The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


Homophobia in the Church? Really?

posted by jmcgee

The opening paragraphs of this piece at Huffington Post by Michele Somerville certainly got my attention:

I attended a Roman Catholic baptism about two weeks ago. A crowd of young parents and others of all ages stood in semi-circle around the font. The atmosphere was reverent yet festive. Toddlers squirmed. The church was exquisite. Blades of late-morning light slid down through colored glass. The priest exuded hope and delight as he kicked off the rites. As the two parents approached the font to offer their child to the church, I began to tear up. My 11-year-old daughter Grace, not unaccustomed to my poet’s penchant for being capsized by moments so tender, saw my waterworks start up, rolled her eyes as adolescents do, smiled, and handed me a tissue. As I often do when my emotions get the best of me in the presence of my children, I get all pedagogical on them. I whispered sidebars to Grace: “That’s litany of the saints, it’s beautiful when sung in Latin… And that the part about Satan and the empty promises — it’s technically an exorcism!”

I didn’t have to explain that it was no ordinary baptism we were witnessing. She knew it was extraordinary, because I had taught her. The two parents at the font were bravely (or so I believe) demonstrating their desire not to throw the baby out with the baptismal water.

They were two gay dads asking a church governed by bullies to bless their child.

My daughter later asked how it was that gay people could have their children baptized in Catholic churches but not be married in them. Good question. I broke it down for her. I told her a far greater percentage of Catholics support gay marriage than support the Vatican. I characterized the failure of my church to offer gay Catholics marriage in the church as just that — “a failure.” And a sin.

Well, it’s all downhill after that.

In Somerville’s view, since  people in the pews evidently support gay marriage, those stodgy homophobes in the Vatican need to get with the program and go with the flow — all of which seems to ignore a basic tenet of most religions, which is that moral principles aren’t really decided by popular vote.   She goes on to cheerfully toss around statistics and make wildly unfounded assumptions, evidently drawing on whatever pops into her head:

Most Catholics know that the church is in a unique position when it comes to the question of gay marriage for several reasons, not the least of which is that by many estimates, more than 50 percent of Catholic priests are gay. Many Catholics know that many of the bishops who set the homophobic agenda are themselves closeted gay men grappling with the psychological fallout of growing up gay in a hostile homophobic world and church.

Say what?

The gist of it all is Somerville’s underlying view that the Vatican never tires of preaching a gospel of hate — “God hates fags,” as she artfully puts it — and that Rome’s agenda is driven by rampant homophobia because, you know, , well, the Church thinks that God hates fags.  Which, evidently, is the sum and substance of Catholic teaching on this subject.

Again: say what?

Somerville might want to take another look at the catechism’s teachings on sex, where she will find this: 

All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

 2349 “People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.” Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence.

If Somerville is curious about the subject of homosexuality, she’ll find that the catechism makes a distinction between attraction and behavior:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

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

Finally, there’s a document put out a few years ago by the USCCB, “Always Our Children”:

To live and love chastely is to understand that “only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator’s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life” (United States Catholic Conference, Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning, 1991, p. 55). This is a fundamental teaching of our Church about sexuality, rooted in the biblical account of man and woman created in the image of God and made for union with one another (Gn 2-3)….

…Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them (cf. The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, no. 10).

Yeah, lots of “God hates fags” stuff there, alright.   

The document concludes:

To our homosexual brothers and sisters we offer a concluding word. This message has been an outstretched hand to your parents and families inviting them to accept God’s grace present in their lives now and to trust in the unfailing mercy of Jesus our Lord. Now we stretch out our hands and invite you to do the same. We are called to become one body, one spirit in Christ. We need one another if we are to ” . . . grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love” (Eph 4:15-16).

Though at times you may feel discouraged, hurt, or angry, do not walk away from your families, from the Christian community, from all those who love you. In you God’s love is revealed. You are always our children.

Catholic teaching on sexuality is more complicated and nuanced than many realize. And, despite what writers like Somerville may think, there is a moral framework on which that teaching is built — a framework constructed on something truly radical, and audacious, and sacred, a framework that not only offers dignity to those people who experience same sex attraction, but which also demands that they be treated with Christian love.

But, of course, it’s simpler to just decide that it all boils down to “God hates fags,” and leave it at that.

UPDATE: Comments on this thread are now closed.
  
 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(75)
post a comment
Pat McNamara

posted October 11, 2010 at 9:20 am


“Catholicism is a deep matter; you cannot take it up in a teacup.”
Blessed John Henry Newman



report abuse
 

ApolloGenX

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:03 am


That’s fantastic, I am sure there are writings out there that are somewhat sympathetic to gays. So what?
When the predominate attitude of clergy and hierarchical members is not one that encourages tolerance, but instead spends the overwhelming majority of time (and money) actively pursuing to have rights denied to a group, you have the classic “do as I say not what I do” syndrome that has plagued the Catholic Church for hundreds of years.
I am quite certain the church writings do not support pedophilia and rape as well. So what?
The problem is not that people believe the writings of the doctrine to be something they aren’t. The problem is that people are no longer fooled and are judging the church based on its actions. When you have an organization full of hypocrites, then stated ideals are no longer a viable excuse.
The problem is that the church no longer serves anyone’s cause but it’s own, and no amount of righteous doctrine will cover up the horrible actions of this corrupt organization any longer.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:06 am


We understand the derogatory tone, insults, uninformed statements can inflame us but please let us not respond by even repeating such hurtful phrases even for the sake of disputing them. It does not glorify Our Lord Jesus, speak well of us nor uplift any human. No fruit will come of it if we are ruled by any passions other than sharing the love and mercy of Our Lord.
And it is accurate that there has been a higher percentage of homosexually inclined males in the seminary than in the population at large.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:33 am


Sensus Fidei,
I rather like the idea of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is a lot to be said for trying to uplift one another.
I’m not sure you’ll meet with unlimited agreement here, once some people comprehend the significance of your name. I’ll do my part to keep the peace, though, and sit this thread out.
I appreciate Deacon Kandra’s willingness to address what has become a very relevant issue in American Christianity.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:35 am


Deacon Greg,
On Friday in your city, it was discovered that a Bronx gang had held hostage a seventeen year old man and a 33 year old man and sodomized them with a plunger and a baseball bat and burned them on their genitals with cigarettes.
Their crime was being gay. Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986 written under the direction of Benedict XVI, says that the cause of this atrocity is the gay civil rights movement.
Also in point 10, which you cited:
“When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right(*), neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”
So the Church’s response is “Stuff happens.” Not “God hates fags.” But it is ruthless indifference. It is more than ruthless indifference to oppose anti-bullying legislation that mentions gays when there have been 14 teenage suicides this year caused by anti-gay bullying.
* In the Hierarchy’s eyes not even protection from bullying or employment discrimination are licit because both will lead to a protection of “behavior to which no one has any conceivable right.”
To those of us who don’t engage in that behavior but still live as citizens of this Republic it seems a bit unfair that we have to be sacrificed to root out the behavior the Vatican finds objectionable.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:40 am


The Vatican is also guilty of conflating same-sex rape with homosexual sex. It says the Sodom account is about homosexuality.
In fact the actions of the Sodomites in attempting to gang rape angels are more clearly parallel to the Bronx gang who raped two gay men with foreign objects over several days. The police remarked that the gang bleached the apartment and repainted it to get rid of copious blood evidence.



report abuse
 

Dharmashaiva

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:41 am


“Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
Approved? No. What about “allowed”?



report abuse
 

Mr Flapatap

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:47 am


She needs to do her homework better (am I asking too much?). The statement “God hates fags” actually comes from the Westboro Baptist church which, as a matter of fact, hates Catholics too.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:49 am


Poor kid. Has to grow up without knowing what it is to have a mother.
He has to pretend he does not mind missing out on what many believe to be life’s most precious relationship, of all relationships.
Funny notion of what it means to be “loving”. I was taught that “love” is selfless; it is about giving, not taking; it is about doing what is right for the other person – not justifying why it’s okay to make the other person do without something precious, so that you can use that person to fill your own emotional neediness.
I have nothing against people whose sexuality is different. But I hate it when people justify doing what they know in their hearts to be selfish and wrong.



report abuse
 

romancrusader

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:50 am


What’s next after gay unions? Polygamy. After that? You do the math. Like I say one abberation leads to another one. Now, people will say, roman, what do you know about marriage? I may not be married but I can tell you what God has to say about marriage.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality and marriage are infallible.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:50 am


Apollo the holiness of the Catholic Church (which is in essence, Jesus Christ), is still holy regardlesss of the holiness of its members. It’s always interesting that when people attack sinful Catholics, they never mention any of the holy Catholics.
The CC was made for sinners, even if those sinners are the ordained. It’s not the ideal of course, but even Jesus was betrayed by His own. With the exception of Judas, all came back to repentance and grace. That’s the hope the CC offers all of us, big sinners and little sinners. We all, like the fallen who betrayed Jesus, have hope among us as long as we have the CC. Fortunately, that hope and salvation has noting to do with the fallen among us, even if those fallen are priests and bishops. Our job is to pray for them too, and keep our eye on Jesus, as Jesus IS the CC.
As for the post, it was beautiful, I think. I don’t know why it’s so hard for many to understand that “being gay” is not sinful,albeit homosexual sex is. On the other hand, homosexaul sex is no more sinful than premarital sex, so why the “hate accusations of the CC?”
I would at least appreicate if those making such accusations would be honest in that the “CC hates sin”, not those who commit the sin(s).
We are all sinners, and rest assured, all of our sins are hated, and all of us are loved. Why a gay couple who has gay sex thinks they are some unique target by the Church has long been an engima, especially when the CC hates all sin, by every group, individual, race, etc. Sin is sin, the rejection of God’s teaching and the choice to be separated from Him.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:52 am


Perhaps what bothers me the most about this is that baptismal “parents” agree to rear their “children” in the teachings of the Catholic faith prior to baptism. I find it doubtful that a same-sex couple living in open defiance of Church teaching on the issue are being resolute in their commitment to rear the child in the Catholic faith. This is hardly confined to same-sex attraction, by the way (think contraception, cohabitation prior to marriage, etc). Baptism may be more predominately used as a photo-op than a sacrament (right along with first communions, confirmations, etc), though it’s hard to quantify.
…and so the question that comes to mind is:
Why do people who disagree with Church teaching choose to confer sacraments from ‘an organization full of hypocrites’ onto their children? Were I a parent who believed as this same-sex couple probably does, a baptism from the Catholic Church would be the last thing I would want for my child.



report abuse
 

romancrusader

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:56 am


I will also add that those who think that the Church is homophobic for her stance against same-sex unions are racist themselves.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:56 am


Klaire, if you don’t agree with the teachings of the Church about the sacredness of the act of love and its relationship to procreation, I am sure there are plenty of churches who would love to have you.
Of course, then you have to put up with the fact that everyone else will want the right to pick and choose what is and isn’t “a sin”, too.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 10:58 am


Our sins are not all equal. Not according to Christianity.
Sins that are repented are forgiven.
Sins that are embraced, and lived as a lifestyle for the rest of your life, are not.
And sins that require a child to be motherless, and pretend he does not mind being motherless – that’s hurting your own kids.



report abuse
 

Rick

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:29 am


Kiro, I think you may have misunderstood Klaire’s comment. I think she is supporting the Church and futher explaining its teaching. Maybe both of us should re-read what she wrote.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:29 am


Didn’t delve deeply and doesn’t exactly ‘matter’ but how is said child motherless? Is mother deceased?
Question for you Kiro, if Bp. Olmsted had his way Sr. Margaret McBride couldn’t have saved the life that could have been saved… mother of 4… whilst her 11 month unviable fetus was heading to heaven regardless. Would you have considered Bp. Olmsted’s action among “sins that require a child to be motherless?”



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:46 am


Kiro I have no idea what you are talking about. I”ve been writing on this blog for a very long time, and have not once supported gay sex or gay marriage, but am a HUGE fan of baptism!



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:52 am


Klaire,
Then I apologize, but it sounded to me like you were saying that since we are all sinners, we should embrace gay couples and bless their union.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:58 am


Sensus Fidei, my position on motherless or fatherless children is simple: if it’s avoidable, you should avoid it. No child should have to be motherless, or fatherless. But if a child is motherless, or fatherless, that child has a right to grieve if he wants – and that’s not compatible with being raised with what gay parents are raising their kids with. The children of gays are being raised with the understanding that they are obliged to be happy to be little witnesses for the gay community. That’s not fair.
There is a difference between a situation where there are options, vs. a situation where there are no options. Gay marriage advocates frequently compare their situations (where they have options, but choose not to include those options as valid) with situations where there is a genuine lack of choice.
When two men choose to raise a child together, they cannot be claiming to do what is best for the child. What would be right for the child is to accommodate that child’s need for a mother as well as a father. Since gays never experience accidental pregnancies together, their families must be deliberate and chosen; there is no reason why they cannot take as much care planning for their child’s emotional needs as they spend planning for their own emotional needs.



report abuse
 

Dante

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:06 pm


I totally agree that Church teaching as found in the CCC our Always Childen is very compassionate and understanding. BUT the huge problem is that people do not encounter the books or documents; they encounter people. And most solid Catholics I meet (especially the men) display by word and example the opposite of what the books say we believe.



report abuse
 

Hoosier Deacon

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm


Regardless, of the arguments, the basic teachings of the church may prove instructive to one who has obviously given the topic a great deal of thought and I would suggest that Deacon Kandra’s resonse be forwarded to Ms. Somerville.



report abuse
 

Steve P

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:17 pm


There’s no way I can keep up on all the reading here, and I can’t say I’m surprised at the typical reactions and mis-characterizations.
What I will say is while I fully support the teaching of the Church on this matter, and I think it is beautifully articulated in writing, in practice we’re pretty pathetic.
How can we not be seen (by our actions) to be obsessing on this issue of gay “marriage” when the dioceses of Minnesota send out 400,000 (!) DVD’s about this? Would they send out 400,000 DVD’s telling Catholics that they really ought to be attending Mass? That it really is a more important commitment than your kid’s soccer tournament?
You can’t tell me that the Church (leadership) demonstrates its concern for sin and sinners when the attention and resources are so lopsided. Is it because they hope to somehow make a stand politically on this? I just think there is much more that could be done in appropriate teaching, and keeping the credibility of Catholics by charitable interaction. You’re never going to win this public relations battle in a sound bite world. It pains me to say it, but no one cares enough to dig into the nuance of the Church’s teaching, including most Catholics. So I think you need to be working on issues a little more fundamental than gay “marriage”.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm


Amen, Steve. Just want to reiterate that Deacon’s inflamed response hopefully will not even be seen by Ms. Somerville. As Steve said, PR is not a battle the Church is going to win. We were rightfully stripped of credibility via sex abuse clergy scandal/ bishop enablers and we will pay the high price for a long time.
Unless perhaps St. Paul pens it in his singularly prayerful, instructive, inspired, loving, respectful manner… then maybe there’s a chance in hell hearts would be opened.



report abuse
 

ApolloGenX

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm


Posted by Klaire-
“Apollo the holiness of the Catholic Church (which is in essence, Jesus Christ), is still holy regardlesss of the holiness of its members. It’s always interesting that when people attack sinful Catholics, they never mention any of the holy Catholics.”
I frequently mention holy catholics. One of my personal examples I use for inspiration is Mother Theresa. She is a wonderful and shining example of selflessness and righteousness.
The problem is that the Catholic official responses and opinions on topics do not live up to the standard she set. I was infuriated when I read that various convents had been somewhat supportive of various issues, only to be blasted by the male Catholic hierarchy.
Yes, there are wonderful individuals within the Catholic Church… but the overwhelming majority of actions the church has taken have been cold, removed, and that is one reason so many people are separating from religion.
When Mother Theresa was at ground zero helping AIDS victims in the 80s, I wonder how she would have felt to cold indifference shown by the church regarding the torture and murder of two innocent men for being gay?



report abuse
 

romancrusader

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:43 pm


“cold indifference shown by the church regarding the torture and murder of two innocent men for being gay?”
The Church condemns all forms of violence. Period.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:44 pm


The real question is why was this Baptism taking place in the first place? As one poster said, was it simply a photo op?
If the Church is full of hypocrites and homophobes, why was this couple living in defiance of church teaching even presenting this child for the sacrament? Was there any “reasonable assurance” that the child would be brought up “in the practive of the faith”? Did the parents realize that they are to be the best of teachers “in the ways of faith”? Why was Ms.
Somerville even willing to be part of the celebration?
Seems if anyone is a hypocrite, it is she.
If someone doesn’t like the theology of the church they are in, they should have the guts to change their theology or change their church.



report abuse
 

romancrusader

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:54 pm


One thing is for sure, Hollywood’s sensitivity towards gays is at all time high. But you know, Catholics will continually get trashed by Hollywood constantly, and those who are offended are told to get over it. The hypocrisy runs deep.
Sanchez was fired from CNN for making fun of the notion that Jews are an oppressed minority, and this Friday Universal nixes a scene where the word “gay” is used flippantly. Don’t look for anyone in Hollywood to get the pink slip next Friday for offending Catholics. Likewise, don’t expect to read about a scene being cut from a show because it may offend Catholics.
There are protected demographic groups in society, and people of faith, save for Muslims, are not among them.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:01 pm


RomCath I see where you are coming from, but without the baptism, I wonder if there is ANY hope of the baby being brought up in the faith. Much can change doing the time the child is ready to be taught any religion. In the meantime, should the child die before the age of reason, he/she would die in the full grace of God.
Besides, a baptised child, be it in the home of two gay parents or in the home of two devout Catholics, is a for the most part, the “Blessed Sacarament”, incapable of sin until the age of reason (same as a retarded child). Who is to know how that might effect the gay couple?
Kiro, thanks for the apology. I didn’t mean to imply that I was caving on gay marriage or gay lifestyle, only that I don’t think the child should be denied baptism even in this particular situation.
Knowing enough athiests and gays, I find it hard to believe the couple did it for a photo op. At this point, perhaps it was all they had to give to God, with more to come! I personally think it’s a hopeful and unselfish first start.
I will keep all of them in my prayers.



report abuse
 

MB

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:06 pm


Ummm…I’m currently seeing an ad for Mormon.org on this website. What gives, Deac?
[I need to talk to my editor about that. Ads cycle through B’net and land here without my choosing them. It’s weird to see an ad for Mormons on a Catholic blog…Dcn. G.]



report abuse
 

Emily

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm


The hate being spewed by the commenters in this forum should say it all. Perhaps the Vatican does not explicity teach hate, but it is apparent that is the message many of the Catholics are getting…It’s very sad.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm


Klaire, I am a firm believer in the grce of God and how it can change people’s hearts. Look at Sts. Paul and Augustine!
I was simply wondering why, if the church is as evil as Ms. Somerville suggests, was this child presented for Baptism? Why was she even there if the church’s teaching is so distasteful?
Did the couple present the child believing in what happens when one is baptized or were they doing it because grandma wanted it or it was just the thing to do?



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm


Kiro — I grew up knowing what it was like to have a mother — a mother who constantly reminded me that I was alternatively, depending on her mood, God’s joke on her or God’s punishment for her. I grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family with a father and a mother.
Believe me, if I had a choice, and I could choose two genuinely loving dads or two genuinely loving moms, parents who truly wanted me and didn’t just have me because the Church wouldn’t let them use birth control, I’d choose either of those scenarios in a heartbeat.
Gay couples can live chaste lives. The only reason practicing gay couples are considered unchaste by the Church is because the Church refuses them marriage.
In the end, however, none of this is between anyone and some institution. It is all between people and God. So let the Church think, do, say what it will. The Church isn’t God.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:22 pm


“The Church isn’t God.”
It isn’t? Funny I thought I read in St. Paul that the church was the “Body of Christ”. Must be mistaken.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm


I sure was mistaken when I believed the Church was the Body of Christ, so maybe you are too, dear.
Besides, the Body of Christ is not God. Not to me.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm


What is it to you? Are we all to change our beliefs because you believe something is not so?
Whatever faith you belong to, if any, you might want to realize that you are not the arbiter of all things spiritual.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm


No, I’m not, and neither are you, and neither is the Church.
You’re entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.
The body of Christ is the body of His followers on earth. I don’t believe in transubstantiation. I don’t believe men can conjure up God in a bit of bread and eat it. I believe God is truly present when and where HE chooses to be truly and really present and no man has a say in that. I believe God created us all and some of us are gay and some straight and there is no legitimate rational reason to suggest gay people cannot live chaste, holy lives within marriage.
If you don’t believe that, fine. But that’s what I believe. Don’t worry — I am long gone from your Church, to the point where I have a brand new, shiny Living Will preventing any Catholic priests to come near me in hospice, or any Catholic rituals to be performed after I die. Anyone messes with that, and the local animal shelter gets a whole lotta cash and some pretty nifty real estate after I die.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm


Emily, our personal apologies. Comments here are not representative of the people in the pew. We ourselves have been muted only in the hopes of helping the good Deacon see the light by tempering and prayerfully restraining his inflamed passion as it won’t produce fruit, let’s be honest.
The title is “Homophobia in the Church? Really?” And yes, in reality, really! But that is in contrast to lack of perceptible homophobia in the pew… think of it as faithful on one end and hierarchy on the other end, that’s pretty much what’s playing out… on this issue and others.
For those who want an “answer” on why the child was presented for baptism, and we know no answer to your liking exists but… these faithful and others choose not to throw out the baby with the polluted bath water. They believe in God’s grace, blessings and promises. It’s the humans’ decisions and hierarchy agenda they disagree with.
Remember the lesbian couple in Denver area whose children were not allowed to re-register in the Catholic school? From all accounts, they were as non-flagrant as could be, faithful folks who genuinely sought to rear their children Catholic because they admired and embrace the values (minus one or two in your opinion). It’s personal accounts like that where horrific, unChristian discretion was enforced which really make Catholics question whether leaders are living the Gospel. That example as well as Sr. Margaret McBride being proclaimed by Bp. Olmsted as auto exco’d do tremendous “damage”… or on the flip side expose what needs to be remedied.



report abuse
 

ApolloGenX

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm


Why would a child be denied baptism for the “alleged” sins of the fathers? That’s absurd.
Also, just because you disagree with the church on one issue, doesn’t mean you disagree on all issues… so no, it’s not hypocritical to be at the baptism- For a nonbeliever or other denomination, it could be to support friends- nothing wrong with that.
I do not believe the church to be infallible- That is silly. The church is made of men- men are not perfect. Even the Bible states doctrine can be “corrected”. I put my faith in God, not in men in robes- I believe Jesus specifically addressed the “men in robes”.
As far as the comments about having two dads be selfish- What planet are you on? Seriously? An adopted baby has two options- stay in the system or find a family. Maybe in your ideal world there are unlimited mothers and fathers looking for babies, but in reality this baby is lucky to find a stable and loving home. That is what matters. It would be completely irresponsible to deny the baby a stable and loving home to keep it in the system, just because you think the family isn’t ideal. That is a luxury these children cannot afford.
Besides, let’s not naively pretend all mother/father homes are ideal. There is plenty of neglect, abuse, and violence in mother/father environments. What matters is that the home is stable and the child is loved. There is absolutely nothing more important than that.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm


“No, I’m not, and neither are you, and neither is the Church.”
That is your opinion, nonsense though it may be. For some the arbiter is the Church. When you have been around for 2000 years, maybe some will buy into what you have to say. Because the Church didn’t fit into your particular cubby hole, you left. Bravo for you!
And Sensus, perhaps you ought to reread the instruction on the Sacrament of Baptism. When one presents a child for Baptism, there must be present a reasonable assurance that the child will be brought up in the practice of the faith. If the parents are not living the faith, how can they be expected to bring up their child to? Children learn by example.
This is the Deacon’s blog, if he wants to show “inflamed passion” is he not permitted to?



report abuse
 

ApolloGenX

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm


-Edit: I also find it interesting how “marriage” arguments generally center around mass producing babies… even though there are more than enough babies to go around. Unwanted babies don’t come from the gays! ..and yet, when the gays want to offer stable and loving homes to these unwanted children, produced from these not-so-righteous relationships, they are told they are unfit.
Seriously, does a population with staggering divorce rates, that is popping out unwanted babies really have any legitimacy in evaluating others?
I think not.



report abuse
 

Cristiano

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm


I remember the first time I saw a T-shirt with the print “Stupid is as stupid does”. I was puzzled by the statement and I then I came to the realization that more often than not stupidity is a choice. We choose to be stupid as much as we choose to be ignorant. We choose to be stupid as much as we choose to badmouth people or institutions that might challenge our way of thinking and the status quo.
Stupid is the one that chooses to believe that a person does not have a dignity or natural rights because of who he is.
Stupid is the one that choose to believe that a person that has a different form of sexual attraction is intrinsically different.
Stupid is he who chooses to treat someone else differently because of his sexual desires.
Stupid is he who decides that some humans are not worthy being called humans as soon as the share their thoughts.
Stupid is he who claims to know the truth and proclaim falsities.
Stupid is he who uses the weak to further their falsities.
Stupid is he who proclaim falsities that can be easily debunked.
Stupid is he who lies to children because the children will get in contact with the truth.
Stupid is he who follows false prophets.
And finally, stupid is he who says “I am what I am not”.
You can easily substitute the “he” with a “she” and you will see how some blogger decides to espouse the “Stupititudes”



report abuse
 

Deacon Greg Kandra

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm


Ladies and gentlemen…
Technically, there’s no reason why an infant being raised by gay parents could not be baptized. Allow me to butt in here and post the pertinent portion of the catechism which addresses infant baptism. To the question of who can be baptized, it’s very simple:

1246 “Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.”

+++
The Baptism of infants
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents’ help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized – child or adult on the road of Christian life. Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.
+++
Canon law is a bit more explicit, but still leaves room for prudential judgment:
Can. 868 ß1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:
1ƒ that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2ƒ that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.
ß2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it.
+++
Finally, based on all the above, if there are any doubts, it is up to the judgment of the individual minister (or his pastor) to determine if a child should be baptized at any given parish.
Dcn. G.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm


Don’t we all want to be “productive?” Our definition may be different (administering Sacraments, caring corporally, praying for Divine Mercy day and night) whereas yours may be to admonish, profess apologetics, root out Cafeteria Catholics (aka every warm body in the pews and at the altar too). Whatever the objective be a sure fire way to not achieve it is to respond in ‘nasty’ kind. If we don’t agree on that, we’re really doomed.
No need to read the rite here, have done, will do and as you know any faithful can baptize. If you want to answer to God for why you didn’t baptize someone, feel free. So whose head is set to roll… is the celebrant being taken out and removed?



report abuse
 

ApolloGenX

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:26 pm


I think it’s also sad that children are being targeted by the Catholic anti-gay campaign machine.
Why would you deny a child an education and religious foundation, because his/her parents don’t fit your ideal? I mean does anyone fit the ideal? I doubt it.
Have we heard stories of children being expelled because parents are cheaters, drunks, liars, in jail, divorced, or any other reason that might not fit the ideal?
Religions want to claim that they are not guilty parties in the violence and bigotry that happens… and yet have no problems not only telling people they are “less than”… but innocent children as well?
Appalling. No homophobia. Right. The suicides, the murders, the torture…. it’s nothing new to the church. They have had blood on their hands for centuries.
Of course, I am speaking of the corrupt hierarchy. I believe that mainstream Catholics are definitely coming around. The anachronistic and obsolete hierarchy is losing touch and it is becoming very evident in the shifts of opinions and how Christians identify themselves.
The biggest threat to the Church is its leaders.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm


“that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.”
Yes, it is that well founded hope that should be present.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm


Kiro: “Poor kid. Has to grow up without knowing what it is to have a mother.”
Clearly, there are some mothers you haven’t met.
“I hate it when people justify doing what they know in their hearts to be selfish and wrong.”
We don’t know it in our hearts to be selfish and wrong. In fact, we sincerely believe it’s the exact opposite of selfish and wrong. Why do you automatically assume that us LGBT people think we’re the bad guys just because you do? You want your beliefs to be respected, but you’re incapable of respecting anyone else’s.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 3:13 pm


Mordred08 writes:
Kiro: “Poor kid. Has to grow up without knowing what it is to have a mother.”
Clearly, there are some mothers you haven’t met.
Perhaps, your nickname should be mordant. ;-)



report abuse
 

Bruce

posted October 11, 2010 at 3:55 pm


ApolloGenX guy or gal,
You said: “I do not believe the church to be infallible- That is silly. The church is made of men- men are not perfect.”
The trouble with this statement, besides it being absolutely false, is that it shows how ignorant you are of what the Church is and what Her beliefs actually are. It is recommended that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Item 748 to roughly 900 or so, and discover what the Church actually is. If you disagree, or do not believe in Her own definition, that is all well and good provided that you realize such a stance makes you a heretic and thus outside of the Catholic Church (whether you believe that or not is irrelevant, because it is the objective truth – denial does not matter). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head of the Church. Her members here, of the Church Militant, wage a life and death struggle against ideas such as yours in order to ensure the salvation of each and every person (including homosexuals). She is guided by God, the Holy Spirit. Her dogmas are not subject to debate nor are they decided by popular vote. She precedes Sacred Scripture, and it was Her who decided what formed the Bible that you now refer to. Formed and headed by Christ Himself, She will stand for all time. Ignorance and hatred are but minor pests to Her, and have no bearing on Her existence.
So, sorry to break it to you, Mr. or Mrs. ApolloGenX, but you not only are ignorant of that which you claim to be expert, but you are not even aware of what the true subject actually is. I’m afraid that is game, set, and match against you, but it is NEVER too late to repent and come back home to the truth. I would start now, if I were you.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm


The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head of the Church. Her members here, of the Church Militant, wage a life and death struggle against ideas such as yours in order to ensure the salvation of each and every person (including homosexuals [even if it kills them]).



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:16 pm


I will tell you one reason – of many, actually – why I simply do not believe anyone sincerely believes that engineering a situation where a child will be rendered motherless or fatherless is ethically okay.
It is because of the way gays treat their children.
They aren’t even a little bit concerned about the possibility that maybe what they are doing is hurting their kids – or, if they are, they hide it well.
They force their children to “witness” for them, without it ever even occurring to them that maybe it’s not appropriate to videotape a young child praising his father’s political stance, that maybe posting such a video on YouTube (where for the rest of that child’s life it will come up whenever anyone googles his name) might be a “not very nice” thing to do to that child.
It is because they START by raising their kids in an experimental situation, and then the OFFER the kids up to be tested – kids who were raised knowing they are Exhibit A in the debate, and the only source of proof gays will be able to conjure up. And yet neither the parents nor the researchers (who are never unbiased, and who ask all the wrong questions) ever worry that maybe that sort of pressure, that sort of responsibility, isn’t a very nice thing to do to a kid.
But the fact that they care so much about proving their case proves that they are in fact aware that they have something that needs proving.
If these parents spent half as much time trying to empathize with their child, as they do arguing that their child isn’t going to mind one little bit what is done to him or with him, I might be more easily persuaded when I hear that gays care “soooo much” about their kids.
But they don’t seem to care at all. They know that there is logically reason to question whether the kids will be all right, and they know they want to “win” the argument – and they don’t seem to care how they do it.
Therefore, my conclusion is that these people are immature, and are simply incapable of recognizing that their children are separate people from themselves.
This by the way has nothing to do with being gay. I have personally known gay people who were very good parents – and you can tell by how they put their children FIRST. And if the experts say kids might need a dad, why take chances?
Maybe your kids are not here for you to experiment with?



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:21 pm


FYI, Bruce, your insulting tone from the gitgo takes away from any point you are trying to make. The average Catholic in the pew sees it, right or wrong, as Apollo (gender n/a btw) relayed. If you choose to deny the reality and mentality of what we are up against, you will be fruitless as much as you desire to “correct wrongs.” You’ll only frustrate yourself further and make it harder to pray from your heart in the pew surrounded by Cafeteria Catholics.
The typical layperson has no compunction to pick up the catechism, should they have one or entertain googling. They are going by, as someone before relayed, who they know, what they feel and live on a daily basis. Sounds like you are far removed from anything “they” deal with, blessed are you.
Due to the atrocities of a few clergy in the sex scandal and the bishops who enabled, absolutely everything is open for debate and discussion. Days of instutional lock down (game, set, match) are long gone.
As an aside, how can you portend to be utterly faithful and prayerful when you sound very much to be gloating (over what who knows) and arrogant? Read yourself back… would you want to be in the pew next to you?



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm


BTW I should mention – with something of an apology – a linguistic confusion, that some of the time when I say “gays” I mean “the gay community”, other times I mean “all gay people”.
The real source of the confusion is IMO the “gay community”, which pretends to speak for “all” gays (and then turns horridly vicious to any gay it finds daring to have the “wrong” political opinion or, worse, lifestyle).



report abuse
 

Ellen Bolton

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:25 pm


One of the saddest stories!!!!
The sadness being how Satan has blinded eyes,,,Who am I to care what you do with your life as long as you don’t try to influence me and others who might take issue with your beliefs? I must respect yours but you wont respect mine…And actually they aren’t mine! They are written in God’s word…..yeah…they really are…GOD made man and then HE made woman…Wow….wonder why he did that…HE talks about sin…oh my how dare HE do that….So I, with GOD’S help, being a believer in HIS WORD, trusting HIM for my salvation; I believe ALL christians desire to do this, well then I can’t rewrite HIS WORD but follow HIS WORD as best I can…believing as HE SAID in 2nd Corinthian 6th chapter and verse 9-10.,”Do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor dodomites, nor thieves, nor coveteous, nor drunkards, nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God”….and continues to say “and such were some of you…But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS and by the SPIRIT OF OUR GOD”! Now by the Grace of GOD I choose to believe HIS WORD and Not the desires of the flesh made possible through HIS Cleansing Power….I accept HIM as my Savior and believe HIS HOLY WORD….I would that none would be LOST but that is man’s choice….Please do not try to turn what is SIN into a CIVIC RIGHT….I have not right to turn you from your sin but to express my right to believe GOD…Blame HIM and not man, christians, for knowing right from wrong and choosing to follow God’s laws….He forgives ALL our sins and that is the only HOPE we have…He said, Take up your cross and follow HIM….I pray for and Love as He loved…I do not love the sin…My opinion shouldn’t matter to you, only GOD’S… And my opinion is to believe GOD…I would that all would come to know HIM and HIS WORD and be HEAVEN bound instead of HELL bound….If the Catholic Church supports Sodomy,(priests and young boys too)…God help that church….I would not want to lead anyone to HELL…WHY would CHRIST take ALL our sins on HIMSELF but that we might have eternal life with HIM, if we only accept HIM as our Lord and Savior…Repent and Believe and HE will Forgive…..I know.



report abuse
 

Dana MacKenzie

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:25 pm


It seems to me that Michele Somerville is putting on a pretty good display of bullying, herself. Since the church won’t conform to her views, she’ll lie about it. The woman is a bully herself if she is so willing to completely misrepresent the church’s teachings to a child.



report abuse
 

Dana MacKenzie

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:28 pm


AppoloGenX, are you saying the church is full of hypocrites because she had gay priests who abused children? So, in that case, the church shouldl embrace and endorse gayness? Weird.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm


Have you read Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz’s scathing criticism of Always Our Children? He clearly says the document is “flawed and defective,” and a “calamity and frightening disaster.” In his opinion, the document “carries no weight or authority for Catholics.” According to Bishop Bruskewitz, the majority of the American Catholic bishops had no input in the document.
Picking out a few choice phrases does not turn the document into a legitimate teaching tool. On the one hand, the document, as it was originally written, is positivly skewed toward homosexuality and, one might even be tempted to think, towared homosexual acts. No phobia there. But then, the Church, in its authentic doctrine, is certainly not homophobic, whatever that means.



report abuse
 

Dana MacKenzie

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm


“They were two gay dads asking a church governed by bullies to bless their child. ”
This is what Somerville told her daughter. So, she seems not to realize that a baptism is more than “a blessing.”
“The church preaches homophobia…”
This woman is an idiot.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:42 pm


ApolloGenX, children are not being targeted by the “Catholic anti-gay hate campaign”.
You seem to have it backwards. Gays are the ones with an anti-Catholic hate campaign.
Sabotage is the only reason I can think of, why practicing secular humanists would want their child baptized in a Catholic church.
Gay parents keep trying to put their children into Catholic or Christian schools, churches, baseball leagues, etc. to “participate” – then playing the victim when the sponsoring body refuses to adopt secular humanist beliefs.
That sounds like trolling to me.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm


Don’t know if you’ve been to a Protecting God’s Children class but we were fortunate to have an open, mature discussion there, Dana, led by an informed facilitator. He provided facts and stats on pedophiles, those are the perpetrators who sexually molest children. The research outlined a bit about the twisted, perverse, puerile, power seeking, psycho-sexual inferiorities of these offenders. Believe it or not, there are homosexuals who claim to have no desire for adolescents.
Maybe ApolloGenX is suggesting we clean our own filthy house before we intrude into others?



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:50 pm


Sabotage? Are you serious?! Gays are a lot more creative, rafty and sentimental than that! Maybe they really want to get their hands on the flashy fine vestments… wearing liturgical pink/rose twice a year is to die for!
The lesbian couple, for ex., in Denver was beyond private and wanted absolutely no attention or disruption in their family’s life. Yet the Catholic school teachers raved about them and supported them, possibly risking their jobs.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Sensus Fidei, I am not saying that all secular humanists who sign their kid up for Catholic school are there to troll.
You can tell who is there to troll: they are the ones who manage to get their “plight” reported in the news media.
They come to a Catholic institution (or a Protestant one), they say they want to participate – and then they wait for it: sure enough, that Christian facility is practicing Christian beliefs!
OPPRESSION!
Call the press!
My rights as a gay person are being violated! That person is acting like a Catholic, which damages my self-esteem and teaches my child how to be a hater!
Now tell me, is there any possible reason why any parent would do that, other than the obvious motive – which is a desire to try to pressure the church through trolling behaviors?



report abuse
 

Dana MacKenzie

posted October 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm


“Maybe ApolloGenX is suggesting we clean our own filthy house before we intrude into others?”
Precisely what Benedict has been trying to do since before his papacy even began: get rid of the “filth.”
But I don’t understand how doing that somehow precludes the church as a whole from being able to continue to preach the truth. Truth is truth, even if no one is following it. Benedict XVI gets no credit for what he has done by people who don’t want to acknowledge the changes that have been made, because if they acknowledge them, they don’t have as good a weapon to bang with. So they keep acting like nothings been done, and everything is what it was in 2002. That’s bascially lying for your own agenda.
Meanwhile, cleaning the filth out of the house has absolutely nothing to do with overturning the cultural understandings of the world for many thousands of years, simply because the current generation says they should be.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 5:21 pm


Kiro,
By contrast with your desperate, bigoted claims, the gay parent I know best has the best-adjusted, kindest, most serene, and precocious children I’ve known. He raised these children with their biological mother. They were conceived through artificial insemination. The parents live as apparent, though not actual, husband and wife in a conservative southern California suburb. They made an agreement to have children together and to stay together until their children are finished with college. They have never had sex and don’t appear to be involved with anyone else. They refuse to enter into a sham marriage.
Few people are in on the secret that the father is gay. The children will be told in a few years when they are ready to hear it. They will know that they were conceived because their parents wanted them – not by accident.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 5:23 pm


Dana,
What precisely is the filth? Human beings? Isn’t that more Nazi-istic than Catholic?



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 5:37 pm


I apologize, Frank, I used the word filth and it was wrong. I am very anti-pedophile but that’s no excuse. I should know better and with God’s grace I will resolve to do better.
Getting our house in order, which is hard to declare as more disgraces keep arising internationally, also means getting to the root of it, all the facts and factors. Such as not blaming gays and trying to “understand” how perpetrators infiltrated and operated institutionally (we learned the other MO in Protecting God’s Children); unbiasedly examining how this occurred under everyone’s watchful eyes and how those like Sr. Mary MacKillop who tried to bring evils to light of day were shut down and disciplined. And accountability… seeing at least one enabling Bishop face the consequences of his ill actions.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted October 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm


Sensus, I don’t know what flavor Christian you are but your anti-Catholic animus is really getting tiresome.



report abuse
 

ApolloGenX

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:03 pm


Firstly, I know what Catholic dogma says about the infallibility of the church. Just because I reject that doesn’t not mean I am ignorant of it.
For one, the story of Jesus casting the corrupt patrons out of the temple is only one of many stories in the Bible about corrupted church officials. I am not surprised that the church conveniently included in canonization and dogma that itself is infallible. I would tell people I’m never wrong, too… makes it very hard to disagree.
Secondly, “gay priests” were/are not the Catholic church’s problems. The attempt to mis-characterize pedophiles or predators as “gay” is a transparent insult. If you don’t know the difference, then you should educate yourself before calling anyone different from you the “boogey man”.
Thirdly, yes- I am not suggesting that the Catholic religion change its stance on morality. Of course not. I am saying that the rather large occurances of immoral/predatory/highly traumatizing activities within the church completely undermine any credibility on these issues. Yes, the church needs to clean house before preaching to others. Lead by example, etc.
Lastly, I am also pointing out that while the church has a right to its doctrine ( a right I strongly believe in, btw), the rather large effort (and money) the church is putting into a dubious activity like getting involved in the politics of a relatively inconsequential debate such as gay marriage are resources that could be going to high impace and relevant issues such as divorce, poverty, illiteracy, hunger, or other issues that are MUCH more important and critical to people right now. Dollars used to deny people rights could literally be used to save the lives of starving children.
With priorities like that, how can you possibly expect the average person to take this position seriously? REALLY? Dollars that could feed starving kids are being used to deny gays rights, including adopting children and providing them homes?
To the rational thinker this makes zero sense.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:08 pm


Kiro: “I have personally known gay people who were very good parents – and you can tell by how they put their children FIRST. And if the experts say kids might need a dad, why take chances?”
Except you just said that gay people “engineer a situation where a child will be rendered motherless or fatherless” and “aren’t even a little bit concerned about the possibility that maybe what they are doing is hurting their kids”. You didn’t “some” or “most”.
“They force their children to ‘witness’ for them” And God forbid a child ever defend the people who raise them when they’re attacked. They must have been forced to do it by those manipulating homos!
“the fact that they care so much about proving their case proves that they are in fact aware that they have something that needs proving…But they don’t seem to care at all. They know that there is logically reason to question whether the kids will be all right, and they know they want to “win” the argument – and they don’t seem to care how they do it.”
And if they defend themselves, then they clearly don’t care about their kids at all! Why can’t they accept that even if they’re right, they’re wrong?
So make up your mind. Are you willing to accept the possibility that at least some gays care about the children they raise, and possibly even love them as if they were their own, or are they all just mad scientists conducting sinister experiments on the innocent children? Is the only acceptable situation for raising children one in which both biological parents are involved in the child’s life in some way? Or are you willing to make exceptions in cases where that isn’t possible? Either due to the death of one or both biological parents, or a situation in which one or both parents have lost custody due to their own actions, or voluntarily given it up?



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm


So true, Apollo… we’re just as guilty and ignorant as the state that spends millions on a fruitless farce, such as the Death Penalty, rather than truly helping victims’ families, innocent offspring and society.



report abuse
 

Emily

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:30 pm


Again, I wonder how the Deacon would respond to the hate mongering in many of these comments when he just wrote an article about how accepting the Catholic hierarchy is of homosexuality (but not homosexual acts). Don’t this comments show that there is homophobia and hate in the Catholic community? I would say so.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:35 pm


Mordred, perhaps you missed my clarification, where I clarified that I fell into the trap laid by the so-called “gay community”, when they pretend to represent and speak for “all” gays (and harass, “out” and otherwise behave miserably to any gays that dare to have an opinion or a lifestyle other than the one their self-styled uberlords have decreed for them).
I meant to say this: that gay parents are doing horrible things to their children, but not all gays are bad parents.
The parents who are forcing their children to pretend to not mind the state of being motherless or fatherless,
The parents who are deliberately engineering for their children to be absent a mother or father (not to mention all the kin-relationships that the child would have on his mother’s side or father’s side, if he were not being deliberately severed from this),
The parents who use emotional coercion to make their children feel like the children need to “testify” or “witness” for their parents, and/or their parents’ lifestyle,
The parents who videotape or otherwise make a public spectacle out of their children for political purposes, without regard to whether the videotaping is exploitative or invasive,
The parents who went ahead and raised their kids in an experimental fashion, in an attempt to prove that no harm would be done, rather than waiting until there was reason to believe that no harm would be done –
All of these parents are, IMO, bad parents – not because they’re gay but because they behaved in ways that are, at best, inconsiderate of their child’s needs or rights.
That I refer to them as “gays” has to do with the fact that it is their identity as “gay” – meaning the “lifestyle” or the “identity”, as separate from having homosexual impulses.
Despite the desires of “the gay community” to pretend that all people with homosexual impulses share the desire to “live a gay lifestyle” or “have a gay identity”, I do not believe this to be the case.
My apologies – again – if this causes confusion. Please correct “the gay community” next time they encourage this misleading language.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm


ApolloGenX,
Are you as critical of churches that waste money pushing FOR gay marriage?
Because I’d be very interested in seeing how much Catholics spend on caring for the poor, vs. various other denominations, that have plenty of cash to spend on the gay marriage debate. Do they manage to do that AND provide food and medical services for the poor, too?
Why don’t you check that out and post the statistics for us?



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm


Kiro wrote:
That I refer to them as “gays” has to do with the fact that it is their identity as “gay” – meaning the “lifestyle” or the “identity”, as separate from having homosexual impulses.
Conflating identity with “lifestyle” is shallow.
Acceptance of an innate characteristic is necessary to good character. Acceptance doesn’t mean living down to negative expectations, however.
I’ve had to acknowledge that I was gay to keep that fact from having a negative impact on others.
I had to acknowledge my sexual orientation so that I could stop dating women in college. It wouldn’t be fair to them to be married to a gay man. It would be wrong to deny them a chance at a real marriage even if I had none.
During the Reagan years, I had to avoid applying for jobs that required a security clearance because if I were rejected on the basis of my sexual orientation, my employer might lose a contract. Moreover, on the one occasion when an employer did ask me to get a clearance years after I was first employed, I had to warn him about the fact that I might be denied one based on my orientation.
Even if you don’t have sex, hiding one’s sexual orientation becomes obsessive. I spent all my high school and college years from 13 through 22 with deceiving other people and never trusting them as my prime objective in life.
That the current pope is shallow and bigoted enough to expect this of gays for their entire lives is a source of great pain to me.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Links roundup, 10.12 | Saint Socrates Society



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.