Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The Mark of the Beast


I just want you to know that if this is your sign then you are actively supporting my persecution, torture, imprisonment, etc.  Perhaps you know that already, and perhaps that warms your heart, but I wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here.
 
The French didn't wake up one morning and say "Hey, let's kill tens of thousands of Catholics"...it happened over time.  It was a process.

And HERE...WE...GO.  The volcano, simmering under the surface for so long, showing little eruptions here and there, being forcasted for decades by people with "eyes to see and ears to hear," people who have been pointing out that long ago we stopped using logic and reason, people who've noted words don't mean anything anymore, who've noticed an exponentially growing distaste for Truth, who've noticed that only charisma sways opinions anymore...


Of course nothing can defend homosexual sex.  When homosexual sex is described to people using proper anatomical terms, and when a discussion is had as to the fluids exchanged and so forth, most people are repulsed.

Of course nothing can defend "gay marriage".  The severely flawed argument is:
1) they love each other
2) they aren't hurting you

Of course that "marriage test" could apply to the following
1) a man and his cousin
2) a woman and three other men
3) a man and his daughter

And that is, of course, assuming that we still assume marriage is between PEOPLE (why, you ask, would it still be between people...because "it's ALWAYS been that way" screams the gay marriage activists...but where else have I heard that argument before...oh, I know, it is the same argument for keeping marriage between a man and a woman...)

"Slippery slope argument!!!" screams the liberal arts freshman, fully invigorated from his communications course on logical fallacies.  "Not so", however, because it isn't a slippery slope when there is NO SLOPE.  If Dave can marry Bill, Dave can marry Bill and Steve and Heidi and his cousin.


It is almost a line out of Animal Farm, but the motto in the U.S. is fast becoming "We are intolerant only of the intolerant" and it will soon get very bad indeed for those who are labeled "intolerant."

Interesting that the "=" sign today turned red and went viral because the symbol for the movement was blue with a yellow = before today.  It's as if the "redefining marriage" movement is now out for blood, and I believe they will soon begin seeking to slake their thirst.




The Church will get its act together, but it will be too late.  Priests and bishops will rally together and preach what needs to be preached with renewed vigor and unity, but it will be too late.  And that's okay because any Catholic who has read two minutes of Church history knows that persecution has always cleaned up the Body of Christ like nothing else.

My comfort in this showdown:

1) "If the world hates you know that it hated me first" - Jesus Christ
and
2) "The blood of the martyrs is the seedbed of the Church" - Tertullian

And why not finish it off with a little ditty from Revelation?

"A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice, “Anyone who worships the beast or its image, or accepts its mark on forehead or hand, will also drink the wine of God’s fury poured full strength into the cup of his wrath, and will be tormented in burning sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb.  The smoke of the fire that torments them will rise forever and ever, and there will be no relief day or night for those who worship the beast or its image or accept the mark of its name." Here is what sustains the holy ones who keep God’s commandments and their faith in Jesus I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” said the Spirit, “let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.”

Revelation 14:9-12

244 comments:

  1. Powerful stuff, Father. Thank you for your priestly ministry and your courage to tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Father! Amen to you and your insight... Between you and the pope you both stand strong on our lord and savior's word! Keep doing the good works of Jesus Christ!

      Delete
  2. I just discovered your blog yesterday...and I was reading through your more popular posts. As I read the one about "grinding" I was appalled at many of the comments from "young" people (when the heck did I grow up???!!!). My point...these are the same folks changing their profile pic to the red equal sign. And, unfortunately, not just young...but "middle age" i.e. my age, too. Graduates from "good Catholic high schools" in a predominately Catholic Midwestern city. I messaged a friend and asked, "are we the last two out of a class of 100 women NOT to have changed our facebook pic??? *sigh* Thanks for this post...when I reread John 15:18 I felt a bit better...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep your nose in Scripture, fasting, caring for the poor, praying for enemies, etc.! God bless you!

      Delete
    2. Fr Hollowell: my dang, stupid computer must be acting up again - evidently it keeps skipping the lines where you display 'hatred'. I only see clear, authentic Catholic moral teaching, which is the kindest gift we can all get.

      Brick-By-Brick...

      Delete
  3. It seems to me that the only reason for wanting same-sex-marriage is to change the sacraments. If it just about being together in a legal relationship then a civil union would be enough. I think you are right, Father, our society is beginning to worship tolerance itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i read in a blog written by a gay man, that 'cicil union' should have been fought for as a first step. it was less 'scary' to the 'religious bigots'.

      Delete
    2. I think this is merely a semantic issue. People just want equal rights within the government. Nobody is protesting on the steps of Catholic churches for their love to be legitimized by the Church. They just want equal rights within their relationship from the government.

      Delete
    3. It will destroy the religious freedom of Catholics and we will be persecuted.

      Delete
    4. You honestly think Catholics will be persecuted? Catholics were persecuted by the Romans. If gay marriage is legalized, you'll all still go on your merry ways, doing the exact same things you have been. It will change nothing in the Catholic church. No gay man or women even wants to be married in the Catholic church for this very reason. No religious freedoms are being infringed. You still have the freedom to NOT wed a gay couple, it just gives them the freedom TO BE MARRIEd

      Delete
    5. So what you are saying father is if Gay Americans get the same rights as to the legal issues like

      The most crucial provisions are fairly obvious, such as laws that allow married couples to file federal income taxes jointly, inherit Social Security benefits, sponsor their spouses for visas or defer federal estate taxes on property passed on to surviving spouses."


      How does that destroy religious freedom? and how does it have catholic persecuted?

      Delete
  4. The blood of the martyrs will water the meadows [of the world]. Do you hear the people sing, singing the song of angry men. It is the song of a people who will not give in again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Church will get its act together, but it will be too late. Priests and bishops will rally together and preach what needs to be preached with renewed vigor and unity, but it will be too late."

      So true. So true indeed.

      Delete
    2. In Les Misérables that song is about the rebellion for granting rights to the people; a people that would die for their rights to be acknowledged. I am not sure it is the best choice for your argument.

      Delete
    3. The most fundamental human right is the right to life. Another fundamental human right is the right to religious freedom. You will redefine marriage and our religious freedom will be impinged, so yes, we are singing for our right to religious freedom and we will defend it.

      Delete
    4. so...your "freedom" is the right to tell others how they must live...otherwise it makes you uncomfortable...yeah...makes perfect sense....

      Delete
  5. Thank God for priests like you - bold, not tepid, unafraid!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for Catholics like you! Love your screen name by the way!

      Delete
  6. Erick Erickson: ‏"So when the left begins advocating polygamy, will they use the infinity sign instead of the equal sign?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will just show a picture of the bible. ;)

      Delete
  7. I did not realize that it was decidedly against the catholics to believe in equality. I am practicing, but I practice a gospel of love and acceptance instead of fear and hate. Was it not Jesus who sat with the outcasts and lepers? In my opinion this kind of inclusive thinking is what makes people turn away from the church, a church we all love. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, people feared electing JFK because he was a catholic and did not want his ear turned to Rome. While we may believe this is our truth, we cannot force it onto others. I believe in the catholics of tomorrow, but I am saddened by them today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: We are not forcing "our truth" on others; it is they who are forcing their (im)morality on the rest of us.

      Where did you get the idea that it is only Catholics or only Christians who are against this? All of the major world religions teach that homosexuality is wrong.

      It is a small minority of a small minority that is agitating to change what has been recognized as true for everyone else for as long as humans have been on this earth - so who is imposing on whom?

      Furthermore, as it stands now, homosexuals have the exact same rights as every other American - if we legalize same sex "marriage", however, those of us who believe it is wrong will be deprived of our Constitutional rights to free speech and the free practice of our religion. (In actual fact, that persecution has already been happening)

      So who is depriving whom of equality under the law?

      Delete
    2. "Inclusive thinking is what makes people turn away from the Church"

      What does that even mean? And what do you mean by framing something as 'your truth,' as if truth is somehow personally relevant to the person proclaiming it, instead of universally true?

      That's exactly the opposite of what it means to profess the Catholic faith.

      Delete
    3. But Catholics DO love and accept gays. It is the ACT of homosexual sex that we oppose. The SIN. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Do not confuse not accepting sin with intolerance. God gave us free will and reason. That is what separates us from the beasts and all other species. By saying that gays can NOT abstain and MUST have sex, you are saying they are no better than animals. But humans have dignity and free will to choose. God killed entire cities that practiced homosexuality--Sodom and Gomorrah--And Jesus sitting with lepers and outcasts does not mean we are to accept homosexual sex. He would probably sit with gays and tell them to sin no more. You can not accept homosexual sex and be a Catholic in good standing. You can also not turn an ear to Rome and be a Catholic in good standing. Rome IS Christ's true Church.

      Delete
    4. Catholics that believe in their own theology and not that of the Church and fake Catholics, be gone with them them and those who tolerate anything in order to fit. If you are saddened by Catholics defending the Church the problem is you, not them.

      Delete
    5. I did not realize that it was decidedly against the catholics to believe in equality.

      The kind of "equality" the same-sex "marriage" advocates are calling for isn't equality at all, but full-blown war against reality as in "dogs=cats", "evil=good". Two men in a barren mutual-masturbation arrangement given a legal rubberstamp by a government that has taken leave of its senses is no more a marriage than me sawing off half my legs and wearing a funny general's hat makes me Napoleon.

      I am practicing, but I practice a gospel of love and acceptance instead of fear and hate.

      You are cherry picking because the gospel also calls for sinners to repent of their sins. Homosexual "sex" is always a sin. It is always forgivable, but repentance is only true if there is a firm resolve to not sin again; or as Our Lord told the woman caught in adultery: "Go and sin no more."

      Was it not Jesus who sat with the outcasts and lepers?

      Yes, but being an outcast or a leper isn't sinful in and of themselves. Heck, having same-sex attraction isn't sinful in and of itself.

      In my opinion this kind of inclusive thinking is what makes people turn away from the church, a church we all love.

      I think you mean "exclusive" thinking. If so, you are wrong which is proved by John 6: 35-70 where Our Lord let people walk away because His teaching was too hard. He was unwilling to bend the Truth just to get along.

      Also, if my memory serves me correctly, people feared electing JFK because he was a catholic and did not want his ear turned to Rome.

      Since I've never been impressed by JFK, I have no comment here other than it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

      While we may believe this is our truth, we cannot force it onto others.

      So you accept that homosexual "sex" is always and everywhere wrong? That's something I suppose. You just need to ditch self-refuting moral relativism.




      Delete
    6. The part I don't understand about what is cited as the whole point of marriage by most uber conservatives. Apparently it's to reproduce. That seems to in my mind be putting humans on the same level as animals. Animals only goal is to reproduce. I thought we were more advanced then that

      Delete
    7. Homosexuals do not have the exact same rights if they do not have the right to marry, or union civilly to, their loved one. They wish to enter into a monogamous relationship and to have it legitimized by the government. What does this have to do with the Church, or any religious sect, anyway? How would allowing same sex marriage deprive those who think it's wrong of their right to free speech or free practice of religion? You can believe interracial marriage is wrong, but it being legal doesn't take away your right to say you believe it's wrong or to go to a church that teaches it's wrong. But, then again, who would say it's wrong for two people to love each other? Certainly not a loving Christian, and I'm sure that wouldn't be preached at any church...

      Also, the sign turned red and pink as a sign of love, not violently spilled blood.

      Delete
    8. can you explain to me why "monogamous"? If you redefine marriage, monogamy has no reason to be part of the new "definition". NO ONE on the side of redefining marriage can explain that one.

      Delete
    9. If we're redefining, why can't monogamy be part of that? I don't understand this comment. DOMA says marriage is between one man and one woman. Why can't the new definition say marriage is between two consenting adults? Simple language. Easy to understand and enforce.

      Delete
    10. @grace.... you said "Furthermore, as it stands now, homosexuals have the exact same rights as every other American - if we legalize same sex "marriage", however, those of us who believe it is wrong will be deprived of our Constitutional rights to free speech and the free practice of our religion. (In actual fact, that persecution has already been happening)"

      No they do not have the same rights as every other American... they do not have the same rights as to seeing there loved ones in the hospital , or as to the other 1100 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor.
      he most crucial provisions are fairly obvious, such as laws that allow married couples to file federal income taxes jointly, inherit Social Security benefits, sponsor their spouses for visas or defer federal estate taxes on property passed on to surviving spouses.


      So what is wrong with giving those rights to all Americans?


      Delete
  8. Maybe priests should serve as leaders and as a majority who don't commit sex acts that are washed away clean by reconciliation rather than jail time and/or expulsion from ministry work. I've known there to be many clergy who have been transferred and not prosecuted for their actions. Sins can be forgiven. Crimes? Not always.

    Tell me whom should I fear more -- priests? or innocent homosexuals wanting a chance at marriage for the first time? Neither, right? Well, that's what the Bible tells be...Do not be afraid.

    Maybe homosexuals will teach us heterosexuals a thing or two about not reaching for an annulment so quickly (a divorce reinforcement).

    But Amurica runs on Dunkin', and Capitalism, right?

    With the rate of annulments the Catholic Church grants men and women, I'm sure it's making up for lost revenue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just curious what is quick about an annulment? And how it reinforces divorce? And how exactly it makes up for lost revenue when its free?

      Delete
    2. I mean...the priests you fear, by and large, WERE homosexuals, so I don't really see how you are making your point.

      Delete
    3. 1.) Annulments are NOT free.

      http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/alternativestodivorce/ht/annulment.htm

      It reinforces divorce because some husbands and wives can get say 'Let me try getting married again within the Catholic Church with someone else. It's gotta work this time! And hey, it's totally acceptable!' Doesn't matter if the individual is 30 or 50. I served a wedding of a man, his second marriage, who did just that.

      Why not allow homosexuals that opportunity for the first time?

      Furthermore, to take this out of a Catholic context, you can't prescribe Christian values on everyone for the sake of what you say is right or popular. Everyone doesn't get married for religious reasons.

      Delete
    4. Pedophilia is vastly different than homosexuality. That's actually insulting. Then why didn't the priests molest men their own age?

      Delete
  9. Wow. What a relatively sad statement and argument, that really should be well below your level (I assume I fortunately missed the “Hate and Discrimination” courses in my time at RHS). It seems you are trying to agitate with tired comparisons and empty warnings. The arguments in the Court today actually did address your “concerns” about polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. I would encourage you to take a minute and read them. Of course, those aren’t your true concerns with the direction of policy in this area, but it certainly does paint a vivid picture, doesn’t it?

    I prefer, myself, to stick with the teachings of Christ as it pertains to acceptance, love for one another, and caring for those around us. The Christ that not only tolerated those in society that were persecuted, but openly accepted and embraced those people. Unfortunately, this post generally only serves as an attempt to arouse an impotent base of people that have increasingly felt their religion has been hopelessly out of touch and backwards. I truly hoped the young leaders of the Catholic Church would be better than that (most particularly in your unnecessary attack of “homosexual sex” as “repulsive”).

    One hope we do share, however, is indeed that “the Church will get its act together”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you didn't hear any of this at Roncalli nor did you hear it from the pulpit. That's exactly why we're in this situation.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure what that is responding to, nor who the "we" you refer to are. I have heard lots of respectful arguments made on a variety of positions that I may agree or disagree with at both Roncalli and from the pulpit. The arbitrary use of inflammatory imagery with no basis in fact in an attempt to agitate and draw response just isn't one of them. It's, frankly, lazy and easy fodder.

      Delete
    3. It is so frustrating to keep seeing this false picture of Jesus as Tolerance.

      Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and SIN NO MORE. He was not accepting her in her sins; He was forgiving her and giving her another chance.

      Jesus' Name is NOT Tolerance, but Truth, as well as Justice and Mercy. If we do not know Him by Name, He will not know us at Judgment.

      Delete
    4. I am so sick of the specious argument that God is all about acceptance and affirmation and never making people feel icky and sad. That particular fallacy is known in our house as Jesus Is A Chill Dude, He Won't Flip. You run along and tell the money-changers in the temple about Jesus being all for acceptance and not judging, kiddo, and see what they tell you for your pains.

      Delete
    5. 1) we = the United States of America

      2) If you heard anyone talk about the Church's teaching on homosexuality or contraception at Roncalli, then things changed rapidly in the two years between our classes (I think we were two years apart)

      3) what has no basis in fact?

      4) It doesn't bother me that you think it is lazy

      Delete
    6. Well, I guess that is some fundamental differences then, isn't it?

      1. I think the US is relatively well positioned to lead in an ever increasing global society and future.

      2. Contraception? Surely. Homosexuality and contraception aren't the only two issues that can be discussed, surely there are more that were openly discussed at RHS, as well as in our parishes, and it was to those that I was referring.

      3. The argument that gay marriage will undoubtedly lead to polygamy, legalized and condoned incest, etc etc has no basis in fact. Again, I'll refer you to the SCOTUS arguments yesterday.

      4. It doesn't bother me that you don't recognize it to be lazy, but it is. It's an easy way to undercut an argument by promising fire and brimstone without validating an argument or the other side.

      As for the other comments.....Grace and Elinor...I find it overly hypocritical and overbearingly elitist when people claim to know ALL of the personality traits and behavior mannerisms of a man that lived over 2000 years ago. I'm sure that you don't, just as I'm sure that I don't. Sure, Jesus had his moments outlined in scripture where he showed anger, (or "Truth" if you'd like to call it that), but where are Jesus' teachings on homosexuality, exactly?? And, I'm not talking about Biblical interpretations of statements or actions, or "well, he lived in such and such a time, so he would have thought this", but his explicit teachings. You love to quote Leviticus at us, but in a selective way, so I'm just asking. Jesus did seem to be a pretty "Chill Dude" from what I've read and remember at most times, and I just wonder how he would react in today's climate and culture.....a question I don't feel anyone is able to answer without doubt. So....I will run along.....continuing to believe in a Jesus of tolerance and acceptance in a "do unto your neighbor" sort of way, because that makes sense. If that forces us to go our separate ways at "Judgment", well....I can't say that makes me overly sad or repentent.

      Delete
    7. A Catholic who thinks the SCOTUS is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not the Church...hmmmmm

      Delete
    8. 1) because...?
      2) I didn't say contraception and homosexuality are the only two things to be discussed. Let's trace the conversation
      you: I didn't hear this at Roncalli
      me: I know, I didn't either, that's why we're in this mess
      you: there are lots of other things besides homosexuality and contraception

      of course there are lots of other things we did hear at Roncalli - we were there for 180 days a year. My point is we NEVER heard about contraception nor did we hear about homosexuality, and if Catholic school kids don't know what the Church teaches on the topic, then can we be surprised that the world misunderstands it?

      3) you tell me I'm lazy but you tell me to go listen to the arguments. How about you tell me what the argument was at SCOTUS yesterday.

      4) I'm not promising fire and brimstone to anyone but fellow Catholics. We're the ones that will be persecuted. I make no claims about what God will do with the persecutors.

      Delete
    9. Maybe I missed it. Where was Father's "hate" in what he said? Stating his opinion does not make him a bigot in the least. Funny, everyone in favor of gay marriage preaches and preaches tolerance but, when a differing opinion comes to light - "bigot!", "intolerant!", "ignorant!".

      Homosexuals have every one of the rights that we do, except for their marriage being recognized by the state - I fail to see how they're oppressed as so many make it sound. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, not just in our culture or religion, but around the world ... there's a reason for that.

      If I don't accept a sin as a "right" that they should have than that does not make me a bigot or anything of the sort. I had a roommate for years whom was homosexual and we're still good friends to this day, I am accepting of him very much so. But, I will never believe marriage should be for a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

      Delete
    10. I don't feel it necessary to tell you things I assume you are bright enough to understand on your own, so I'll direct you to the oral arguments. Polygamy and incest are addressed directly for your pleasure: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

      I never said I never heard about contraception or homosexuality at Roncalli...you did. I said I never learned about Discrimination or Hate at RHS.

      Also....I don't feel as if allowing civil marriage of homosexual couples will "persecute" Catholics. In what way? How? So, I'm a little lost on that one. Maybe that's my own ignorance as to the profound effect it will have on the Church. Good thing you guys have been able to survive the persecution of contraception being available to all those that want it and the availability of legal abortion. (The Catholic church no longer gets to dictate public policy it seems, it's not 1400 anymore).

      To Manda: I never claimed to be a Catholic. Nor did I claim the SCOTUS or the church to be the "pillar and foundation of truth". I'm not sure such a thing exists. Sorry.

      Anonymous: I don't think I've ever called Father John a bigot or ignorant. Do I think his words are intolerant? Sure, but I'm not even sure I said that (although I do now). Do I think his words in this case were hateful? Well, they sure weren't full of compassion and love from my perspective...so I suppose.

      "Homosexuals have every one of the rights that we do, except for their marriage being recognized by the state - I fail to see how they're oppressed...." I would just recommend you reading your sentence again. Marriage, also hasn't "always" been between a man and a woman in cultures around the world....especially over the past 15 years or so.

      Also, there will come a point when you must chose between being supportive of your "roommate" and his rights, and being 'accepting of him". You cannot accept him and not support his rights....unless he's some sort of lesser human, which I'll assume he is not. You'll not accept that statement, I'm sure, but trust me, it's true. In the fight for equal rights, it will be much easier for him to simply cut you out of his life than to listen to you spout about how accepting you are of him but not of his life.


      Delete
    11. people tell me "there are great arguments about why incest and polygamy don't necessarly follow as marriage" but they've never been able to tell me themselves. It has always been "why don't you go to this website and check it out." One would think that if it were so self-evident that incest and polygamy are different, then the explanation would roll off of one's tongue.

      Delete
    12. NICE! An 84 page court document. I'll let you tell me the argument yourself as opposed to reading 84 pages.

      Delete
    13. "The Church and State separated long ago. What is clear is that the Church is better off for the split...what isn't clear is whether or not the state has been better off for the split." - George Weigel

      Delete
    14. If you can't see how redefining marriage will lead to the persecution of the Church, that's kind of sad...but apparently a lot of Catholics themslves can't connect the dots on this either.

      1) Catholic schools will be forced to teach what marriage has been redefined to be
      2) Churches failing to "wed" same sex couples will be convicted of discrimination
      3) Preachers will be jailed for preaching against homosexuality because it is "hate speech"
      4) Catholic institutions, as we're already seeing with the HHS mandate, especially those who are not specifically Churches but are nonetheless Catholic will be afforded NO shelter whatsoever to act on their Catholic beliefs in not acknowledging such "marriages" to be valid
      5) schools, hospitals, Catholic companies, and eventually Churches themselves will be sued and will lose in cases where they refuse to lease out their property for "marriage receptions" "anniversary parties" etc.
      This is just a short list.

      Surely you recognize the difference here between the redefinition of marriage, which involves people, and access to contraception, which is a product? If I preach against contraception, I'm preaching against a product. If I preach against gay marriage "it is hate speech"

      As for Roncalli - you did hear the theological views of the Catholic Church presented on the issues of homosexuality and contraception?

      Delete
    15. 1) Are Catholic schools mandated by states in what they teach?
      2) Are Churches failing to wed divorced persons convicted of discrimination? What about couples who may not "pass" pre-Cana, maybe because of premarital sex or use of contraception?
      3) Are members of the KKK, neo-nazis, or any other group jailed for what they SAY, even though most people see it as hate speech?
      4) Why would Churches or other Catholic institutions need to recognize same-sex marriages as valid?

      At Roncalli, my morality class was taught that homosexual acts are immoral because they are not able to produce children (Fr. Tom's famous "bonding and babies"- necessary for the act of sex, as I once heard you teach your students, as well. This argument was also used as the basis for the immorality of contraception.) The question was raised about a woman who had a hysterectomy for medical purposes - Is she allowed to get married and have sex. He said yes because if God granted a miracle, perhaps she could still get pregnant. She would be allowed to get married and have sex so long as she and her husband were open to the possibility of getting pregnant. The possibility of getting pregnant in that situation is the same as for a same-sex couple. Why couldn't God grant a miracle there, too? I know you will guffaw at this comment, and I realize that same-sex couples won't procreate, but my point is that neither will the couple with the hysterectomy, yet the Church recognizes their marriage as valid.

      Delete
    16. Every point you make is so very flawed.

      1) Why? Why can't things be explained as they will actually be, instead of pretending that if the US Government gives homosexuals the right to marry, then the Catholic faith must redefine religion? Why can't it be taught in Catholic schools that homosexual marriage is not illegal but IS wrong and IS a sin? No one is taking that right away from the church so stop playing the victim.
      2)Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and there have been no lawsuits...
      3)Have you researched any of this dramatic "fact" spewing??! Preachers will not be "jailed for preaching against homosexuality." You are oversimplifying the issue and, once again, playing the victim to such a ridiculous degree:
      http://www.churchlawandtax.com/private/library/viewarticle.php?aid=134
      4)This entire issue is over what is LAW, not what is written in your bible. As long as religion exists in this country, churches will have to decide how to approach their practices that oppose LAW. It has always been that way for a reason. Perhaps the church should stop pointing fingers and re-evaluate its practices. After all, that's what you are asking of the liberal public and, in turn, the government.
      5)This is pretty much reiteration of what you've already written. There are nine states that allow same sex couples to marry and most of them have clauses in their laws that allow for the religious freedom of the church to be protected:
      http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017485806_truthneedle12m.html

      Delete
    17. Father, God bless you! No one has discussed the problem of homosexuality. There are serious health risks to homosexuality but because the media has shown a homosexual relationship as 'normal' the average Joe believes it. Homosexuality is a big health risk. The majority of AID's patience are homosexual. Disease is rampant in the homosexual community. The homosexual act is not conducive to how a persons body is made. A colon is severely damaged not to mention the psychological impact of the degrading hurtful act. Anyway, I don't have too much time to write now but I'm looking forward to your DVD on Homosexuality to come out soon! We need this conversation.

      Delete
    18. 1) what are you talking about animals for?
      2) yet
      3) Despite your assurance, I am still quite certain religious freedom will be flushed down the toilet
      4) What is written in "my Bible" is still supposed to be something I'm able to live by (see the Constitution)
      5) MOST of them? That is not reassuring. And if "marriage" can be "redefined" then why can't those "laws" change over night as well?

      Delete
    19. Dear "K"
      1) yes
      2) this question makes no sense. You don't "fail" pre-Cana
      3) at the moment, no, but if marriage can be redefined, then who is to say freedom of speech and/or religion won't be redefined over night?

      It is not, first and foremost, about children. The Church doesn't say "since you can have kids, you can get married." The Church says, quite simply, marriage is a man and a woman. Within that, yes, the man and the woman, as far as they are able, must be open to life. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that the Church somehow requires marriages to be able to produce a child. That betrays complete ignorance of what the Church has always taught.

      Delete
    20. I guess therein lies a serious difference. I won't sit blithely by and allow you to tell me what to think based on a, what 1,000, page document that I won't myself look at as well, but you refuse to read an 80 page one and instead ask that I just "tell you what's in it". So, until you are more informed on the topics of the day in the society in which you live, instead of relying SOLELY on information garnered from the bible and religious texts, I'm not sure there's anymore to say.

      (Please note: I am not saying those texts aren't worth reading and thinking about in applying them to issues that are facing society today, yet pointing out that current texts are necessary in order to be informed. If you are going to spout opinions and examples as likely or fact, you should, at the least, be willing to inform yourself fully, which you apparently are not).

      Delete
    21. Fr John, I am not sure what Roncalli you went to but we most definitely talked about homosexuality and contraception on a regular basis.

      Delete
    22. There is no explanation about how incest and polygamy do not necessarily follow. It is a standard diversionary tactic in internet discussions - "Here is the answer to your question...it is somewhere in this 80 page document." You can't state the argument, let alone summarize it. Your inability to produce your argument is proving my point - there isn't an argument.

      I'm not asking you to read anything that is 1,000 pages, I'm asking that my ability to enact what is in those 1,000 page documents continue to be respected. I doubt it will be for much longer.

      Delete
    23. Joseph VanderhulstMarch 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      Hi Father! Great post, as usual.

      As an attorney practicing constitutional law, I listened to the audio of the oral argument with great interest. No where does it contain an explanation as to why incest and polygamy do not follow as a matter of course and law.

      Polygamy is discussed once. Interestingly, it was Justice Sotomayor who brought up polygamy. I think she was trying to throw Olson a soft one by asking, "The bottom line is, where does this end? Why not polygamy? Can any laws regulating marriage stand? Where do we draw the line?" Olson just blew it off and dismissed incest and polygamy as "an entirely different thing." He just says polygamy raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, taxes, inheritance, child custody. But he gives no specifics, it's a throw away to the old cases when laws against polygamy were upheld long ago (when the Mormons challenged them under the Constitution). But why aren't these same issues (among others) present here? There are legitimate concerns and state interests. Olson refuses to address it and just blows it off and moves on. He says this is just about discrimination and denying people "rights" because they are homosexual.

      Delete
    24. I went to the Roncalli High School on 3300 Prague Road, and we never once ever talked about it or heard a homily on the issue EVER.

      Delete
    25. Austin, I don't know if you missed Joe Vanderhulst's post above.

      Constitutional attorney, read the whole brief, nothing in there explains how two men can "marry" but still not allow 5 people to marry.

      You made some pretty harsh comments to me about all of this, and now it appears it isn't in there?

      I'd say you ought to
      1) apologize
      2) produce a summary of what Joe the Constitutional lawyer missed in the brief.

      Delete
  10. People can easily confuse intolerance with lack of love for another human being. Truth is the truth. Doesn't mean we can hate others who have been born or choose a different way of sexuality. Means that through the passion of Jesus Christ we are forgiven of our sins and have the responsibility to bear truth with compassion. I am too a sinner who has asked for forgiveness many times. Thanks for explaining the sign.....didn't know what it meant! : ). You are a great solider for Christ Father John. Thanks for keeping this topics of discussion open.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Terrific blog post, Father. How wonderful it is to hear a true priest announcing the Good News once again: Jesus came to set us free from our sins! I hope you can convert lots of them who think this same sex marriage tragedy is good. It's frightening the way the devil works!

    Anonymous, that's a very good point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Erick Erickson: ‏"So when the left begins advocating polygamy, will they use the infinity sign instead of the equal sign?"'

      I meant the first Anonymous. I'm a slow typist. :)

      Delete
  12. Thanks, Father. Keep fighting the good fight! God bless you, Liz

    ReplyDelete
  13. This involves civil marriage, not the Sacrament of marriage, so the Church is still going to be free to deny that to whoever they want (as they do to divorced folks). I have gay friends and occasionally read liberal blogs and have never heard anyone talking about getting the government to force the Church to marry someone it doesn't want to. His conspiracy theory doesn't exist in reality.

    There is harm done in the cases of incest (birth defects, lack of free will in father/daughter, etc situations) and polygamy (lack of an active 2nd parent for child, abuse of multiple wives, pool of unmarried lower-status men). Fr. Hollowell's uses circular reasoning (a logical fallacy) to try to defend his slippery slopy argument. I'd rather see an argument from Natural Law Theory than "we're really the victims, not that oppressed minority!".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. our religious liberty will be taken away and we will be persecuted. Thanks for trying to assure us otherwise, but anyone "with eyes to see and ears to hear" knows what "redefining marriage" means. You can scream "it doesn't affect you" until you are blue in the face...it doesn't make it true that it doesn't affect me.

      Delete
  14. Beautiful & truthful post Fr. John. God bless you & protect you! Please, always speak the truth. The lambs need to be fed by the sheep.
    Pax Christi,
    Trisha


    "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." St. Thomas Aquinas

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am not Catholic. I am however, a Christian committed to serving the risen Savior. I know this article is directed to Catholics, but I must interject that it will not be only Catholics who will suffer persecution in the coming age. It will be anyone who stands for Biblical Teaching and Jesus Christ. If I am unwilling to compromise in order to "get along" I will be right beside my Catholic Brothers who do not compromise either. We are in for a long hard battle. It is definitely a battle of the forces of Good over evil.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I keep hearing the argument that if Christians insist on a homosexual marriage being wrong because the bible defines marriage differently, then why are people not concerned with passages like Deuteronomy 22:11 or Leviticus 19:19?

    Father, Can you please elaborate on why it is justified to argue against homosexuality but not cloth made from two different materials or fields with more than one crop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can watch this video: http://on-this-rock.blogspot.com/2012/04/warp-speed-catechesis-what-church.html

      Delete
    2. Briefly, there are three kinds of laws found in Leviticus:

      1. Rules regarding ritual purity and temple worship
      2. Cultural rules for law and order and to keep Jews distinct from the pagans around them (pagan priests wore mixed cloths apparently).
      3. Universal and unchanging moral laws

      1 and 2 are superseded by Our Lord and the Gospel expanded to include the Gentiles. The cloth and the farming rules are an example of 1 or 2.

      The prohibition of homosexual "sex" is an example of 3, which is re-affirmed by St. Paul in the New Testament and indirectly re-affirmed by Our Lord Himself when he approvingly mentions the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Hope this helps.

      Delete
    3. What John and Scott W. fail to mention is that these new rules the church teaches were decided by man not God. Men in the catholic church met for the catechisms and decided what which laws were universal and unchanging laws. Thats why this argument does not hold up. God did not determine these laws as they would have you believe, but rather a group of old men that were afraid of something they don't try to understand.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Gerold for proving my point - that persecution and a "fear of a religion you don't understand" IS driving you in this matter. You illustrate the thesis of my original blog post perfectly

      Delete
    5. Fear of religion is not a part of this national discussion. Gays are not afraid of religion. We fully support your right to believe what you want, we're just happy we live in a country where we don't have to be second rate citizens because of your beliefs. Just as I imagine you are happy you don't have to follow what the Jewish religion teaches or what Muslims believe. We all live in this country together and since the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." you have the protection to practice your beliefs, but thankfully we have the protection to not have those thrust upon us via laws. You are on the wrong side of history John and I understand and can respect your faith. However you seem oddly fixated on the issue of homosexuality above all else. I get that its the hot topic right now in society but so many people would love to see the church doing so much more actual good than preventing people from loving each other equally. You discuss bodily fluids in homosexual sex, and incorrectly my I add, and its creepy and weird. I assure you heterosexual sex turns me off as much as homosexual sex does to you. You will never understand what it is to be gay and I would hope that that would at least make you try and think about us as people worth loving instead of constantly bashing and putting down. I know you are a good person, I truly do and I miss our friendship and it hurts me to think I've come in the middle of you and Lucas' friendship, but ultimately I'm so aggressive with you because you are so aggressive on the issue and you know me to be a good person. You know I have a good heart and loved our faith and school growing up. I wish more than anything I could have gone on being a practicing and believing Catholic but in my heart and soul I know its wrong to continue to promote what you promote.

      Delete
    6. Gerold, I have no doubt that, as you said, "gays are not afraid of religion." It is religion who ought to be afraid here, which is my whole point of the post.

      I will not have the protection to practice my beliefs, nor will countless Catholics across the country. The government ALREADY has narrowed the view of religion to "what goes on in Church" thus preventing Catholic business owners, Catholic schools, colleges, hospitals etc. being afforded the protection that the First Amendment is supposed to afford them. I have no doubt that you are not worried about what "redefining" marriage (it is a joke just typing those words out) will do to the "free exercise of religion" in this country.

      As for the particulars of male homosexual sex, I'm referring to the mixing of semen, blood, and fesces.

      As for missing our friendship, I seem to remember an exchange on Facebook last year where you used highly inappropriate language which would strongly suggest that you DO NOT miss our friendship.

      Jail, torture, and martyrdom has a way of reuniting old relationships, perhaps when I face one or both of them, your heart will be softened.

      Delete
    7. Also, Gerold, it did make me chuckle when you said I obsess about homosexuality. I now have 251 homilies and classes online, and I think that there are 3 classes, 2 talks, and one homily on the subject of homosexuality.

      It is the trait of a narcissist to think that his/her enemies are always thinking about him/her

      Delete
  17. There are actually eleven states in which cousins are allowed to wed, and even more that allow it but with restrictions. Furthermore, this is not incest, nor is it bestiality. This is two consenting adults of no shared bloodline who wish to make a beautiful commitment to each other. I respect your right to a personal belief on the issue, however it is not your right to deprive someone else of theirs. If you don't believe in marrying another man, I advise you not to. Simple as that. You mentioned that "when a discussion is had as to the fluids exchanged and so forth, most people are repulsed." As a medical student, I couldn't help but shrug. I've spent the last month learning about the gastrointestinal system in detail. The path food takes from the moment it touches the lips to the nerves in the rectum that allow us to distinguish the difference between gas and solid feces. Oddly enough, this conversation is not welcomed among my friends and family. The truth is, when you get down to it, the body is pretty gross. And sex? Whether between a man and a woman or two of the same, there are fluids, and they are everywhere. I happen to find body function fascinating, but anyone who is "repulsed" by the human anatomy, or the ways in which people make love, shows a clear lack of maturity. Lastly, I implore you to directly address how the arguments stated are "severely flawed," because the truth of the matter is, they do love each other, and they aren't hurting you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But anonymous, what does the government have to do with two people "wish[ing] to make a beautiful commitment to each other." (And no one is depriving anyone's right to marry, the fact that they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex is irrelevant; it's like saying despite the fact that I don't want to join the military, the US is depriving me of the status of veteran.")

      In fact, because of this I find the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage based on the notion that they "love each other" or that they "wish to make a beautiful commitment to each other." discriminatory. I am not married, legally, because I made a beautiful commitment to my husband, I am not married, legally, because we love each other. The government couldn't care less whether or not we *love* each other, or whether or our commitment to each other is beautiful. The ONLY thing they care about is the fact that between the two of us we have a complete reproductive system (I didn't say functional, I said complete), and that complete reproductive system ups the odds of us reproducing, thereby creating the next generation of future tax-payers. The rights and benefits afforded to married couples are there to ensure and encourage these unique types of relationships (as compared to any other type of relationship including same-sex relationships) to further the up the odds of future generations of productive tax-payers.

      If a complete reproductive system isn't necessary for marriage, and "all it takes is love" then there is no need for government recognition of marriage in the first place. The government has no business, and ultimately doesn't care about whether or couple or more love each other, they shouldn't - love as a feeling is too subjective and fleeting, and love the action should be practiced in each and every relationship we have, from ones with our spouses and children, to even the guy we flipped off in the car when he cut us off in traffic this morning on the way to work (just because we don't always act that love doesn't mean it isn't supposed to be there).

      No need for government recognition of marriage results in two possibilities, either no one receives any rights and benefits or, EVERYONE receives the same rights and benefits, regardless of relationship status.

      Delete
  18. Very true. People have already begun persecuting the clergy due to the "sex abuse" crisis and it is only a matter of time before they are targeted for standing against birth-control, abortion and yes, same-sex marriage. The world has always hated the priest, because he is a sign of Christ whom it first hated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, those who love the Church have learned there are too many politically correct priests, bishops and cardinals and that is the problem. I hate the bishops and priests who are politicians and businessmen, they betray God and their people. I love the Bishops and priests who stand for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

      Delete
  19. This post should go viral. I've linked you at http://www.lisagraas.com/blog/archives/5644 . I hope other bloggers will, too.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have a few friends that are homosexual and what is tragic, their relationships rarely last. I heard a report on talk radio, that many homosexuals that were married as a result of states passing the same-sex marriage law, many were already divorced, some only lasting 6 months or less. Being homosexual seems to be vogue these days. I know others who are heterosexual, then it became fashionable to be homosexual, so they became homosexual, only now to find out they are really heterosexual! Our world is so confused. Little girls are now told they can be boys and boy are told they can be little girls. Good Grief! The world became this way because God is an outcast in our public schools. Morals have slid because the "family" structure has completely changed and Dad is no longer the head of the house, because Mom decided she would rather be married to her girlfriend. And all of this confusion is because we want to be "happy" 24/7, 365 days a week. I am a single woman and have been single a very long time. I practice chastity as a single woman. My hopes are I will meet a wonderful. loving Catholic man and if it's God's will, I will marry him. In the meantime, I live as Jesus taught, a chaste, single life and it isn't always easy. Jesus never promised us a easy life did he? But he did promise us eternal life if we follow him. I think I will choose to follow Jesus, instead of trying to convince the Catholic Church to change it's views and doctrines in order to make my life easier so I will be "happy". Same thing for homosexual lifestyle. I think if Jesus came across a homosexual couple that was being condemn he would do the same as he did with the woman condemn for adultery...John 8 ; 10-11 " Woman, where are they? Has no one condemn you? She said 'No one Lord' And Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you..GO AND SIN NO MORE." (my emphasis). Jesus didn't condone adultery and he forgave the adulteress woman. It is arrogant to believe that The Church should change it's doctrine to support adultery, same-sex marriage and abortion so we can live out our life being "happy" with our choices. Choices that we don't want any kind of consequences! Father...keep up the boldness and speaking the truth!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are clearly no heterosexual marriages that end in divorce, and certainly none lasting less than 6 months.....

      I don't think anyone hopes or believes the church will change its views, I could care less. But, I would hope they find the compassion to be accepting and to stop perpetuating hate and comparing those that believe in equal rights for homosexuals to "the devil" or "the beast".

      Delete
    2. the mark of the beast is a sign of who is working with the spirit of the Antichrist in our world. Those who have the little red = sign are working with the spirit of the Antichrist.

      Delete
    3. Ok...or comparing them to the Antichrist.

      Delete
  21. Your post is poorly organized and often plain wrong or merely scare tactics.

    1) "The French didn't wake up one morning and say "Hey, let's kill tens of thousands of Catholics"...it happened over time. It was a process." - I googled 'French massacre of catholics' trying to remember this event you wrote of. The result was what I thought I'd find. There wasn't one - unless, of course, you are referring to the massacre of the Huguenots by Catholics on the feastday of St Bartholomew.

    2) "When homosexual sex is described to people using proper anatomical terms, and when a discussion is had as to the fluids exchanged and so forth, most people are repulsed." - I'd argue that most people are repulsed when discussing bodily fluids of most sexual organs. Try having a discussion with most males about female menstruation or what happens during birth and you will find at least as much revulsion. As you have not cited any proof of your claims, neither will I. I find it ironic that your previous paragraph ends saying that "only charisma sways opinions."

    3) I will grant your point about polygamy and incest given the argument that you outline above, however, I'd point out that gay marriage supporters are not trying to change the definition of marriage to include a scope of more than one partner. Incest is another can of worms entirely, but I'd rest well knowing that there has never been support for the idea of incest by the public as far as I know throughout history (though I grant it has happened in many cases).

    4) As far as the rest of your post. You may as well be Glenn Beck. Fearmongering at its worst. This idea that the streets will run red with blood, because of a color change of a symbol, absurd. Stating that the symbol is the mark of the beast? Equally absurd. There have been many claims of evil in this world. But the 3 main evils of the 20th century advocated by Rome have been Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. I will grant that the 20th century is over. Perhaps these evils have graduated? Nazism is little more than a memory, though both totalitarian rulers and communism are still around. Or perhaps we should look to Mother Theresa, who has stated that abortion was the greatest evil, when we look for the mark of the beast? Your accusation is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) The French Revolution
      2) heterosexual sex described does not repulse people on anything like the same level that homosexual sex does.
      3) They aren't including that yet, but there is no argument as to why it can't be multiple if it can be homosexual
      4) Not sure what your point is there

      Delete
    2. Check out the Vendee during the French Revolution if you don't think thousands of French Catholics were killed.

      Delete
  22. 5) So why should gays be allowed to marry? I'd argue that the Church lost its monopoly on marriage when it allowed the state to institutionalize it and allowed it to grant secular benefit. You don't want gays to marry? Don't marry them in the Church. You will still have that option and I'd expect the Church to exercise it. You don't want the institution of marriage sullied by gays being allowed to partake in *any* form? Or is it that you just object that they get the secular benefits from something called 'marriage'? In the second case, it is an easy fix.

    Seeing as the Church has already lost sole rights to 'marriage' when they allowed the government to marry people, rename Church blessed marriages. Call it 'Sanctified Marriage.' Gays won't be able to partake, but they will get all the other benefits of secular marriage. Benefits like being able to file taxes jointly (which has nothing to do with the church) and benefits like being able to have visitation rights in hospitals (which also has nothing to do with the church).

    The church might object to gays being able to adopt as a couple, but I would ask why? Is the objection that the child will have sinners as their parents? Don't we all? Or is it the nature of the sin? Should we not then advise as penance that parents who partake in sexual sin give up their children for adoption? Is the objection that a child should have both a mother and a father as parental figures? We may as well take away children from all single-parent households. Is the argument that gay parents will turn the child gay? Gayness is not a sin, according to the church, acting on it is. Which brings me to my final point:

    There is no way to know that a gay couple is actively engaging in homosexual acts, you merely assume. A gay couple could live completely celibate lives, partaking in the friendship of one another and the secular benefits of their partnership. In this case, there is no sin. It is merely a case of two adults raising a child. Hopefully, they will raise it in love. A child with two loving parents, supportive parents, who will undoubtedly love them if they turn out gay or straight, just as God loves them if they are gay or straight. I'd submit that this would be a much better home situation than a child that is raised in an orphanage, or in a single parent household where the parent has to work all hours to support them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have >10,000 years of data on children being raised by a mother and father - it is the basic building block of society and culture. What data suggests that a homosexual couple can adequately fulfill this basic function? Recent sociology studies (peer reviewed scientific journals) are showing negative affects in children raised by same sex parents. The family unit is under assault by the devil and we (all Christians) must acknowledge this. Last year, for the first time in our nation's history, the traditional family unit fell below 50% of households.

      Fr. John - God Bless you!

      Delete
  23. Powerful, insightful article, beware of the attack that will follow from the tolerant, fringe element.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm a lifetime Catholic that believes in marriage equality and a woman's right to end a pregnancy. Should I just quit the church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should take a real hard look at what is going on in your faith life. If the Church is wrong, then my question is "why stay?"

      Delete
    2. Fr. John,

      Good to see you fighting the good fight. I agree: for the time, we will lose this battle as this wave sweeps over us, but we know that when the dust settles and people are still miserable after they have received what they want, the Church will still be there, pointing to the Truth that will set them free.

      Fr. Daniel Whelan

      Delete
    3. Calling equal things that are not in fact equal is anything but equality and is the opposite of charity. The right of a woman to end a pregnancy? Why didn't you say, "the right of a woman to kill her own baby"?

      Delete
    4. I know from personal experience the aftermath of abortion. Women that choose abortion live with a death sentence around their neck for the rest of their lives. They spend their lives in shame, guilt and spiritual disconnect. Women's rights? I ask myself everyday, why did I think I had the right to kill my child. It's called being selfish not selfless. I was thinking only what I thought would be best for me. As a mother, do you ONLY think about what is best for you or do you consider the ramifications of your decisions on how it will effect your children. Why do we think our decisions do not matter for the child until it is born? How many times during a pregnancy does a Doctor warn you on all the foods and beverages you should not consume because it is a proven fact it will harm the development of the child. If the child is not "alive" then why the warnings from the doctor? Yeah..I was a practicing Catholic until the abortion. Then I actually feared going back to church. It took me 20 years to come back, give a weeping confession on killing my child and begged for forgiveness. That was 7 years ago and I still struggle with forgiving myself. I thank GOD everyday for my Priest, who was so kind to me and helped me every step of the way. Now I openly speak out about the horrors of abortion. If you were to meet the broken mothers I meet of abortion...you would not be professing Women"s Rights.













      TH








      Delete
  25. I would like you to compare this to interracial marraige, and slavery in scripture. Also to rape (ruth), and womens rights in general. Do you stand firm in your beliefs in these regards. Also please address pork, because according to your bible you nor anyone else in the catholic church was EVER given the go ahead on that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like you to compare this to interracial marraige

      The Church has never taught the invalidity of interracial marriages. When talking about slavery, we have to distinguish what kind of slavery. The "slavery" found in the Old Testament is really better described as an indenture, which are not inherently unjust. Chattel slavery (where humans are no more than property) has repeatedly been condemned by the Church.

      The Church condemns all rape, so yeah, it's easy to stand firm in our beliefs.

      The prohibition of pork is lifted when God declared all unclean food made clean in Acts 10.

      Delete
    2. I would also like an explanation for these issues.

      Delete
    3. The Church HAS supported chattel slavery. The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens. The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226

      Delete
    4. The Church HAS supported chattel slavery. The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens. The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226

      These are not chattel slavery. This is slavery imposed on prisoners of war or as punishment for a crime, which are not unjust in and of themselves.

      Delete
    5. You don't consider slavery as a form of punishment to be immoral? This is an ecumenical council. It is imposing slavery as a punishment for sin!!! Chattel or not, it is wrong!!!

      Delete
    6. You don't consider slavery as a form of punishment to be immoral? This is an ecumenical council. It is imposing slavery as a punishment for sin!!! Chattel or not, it is wrong!!!

      It could be circumstantially wrong, but not inherently so. But since you conceded the lion's share of the argument (namely, that the "Gasp! The Bible supports slavery!" argument is a non-starter on close examination), my work is done here.

      Delete
  26. Powerful article Padre, keep up the good fight!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you Father for providing the truth. You help me in my daily struggle of faith. . To those who are in opposition: think about why you talk about acceptance and love but are so full of anger and hate. The Catholic Church is concerned about the soul and eternal happiness not superficial earthly happiness. Try to look at it from that point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yesterday at family dinner my brother and his wife were blindsided when thier 4 th grader said, "we voted in favor of gay marriage today in class 15-14". ...... They live in a small two stoplight town that used to close up on Sundays just 20 years ago.
    The fourth grader is the oldest of thier children and this irresponsible introduction to this topic at school has forced sex ed conversations on a family that is not old enough to handle them yet. Apparently the puplic school doesn't think so either as that class doesn't happen till 5th grade.
    Think this doesn't affect us all..think again it feels like our children's innocence is being stollen from us. Because you can no longer have a small discussion about marriage and children and man and women with out some sexual clarrification. Example: his 4th grader said two moms can't have a baby and the 3rd grader said not until they are married....because until yesterday "married" was a word that covered some things that didn't need to be explained to a child that wasn't ready to learn more.....
    The classroom and thousands of others watches a news program in class WWW.channelone.com with young teens doing "cool" news.. right before it asked them to vote it told them that 70% of young people already voted yes......wake up to what is going on in the classroom. So what do we have to lose......everything. I whole heartedly unerstand blastphamy now and the punishment for it. I feel like we are walking thru the valley of the shadow of dealth....and God help me and forgive me but as a mom I do fear the evil because it is getting so big......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you really that ignorant to not be able to see what your 10 year old child can. Marriage doesn't matter if it is a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman so long as they love each other wholeheartedly. The only thing different about the love between those people and you and your husband is that they cannot produce children, but with the amount of over population in this world, and the number orphans because same sex couples, like yourself, couldn't take care of them. But guess what. Gay couples adopt these abandoned children and raise them in a loving home just like you raise yours except without the bigotry and lies being shoved down their throats. These kids are raised to love everyone. Not just love those who agree with you, and pray that everyone else conforms. That is what is terrible about you people. You say that you will pray for the sinners, but no, all you do is pray that they will conform to your ideals. Basically you are praying to take away their individuality. To take away the way that God made them. It is scientifically proven that Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a born with life style. So please get off of your pedestal and learn tat gay people are just like you and me. No more, no less. In fact I can almost assure you that at some point in your life you have known, been friends with, slept in the same room with, worked with, or even eaten with someone who is gay. How has this affected your life? it hasn't and do you know what will happen if we allow gay people to get married? Shh... cause this is a big one. Gay people will get married. Oh my gosh! Isn't that revolutionary? Your life will not change in any way. So again I ask you. Get off of your pedestal and join the rest of the logical people who know that people shouldn't be discriminated against for their beliefs.

      Delete
    2. Wow! You have one angry tone to your writing ! I wish you could express your opinion without verbally tearing someone else down and name calling. Let's be civil.

      Delete
  29. I don't think anyone wants to "redefine" the church's sacraments. What people can't seem to understand is that supporters of marriage equality believe that every tax paying American should be able to receive a marriage license from the State as well as shared benefits between two consenting adults. That means two people above the age of 18 who both agree to legally bind themselves together.

    SO YES, I actually just did LOGICALLY defend *marriage equality. Sorry if you experience cognitive dissonance, or "ignorance", in your case.


    No one is asking you to stop being a Catholic. No one is infringing upon your rights. You are not being persecuted. People in the Middle East who get killed on a daily basis for being Christian? That, my friend, is persecution. Homosexuals in this country, the United States of America, home of the "free", who are teased, mocked, physically injured, and even killed on a daily basis for being GAY? THAT IS WHAT PERSECUTION IS.


    The wants of the few should not outweigh the rights of the many. This country is a democracy, not a dictatorship. According to the constitution, "all men are created equal", and by saying that that red equal sign is "the mark of the beast", you are saying you believe that some people on this earth, were created by God as less than human beings.

    By putting down homosexuals and supporters of marriage equality, you claim to be morally superior. You claim that you are better than those people. And your juvenile, unnecessary comment about same sex intercourse has no place on a priest's blog. You have a right to freedom of speech and to your own opinion, but I don't think you should be condemning homosexuals while you're sitting behind a computer ACTUALLY showing hatred towards someone else's sex life. That is NOT your job.

    I have never seen ANYTHING in this world that is less like Jesus, and considering the fact that you are a priest with such a large following, that is downright appalling.

    You can tell us that we are wrong, you can claim that our arguments are fallacies, but in the end, only God can judge us, and He (or She) will judge you too, Father Hollowell.

    I hope you have some sarcastic, arrogant retort to this comment so you can further prove you are a hateful, insecure person who constantly needs to defend yourself with absurd arguments.

    In the meantime, I will continue to pray for you, because you definitely need it.

    Sincerely,
    Your friend, the Liberal Arts Freshman, fully invigorated from HER communications course on Logical Fallacies!

    "He who has not sinned may cast the first stone."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. continued...

      and by saying that that red equal sign is "the mark of the beast", you are saying you believe that some people on this earth, were created by God as less than human beings.

      Not at all. Believing that two men in a barren mutual-masturbation arrangement is a marriage doesn't make one less human, it just makes them wrong.

      By putting down homosexuals and supporters of marriage equality, you claim to be morally superior. You claim that you are better than those people

      Not at all. We are all sinners, but pretending sin isn't really sin is another matter entirely.

      And your juvenile, unnecessary comment about same sex intercourse has no place on a priest's blog.

      This is a bit like pro-abortion arguments--they don't like it when one describes the concrete act of reaching into a womb with forceps and dismembering an innocent human being limb from limb. Who can blame them? It's devastating to their case. Same with concrete descriptions of homosexual "sex".

      You have a right to freedom of speech and to your own opinion, but I don't think you should be condemning homosexuals while you're sitting behind a computer ACTUALLY showing hatred towards someone else's sex life. That is NOT your job.

      All you do is make the word "hate" cheap and meaningless. Bank robbery is wrong, yet no one accuses anyone of saying "bank robbery is wrong" of hate.

      I have never seen ANYTHING in this world that is less like Jesus, and considering the fact that you are a priest with such a large following, that is downright appalling.

      Hyperbole. Jesus called sins sins, and also called sinners to repentance.

      You can tell us that we are wrong, you can claim that our arguments are fallacies, but in the end, only God can judge us, and He (or She) will judge you too, Father Hollowell.

      Homosexual "sex" is wrong. That's not judging people, that's telling the truth.

      I hope you have some sarcastic, arrogant retort to this comment so you can further prove you are a hateful, insecure person who constantly needs to defend yourself with absurd arguments.

      You haven't demonstrated any of the arguments absurd. You've just ranted.

      In the meantime, I will continue to pray for you, because you definitely need it.

      So what you really mean is "I'll pray for you and the horse you rode in on."

      Your friend, the Liberal Arts Freshman, fully invigorated from HER communications course on Logical Fallacies!

      Copy what you wrote here, take it to your bursar and ask for a refund.

      Delete
    2. Now now, Scott... as fun as it is to play whack-a-mole, don't go picking on the poor girl. She's clearly been drinking the kool-aid. Other than the snark (which I admit, made me chuckle... but I'm a sinner), very good point by point response to her rant.

      Delete
    3. If "drinking the Kool-Aid" means "living in the real world and thinking about the rights of others than just those of myself instead of shoving my religion down the entire country's throat" then yeah, that's exactly what I've been doing!

      Delete
    4. The wants of the few should not outweigh the rights of the many. This country is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

      "Truth isn't determined by majority rule. If I get 51% of the population to legally recognize me as Napoleon, does it make it so? Hardly."

      -I might be mistaken, but majority rule does determine what happens in this country. It's not an issue of what YOU personally think is true or not, it's an issue of an extremely large group of people BEING DENIED HUMAN RIGHTS.

      According to the constitution, "all men are created equal"

      "I think you mean the Declaration of Independence. Interesting that this phrase did not make it into the Constitution."

      -Does it matter where the phrase came from so much as what the phrase means? I don't even think this phrase is up for interpretation, it's pretty straightforward. "Interesting that this phrase did not make it into the Constitution"...now that's a phrase open to interpretation! Are you implying that not everyone was created equal in God's eyes? I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't a choice, just as it wasn't your choice to be straight, or even Father John Hollowell's choice to become a priest. One might even say it's a calling from God. However, being a bigot IS, in fact, a choice.

      I sincerely want to thank you for having this conversation with me. May God bless you. Maybe some day your hard heart will soften. Remember, God loves everyone, not just a select few.

      Delete
    5. -I might be mistaken, but majority rule does determine what happens in this country. It's not an issue of what YOU personally think is true or not, it's an issue of an extremely large group of people BEING DENIED HUMAN RIGHTS.

      Same-sex marriage is a lie. Refusing to acknowledge a lie is never a human rights abuse.

      I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't a choice

      No one involuntarily unzips their fly.

      One might even say it's a calling from God.

      If someone was born with a disposition for alcoholism, would you call his drinking a calling from God? Of course not.

      Maybe some day your hard heart will soften.

      Begging the question. My heart is not hard. I preach that God loves homosexuals, but I also preach the Truth that homosexual sex is evil. Love without Truth isn't love at all.

      Delete
  30. What people can't seem to understand is that supporters of marriage equality believe that every tax paying American should be able to receive a marriage license from the State as well as shared benefits between two consenting adults. That means two people above the age of 18 who both agree to legally bind themselves together.

    Oh we understand that perfectly, and that people who argue such are perfectly wrong. As I said above, two men agreeing to a barren mutual-masturbation arrangement given a legal rubberstamp by a government that has informally declared war against reality is no more a marriage than me sawing off half my legs and wearing a funny general's hat makes me Napoleon. These are not marriages, they are lies.


    SO YES, I actually just did LOGICALLY defend *marriage equality. Sorry if you experience cognitive dissonance, or "ignorance", in your case.

    No you didn't. You just baldly asserted.

    No one is asking you to stop being a Catholic. No one is infringing upon your rights. You are not being persecuted.

    We've already seen the fruits of same-sex "marriage". Believers in true marriage have been fired from their jobs. Students have been harassed. One woman even had to flee the country with her biological daughter because a court insanely awarded custody to her creepy lesbian ex-"spouse".

    People in the Middle East who get killed on a daily basis for being Christian? That, my friend, is persecution.

    Well, we agree on something at least. Now we just need you to recognize that not all persecution is mortal.

    Homosexuals in this country, the United States of America, home of the "free", who are teased, mocked, physically injured, and even killed on a daily basis for being GAY? THAT IS WHAT PERSECUTION IS.

    True. And if you will actually take a moment to learn what the Church actually teaches, you will know that the Church condemns those acts.

    The wants of the few should not outweigh the rights of the many. This country is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

    Truth isn't determined by majority rule. If I get 51% of the population to legally recognize me as Napoleon, does it make it so? Hardly.

    According to the constitution, "all men are created equal"

    I think you mean the Declaration of Independence. Interesting that this phrase did not make it into the Constitution.

    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Though "all men are created equal" did not make it into the Constitution's text, the Equal Protection Clause did.

      Delete
  31. Equality is the opposite of the symbol of the cross. If you turn the line round, there lies the crucifix, the symbol of Gods people, His since time began, His bride married in communion to Him. How prophetic that the redefinition of marriage is taking place over Holy Week. As marriage becomes illegal, the law lays claim to define us. But we can never be redefined, we are His, purchased by the blood shed in the cross.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Father,
    as a 20 something guy that is currently working on the starts of a great relationship with a really attractive woman. I personally find that the issue of marriage equality to be something of a generational issue. Yes I understand and also respect the perspective that older folks have on the issue. I can also contest that a same sex parents can make really good parents. I've seen this first hand while working as a PCA. and the two mom's I worked for where awesome parents. Not only did they adopt a child with special need child, they adopted a second third with special needs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Pope Francis and the Church have been quite clear - homosexual couples adopting children is a crime against the child. Having two "parents" in one's life is not the only thing that matters such that society ought to just simply throw children into homes so that they can have two "parents". We don't put kids looking for parents in any old home for lots of reasons, but now we'll just start acting like two gay parents engaging in homosexual sex is an okay environment because "they love each other"??

      Delete
    2. Yep, it was a real crime for my Aunt and her partner of more than ten years to adopt a six-year-old girl from an overcrowded Russian orphanage that would have turned her out on the streets as soon as she hit 18, regardless of whether or not she was prepared to live on her own. That moment when that little girl cried with joy when she finally was able to hug her new grandmother for the first time, should never have happened.

      Delete
    3. When a person is 6 years old, that is not the end of the story. We don't know all the ways that such a set up will affect this young person, and so the momentary joy of a six year old is not solid justification for the state to redefine what marriage is

      Delete
  33. Thank you for your honest opinion on this matter. However, no one is seeking to force anything upon the Catholic Church. Our country is legislated by the constitution, not the bible. There are many in this country that do not follow the teachings of Jesus or the bible. We are such a diverse nation. It is simply the task of the Supreme Court to determine if it is the constitutional right of a gay couple to gain the legal standing of a married couple, which would carry with it thousands of legal benefits (none of which would be mandated upon religious organizations).

    It is disheartening to see that you are perpetuating hate and bigotry instead of spreading the message of love, tolerance, and inclusion that is found in the New Testament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Church will be persecuted. Anyone with "eyes to see and ears to hear" recognizes this. If it helps you sleep at night, then keep telling yourself that redefining marriage doesn't harm anyone's religious freedom

      Delete
  34. The United States is a secular nation. Catholics have every right to practice their religion, just as other religions have the right to practice. However, allowing religious beliefs to impose on the rights of a nation is unacceptable. The Catholic Church is welcome to ban same-sex marriages in their religious institutions, but they have zero authority to ban same-sex marriages elsewhere.

    In your entry, you mention that the "they aren't hurting you" argument is flawed. Yet, you do not explain your reasoning. I fail to see how same-sex marriage would impose any type of hindrance on your life.

    None of us are without sin. Who are you to determine which sin deserves more prosecution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That homosexual "sex" is immoral is not a strictly Catholic argument. It can be demonstrated from Reason, science, history, antrhopolgy and simple apprehension. Even Sigmund Freud, who hated religion, knew that it was immoral. We are no more imposing Catholicism any more that making bank robbery illegal is imposing.

      Delete
    2. Sigmund Freud also believed that young boys wanted to have sex with their mothers and kill their fathers. I'm not sure how plausible your reasoning is if you are using Freud as your compass for morality.

      Delete
    3. It is meant as an analogy to demonstrate that it is not necessary to be religious to know that homosexual "sex" is immoral. I'll take your response as tacitly conceding the point.

      Delete
  35. This blog is digusting. The God I know and love doesnt preach such intolerance. Hey, Jerry Falwell...take it down a notch.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In 2010 (then) Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio asserted that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children. A child deserves a mother and a father.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which would be better for a child Kellie?

      A) To be adopted by a heterosexual couple(just because they are straight and married) who will severely abuse this child throughout their life.

      -OR-

      B) To be adopted by two gay people who are filthy rich and will give the child all the love they need and pamper them with a wealthy life.

      Pick one and explain why you chose the one you did with a logical and sound explanation.

      Delete
    2. So money buys happiness? Kind of gross.

      The answer to your question, though, is NEITHER should be allowed to adopt, and the state DOESN'T just say "Oh, two heterosexual people...here's a kid" There are screenings, visitations, etc. Why??? BECAUSE THE STATE HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT THE ENVIRONMENT A KID IS PLACED IN MATTERS!!!

      Delete
    3. I just simply asked which one would be better. There is NO OPTION (C) Fr. Hollowell! It's either A or B.

      As far as Money buys happiness that you think is gross....You know you get a big fat paycheck every week or bi-weekly or month, whatever it may be. You know good and well that you use your cash to purchase things that make you happy....AND....I'll betcha you didn't take no vow of poverty when you were ordained a priest!!!

      Delete
    4. However, what you don't realize is that homosexuals adopting children is extremely pro-life. If more homosexuals were married and able to adopt children, maybe less women would decide to have abortions and decide to give their children up for adoption instead...

      Delete
  37. Prediction: The laws made in democracies in the name of tolerance, same-sex marriage being one of them, will eventually force any who oppose them into oppression, because the tyrrany of majority opinion will end up trumping the truth about sin. The persecution of believers in God is well underway throughout the world, just look around. This has already been prophesied in Revelation and in the Book of Truth (cf. Dan 10:31). Invitation: read the prophetic messages starting here [ http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/marriage-is-not-acceptable-before-my-altar-if-it-is-between-two-people-of-the-same-sex/ ].

    Dick Mueller, New Hampshire

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think you will like this story Father: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/unitarian-universalists-would-prefer-their-polyamory-activists-keep-quiet/2013/03/22/f3d14eaa-9333-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html

    Basically, the Unitarian Universalists have a wing of polyamorists, or basically in support of "loving" sexual relationships with more than one other person. They are more or less being told by other UU's to be quiet while same-sex "marriage" gets passed. Get that? They don't think the polyamorists are wrong, they are telling them to wait their turn.

    Slippery slope indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Father would it t be wrongfor a catholoc to not care if they can have a civil union and same e civil rights as long as the definition marriage remains the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you asked because it is important for Catholics to realize that there is no acceptable option that goes, "Well you guys go over there and have your version of marriage (call them unions if you would please) and we'll have ours over here." This is proved by the recent Vatican document, "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons". You can read it here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

      Let me quote what are essentially the Catholic's marching orders:

      In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

      Delete
  40. Paul Annee--RoncalliMarch 27, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    Fr. Hollowell thank you so much for having the courage to take a stand which sadly many preists, religion teachers, and fellow Catholis will not. I am a sophomore at Roncalli and I over the course of this year have gone to the administion and my own religion teacher's and pleaded that we as a Catholic's are taught why contriception is wrong, exposing Planned Parenthood for what they truly are, explaning why gay marriage is wrong but also at the same time teaching the churchs reasoning for her belif which is a very beautiful one . So many of my classmates and freinds are completly blind and hateful to these issues and if Roncalli or and other Catholic high schools won't teach these critical belifs then we have lost them to the mainstream media and the secular society. In fact just this past week several of the kids I go to school with suggested that the church allow abortion and and gay marriage because the church needs to modernize. It's very troubling knowing that the religion teachers and others will not teach us the truth Father I thank you for speaking the truth,if you have any suggestions for me or thougths I would greatly appericiate it.
    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  41. Since when did "People think it's gross" become an argument for the SCOTUS?

    ReplyDelete
  42. you should be ashamed of yourself! This is a disgusting blog just like the person writing it. No respectable priest blogs with such hatred and I am sickened that we actually went to the same high school. Priests should be gentle and kind and non judgmental and to speak about their belief and not force their belief on others.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Father,

    Thank you for the interesting blog post. While reading it, though, the following hypothetical situation popped into my mind, and I'm curious what you think about it.

    Imagine a young woman who discovers that she is infertile. Doctors assure her that, sadly, she is completely unable to conceive a child (or--given our current scientific knowledge and technology--we think she is about as likely to conceive as a healthy male would be). Despite her infertility, she falls in love with a man, and they would like to get married and remain in a committed relationship for the rest of their lives. They hope to adopt and raise children (they are perfectly happy to adopt, in part because increased support for adoption might help reduce the abortion rate). However, they also plan on engaging in sexual intercourse while married. They know that doing so has no chance of producing children, but they think that having sex will bring them closer together and will be a beautiful and profound expression of the love they have for one another. Of course, if they were miraculously to conceive a child, they would be very happy, but they know this won't happen.

    This hypothetical raises the following questions for me. Should this couple be able to get married? Should they be able to have sex? Should they be able to adopt children? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," why should the answer be different for couples of the same sex?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A) I personally know of TONS of cases where doctors assured a woman she was infertile, and she went on to have several children.

      B) Even given that, the argument is not simply "if you can have children you can get married" - married men and women who can't conceive can still adopt children AND provide them with something Dave and Steve can't, a father AND a mother.

      Delete
    2. Even in the case of infertile couples, the marriage and the marital act is still ordered toward procreation, whether that actually results in children or not. Let me make a sports analogy. A football team is ordered to the playing and winning of football games. Even if a football team loses every single one of its games, it is still a football team because it never stops being ordered toward the purpose.

      Same-sex "marriage" isn't ordered toward procreation. It is by nature dead and barren.

      Delete
    3. It's hard to see how this makes a moral difference. In both situations, the couples have the same intent when engaging in sexual activity - neither intends to procreate (as both recognize it as impossible). While heterosexual sex may generally be ordered toward procreation, this kind of heterosexual sex is barren "by nature." It is not the kind of act that leads to procreation when one or both partners' anatomy makes conception impossible. And in both situations, the effect will be the same - no children + pleasure/intimacy/whatever else results when two people who love each other engage in sexual activity.

      Determining whether the act at issue is "ordered toward procreation" will depend upon the level of generality at which you define the act. And defining the act at a level of generality that includes the sexual acts of infertile couples but excludes the sexual acts of homosexual couples is likely to rest on a morally arbitrary distinction.

      Delete
    4. It's hard to see how this makes a moral difference

      Only if you are a consequentialist.

      In both situations, the couples have the same intent when engaging in sexual activity - neither intends to procreate (as both recognize it as impossible).

      See what Fr. Hollowell said about so-called impossible. As long as a man and a women are capable of completing the marital act normally, they can marry regardless whether the consequence of pregnancy happens or not.

      While heterosexual sex may generally be ordered toward procreation, this kind of heterosexual sex is barren "by nature."

      Wrong. They might be barren by circumstance, but not by nature.

      It is not the kind of act that leads to procreation when one or both partners' anatomy makes conception impossible

      When there is an anatomical problem in which the man and woman could not complete the marital normally, then in that case, they could not validly marry.

      And in both situations, the effect will be the same - no children + pleasure/intimacy/whatever else results when two people who love each other engage in sexual activity.

      This is the consequentialism I mentioned. But they are not the same because the chosen act is morally legitimate in the normal marriage and immoral in the homosexual mutual-masturbation act.

      Determining whether the act at issue is "ordered toward procreation" will depend upon the level of generality at which you define the act. And defining the act at a level of generality that includes the sexual acts of infertile couples but excludes the sexual acts of homosexual couples is likely to rest on a morally arbitrary distinction.

      There is nothing arbitrary about it. Homosexual "sex" can only be sustained in self-contradicting moral relativism.





      Delete
  44. The Catholic faith began with Jesus. We can trace all our Popes beginning with Peter. Times change but God does not. He is constant. What His Son taught us through His life on earth, was tolerance for the sinner as we all are sinners. He did NOT teach tolerance of sin. The Ten Commandments are not suggestions but are commands. The Church stands firm in what Jesus taught and must always. If we all pick and choose what part of our Catholic faith we want to choose to follow, we have lost our way. It is not easy, it is not popular, but it is our faith. It does not change. We are not Catholic if we cannot profess our faith and believe all that it entails. I can say I am a brain surgeon but I am not. Would you want me to do surgery on you? I can say that I am Catholic but that does not make it so. What makes me Catholic is that I believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches even if it is not the popular route or what society is trying to persuade me to believe. Jesus taught much while He was on this earth and He was not popular with some. That is why He was tortured and sentenced to death. Yes, it is interesting that all this is happening during Holy Week. We need to pray and pray fervently that the definition of marriage does not change. How many of you are going to follow Him and His teachings and how many are going to change your minds to go along with the crowd. Are you like Judas, will you betray Him? Are you like Peter, will you deny him? Are you in the crowd, maybe one of his followers, but yelling "crucify Him", because it is easier to go with the crowd then to follow His teachings? Don't hide behind the word tolerance. Do you choose to follow Jesus or sin?

    ReplyDelete
  45. 1. Animals hold no legal standing and therefor cannot be married. That argument is, quite frankly, ignorant and misleading.
    2. The people that are repulsed by the anatomical description of homosexual intimacy are probably straight (just a hunch). I don't know many gay men that are super aroused by anatomical descriptions of heterosexual sex.
    3. This is a legal matter. Not a moral matter. I promise if you're straight, you'll still be straight. If you're gay, you'll still be gay.
    4. The only blood that has been spilled over this issue has been that of the gay community and it has been by delusional religious fanatics and by the ignorant and homophobic people of their communities.
    5. Love is not yours to judge. Focus on divorce rates. Focus on world peace. Focus on poverty. Stop trying to prevent people from loving each other. There's too little of it in the world for us to be so passionate about snuffing it out.
    6. No one is going to torture or imprison you because we support the right of two people to have a long-term companionship that is recognized by the government.

    I was raised Catholic by priests who believed in caring for one another. I left because I saw corruption on the most disturbing scales. I hope you consider leading your church on matters of social justice like the church was known for in my youth. Not just on calling out who is and isn't going to hell. The Good Lord has that covered and I can't imagine he needs you ranting and raving about that. Be his hands and stop pretending to be his mouth. You're making him look like a real asshole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) animals? What are you referencing?
      2) there are some bodily fluids involved in male homosexual sex that are not involved in heterosexual sex.
      3) I have no idea what you are promising
      4) Oh please! Any violence against homosexuals is reprehensible and condemned with the utmost force, but to pretend that there has been no bullying in the other direction is just ludicrous. You've seen the Dan Savage speech right - mocking and humiliating kids publicly simply for believing in the Bible???
      5) Love is not mine to judge - who said anything about judging love? I'm talking about marriage in the state.
      6) despite your assurances, if marriage can be redefined, then who is to say that religious freedom won't be redefined overnight as well?

      Delete
    2. When has the Government ever done anything overnight? The slippery slope argument can't be used in governmental laws. You can't argue "If we start here, where will it stop?" Who is to say that all ramifications from this law would be bad? Just as we don't know what bad things may come, we don't know what good things will come either. We have to make laws based on the Constitution as it stands today. If, in the future, things change or injustices are being imposed on religious freedoms, then it will be addressed at that time. As it stands, injustices are being imposed on homosexual persons, and so today, that must be addressed.

      Delete
    3. When has the government ever done anything overnight? The slippery slope argument really cannot be used in a governmental issue. The court has to determine what the Constitution says is legal and what is an injustice today. If SCOTUS deems it a Constitutional injustice to ban two consenting adults from a legally committed relationship, then it has the duty to correct that injustice for those individuals, NOW. If, in the future, the free speech of religious institutions is being threatened, then SCOTUS will deal with that when the time comes. You cannot use the "let's not right this injustice of today because something worse may happen in the future to a different group of people" argument. An injustice is an injustice, no matter who is the victim. You can't keep rights from homosexuals just because you're afraid that your rights will be taken away. Who is to say that what may come in the future is all bad? It's just as likely that it could be all good, as far as anyone of today knows. How about we just give homosexuals their rights and let you keep yours, too.

      Out of curiosity, if that could be formulated as an unchangeable law until the end of time (that you could preach against homosexual acts, never be jailed for what you say, never be sued for discrimination for not allowing homosexuals to marry in your church or use your facilities, and Catholic institutions would never be sued of discrimination for failing to recognize gay marriages as valid - all the while allowing homosexuals the same governmental rights as heterosexuals), would you still have a problem with it? If you weren't afraid of your rights being taken away from you, would you be against gay marriage for religious reasons only? Or would you still have a problem with homosexuals receiving the same governmental rights and freedoms as heterosexuals?

      Delete
    4. 1) Give the leftwingwackos time, they will give animals standing, or are you ignorant of the animal rights movement?
      4) You are obviously ignorant of history, 200 million dead thanks to the religion of Atheism as official state religion.
      5) You do not know what is love. You believe it is just a feeling, or whatever the pelvis tells you. When you learn what love really is, you can lecture us on it.
      6) You obviously have not paid attention what happens to Christians in other countries (and here too) who HAVE been imprisoned for not going along with the LGBT agenda. Just because you don't pay attention, doesn't mean we don't.

      Delete
  46. Father John, I love your line "...a little ditty from Revelation..." - brought a smile. For some reason folks seem to want to make Sacred Scripture fit their notions of how things ought to be instead of what it really says. There is a hell and it will be populated if there isn't some serious reform.

    Great article and thanks (it's good to hear I am not alone in my homiletic approach).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove there is a hell....Where is the location?

      Delete
  47. "Gay marriage". It's all about the "lurv" - we keep hearing. Okay, since there's such an abundance of "lurv" in the air these days, do kids get some of it too? Like, is their basic human right to have the formative influences of a (real) mom and a (real) dad respected and safeguarded in this new explosion of "lurv" or no? No amount of "lurv" can turn a man into a (real) mom or a woman into a (real) dad, now can it? Be honest now. Lurv, my you-know-what! Try "perverted, self-centered, debasing and insane animal lust".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I can't imagine why people are walking away from your side.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, not everyone worships the pelvis. We can't all be part of your religion.

      Delete
  48. Any institution is marred by scandal. So all of them need to let go of power and let God be the judge. Look at the Catholic Church. Wall Street (Madoff), Penn State, and even other corporate-like dominions.

    Each of them have so much money, power and influence that cause various abuses to form.

    No true Conservative Catholic will denounce sex abuses to the level that most critics of the faith would like. It's almost as if denouncing any wrongdoings comes off as slanderous and a sign of a "fallen-away Catholic."

    Just like Catholics want government to stay out of its way - stay out of the government's way as well. Those who are gay or lesbian most likely don't come to Church. And they won't want to marry in the Church. Trying to "pray" for them or bring them home is degrading to their sexual preference and personal identity. They don't want to get married in a place that doesn't accept them for who they are, where they are. So leave them alone!

    Firstly, preach an end to divorce and annulments before you try defining who should be married.

    If you use the argument of "studies show children need a father and a mother" not a "mother and a mother" or "father and father" then be FAIR and also talk about studies involving single-parent households or children who are victims of sex abuse from priests, family members, etc.

    Marriage is not a debate; it's an equal right that should be granted to all.

    And if you think suddenly incest, beastiality etc. will occur from redefining marriage, you're wrong. Unlike some Catholics who mistake sexually-abusive priests for homosexuals, gays and lesbians have the intelligence to know wrong vs.right - abuse vs. consent.



    ReplyDelete
  49. “I want to begin with word to those who disagree with us on this issue and may be watching us right now: we love you, we are your neighbors, and we want to be your friends, and we want you to be happy.

    Please understand that we don’t hate you, and that we are not motivated by animus or bigotry; it is not our intention to offend anyone, and if we have, I apologize; please try to listen to us fairly, and calmly, and try to understand us and our position, as we will try to do the same for you.” - Archbishop Cordileone, March for Marriage 2013, Washington D.C.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Many critics don't want government or the Catholic Church involved.

    Leave us alone! And let there be marriage equality!!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Father Hollowell, I had you in class at Ritter and through people on Facebook I came across this blog. When you talk about the slippery slope that we are on if gay marriage is accepted. I don't know if you have heard about this but I have been hearing about how Episcopalian priests who are married are being allowed to convert to Catholicism and becoming priests. Yet I was taught in all of my Catholic schooling that the relationship between God and a priest is too important and too sacred for the priest to be able to have a relationship with another person as well. This is a long standing tradition of the Church and yet it seems that because of the shortage of priests the Vatican has decided to "bend the rules", if you will, and allow these married men to become Catholic priests. Now I have no problem at all with married men becoming priests except for the fact that for the longest time the Church has been teaching that only non-married men can be priests. The only two possibilities that I can think of that the Vatican could change its mind on this issue are these: Either the Church is evolving to accommodate the needs of the present time that we are in, or the Church is willing to change its teachings only when it solves a problem that the Church is having such as the shortage in priests. If it is the first reason then why wouldn't the Church change to meet the present times? How does the Church determine what teachings are irrelevant to the times and what is relevant? And if it is the second reason, if the Church only changes its teachings to benefit the Church, then it seems the Church is on its own slippery slope. Here is a link to one of the articles

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Put simply James, the celibacy rule is a discipline, not a de fide dogma. Exceptions to the celibacy rule are not new. In fact, they are common in Eastern-rite Catholics. That sexual contact is only morally licit between a man and a woman married to each other IS an infallible and unchangeable doctrine by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.

      Now, we hear a lot about priest shortages, but if you dig a little deeper you will notice that the dioceses that cling closest to authentic Catholicism are not suffering shortages. In fact, some of the shortage is manufactured by people with an ax to grind. Fr. Longnecker, a married priest, was told point-blank by officials of an English diocese that they wanted priest shortages? Why? So they could appoint female lay administrators as a cynical end run around the infallible teaching that only males can be ordained.

      Delete
  52. A great way to end.

    Censorship.

    ReplyDelete
  53. God is not real pal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So says the religion of Atheism.

      But not one single Atheist is willing to commit suicide and come back to provide empirical evidence to the rest of us. It takes more faith to be in the Atheist religion.

      Delete
  54. History will look down on you. You are the same kind of person who would oppose interracial marriage. You belong to the most hypocritical organization out there. Jesus said to sell all your possessions and to give to the poor. Your church hoards money and gold while people starve everyday. Do you think jesus wanted a bunch of old, out of touch white men to sit in an opulent palace filled with treasure, or did he want people to get rid of their possession and give to the poor? And as for you, you do not live in poverty. You took a vow of poverty, but you most certainly do not go hungry or without shelter. What exactly defines your poverty? You are a joke and that doubt that eats at you will consume you, and hopefully one day set you free from the shackles of your religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. History will look down on you. You are the same kind of person who would oppose interracial marriage

      Actually the Church has never taught against interracial marriage or held such marriages to be invalid.

      You belong to the most hypocritical organization out there.

      Let's see if you reasoning can sustain this charge.

      Jesus said to sell all your possessions and to give to the poor.

      Jesus told some specific people for specific reasons to sell all their possessions and give to the poor. While the first community described in the book of Acts did live communally, complete abandonment of private property has never been binding on every Catholic as a universal rule. In fact, you won't find any major Protestant denomination that believes this either, so yours is an idiosyncratic view of Christianity.

      Your church hoards money and gold while people starve everyday.

      The Catholic Church is the largest provider of charitable aid out there by a wide margin.

      Do you think jesus wanted a bunch of old, out of touch white men to sit in an opulent palace filled with treasure, or did he want people to get rid of their possession and give to the poor?

      False dichotomy. Those palaces and treasures are held in trust. They are only rich in the sense that a museum is rich. The kicker is that even the poorest of layman can visit and participate in worship in the most ornate cathedrals. The poor are just as worthy to be there as anybody.

      And as for you, you do not live in poverty. You took a vow of poverty, but you most certainly do not go hungry or without shelter. What exactly defines your poverty?

      Actually only certain religious orders such as the Fransicans take vows of poverty. Diocesan priests do not generally. Please get educated and actually know something about what you are spitting venom at.

      You are a joke and that doubt that eats at you will consume you, and hopefully one day set you free from the shackles of your religion.


      Sticks and stones...

      Delete
    2. Have you seen our Pope?
      Also, way to cower behind the "Anonymous"... very brave.

      Delete
    3. How do we know you didn't use a fake name?

      Delete
    4. Neither is a Christian for that matter. Nearly all Christians that I know of don't want death. For example, and I have seen it before, if a Christian is diagnosed with a terminal disease, such as cancer, fear starts to overcome them. They pray they will be healed so they can prolong death. But why? What are they afraid of? They believe after death, they will be in glorious paradise happy than they have ever been. Forever. Yet most Christians are afraid to die. By the way...atheism is not a religion. It's the absence of religion.

      Delete
    5. Spock, this is just plain crazy talk. I've been around a lot of death, and when it has been Catholics, it has always been much more calm and solemn compared to the atheists and fallen aways whom I've been able to be with towards the end in my time as a hospital chaplain. I've always said that the place I was most made aware of the gift that the Catholic Faith provides was in the hospital rooms I visited that Summer. NIGHT AND DAY between Catholic rooms and non-Catholic

      Delete
    6. Note: I posted at 5:03PM, but did NOT post "How do we know you didn't use a fake name?" at 9:45PM.

      Please don't bear false witness.

      Delete
  55. Newsflash: The Bible is not the Christian Constitution.

    Therefore, I am tired of the liberal left saying “I can’t find in the Bible where Jesus condemns homosexual sex and gay marriage.”

    Well, I can tell you that what I do find in the Bible is Jesus telling Peter and the Apostles that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    So if you can’t find something in the Bible, then consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church; it has the authority of Christ behind it.

    If you don’t have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, then just listen to the teachings of the local Priest; he is our nearest representative in that divine line of authority.

    I am quite sure that you have heard of apostolic succession; it was taught in your local catholic high school.

    Also, if you don’t think that persecution is coming, then you walk through this world with blinders.

    There are many cases where Bible-believing church-supporting Christians are being sued, Catholic and Protestant alike.

    A photography business declined to take pictures of a gay marriage and reception...was sued…and lost (no religious freedom there!)

    A church declined to host a gay marriage…was sued (no religious freedom there!)

    A very popular chicken restaurant exercised their freedom of speech and were quickly persecuted and told by the lefty leaders of Chicago and Washington that they had best not apply for permits in their city. (no religious freedom there!)

    Laws are already being drawn and enacted in some states that schools must teach that the sin of gay marriage is an acceptable family unit.

    The persecution has already begun and obviously Fr. John Hollowell stands on the front line, just as many of the prophets of the Old Testament, standing for the truth of God.

    For me, he is a modern day Isaiah with a piece of coal, a Jeremiah weeping, an Amos standing on a rock, a Jonah wearing sack cloth, a John in the desert passionately preaching a return to God.

    Therefore, when he says that “if this is your sign then you are actively supporting my persecution, torture, imprisonment, etc.”, he is right.

    The Church is not against homosexuals, but will stand strong against sin and will fight against those ideals that aim to tear down the Church and change her definitions.

    But know this fact: Christ did say, “on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

    The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and taught the truth of God for nearly 1,776 years before there was a United States of America; and there will still be a Catholic Church after the fall of America.

    America will continue to change and America will lose its soul, but the Church will remain forever unchanging, forever true, and will stand the test of time until Christ returns and calls the faithful home.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You are a disgustingly hateful person, and i will pray every night that some day you realize how ignorant you are, and learn to atually live how christ would want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is the leftwingwackos who are disgustingly hateful who seek to hurt Christians and deprive them of human rights simply because they have a different opinion.

      Delete
  57. I seriously cannot believe any of this. This is why I left the Catholic church. The world does not revolve around you guys, sorry. Marriage under the law grants tax deductions, among other things, and it is blatant discrimination to not allow gay couples to marry. If it was not "natural", there would be no gay couples. People are natural, so clearly it is a natural feeling. I fail to see how it will change the Catholic church at all. They will still go on not wedding gay couples, the same way they deny couples who do not have an annulment or for any other reason. I doubt many gay people even WANT to get married into the catholic church. They want marriage recognized by law. And father, to your argument about how people would find gay sexual activity "repulsive", I would find heterosexual activity repulsive if described in anatomical terms. Sex is disgusting, dirty, sweaty and gross whether it is gay or straight.

    My biggest qualm is you using the word "persecution". That makes it sounds like you are going to be torn apart as a Church and murdered and jailed for your beliefs, which is absolute crap. You are just trying to strike fear into you fellow catholics. And IF Catholics are persecuted, it just means people are moving away from an outdated religion that is quickly losing the stranglehold it once had on people and governments, and it is about time for that.

    Religion has no place in government. I don't need "God" to tell me how to be a good person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I seriously cannot believe any of this. This is why I left the Catholic church.

      Ok. Let's see your reasoning.

      The world does not revolve around you guys, sorry.

      No it doesn't. It revolves around "The way, the Truth, and the Life". That is to say, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The proper function of sexuality is built into creation but because of the Fall, there are warped versions of sexuality. And as I have mentioned before, you don't have to be a Catholic to know that homosexual "sex" is immoral. One can arrive at that through reason, history, anthropology, and simple apprehension to name a few. In fact, the only place it is acceptable is in the self-contradicting philosophy of moral relativism.

      Marriage under the law grants tax deductions, among other things, and it is blatant discrimination to not allow gay couples to marry.

      Since a proper family of man, woman and children is prior to the State and society's fundamental building block, the State has a duty to encourage and protect true marriage, so it isn't unjust at all.

      If it was not "natural", there would be no gay couples. People are natural, so clearly it is a natural feeling.

      By that logic, you could say that we should approve a drunk's drinking because alcoholism is natural. The mere existence of something does not mean it is natural. Otherwise a human wife could imitate the praying mantis and lop the head off the husband after mating.

      I fail to see how it will change the Catholic church at all. They will still go on not wedding gay couples, the same way they deny couples who do not have an annulment or for any other reason.

      It won't change the Catholic Church, but we've already seen examples of Catholic charities being forced out of their work for not affirming the lie of same-sex "marriage".

      I doubt many gay people even WANT to get married into the catholic church.

      It only takes a few with an ax to grind and an army of high-priced lawyers to cause chaos. The don't even have to prevail in court because as Ezra Levant put it, "the process IS the punishment."

      They want marriage recognized by law.

      And I want to be legally recognized as Napoleon, Emperor of France. What of it?

      And father, to your argument about how people would find gay sexual activity "repulsive", I would find heterosexual activity repulsive if described in anatomical terms. Sex is disgusting, dirty, sweaty and gross whether it is gay or straight.

      You are telling us way more about yourself than about anyone else.

      My biggest qualm is you using the word "persecution". That makes it sounds like you are going to be torn apart as a Church and murdered and jailed for your beliefs, which is absolute crap. You are just trying to strike fear into you fellow catholics. And IF Catholics are persecuted, it just means people are moving away from an outdated religion that is quickly losing the stranglehold it once had on people and governments, and it is about time for that.

      We've already seen people fired from jobs for refusing to acknowledge same-sex marriage, a student harassed for writing an school newspaper article in defense of true marriage that he was asked to write, and one woman who had to flee the country with her biological daughter because a court insanely awarded custody to her creepy lesbian ex-"spouse".

      But note readers what he just said: Persecution won't happen, but if it does, you deserve it. Wow. That might be the most honest admission I've heard from the same-sex "marriage" crowd.

      Religion has no place in government. I don't need "God" to tell me how to be a good person.

      Given how weak your arguments in favor of a lie have been, it seems like you need someone to tell you how to be a good person.


      Delete
    2. Mexico, 1920's. Germany 1930's and 1940's. USSR most of 20th century. China now.

      Every time Atheism is the official state religion, they will seek to kill Christians.

      Delete
    3. Joe, are you saying that "IF Catholics are persecuted", it's okay? Don't you think that's rather hypocritical? I mean, you bash Fr. Hollowell for "blatant discrimination" in believing Marriage is between a man and woman only, yet you say that "IF" Catholics are being persecuted, it's just a necessary step to a good world. Think. You're doing the very thing you're accusing him of doing.

      Delete
  58. Wow Fr. you get an Oscar nomination for playing the best VICTIM ever!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He already has 9 Encores... #braggingrights

      Delete
  59. I'm sorry, but this rallied anger or "preaching" as you state seems highly unprovoked. You seem to have your own problems to work out or this must stem from something you were taught. I understand that this is your faith as it is mine. I am also an alumni of RHS and was taught on the bases of love and acceptance and do unto your neighbor, and all the exact same things you yourself were taught

    I too am gay, yes it is possible to be gay and catholic, and have a strong faith in God and humanity. You are only repeating history in the sense of the African Americans of yesturday. They too were persecuted and segregated by the church and were not allowed to marry people of white pigmentation. They too wanted equality just as the minority of today seek. All this flaming of the sins of homosexuality are tiring. I understand that your father has pretty much been speaking these "preachings" also which is probably where this stemed. I find him to be a bigot, and look like the apple has not fallen far from the tree. Please have a good day father :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, but this rallied anger or "preaching" as you state seems highly unprovoked. You seem to have your own problems to work out or this must stem from something you were taught.

      Many people in favor of same-sex "marriage" have posted here and have yet to make a case that didn't fall apart upon inspection. So, as usual, they try a desperate ploy of ascribing some psychological shortcoming on the part of Fr. Hollowell without any real evidence. In short, it's the ad hominem fallacy.

      I understand that this is your faith as it is mine. I am also an alumni of RHS and was taught on the bases of love and acceptance and do unto your neighbor, and all the exact same things you yourself were taught

      We've seen this a bunch of times as well. It's the fallacy of omission, or simply cherry picking. The Church teaches love, acceptance, and do unto your neighbor, but it also teaches the reality of sin, admonishing the sinner, and the call of sinners to repentance.

      I too am gay, yes it is possible to be gay and catholic, and have a strong faith in God and humanity.

      "Gay" is vague. Specifically, if you are engaging in sexual contact with others of the same sex, these acts are grave offenses against chastity. They need to be repented of, confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, with a firm resolve not to commit them again.

      You are only repeating history in the sense of the African Americans of yesturday. They too were persecuted and segregated by the church and were not allowed to marry people of white pigmentation. They too wanted equality just as the minority of today seek.

      The Church has never taught the invalidity of interracial marriage. In fact, Father James Coyle was martyred for performing an interracial marriage. The comparison to African Americans is bogus.

      I find him to be a bigot

      Sticks and stones...

      Delete
  60. I find this rather selfish and presecuting. I as a gay roncalli alumni am repulsed by this flagrant intentional display of segregation. The school taught none of this hatred. It was all about accepting your neighbor and cherish them how you would want to be treated. You're only repeating history my friend just as how interracial could not Mary. and you only dancing around subjects and undermining your own statements and doctrines.

    This behavior must stem from your own personal probelems, or from extremist religious teaching from the home. You are definitely your father's son and have not fallen far from the tree. I pray for that God's love will pity you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you have proved my point - you have labeled me reiterating the Church's teachings, as segregation - you lay out the exact argument now that will be foisted on us soon enough - you make my point expertly.

      I have no doubt that Roncalli didn't teach any of this, that is what I've said several places on this post - we DIDN'T hear anything but cherish your neighbor. Well, the Catechism has a heck of a lot to say on this topic, and we heard none of it. So you, an alum of a Catholic school, don't know the first thing about what the Church teaches on this topic, which is precisely why our country stands where it stands. If you, an alum of a Catholic high school, don't know anything about what the Church teaches on this topic, then ought we be surprised that Atheist Al doesn't know anything about it either.

      As for your "Just cherish each other" caricature of Jesus, it is considered love to point out the sins that others are committing, whether they want to hear it or not. You should check out the corporal and spiritual works of mercy; you may have never seen them before being a Catholic school alum. One of them is to "admonish the sinner"

      Delete
  61. You talk about being accepting and cherishing to your neighbor. If you truly believed that in your heart, you would not comment on this and say these things about ANYONE. You would think that someone who loves his neighbor as himself wouldn't say he has serious personal issues or is an extremist or that he has fallen far from the tree right?

    It appears, and your phenomenal punctuation and spelling hints towards this, that you are a little upset and you want to jump on someone who you think is trying to offend you.

    Also, I have never been more proud to be my father's son and I speak on behalf of Father saying you compliment him by saying he has not fallen far from the tree. So thank you for that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thank you Father Hollowell. I look forward to your DVD on homosexuality. When you are done, please give it to the Pastor at St Thomas Aquinas church. He allows Dignity USA , a group that approves and promotes homosexuality, to meet at his parish. The Church seems to speak out of both sides of its mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Your bible says that gays should be put to death. How can you not acknowledge this obvious bigotry in your pathetic little book? You can say it is not to be taken literally, but who are you to say that? You arbitrarily say what is metaphor and what is literal based on your on whims. You cherry pick the bible. FACT: the bible says that gays should be put to death, it is not a metaphor.

    ReplyDelete