New Page 1

Were our Hearts Not Burning? (Lk 24:32)
Fr. Paul Ward Home

Archived Editorial

The Scandal of Priests Defending Homosexual Behavior and Lifestyle

I.    Just after the Cardinal spent so much energy encouraging the faithful to support Proposal 2 – and his decision to do so has brought great consolation to very many of our brothers and sisters – I have come to the knowledge of a priest that undermined that in a recent bulletin.
    Before we get this discussion going, here's a small table of links:
    * Click here to read the scandalous article I am referring to.
    * Click here to see the USCCB's position on the matter.
    * Click here to see the Michigan Catholic Conference's justification of the need to support Proposal 2.
    * Review the matter on the Archdiocese of Detroit's web page regarding all this.

II.    Anyone who loves right reason and Catholic teaching would agree with me that the following nine errors appear in Fr. Randy's article, and about each one I wish to present the Church's teaching. If anyone can disprove me, that would be the greatest fruits of my efforts; if not, please be honest enough to assent to what reason and faith present to us as true.
    It seems that before he published this document in his bulletin, he had it somehow published in a gay newspaper, see link here.

1. That Catholic Social doctrine “muddies” the waters.
        Catholic Social Teaching, containing matters of faith and morals, does not muddy waters but clarifies them in the light of faith. The muddying comes in when certain persons try to rationalistically justify positions of dissent and heresy when they find the Church's teaching and reject it. Fundamentally they are rejecting the teaching of the Holy Spirit. For it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church in teaching infallibly on matters of faith and morals, in any of the various manners in which the Universal Church can teach in this way.
    If only dissenting priests could see the tears and distress they bring to the eyes of those who love the Church, maybe they'd be moved to stop attacking Her.

2. The confusion of “the fundamental rights of homosexual persons” with activist “gay rights.”
        In many places the Church insists that persons that call themselves homosexual should in no way be treated with injustice, contempt, lack of charity or evil, especially in those matters that deal with their fundamental human rights. Fr. Randy was good to cite that text from the NCCB. I add to his cite some other references from the universal Magisterium that discuss non-discrimination of homosexual persons:
        On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
        Non-Discrimination against Homosexual Persons (scroll down a bit to see) (purchase here)
        Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
        The Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers concerning homosexuality
        And finally Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
    Now an important distinction needs to be made here. Just because we're defending the basic human rights of homosexuals, such as the right to life, to gainful employment, to property, etc., doesn't mean we're defending any false "right" of a homosexual to engage in homosexual conduct. Rights of homosexuals aren't homosexual rights. Indeed, the immoral nature of their sexual conduct should not be blessed, encouraged, condoned, legally defended, supported, "understood" (in the sense of "tolerated") any more than any of the sins.
    If I have an inclination to steal, are laws against robbery "discriminatory"? If I have an inclination to murder, are laws against murder "oppressive"? If I have an inclination to commit adultery with my neighbor's wife, is the moral command to be chaste "bigoted"? If I have an inclination to burn buildings down, are arson laws "unjust"? Are all these laws bad, still more, when we get to the point in our society when it is vastly widespread? Try the robbery one: I don't think these defenders of "homosexuality is more prevalent so let's legalize it" would ever defend "people who rob me of my money are so prevalent so let's legalize it."
    The act of not supporting same-sex unions as an equivalent to marriage in law is in itself no condemnation of those who feel that sort of attraction, for indeed some of these people go to great lengths to live out their sexual decisions in accordance with God's will. Indeed, they're the happier for it.

3. The tacit acceptance of the intrinsic evil of homosexuality, objecting morally only to the unjust and uncharitable treatment homosexuals may experience.
    The sources listed above in the table of links explain that homosexual behavior is gravely sinful matter, whereas the inclination itself is not necessarily yet it is certainly a profound disorder against the Creator's will. I will let the Magisterium speak for itself, and the other questions in this editorial explore this, too. It is no act of charity to civilly ordain same-sex unions, due to the lie involved in calling evil good. So, yes, let's be charitable with homosexual persons, especially by helping them not fall into sin, and so help them save their souls.

4. Legally enshrining homosexuality will somehow make the “promiscuity” side of aberrant sexual behavior vanish.
    Promiscuity implies indiscriminate behavior, or even indiscriminate goods or groups. To have sex with someone who is not one's spouse is an abysmal lack of discretion. Therefore homosexuality is by it's nature promiscuous. Promiscuous does not always have to mean that one is engaging in copulation with vast numbers of unknown people.

5. The scandal of suggesting that homosexual couples attend Catholic worship, as if to say that since they’re there the homosexual practices in which they indulge must be morally acceptable.
    If there is a same-sex couple who have committed once or regularly homosexual acts, they should not be receiving holy communion due to the state of mortal sin in which they find themselves (or should find themselves) according to a well formed conscience. And if grave scandal has risen in the congregation regarding the living arrangements of these two, by Canon Law they should be deprived holy communion when they ask for it, until the scandal is removed.
6. The fortuitous, uninformed and imprudent assertion that where same-sex unions have been civilly allowed, “there has been no negative impact on traditional marriage.”
    Let me explain myself in a "snap shot" way first of all by asking Fr. Randy, "Prove it." I can prove the opposite, in the simplest of ways. Sin is a grave evil which affects the whole world, especially by breaking the bond of charity (CCC 1475), destroying communion with God and communion among men (CCC 761). Homosexual behavior is a matter of grave sin. Therefore the sin of homosexual acts destroys communion among men.
    Furthermore, same-sex unions is the complete contradiction of the family, which is the basis and origin of all human society (CCC 2207).
    There couldn't be ANYTHING more detrimental to marriage than the affirmation of same-sex unions as good in any way, morally, religiously, civilly, etc.
    And anyone who knows about the huge moral disaster of Europe - where I lived for nine years in various countries - especially in the Nordic countries could never come to the preposterous assertion that there hasn't been a negative impact on marriage there. Good grief. Try reviewing this position in the light of articles about "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" , Dr. James' Hitchcock's article on those who hold to Fr. Randy's theses; or study the Netherland's record on spousal abuse (21% of all women in 1989, ref.) and abortion, and people are marrying less and less (explaining why the divorce rate is down, for couples can't divorce unless they're married! ref.). Yes, marriage in the Netherlands and in Scandinavia is falling apart, as well as the whole moral fabric (family fabric indeed) of these nations.

7. Homosexual relationships can bear the name of marriage.
    Fr. Randy does this by referring it to "civil marriage." The basic implication is that traditional marriage is an arbitrary positive law invented by religion - probably by Catholicism in particular - and marriage is a different reality for Catholics than it is for non-Catholics. Monumental relativism. No, marriage isn't just an invention, and it's not just for Catholics. It's written into human nature, it's in the theology of the body, it's in the finality of the genders and the physical and spiritual good of the human person. It's either between a man and a woman or it's not a marriage. True, there is a difference between the Sacrament of marriage enjoyed by those baptized with water in the name of the Trinity and the natural state of marriage enjoyed by the baptized, but this difference doesn't mean that Catholicism just sat down one day and invented a law on marriage.

8. That proposal 2 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    No, Fr. Randy, priests who undermine their Ordinaries when they responsibly uphold the good and the true: they are wolves in sheep's clothing. So are priests who turn a blind eye to sin, heresy, dissent, and disobedience. So are priests who encourage divorce, contraception and homosexual acts in the confessional. So are all those who defend sin in the name of tenderness and compassion. To all such priests, I remind them of the Lord's words (not mine, mind ye), "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Mt. 23:33). If anyone reads this and feels the Lord addresses these words to you, see my quoting them as an act of supreme charity, in the interest of your salvation.

9. The perverted thinking that “Proposal Two asks us to gamble with other people’s love and their lives,” as if the civil ordering of society towards the objective common good is nocive to persons.
    The hypocrisy of seeing the defense of marriage between one man and one woman as a gamble and threat is mind boggling, coming from one who defends same-sex unions. Materially speaking, let's admit that the whole of history has enjoyed the good of marriage between one man and one woman, and the only societies that enjoyed abundant homosexuality quickly declined in morality, culture and prowess (the ancient Greeks as a simple example, whose homosexual life style squandered the brilliance of the likes of Homer, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Democritus, Plotinus and others).
    There is a real good out there, which is true for all people. Don't be afraid of it, put all aside to pursue it, and that alone can make the human heart free and happy.

Catholic Answers has a great article on all this. It's well studied, better indeed than what I propose in this little piece.
Worst of all, it so openly contradicts what Cardinal Maida has gone to great lengths to encourage. I’m with the Cardinal 100% here, and I only wish my brother priests were, too. I believe his action is a serious undermining not only of the Cardinal’s leadership, but of the universal Church’s moral teaching.