self-evident truths of Catholic morality will earn you a peck of salt for your wound of sanity. It is apparently no longer enough to slander those who withhold support; there are increasing efforts to ruin the lives of those who do not agree with the redefinition of marriage.

In Portland, Oregon, a judge has ordered a bakery to pay a fine of $135,000 for emotional damages because on moral grounds they did not bake a cake in the celebration of a same-sex marriage. It ought to shock us that among the eighty-eight charges of suffering the lesbian couple allegedly endured is the outrageous accusation of “mental rape”. As Thomas D. Williams noted in his article, “The judge apparently found it unremarkable that ‘loss of appetite’ and ‘impaired digestion’ should lead to ‘weight gain.’” The list is almost entirely overstatement; more than just an insult to decency and common sense, it is an affront to the moral fabric of our society to allow such hyperbolic invention to create legal precedent.

Why We Object

We have always maintained a right to refuse service in this country and that is appropriate. Would a baker be compelled to bake a cake for the KKK celebrating a cross burning? Or a satanic cult in celebration of a black mass? Of course not … at least, not yet. For a point of clarification between these two examples and “marriage equality”, let’s examine what this comparison means.

We object to the KKK and the Satanists because of what they choose to believe and what they intend to do, not for who they are, for they are human persons imbued with intrinsic dignity and worth. In the case of those afflicted with same-sex attraction, the objection is not to who they are, for they are also human persons imbued with intrinsic dignity and worth. Just like the KKK and the Satanists, our objection is to the celebration of what they wish to do. Just like racism and satanic worship are things we should not celebrate, so is sexual activity not ordered toward procreation and family.

In the good society, it is impermissible to insist that a moral man cannot hold a morally ordered position without being persecuted, or accused at the very least of being hateful and bigoted. The grand irony in these charges is lost completely on the promoters of sexual liberty.  There is nothing more hateful or bigoted than to try to forcefully compel a free soul to believe what you believe, and when they don’t, to try to ruin their lives. The hypocrisy is glaring. The persecutors want acceptance, but accept nothing but their own agenda. They want tolerance but are intolerant of diverging views. This is not the behavior of civil rights activists.

We recognize these self-evident truths: that men and women are complementary; that they are intended by nature and divine decree to be joined in matrimony and become one flesh; that they are to remain faithful and monogamous while they raise, love and educate their biological children. This is the gold standard for building up civilization. No other type of family or institution can build up a society, not even by an efficient government attempting to engineer society.

Self-Evident Truths

We clearly recognize that children are the natural primary end of the marital act of sex, and no amount of raging against truth can change this self-evident fact. In recognizing that children come from the marital act, and that children are persons deserving of rights at least as much as the rest of us (more, because of their innocence and vulnerability), it is common sense that we consider children primarily before we commit to the marital act.

We conclude as self-evident that the primary end of the marital act is the procreation of children. It follows that children have a natural right to be loved, raised and educated by their biological parents; therefore, the marital act is only morally licit within the bounds of marriage. This fulfills the authentic ends of the human person, while at the same time leading to the well-ordered civilization which is built upon the gold-standard building block of society, the family.

The equality cry is that same-sex attracted couples want to get married. It is an impossibility if one considers the nature of marriage. Marriage is a natural and divine institution, not man-made. A marriage is “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life”.

It is by design that only one man and one woman are qualified to marry. They are eligible by the appropriateness of their relationship to one another and by virtue of their complementarity endowed by the Creator. By mutual consent they agree to be joined as one flesh, faithful and monogamous, “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, until death do [they] part.”

An Opportunity to Colonize Heaven

This is marriage, and we are not allowed to give our own interpretation of it. No amount of persecution will change the above facts; it is against all our civilization’s notions of human rights to try to compel people to believe otherwise by force of law, threat of violence, or any other kind of coercion.

This is a very difficult issue, one that divides many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is a fact that we are called to take a stand on this; while the Catholic stand is against the redefinition of marriage, because it is morally and ontologically impossible, we are still called to love our brothers and sisters with truth and charity. Our stand against “marriage equality” is an opportunity to colonize heaven. Let us take up our crosses (cf. Matthew 16:24) and follow Him.

The post Same-Sex Marriage: Every Cake You Bake appeared first on Catholic Stand.

The announcement in our parish bulletin last spring seemed innocuous enough. A program entitled Transgender Homosexual Awareness (T.H.AW.) was being held to give parishioners “an opportunity . . . to hear the voices and to understand the experiences of our transgender brothers and sisters and their family members.”

But since our parish had already hosted an obviously skewed program/event entitled “Let’s Talk”, there were good reasons to be concerned about the true intent of the T.H.AW. Program. As it turned out, the concern was justified.  There was more to the program than simply hearing the voices of and understanding the experiences of our gay and “transgender brothers and sisters,” and helping people “better understand the issues.”

The use of the word “program” in describing what was going to take place is fitting since a program is “a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal.”  In this case, the goal of the program appears to be much the same as the goal of most (maybe every) secular LGBTQ organizations in existence – presenting homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” and now transgenderism, as “normal.”

THAW was apparently developed by Tielman, a former social worker, under the auspices of PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). PFLAG boasts of 400 chapters and over 200,000 members throughout the U.S.  The PFLAG website proclaims, “PFLAG has been saving lives, strengthening families, changing hearts, minds and laws since 1972.”

Unlike Courage, a true Catholic organization that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, LGBTQ organizations such as PFLAG, Equally Blessed, Dignity USA, New Ways Ministry, Fortunate Families, and Caring Catholic Families, seem to have one overriding aim – to “make gay ok” by convincing the world that God created “gay” people as “gay” people.

Even Fr. Greg Greiten, of St. Bernadette Parish in Milwaukee, WI, seems to have bought into this lie. He announced to his parishioners in December that he was “gay.”  He then followed up his announcement with an article in the National Catholic Reporter entitled “Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay.” In the article he states, “I promise to be my authentically gay self. I will embrace the person that God created me to be.”  One can’t help but feel pity for Fr. Greiten if he truly thinks that God created him “gay.”

If the THAW program is any indication, now that Obergefell v. Hodges is the law of the land, LGBTQ activists are more determined than ever to make the LGBTQ lifestyle and same sex marriage  “normal” and “acceptable” to all Catholics and Christians. Programs like THAW seem to be purposely designed to play on people’s emotions.  They are a blatant attempt to elicit a false compassion for the ‘plight’ of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.  The goal of such programs is to convince people that Catholic Teaching on homosexuality is wrong and that homosexual behavior is perfectly normal.

The T.H.AW. Program

After introducing Tielman, our pastor said that any discussion following the presentations by the panelists should not get into politics or the morality of homosexuality or transgenderism. The  focus should be on the stories of the panelists.

Tielman then kicked things off saying that in his 20-plus years of counseling young people, three LGBTQ individuals he knew had committed suicide after being bullied, teased or tormented for being different. This is what THAW is all about, he said.  We are here, said Tielman, to hear the stories of the presenters so we can learn to feel compassion for them and all of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

The first presenter was a Catholic mother who recounted the struggle of coming to terms with the fact that her child was “gay.” The other three presenters – a homosexual young man, a young lesbian woman, and male-to-female transgendered person – all talked about how they struggled with their “identities,” and feeling different and unaccepted while growing up.  The young man and the young woman also mentioned during their presentations that once they entered into “a relationship” with another LGBTQ individual life got better for them.  So much for not talking about morality.

At the conclusion of the presentations, the two young people who said they were in relationships were asked if their relationships were chaste relationships. Tielman quickly jumped in and said that it was not proper for the panelists to discuss their sex lives, so he was instructing them not to answer that question.  And that statement summed up the whole point of the program: pity these people, feel compassion for them, accept them, welcome them into the parish community – and just ignore the fact that they are choosing to openly live immoral lives.

LGBTQ Propaganda

The usual LGBTQ propaganda was also handed out to those in attendance. The handouts included an “equality literacy” handout, developed by PFLAG.  It was a list of words and terms used in discussing LGBTQ issues and their “approved” definitions.  Also included was an old, outdated photocopy of “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality” from the American Psychological Association.

OUTDATED Handout From the APA:

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation: most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.  In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for many people. [Emphasis added.]

NEW APA Answer to: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [Emphasis added.]

Playing on Emotions

What’s concerning here is that programs like THAW may well change some minds regarding the morality of homosexuality. As such our pastors and clergy simply cannot allow themselves to be ‘suckered’ into allowing the LGBTQ crowd to put on such programs.

These kinds of programs enable the LGBTQ activists to set the agenda regarding how homosexuality and transgenderism is to be discussed. If the focus of discussion is only on how those who “are different” are bullied and tormented as children and teenagers, it’s difficult not to feel compassion. But implying that “we” are putting LGBTQ youth at risk of committing suicide by not accepting homosexual behavior as normal is not being honest.

According to StopBullying.gov:

“The relationship between bullying and suicide is complex. Many media reports oversimplify this relationship, insinuating or directly stating that bullying can cause suicide. The facts tell a different story. In particular, it is not accurate and potentially dangerous to present bullying as the “cause” or “reason” for a suicide, or to suggest that suicide is a natural response to bullying.”

Sinful Impulses

What those clerics and laypeople who are sympathetic to the LGBTQ agenda and same-sex “marriage” will not admit or accept is that same-sex attraction is no different than any other sinful impulses, attractions, or temptations. But if we are going to accept Christian moral standards at all, they must be applied to everyone.

God did not create homosexuals any more than He created kleptomaniacs, or people who are greedy, slothful, or filled with hate. These are all learned behaviors and choices.

The unspoken message of the THAW program – that we should feel compassion for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters and ignore the fact that many of them are choosing sin over virtue – is completely misguided. We should feel pity and compassion for unchaste homosexuals and their enablers, but in the same way we pity all sinners who feel no remorse and are unrepentant.

The kind of compassion the LGBTQ crowd wants, however, is quite different. They want to “alleviate the suffering” of those who are afflicted with same-sex attraction or gender confusion by the normalizing and accepting homosexual and transgendered lifestyles. For the LGBTQ activists there is no need for repentance or remorse because there in nothing wrong with two persons of the same sex engaging in sexual relations or a male deciding he wants to be a female, or vice versa.

Catholic Teaching

The Catechism, however, offers an unequivocal response:

“2357 . . . 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.”

And:

“2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”

St. Paul is also very clear in Romans 1:24-27 that homosexuality is a “perversity,” and in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, that sodomy is a sin. In the Old Testament, we are told in Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” And again in Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.”

Since we were created in God’s image we cannot have been created with a built-in perversity.

SSA is Not Genetic

And as a pamphlet published by the Catholic Medical Association entitled Homosexuality and Hope states, same-sex attraction (SSA) is not genetically determined. Even so:

“. . . the major media continue to promote the idea that a “gay gene” has been discovered. However, researchers have failed to find evidence of a biological cause for SSA, and gay activists are backing away from the claim of a “gay gene.” If SSA were genetically predetermined before birth, then identical twins should virtually always exhibit the same pattern of sexual attraction. However, a study of males in the Australian Twin Registry found that only 11% of identical twins with SSA had a twin brother who also experienced SSA. It is also important to note that a number of studies have found that sexual-attraction patterns are not stable over time. Some people spontaneously cease to identify themselves as homosexuals as they mature or receive help.”

That pamphlet also answers the question, “Can SSA be prevented?”

“Yes. Early identification of at-risk children, along with appropriate psychotherapy and parental support, are key factors leading to successful prevention and treatment of the emotional pain in these children and adolescents.”

Pastoral Accompaniment

Parents of children who suddenly announce that they are gay, or that they “identify” as a person of the opposite sex, need to keep in mind two specific verses in scripture:

“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (MT 22:37)

And:

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.” (MT 10:37-38) [Emphasis added.]

God and the Logos must always come first in our lives. Parents, clergy and laypeople should not allow themselves to be swayed by the false philosophy of moral relativism and a false compassion for their children or others afflicted with same-sex attraction or GID. Those who are accepting of their children’s, loved ones’, or friends’ homosexual or GID lifestyle are being led astray by the evil one.

True Compassion

As the Homosexuality and Hope pamphlet states:

“Authentic Christian charity and prayer for those with GID and SSA and their families should be features of the Catholic community life. Parents, priests, and teachers have a serious responsibility to communicate the fullness of the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, to counter false information about SSA, and to encourage people with SSA to obtain help. Catholic mental-health professionals, educators, physicians, priests, and religious should recognize that medical science supports the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. True compassion toward those with SSA requires communicating to them the scientific truth about treatment.” [Emphasis added.]

Download the pamphlet at: http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/HH%202010%20Pages%20for%20Website.pdf. Don’t let the LGBTQ crowd set the agenda when it comes to same-sex attraction and GID.

The post PFLAG ‘T.H.AW.’- A Program to Make Homosexual Behavior ‘Okay’ appeared first on Catholic Stand.

One of the greatest compliments of Thomas Aquinas was that he was often better and more persuasively able to explain his opponents’ arguments than the opponents themselves. In his new book, When Harry Became Sally, Ryan Anderson seems to have a similar Thomistic capacity for explaining the Transgender Movement.

Anderson dedicates large sections of the book to quoting and summarizing what the activists are saying. He even clarifies some points transgender activists make. For example, he notes that the claim, “People are the gender they prefer to be” (p. 28), is an ontological claim; that is, a claim about being, not just preferences. Clarifying this point removes the argument from the realm of preference to ontology. At the same time, by showing this argument clearly, he makes it more refutable: we cannot argue preferences (subjective, pizza vs. tacos), but we can argue ontology (objective, what really exists).

This ontological claim brings up a very important distinction in this discussion, namely, the difference between individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria (aka gender identity disorder) and activists pushing an agenda. The activists want to replace objective ontological reality, claiming that mere opinions are more real than reality. Those who suffer these conditions just want relief.

Trans Kids vs. Trans Adults

Among those who suffer from thinking they are not their biological gender, Anderson rightly distinguishes between kids and adults. Kids have a very high remission rate (80%+) if puberty progresses in a normal way. If a therapist helps, remission rates move even higher.

Anderson notes that these kids’ perceptions are out of accord with reality, but in every other situation where there is discord between perception and reality, we try to change the young person’s perception, not reality. In other bodily disorders like anorexia, we don’t help teens starve themselves; we help them accept a reasonable weight. Anderson states, “Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or height” (p. 47).

For adults, the book seems to offer no effective treatment for gender dysphoria. Hormones and sex reassignment surgery are 98% successful at producing altered physical characteristics, but they do not seem to resolve wider issues of body image, depression, and suicide: in fact, some studies suggest these treatments may make these problems worse. If a medical procedure with many negative side effects produces no better results – and possibly worse – than no treatment at all, why do it? There may be better tests in the future to indicate when such treatments would actually help a person, but so far they seem clearly to be a net negative for those treated.

Some adults seem to find relief in discovering and dealing with issues causing gender dysphoria. In the section on “detransitioners” – i.e., those returning to their original gender after trying to adopt an alternative gender – he gives examples of some who discover more fundamental causes such as dissociative disorder and family issues. Once these people resolved the underlying issue, they no longer had gender dysphoria.

I asked Anderson about the seeming lack of treatment for adults with persistent gender dysphoria that does not come from an underlying issue. He said that oftentimes all that can be offered are strategies for coping and for mitigating issues as is done with many other untreatable psychological conditions.

Policy Prescriptions

Nonetheless, today eight states have bans on any treatment for transgender individuals other than helping them to “transition” from one gender to another. This is a total capitulation to activists. Many who later detransitioned complained that no other options were offered. They feel like they were not given a chance to investigate underlying causes or other therapeutic options but were pushed toward hormones and surgery.

In such an environment, when transgender activists push everyone toward transitioning, we have to ask if they are really showing compassion. True compassion would be attempting to help all those suffering from gender dysphoria to find a way to live their lives in peace. When a five-year-old thinks he or she is the opposite gender, what is true compassion for that child? Is it compassionate to force life-altering treatments with serious negative side effects for something that the vast majority of young people will grow out of? I doubt it.

Toward the end of the book, Anderson comments on the issues regarding policy and culture. The fundamental problem with what transgender activists are asking, he says, is that their concerns only take into account the trans individual and no one else.

He notes, for example, the problems with allowing people to go into a bathroom based on their preferred gender identity without any checks and balances. First, this puts many people in uncomfortable situations because it violates privacy, which is the whole purpose of gender separation in the first place. Second, it makes it much hard to prosecute disreputable individuals using public bathrooms. In established law, a man shows his ill intention simply by entering a women’s bathroom. It is not that a transgender person will necessarily commit such crimes; rather, these norms let weird, seedy individuals hide under the cover of “gender identity” and associated misunderstandings, which are hard to disprove. While this may sound theoretical, it is a documented fact that creeps like this have tried to use the gender identity defense over 130 times in American courts. Finally, the law of preferences discriminates against people whose gender identity matches their biological sex: they have to go into one restroom while transgender individuals can go into either.

Anderson’s Methodology

Anderson is cautious with the sources he cites and the claims he makes. For example, he notes that only 5-20% of kids with gender dysphoria continue with it irreversibly into adulthood. However, a quick search of the literature on the NIH website finds a review article with a stronger statement. “Only 2.5% to 20% of all cases of GID in childhood and adolescence are the initial manifestation of irreversible transsexualism.”

When Harry Becomes Sally is not above critique, however. Anderson relies heavily on Mayer and McHugh’s special report, “Sexuality and Gender”, from The New Atlantis in 2016. If you have read and understood these scholars, you can probably skip significant parts of this book. Nonetheless, Anderson does a service in making this information more accessible to the general public and adding a philosophical layer. The only other criticisms of the book are minor: there are a few obvious typos, and he presents some information more than once as if it were new information.

Overall, Anderson presents a formidable primer on the Transgender Movement. It shows how the claims of activists and actual science are miles apart. I have given a rough summary here, but if you are interested in the topic, read the book.

The post Ryan Anderson Razes the Transgender Movement’s Arguments in New Book appeared first on Catholic Stand.

Over the past few months, ‘bullying’ has become a recurring topic of discussion among the members of Fusion, our youth ministry at Immaculate Heart of Mary Church.  For professing his faith one of our members is being bullied – at the Catholic High School he is attending.

Sam (a pseudonym) was ecstatic when he learned last year that he’d be attending a prominent Catholic high school in our area. However, about three months into his freshman year, he began telling us about the troubles he was having at school.

The bullying begins

It started when the topic of homosexuality was being discussed in Sam’s freshman religion class. In this particular class the students were permitted to debate the subject, back and forth. After Sam stated the Church’s stance on homosexuality, his classmates became offended and even infuriated. The teacher did not step in and say that what Sam was saying was correct.  The teacher also did not try to explain or defend Church teaching. The students labeled Sam a bigot and continued to harass him in the hallway afterwards.

On another occasion, again in religion class, Sam stated that he doesn’t view pornography, and then explained to the class what the Catechism says about the topic:

“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials” (CCC 2354).

After class, a fellow student followed Sam into the restroom and threatened to beat him if he ever spoke up against pornography again.

Teens Abandoning their Faith

While we may be quick to dismiss this as something that might happen in a public high school, this happened in a private school that has the word “Catholic” in its name. This is a high school which claims to teach the Catholic faith. This is very disconcerting.

We also can’t dismiss these incidents by thinking “Well, the other students probably misunderstood, or didn’t know, Sam.” Almost half of his religion class consists of kids that Sam attended a Catholic elementary school with. Now in high school, however, virtually every one of these kids has turned their backs on their Catholic upbringing.

According to Sam, these same kids that attended a Catholic grade school with him now curse and take the name of the Lord in vain, frequently. Some of these 14- and 15-year-olds now even proudly tell each other that they are drinking, smoking, and even engaging in hook-ups.

To make matters worse, whenever Sam walks by they assault him with illicit pictures on their cell phones. For his part, Sam has managed to stay true to his faith. He’s also grateful that our Youth Group and Youth Nights provide him with a safe haven.

Some Possible Fixes

Hearing about these and other school incidents makes my heart grow heavy. It would be easy to point a finger at and place blame for failure on the Catholic education system, or the students, or their parents. But finger pointing and placing blame won’t get to the root of the problem.

Instead, we need to dig deeper. We need to start by asking: What has happened to our Catholic teens today?

In the book Growing Young, authors Kara Powell, Jake Mulder, and Brad Griffin conducted extensive studies aimed at understanding today’s young people. They discovered several commonalities.

First, youths today are looking for answers to three questions say the authors: Who am I? Where do I fit in? What difference do I make? While this isn’t unique to our current generation of youths, “a recent study showed that 13- and 17-year-olds are more likely to feel ‘extreme stress’ than adults[.] Approximately 20 percent of teenagers confess that they worry ‘a great deal’ about current and future life events[.] Parents often don’t realize the constant heat felt by adolescents, increasing the pressure for them to figure out who they are and what’s important to them” [pg. 101].

Second, in their attempts to discover their identities, teenagers find their search “closely linked with their quest for belonging” [pg. 104]. In their search, teenagers typically turn to social media to stay connected with friends, family, and the world at large. When they yearn to connect with others through more than a screen, they turn to sexual experimentation.

Finally, many teenagers “[view] neighbors, relatives, teachers, coaches, pastors, priests, and parents as too busy or too self-absorbed to invest in them without an agenda. The family, once a hub of belonging[,] now increases pressure and a sense of loneliness” [pg. 107].

Investing in our Youth

As a result of these feelings, today’s average teenagers begin to lose enthusiasm and become apprehensive about their futures. Mind you, the Growing Young writers found these results were the same for all teenagers.  Religious affiliation did not make a difference.

So, where does faith fit into the lives of teenagers? In their findings, the writers learned that “even though church activities and leadership often make young people busier, there’s a significant upside. Congregational involvement seems to lessen anxiety by reminding young people of what’s important and inviting them to step away from the chaos of their lives to refocus on loving God and others” [pg. 102].

In other words, we need to invest more in our youths. It’s not enough to just teach them facts about their Catholic faith.  We can’t just give them a curt “Just believe and don’t question it”.  If they don’t understand why it’s relevant to their lives, teens will likely walk away from the Church.  They will abandon their faith. They’ll settle for the false promises that society tries to sell them. But inviting our teenagers to become more active participants in our parishes, will help them stay grounded in their faith.

How do we do that? Inviting them to participate in the life of the parish as ushers, cantors, and lectors is a good first step. Having more programs that address the issues facing today’s teenagers is also a good idea. But we must also be willing to lead and mentor them when they approach us with questions about the Faith. And we also have to empathize with them, and the struggles that they face.

And please remember to pray for our youths and young adults.

The post Bullied for Adhering to the Faith in a Catholic High School appeared first on Catholic Stand.

According to SCOTUS, an individual’s religious beliefs are equally as important as another person’s objectively disordered sexual proclivity.  Or to say it another way, Christian beliefs in regard to homosexuality and same-sex marriage are at least legally on equal par with the LGBTQ activists’ notions of what is acceptable moral behavior.  

As an NBC News article on the SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission says, “The Supreme Court’s decision means that business owners cannot be successfully sued for refusing on religious grounds to provide services to same-sex couples, even in the 21 states with human rights laws similar to Colorado’s ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

It’s doubtful that the SCOTUS ruling will stop the LGBTQ activists from calling orthodox Christians ‘homophobic.’  Name-calling is and always will be the number one weapon of the real bigots and those who are truly intolerant. But, if nothing else, as Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his opinion, “Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day.”  Needless to say, the fight is not over.

Science and Homosexuality

I recently received a letter from a reader who took issue with my CS article “PFLAG ‘T.H.AW.’- A Program to Make Homosexual Behavior ‘Okay’.”  He said Catholic teaching on homosexuality is “evil” and “pure bible-based bigotry and misdirection.”

What was especially sad is the writer of the letter said he was raised Catholic but is now an agnostic/deist.

I responded by asking him, “in what way is it evil to love your neighbor and still hate immoral and sinful acts?  And how is it bigotry or misdirection to believe something that has good evidence supporting its veracity?”

Dr. Neil E. Whitehead, a research scientist from New Zealand with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, has reviewed all the scientific research on homosexuality in his book “My Genes Made Me Do it! Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence” (the title is intentionally facetious).  Dr. Whitehead has updated the book three times since its original publication, and the latest edition (August 2016, 4th edition) looks at all the research up through 2016.   According to the Whitehead, “the more recent the research the more it strengthened the book’s original conclusions” that homosexuality is not genetic. So science says homosexuality is a disordered behavior.  

Catholic Teaching on Morality

Some people today are trying to normalize homosexuality by saying that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in any of His teachings. But as Msgr. Charles Pope points out, “Well, He never mentioned rape, or incest, or sexual abuse of minors either, and His “silence” in these matters should certainly not be taken as approval.”  Simply put, there was no specific reason for Jesus to address homosexuality because no one was questioning whether it was acceptable or not. The Torah already said it was not acceptable.

Jesus also said that whoever hears His apostles hears Him (Luke 10:16).   And the Apostles clearly state that homosexual acts are wrong and sinful.  Such acts are sins in the same way fornication, adultery, and all sexual impurity is sinful.  

So both science and the Bible say homosexuality is a disordered behavior.  Believing something is true that has compelling evidence supporting its veracity is neither bigoted nor misdirection.  It is wholly rational, logical, and reasonable.

Catholic Teaching on homosexuality is also perfectly in line with Catholic teaching on sexuality since sexual intercourse is a procreative and loving act that is only licit only when it is shared by a man and a woman who are husband and wife.  Absent this criterion, it is an immoral act and a mortal sin. Period. End of discussion. This has been Catholic teaching for 2,000 years.

Moral Relativism and Self-Indulgence

Today, however, thanks to the moral relativists and the Me Generation back in the 60s, Catholic teaching on sexuality, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, cohabitation, and marriage, according to the document prepared by the young people that gathered in Rome in March, is “controversial.”  

Last year my over-30 son and his fiancé in her late 20s, met with one of the deacons in our parish as part of their Pre-Cana counseling.  One of the first questions the deacon asked them is “How long have you two been living together?” He was quite surprised when my son responded, “We don’t live together.  I live with my parents and she lives with her parents.”

Apparently, it’s all too common these days for even young Catholic men and women to cohabit for some time before they get married.  At least this is what the deacon told our son and his finance after they ‘shocked’ him by telling him they were not cohabiting. The deacon said they were the only couple he has met with for Pre-Cana counseling in quite some time that had not been cohabiting.  That is pretty sad.

But that is our culture today.  Even the Chevrolet Division of General Motors now promotes immoral behavior.  A current television commercial features a Chevy spokesperson talking to young couples about three different Chevrolet model cars.  The Chevy spokesman says to one of the couples, ‘so I understand you’ve just started dating. This new Trax will be great for you when you move in together.’  Such unabashed immorality is shameful.

Catholic Leaders Need to Lead 

I have to wonder if Archbishop Allen Vigneron, leader of the Detroit Archdiocese, wrote to or considered writing to General Motors Chairman and CEO Mary Bara to express concern over the message the commercial is sending to young people.  Archbishop Vigneron called for Detroit faithful to reject the violence and sin of racism during a Mass on Sunday, April 15 at St. Fabian Catholic Church, in Farmington Hills. June 3 also marks the one year anniversary of the Archdiocese’s “Unleash the Gospel,” a New Evangelization effort aimed at renewing the Church in Archdiocese.  So a statement expressing his concern over Chevrolet’s messaging would not be out of order.

Unfortunately too many Catholic bishops today seem reluctant to address sexual moral issues.  The clerical sexual abuse scandal and how it was handled by so many Catholic bishops has too many Church leaders playing defense or just remaining mute when it comes to matters of sexuality.  But offering guidance to the faithful on such matters is what good shepherds must do.

Today’s most-watched television shows like the Big Bang Theory promote pre-marital sex and cohabitation, while others like Modern Family promote homosexuality and same-sex ‘marriage.’   Even the Big Bang spinoff, Young Sheldon, had to bring sex to the forefront in the show.  Apparently, the problems faced by a 10-year-old genius didn’t provide enough comedy material for today’s writers.  Two recent episodes shifted the focus off of Sheldon and onto his widowed grandmother and her sexual escapades with a male suitor.  Up until those two episodes the show was a thoroughly enjoyable family-friendly show.

What to do?

So along with the entertainment industry, the manufacturing and other industries are now promoting immoral behavior.  Over at First Things last month, Mark Bauerlein has an article entitled “Businesses To Avoid If You Can,” listing 37 different companies that supported the Human Rights Campaign’s brief “arguing against the claims of Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.”  Even cable and internet provider Xfinity had a promo running on its homepage the other day saying “Xfinity LGBTQ – Experience Pride Month with Xfinity – Binge Your Favorite LGBTQ Shows and Films.”

We really need our bishops and pastors to start speaking out against the immorality that is so prevalent in society today.  But we as the laity also need to speak God’s truth to our friends and loved ones who may be confused or wavering when it comes to moral issues.  And as Bauerlein suggests, we should avoid doing business with companies that support immoral behavior if possible. But we can also pray, fast, and say the rosary regularly, too.  It appears this is needed today more than ever before

The post A Win for Morality But the Fight Goes On appeared first on Catholic Stand.

Some Catholics are pretty worked up over the news about the recent change to paragraph 2267 (the death penalty) in the Catechism. But many more are angered by the McCarrick scandal and the revelations in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on past sexual abuse in five dioceses in PA.  Catholic Church ‘news,’ any way you look at it, has been pretty depressing the last couple of weeks.

The McCarrick scandal was news to many, even though it sounds like it was not really news to those who knew him. But it’s possible some good may come of it.  According to the National Catholic Register, a statement from Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, said the bishops “will invite the Vatican to conduct an official Apostolic Visitation to the United States to address questions surrounding Archbishop McCarrick, in consultation with the lay members of the National Review Board.” While bishops are answerable only to the Holy See, maybe some additional teeth will get put into the Dallas Accord as a result of the investigation that will hold bishops accountable for any misdeeds.

That McCarrick could become a prince of the Church is disgusting. But so, too, is the information contained in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report.

Scandal and More Scandal

While there were some instances of pedophilia in the Grand Jury Report, and a few instances involving young girls, the overwhelming majority of the cases of sexual abuse (which happened prior to 2002) involved teenaged boys and young men. The report would seem to coincide with the findings of the 2004 John Jay Report which found that 80 percent of sexual abuse involved young boys.  There can be little doubt that there is an active homosexual subculture in the Church that must be rooted out.

As Fr. Roger Landry wrote recently in an article at the National Catholic Register:

“How bad is the problem of same-sex unchastity in the clergy? It varies among different dioceses and religious orders, and no hard numbers exist, but in various places, it’s big enough to do serious damage.”

And as R.R. Reno wrote at First Things:

“The McCarrick revelations and the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report are part of a larger trend: The episcopal establishment has been ineffective for decades. This does not mean that we have no good and holy bishops. But the system is clotted and mediocre, bringing out the worst in our leaders rather than their best.”

I disagree with Reno. The “system” is not clotted and mediocre,” it is badly broken.  But that does not mean it cannot be fixed.  The question is: are our bishops capable of doing what must be done?

The Death Penalty

In regard to paragraph 2267, some seem to think Pope Francis is trying to change Church doctrine through stealth methods. Whether the revision is a “change” to infallibly taught Catholic Doctrine, or a “development of doctrine” is the question that is causing so much consternation.

“This statement has been understood by many, both inside and outside the Church, to teach that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral and thus is always illicit, even in principle” said an article at First Things. Yet nowhere in the revision do the words “intrinsically immoral” or “always illicit” appear in connection to the death penalty.

Dan Hitchens explained it differently in the Catholic Herald, “. . . the Pope wasn’t talking about the theoretical legitimacy of the death penalty; he was just making a statement that today’s political regimes are so universally awful that they can’t be trusted to administer it.”

To be fair, the new wording does muddy the waters. But also to be fair, they were already muddied a little bit in 1997, when 2267 was first changed to conform to Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae.  Pope St. John Paul II said that the death penalty should only be used in rare and exceptional circumstances. But how are we to define “rare” – is rare one percent, .1 percent, .01 percent, .001 percent, or some other number?  And, to some, the word “rare” means “just about never.”

So maybe Pope Francis is just cranking things up a notch. Maybe he is just saying that even though we are allowed to, we sinful, imperfect human beings should not be throwing stones at all since there are other alternatives available.

Church Teaching

The Church has always taught that legitimate authority is justified in its use of the death penalty. But history has also taught us that some authorities are a lot more legitimate than others, and some ‘legitimate authorities’ are not legitimate at all. The Church also recognizes this (CCC Part 3 Section 1 Chapter 2 Article 2).

There are some pretty awful dictatorships, fake democracies, and communist governments in existence in which the concept of justice is a farce. But even in the very best of countries there can never be a criminal justice system that is perfect because man is not perfect. So maybe it’s really not such a bad idea to err on the side of caution when a human life is at stake.

Of course, I am not a mind reader, so I don’t know what Pope Francis’ thinking is on this. I could be all wrong.  At the same time, all those who are reading something more into the change, that may just not be there, could also be wrong.

Lost Moral Authority?

Cynics may say the paragraph 2267 change is much ado about nothing – that it’s just a poor attempt by the Church to deflect from all the sex abuse scandal news and regain some of its prestige as a mover and shaker when it comes to shaping public opinion. And some might point out that because of the sex abuse scandal that first came to light in 2002, reenergized by the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, and now the scandalous behavior of ex-Cardinal McCarrick and the sexual improprieties reportedly taking place in Honduras and Chile, the Catholic Church has lost a lot of its moral authority.  As such, Catholic Teaching on the death penalty and other moral issues no longer carries much weight.

But the cynics and detractors would be wrong. Catholic teaching on moral issues is God’s teaching.  It comes to us through the Bible and from Jesus Christ – the Word of God Made Flesh – and from His Apostles. So the Catholic Church and her teachings are as authoritative as ever.  The real problem is the same problem that has been with us since Adam and Eve – the devil and his influence on weak, sinful human beings.

What to do?

So while the canon lawyers and theologians debate the revision to the Catechism, (and continue to debate footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia), and while everyone weighs in on trying to figure out how to handle the problems of active homosexual clerics and bishop accountability, what are we, the laity, to do?

The answer to this question is pray, fast, and do penance. Strive to lead virtuous lives and become saints.  And above all continue going to Mass, at least on Saturday or Sunday.

As Catholics we should know that the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church, and that through the Sacrament of the Eucharist we are privileged to be able to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and become one with Him. As Catholics, we also should know that going to Mass and receiving the Eucharist is the most important thing we do each week.

And we should also remember that we are the Mystical Body of Christ, not the institutional Catholic Church, and that we should not put all of our “trust in princes, in children of Adam powerless to save” (Psalms 146:3). We should continue to put our trust in Jesus Christ who is the Way and the Truth and the Life.

Pray for the Church, the Pope, and all the clergy, as well as those who have been victimized by sinful clerics. And do not let the scandals or the theological disputes weaken your faith or keep you from going to Mass or, worse still, entice you to leave the Catholic Church.  We should not let anger, disgust, or despair cloud our judgment.  This is exactly what the devil wants.

The post The Death Penalty, the McCarrick Scandal, and a Grand Jury Report appeared first on Catholic Stand.

The next time someone says, “God loves you just as you are,” or the next time you begin to say or think to yourself, “God loves me just as I am,” please call to mind (former Cardinal) Theodore McCarrick. Did God love him “just as he was” when he was abusing and seducing boys and young men? Does God love sexual abuse of any type? Yes, I am writing in response to the McCarrick and Pennsylvania scandals, but I hope to add to what has been written so far and to reinforce important points already made.

Being Catholic About the Crisis

Above all, we should be Catholic about this crisis. Our English word catholic comes from the Greek kat’ holon, which means “according to (kat’) the whole (holon).” The Catholic Church is ontologically the “Whole Church,” the “Complete Church,” which alone has the fullness of the means of salvation and the most complete truth, in spite of the sins of its members. Therefore the dangers and temptations we face are not only falsehood, heresy, and idolatry, but also half-truths and reductionism – that is, mistaking a part for the whole. As Catholics, we need to be wholistic or complete about this crisis, both in breadth and depth.

Many good practical solutions have been suggested; however, the solution to the crisis will not be thorough unless there is conversion. To what? Incomplete answers to that question are “God,” “Christ,” “Gospel values,” “love,” “healing,” “forgiveness,” or anything other than “all—the whole body of—Catholic doctrine.” Let us be clear: only Catholic doctrine provides the best understanding of God, Christ, the Gospel, love, and everything else.

In response to the current scandal, both Raymond Arroyo and Robert George have reminded us of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ response to the 2002 scandal, “Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity.” But to what? Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine! Faith is the acceptance of Revelation. Doctrine is where Revelation and Faith meet. Doctrine clarifies Revelation and defines Faith. In the long history of the Church, there has never been reform, that is, the renewal of faith and zeal among the Church’s members, without a return to doctrine.

If now-Archbishop McCarrick and every other clerical offender had been faithful to Catholic sexual doctrine, none of the abuse in the Church these many decades would have happened. When someone like a Cardinal does not practice what he preaches, there are only two options: either change the practice or change the preaching. The “preaching” at issue here is Catholic sexual doctrine, the core of which is that God has given two purposes to sex: life-long fully committed love and openness to procreation. The corollary to this teaching, of course, is the discipline of celibacy, which these clerics seriously violated.

Catholic doctrine is challenging to everyone. That does not make it wrong. Changing sexual doctrine by “creating” new doctrine that contradicts it in effect turns the Catholic Church into a Protestant denomination. Those bishops, priests, and theologians seeking to contradict doctrine would admit as much if they had any integrity. Those who subvert doctrine by calling its contradiction “development” might well find there is a Fifth Round in the Ninth Circle of the Inferno just for them.

Rocket Men

One of the most disturbing things that has been reported about Archbishop McCarrick is how freely, easily, and comfortably he abused and seduced without any qualms about deviating from Catholic sexual doctrine. What does this say about his belief in the other doctrines of the Church? When he said Mass, did he believe in the Nicene Creed and Transubstantiation? How could he? Was he like Elton John’s “Rocket Man,” with Faith instead of science? “All this Faith I don’t understand—it’s just my job five days a week.”

How many cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons are the religious version of “Rocket Man” going through the motions of their ministry in order to pursue their real agenda? How many of the clergy are “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose which doctrines make sense to them and make them feel good about themselves? How many ordained ministers were educated to assent to all doctrine? How many members of the clergy require the managers, administrators, and teachers under their authority to do the same? When was the last time you heard a homily that called the congregation to fidelity to all doctrine? The last time you even heard the word doctrine used, unless it was in a disparaging way? When has the Catechism as a whole been promoted at your parish or Catholic school, and not just a line or paragraph to rationalize the agenda of someone who otherwise dissents from doctrine?

How many in the pews accept that God has given two purposes to sex? How many, often with good intentions, think, “I can support fornication or same-sex marriage or pornography while being against child abuse, adultery, incestuous marriage, and polyamorous marriage?” How many do not see that once a single exception is made to the two God-given purposes of sex, there is no logical end to the exceptions that can be made? The same subversion of love, procreation, and marriage in the name of “consenting adults” will inevitably subvert the meanings of “consenting” and “adult” as well. Whenever we reject the two God-given purposes of sex, we are, in the words of Robert Bork, slouching towards Gomorrah. Reform and renewal in the Church will be more complete inasmuch as there are Catholics who commit themselves to fidelity to all Catholic doctrine.

The Gay Subculture

The complete sex abuse crisis is about much more than pedophilia. It is about the abuse of teenage boys and young men. It is time for everyone in the Church to admit that the great majority of victims—more than 80%—are male. This is not to attack good clergymen, faithful to celibacy and doctrine, who have same-sex attraction. It is to join Bishop Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, in shining a light on the gay subculture in the clergy that includes many bishops, a subculture that is sexually active and working overtime to change doctrine on sex and marriage in order to justify its behavior. Although few of these actively gay clergymen have molested children, they take care of their own, and they are ruthless toward those who oppose their agenda. Not a single bishop has admitted knowing about Archbishop McCarrick’s decades-long behavior! The Vatican’s response has been woefully inadequate because it reduces the crisis to pedophilia. The pope himself needs to clean up the heretical and promiscuous gay subculture throughout the hierarchy and the Church.

Good calls are being made for accountability, including financial audits to follow the money. Complete accountability would call for knowing which dioceses have complied with the Congregation for Catholic Education’s 2005 instruction to “. . . not admit to the seminary or to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’.” This admonition was reiterated in the 2016 instruction of the Congregation for the Clergy, that “If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.” The magnitude of the crimes committed by clerical offenders clearly vindicates the wisdom of these instructions, even if they mean that Holy Orders would be denied to men with same-sex attraction who would be celibate and faithful to all doctrine.

A complete address of this crisis would include the religious orders, male and female, and not just the diocesan clergy. Has there been abuse and seduction in a religious order? Is fidelity to all Catholic doctrine insisted on before and after vows are made? Is there a subculture deviating from celibacy with impunity? Have the above Vatican instructions been obeyed?

The heretical and activist gay subculture includes the many, mostly heterosexual, lay employees of Catholic institutions who, while having zero tolerance for child abuse, have no problem with un-celibate clergy because they have no problem with abortion, same-sex marriage, co-habitation, fornication, contraception, and/or other infidelities to Catholic doctrine. “Whatever adults consent to” is the “morality” actually believed in by many collecting a paycheck from the Catholic Church. Often enough, supporting the Sexual Revolution is required for promotion in a Catholic institution.

Where Hope Lies

In the history of the Church, there have never been more members of the laity who understand the Faith. Regarding sexuality, the Church has greatly benefitted from the work of Janet Smith, Mary Eberstadt, Jason Evert, Ryan Anderson, and Christopher West. But there are many others who go about serving Our Lord, even when they are unappreciated, marginalized, and beleaguered in their heterodox Catholic institutions. How many bishops are identifying and reaching out to the orthodox members of their dioceses, finding ways to use their skills, and protecting them from heterodox superiors?

There have never been so many excellent resources for growing in orthodox Catholic Faith: books, periodicals, websites, DVDs, podcasts, etc.

There have never been more orthodox communities and movements, formal and informal, for lay people to support each other in fidelity.

We now have many news sources dedicated to the truth, such as EWTN, the National Catholic Register, Catholic News Agency, LifeSite News, The Catholic Thing, Crisis Magazine, Catholic World Report, and Catholic Herald.

There are many faithful bishops – such as Bishop Morlino – priests, and deacons. God bless them and keep them strong!

Ultimately, our hope is in the Lord. The Holy Spirit is always available. God has gifted human beings with free will. Conversion is possible.

Action That Is Called For

Archbishop McCarrick’s penance should be to disclose to us (not just to a Vatican investigator in private) who in the hierarchy knew about his behavior and how he was able to rise through the ranks to the preeminent position of authority. He should tell us everything he knows about the heretical gay subculture in the Church. The same goes for everyone, including bishops, in a position to do so. Everyone in a position of responsibility in a Catholic institution would do well to heed the readings from the prophet Ezekiel we have heard at Mass since the Feast of the Assumption, such as:

As I live, says the Lord God, because my sheep have been given over to pillage, and because my sheep have become food for every wild beast, for lack of a shepherd; because my shepherds did not look after my sheep, but pastured themselves and did not pasture my sheep; because of this, shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God: I swear I am coming against these shepherds (Ezekiel 34:8-10).

Calls are being made for bishops to do public penance. This will be meaningless without their public assent to all doctrine. And every bishop needs to demand of the leaders of the institutions in their diocese: Show me how your institution witnesses in word and deed that all Catholic doctrine is objectively true. The laity need to make the same demand and then give or withhold financial support accordingly.

We must trust God, not human beings; trust the Sacrament of Holy Orders instituted by Christ, Apostolic Succession, and Papal Primacy. We must realize that all who are ordained, including popes, fall within the entire range of virtue and vice.

We really hear the Gospel, we really experience the unconditional love of God when we realize that God does not love us just as we are. “But God proves His love for us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). God loves us in spite of who we are. Each of us is a sinner. Sin is infidelity to Catholic doctrine. God does not love infidelity to doctrine. God hates our sins while still loving us. We accept God’s love to the extent that we are faithful to all Catholic doctrine. As Our Lord said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Thanks be to God it is never too late to become more faithful.

The post Does God Love You Just As You Are? appeared first on Catholic Stand.

I am only speaking out now about the scandals in the Church because I remained silent before and contributed to the growth of the pernicious poison that will choke the life out of the Church if it is not rooted out immediately. I am sick of remaining silent for fear of giving scandal to the laity, when it is with them, that it now seems, is our main hope of deliverance.

Since the age of eight, my closest friend was, what later came to be called ‘gay’, although the word did not exist in those days. All I knew was that he was, and always has been my best friend, not least because we were complimentary to each other, but most of all because he would never let me down. Vincent was a brilliant pianist and had most of the classical repertoire in his head when I couldn’t read or write with any proficiency. By the time I could, he had a degree in English from Cambridge and became a lecturer for the rest of his life. He hated sports of all kinds and I was good at almost all of them. When I was in dire straits and in danger of being left homeless it was Vincent who offered me a home. At his funeral, I cried for the first time in living memory. After his death, my wife and I became close to another ‘gay’ friend equally talented and equally committed to the Catholic faith for which he, like Vincent, would have died. He lived with a ‘gay’ friend whom he loved, but with whom, as he explicitly insisted, he never had any sexual relationship. For him, the very idea of gay marriage was utterly abhorrent.

Power In Weakness

I have begun with these two stories because I do not want to be accused of being homophobic for what follows. The truth of the matter is I have met many so-called ‘gay’ Catholics, who have inspired me to such an extent that I now have no doubt that there have been many such mystics and saints. These ‘gay Catholics’ were generally born with what others may see as a weakness just as I was born with a weakness too. But for St Paul (2 Corinthians 12:9) what others call a weakness can become a person’s greatest strength, as dyslexia has been my greatest strength.

It is perhaps understandable that in the past ‘gay’ men were attracted to communities of men as the safest and most desirable place to seek God. When I tried my vocation even before the Second Vatican Council, of forty-five others at least six were ‘gay’ although I only realise this with hindsight. At the time ‘gay’ seminarians kept their heads down, they were there but they were latent. I know several who went on to become excellent priests.

50,000 left the Priesthood

A massive disillusionment after the Council led many tens of thousands of young priests and religious to leave the priesthood and religious life. The usual figure quoted is 50,000, but I think that is an underestimation. For obvious reasons, the vast majority of ‘gay’ seminarians and priests remained behind. When in the sixties and seventies celibacy, in general, became taboo for the majority of the younger generation vocations to the priesthood suffered, except for many ‘gay’ Catholics, who continued to be attracted to the priesthood and the religious life. When in 1979 I was giving a lecture tour in South Africa I found that St John Vianney Seminary in Pretoria was almost entirely populated by ‘gay’ seminarians. I found the whole atmosphere sick and depressing. They openly admitted that for them the vow of celibacy meant that although this obliged them to refrain from sex with women it did not prevent them from having sex with other men, and they did quite openly.

The Troubles at Maynooth

When I returned to Europe I met a young religious priest whilst lecturing on Mystical Theology in Rome only to find the same sort of  mentality had infected his own order, or at least at the house of studies where he returned to teach, and where he found that as a heterosexual male he was treated as a pariah. Returning to England I was made the Dean of Studies at the National Radio and Television Centre at Hatch End. When a large group of Franciscan students came to make a video recording of their music on the life of St Francis I found they all seemed to be ‘gay’. My feelings at the time were confirmed by a Franciscan Priest who I met in London only a matter of weeks ago who was a student at that house of studies in Canterbury at the time, where he described how the ‘gay’ seminarians gradually took over and ruled. In more modern times a similar situation was discovered at the great Irish seminary of Maynooth and, as those who read the Catholic media will know,  there have been long and bitter struggles to try and remedy the situation. However, all these examples from my own personal experience are as nothing compared with the situation in the USA at the present. Just as later Rome forbade all talk about women priests, in the nineteen-nineties, Rome forbade all talk about homosexuality. It was strictly forbidden. It was and has been the green light for homosexual males to flood into and take over many, if not most seminaries. Then later this happened to whole dioceses with more and more homosexual bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, encouraging and promoting their own with what now appears to be disastrous consequences. One of the most conservative but highly respected Catholic moral theologians in the USA, Professor Janet Smith, has said that now most dioceses in the USA are full of homosexual priests and many are run by them. In fact well over seventy percent of clergy from top to bottom are ‘gay’.

They are Pushy, Pugnacious and Partisan

I don’t just mean ‘gay’ as friends of mine were ‘gay’ as many good priests have been and still are ‘gay’  ‘ – but militantly ‘gay’ – not as celibate individuals but as pushy, pugnacious partisans with agendas hardly distinguishable from secular LGBT communities that they wish to impose on the Church. This can be seen in parishes they have taken over in the USA.

I am not a psychiatrist, but it seems clear to me that whereas individual seminarians and priest can make excellent pastors when they become the majority in a seminary or in a whole diocese the consequences can be extremely serious. Evidence has already shown many times over that attractions, flirtations, love affairs, envy, jealousy and all the other lovemaking shenanigans soon become the norm and traditional spirituality is all but outlawed, as are new heterosexual vocations who either have to keep their heads down and fit in or get out, as many do. The impression is at present being given from ‘on high’ that the sexual horrors that have depraved the Church for all too long now are all but over, but that is far from the truth. If paedophilia is finally under control and dealt with, which I very much doubt, then pederasty is all but out of control especially in some countries like the USA.

The Elephant in the Church

It is the ‘elephant in the room’, or I suppose I should say in the Church and as Cardinal Muller said recently, over eighty times more prevalent than paedophilia ever was. There can be no going forward without this whole matter coming out and into the open, and being dealt with as it was in the early Church. I admit that despite my experiences I found the matter so detestable that I pretended that I had been mistaken and looked the other way, hoping I had been unlucky enough to have stumbled on rare anomalies that would simply go away. But in subsequent years, like insidious fungus, the proliferation of pederasty has grown underground only to mushroom all over the Catholic world, but in the USA there are now whole drifts of them almost everywhere. In recent months I have been shocked beyond shocked.

Cheers and Jeers for Cardinal Hume

I listened to a  ‘gay’ speaker who was cheered when he said that Cardinal Hume was ‘on our side’  immediately followed by jeers of derision when he went on to say – ‘as long as we don’t do it’. For communities of ‘gays,’ the very idea was unthinkable! Let me be quite clear, sodomy was not only considered an abomination in the Old Testament but in the New Testament too. If it was committed in the early Church it had to be admitted publicly and the offenders had to undergo the sacrament of reconciliation throughout Lent with all the appropriate penances. If they continued to offend after that they were permanently excluded from the Christian community. Nothing has changed nor can it change – sodomy is a  very serious sin and permanent offenders who are priests, bishops or cardinals, being in mortal sin, cannot administer the sacraments lawfully whether there has been an official condemnation from Rome or not.  It would be the same if your parish priest installed a mistress in the presbytery. Their seriously sinful actions ‘ipso facto’ (by the very act of performing them) instantly separate them from the mystical body of Christ. They cannot, therefore, perform any of the sacraments lawfully, nor is it lawful for any of the faithful to approach them to do so. Parishes run by such priests are in effect under an interdict whether such an edict has been issued from Rome or not. They simply do not belong to us nor we to them despite all the external similarities.

Time for Transparency

The time for secrecy and cover-ups is over. It is now the time for truth, transparency and accountability. Everything is about to come out into the open anyway and in the very near future. However, I will now take my bow, because other journalists will expose and comment on the scandals that will go on and on.  My job will be to do what I do best and that is to offer the solution. I have said what I have said to make it plain that I am not just an old ‘has-been’ who lives in ‘cloud cuckoo land’ endlessly peddling pious platitudes. Nor do I intend to act like a nouveau Nero playing my fiddle while Rome is reduced to ashes, my job is to offer the solution? But more of this next time.

The post The Elephant in the Room Threatens the Church appeared first on Catholic Stand.

Many of you reading this are familiar with much of my journey and story. If you are, you likely know that I have had more than my share of struggles in my pursuit of Catholicism at her core. That core is chasing holiness. To quote the Baltimore Catechism, which I was raised on, in question 6 of the very 1st lesson: “Why did God make you? God made me know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” Simple and obvious, right? Yet it seems to have somewhat eluded me for over 60 years. Or to be more honest I did much of the eluding, at least in large part.

The original story of my return to the Church in 2005, after 35 years away, is featured elsewhere, as are the struggles which have dogged me on and off for several years even after. In short, I have returned, re-returned, and re-returned yet again. Essentially, I have been converted, reverted, and rediscovered. Okay, you get it. My walk has not been in all cases exactly perfect or consistent. Not even close.

In and Out of the Catholic Church

Prayerfully and humbly I expect that to change going forward. You might ask, as I, in fact, do at times, why I should believe this time to be different. Yet prayerfully it is. In the past, my dalliances were with other forms of what I still considered to be “catholic” Christianity. I would leave for 2-3 months and come repeatedly back. Then after more mind-bending and overthinking, I would step away again. This time though I was determined that nothing and no one would convince me otherwise, and I relied solely on the gift of reason, which is valid if used properly and not in a vacuum, to bring me forward. I stepped away for nearly a year, studying all types of alternative spiritualities, something I have been familiar with in the past but digging far deeper than before, and they made sense to me. Or at least to my brain.

And God let it happen. His gift of free will was not going to interfere with it or with me. It seemed that the struggles I already had with the Church and her authority were done—I simply could not rationally accept them. Truth be told, the greatest apologist for the Faith could not have swayed my mind, as it was already made up. I was buying herbs and crystals, delving deeply into the Tarot and occult magick, and at a breakneck pace ridding myself of all things Christian within my life and home, including crucifixes, statues, and the like. I found myself not believing in Satan, hell, or anything else that might have slowed me down. My intellect was not just darkened, but nearing pitch black. I was blinding myself and leading what was left of my fairly intelligent brain into a ditch of dung.

If you read my bio, you will note I happen to be same-sex attracted. I am not ashamed of those feelings, nor should I need to be. However, feelings are not meant to lead or control, and they had full force begun to. I have been celibate for almost 20 years, but I was hoping in my heart to break that as well. Thankfully I didn’t, but I had participated on far too numerous days and nights in conversations and online events that I am now deeply ashamed of and embarrassed about. Details are not the point here. Jettisoning towards the edge of a cliff with nothing to hold me back however is. For that is where I was fast flying towards.

Dreams of Home

I should specify that I do not intend every article I post here or on my blog going forward to be regarding those topics here mentioned. I share them now simply to give the reader a picture of where I was headed. And it was not a safe place.

A few months ago, things came crashing, and in some very unexpected ways. For weeks or even months, I had repeated and vivid nightmares, 2-3 times weekly, about being back in the Church, or at very least being the devoted Christian I once had been. I would often awaken trembling and sensing such loss inside, missing the only place I had ever spiritually been at home—Christ and Rome. A few of those times I nearly came back to my senses upon waking but after a few moments of brushing the cobwebs away, I reasoned my way out of those dreams and rejected the message and warning behind them. In other words, upon awakening, the pursuit of holiness was not so much.

Honest confusion is not a sin. Most of us have those moments where we simply cannot understand why God allows something in ours or other people’s lives, or where we at least fleetingly wonder about the theology we have been taught, whether as Catholics or Christians of other communities of faith. Sin comes in when we remain in that confusion after God has already revealed Himself to us. Sadly, that was what I was doing, over and over. I had become spiritually frozen or nearly so.

A Saintly Friend’s TV Visit

One night when I was at the point of likely no return, I turned on EWTN for literally old time’s sake. I had crossed the line, cursed and blasphemed our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother, and felt absolutely no conscious desire for the Eucharist. Ever. However, one Saint I never could cross was St Padre Pio. In yet one more article I wrote on another site a few years ago, I share the story of how he intersected with my family in some amazing ways. For that reason, he was just a bit too close for comfort. No, St Pio was not going to be crisscrossed by me even at my worst moments. In any case on EWTN that night I saw a guest who had a deep devotion to him, and who was traveling with 5 relics, two including remains of his miracle-laden blood. The display was being taken all over the USA, and I was surprisingly intrigued. Suddenly In the depths of my heart, I wanted to see them in person, and at this moment I cannot say particularly why. Hopping online I found that the exhibit would be just an hour away from me 6 days later, and this would be the only time it would be in my fair state of MN. By the time I finished hearing this guest, I was already making plans to go—and more so, to return to the Church once for all. Padre Pio was again interceding for someone in my family—this time me.

The next day after the EWTN program, I made the most difficult sacramental confession of my life—and the most freeing. I confessed my wrongdoing in detail, and in the next several days began to “re-Catholicize” my home. It was a bit like being on autopilot, but I was certainly aware and making the conscious choice to yet again face all my former colleagues in the Catholic world, and to mend some gigantic fences. I had a lot to make right. I still do.

God, however, had made me an offer I could not reasonably refuse, while ironically giving me that very choice to do so. I said yes. I would follow the dash towards holiness once for all. In the past, when I did so many times of “back and forth,” I would question and fear and wonder if I could make it, even shortly after my many returns. Truth again be told, I cannot. Not by a fleshly power at least.

 For it is [not your strength, but it is] God who is effectively at work in you, both to will and to work [that is, strengthening, energizing, and creating in you the longing and the ability to fulfill your purpose] for His good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13 AMP)

This time is different, though, in that I believe it was totally the grace and mercy of God beyond all my deductive logic. Reason has its place to be sure, particularly when mixed with faith, and I do not plan to bury my head in the sand or any other convenient place as I again move forward with this thing called Catholic Christianity. But apologetics and intellect alone are not enough. At some point, it takes a sovereign move of the Holy Spirit upon the unplumbed caverns of our hearts. And that is what I believe happened to me. Since that time, I have not looked back—not for a millisecond. And the nightmares ended. As the late Keith Green said:

Like a foolish dreamer trying to build a highway to the sky
All my hopes would come tumbling down, and I never knew just why
Until today, when you pulled away the clouds that hung like curtains on my eyes
Well I’ve been blind all these wasted years and I thought I was so wise
But then you took me by surprise
Like waking up from the longest dream, how real it seemed
Until your love broke through
I’ve been lost in a fantasy, that blinded me
Until your love broke through
All my life I’ve been searching for that crazy missing part
And with one touch, you just rolled away the stone that held my heart
And now I see that the answer was as easy, as just asking you in
And I am so sure I could never doubt your gentle touch again
It’s like the power of the wind
Like waking up from the longest dream, how real it seemed
Until your love broke through
I’ve been lost in a fantasy, that blinded me
Until your love, until your love, broke through

Songwriters: KEITH GORDON GREEN, RANDY STONEHILL, TODD FISHKIND © EMI Music Publishing. For non-commercial use only.

Another Keith Green song speaks of being asleep in the light. I am pretty sure he was writing to describe me in both because it is important to see and avoid, the process I went through during each of these transitions. First, I was back in the arms of Holy Mother Church and did well for several years. Somewhere in that period, though, the honeymoon phase had ended.

I had slowly become wearied by inconsistencies I saw, not in the teachings of Rome but in the actions of other Catholic people, and, to use another metaphor, my eyes started to look down into the murky waters below rather than into the face of Jesus, who the entire  time had been holding me up from those ugly waves, something like what happened to St Peter when he walked on the water with our Lord but began to drown when he looked away from Him. It is at that point, and we all hit it from time to time, that a choice must be made, or re-made. I can look up or continue to drown in my doubts, anger, fears, cares of life, and the like.

Too many times I have chosen to keep sinking. In my case, it is the utter mercy of Jesus that I did not drown totally, but I was closer to doing so than I care to admit as I write this. My biggest prayer is to implore each reader not to follow in that inept example and to instead move our gazes upward. If we do, He will indeed look back and we will find ourselves back into the boat with Him, as well as Peter and the other Apostles. That boat is very simply Christ and the Catholic Church.  And she will take us to the safety of shore if we allow her to. If we do not, what was once the ocean of mercy can become some very volatile stormwaters, and we can sink to the bottom faster than we ever expect. I do not know what would have happened if I had not mercifully been given an unexpected moment to say yes one more time and then done so at last. I do not wish to find out. Please don’t do so either. I am so glad to be on the shore, finally. And I wish to see you there with me. Drowning is not an option for any of us. Neither is foolish dreaming.

The post A Foolish Dreamer Awakens in the Church at Last appeared first on Catholic Stand.