Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
She Reached Over and Squeezed Roger's Hand...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
CLASSIFIED ADS
My Friends Jewelry - “Home of the Original Pillow Rosary”: Our Pillow Rosaries are shorter i...(read more)
San Diego - Father Joe's St. Vincent de Paul Village: Help us keep all of our neighbors...(read more)
San Marcos: St. Joseph Academy is a lay run, traditional K-12 school that teaches the C...(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
Montclair 40 Days For Life: Montclair joins 100's of cities across America for 40DaysforLife...(read more)
Fresno: "Latin Mass 101: A Workshop for Curious Catholics": The Fresno Traditional Mass Soci...(read more)
Santa Barbara/Oceanside/Danville: Silent Ignatian retreats, based on the Spiritual...(read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
“Hurting people in the name of Jesus” Maybe they feel they have nothing to lose, what with a likel... [JLS - 2/9/2010 6:41:27 AM]
Refuge Thruth hurts. first of , good one on keeping the Saturday ni... [brian - 2/9/2010 5:02:45 AM]
Pointing the media in the wrong direction? Dear CCD Editor, In 1997, Pope John Paul II decided that the... [The Truth Hurts - 2/8/2010 8:43:40 PM]
Lay woman named to key Vatican job The biggest speculative evidence, Tom, is that if the Cathol... [JLS - 2/8/2010 7:57:56 PM]
Cardinal Levada to Nebraska Rick, Thanks for clarifying the matter of "St. Peter's To... [Kenneth M. Fisher - 2/8/2010 7:18:58 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

The trials of “Closeted Carl”

Play promoting acceptance of homosexuality to tour Northern California middle and high schools this fall


As it has been doing every fall since 2000, the play, The Other Side of the Closet, will be touring middle and high schools in Northern California, Oct. 22-Dec. 14, said the Aug. 22 GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) Network News. The play, which, says the News, is “appropriate for Students Grades 6-12, Teachers & Parents,” is performed “to educate teens about diversity, acceptance and about the California School Safety Act (AB 537), which prohibits harassment in school based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

The play is about how five teenagers deal with the revelation that a friend, Carl, is homosexual. According to a study guide put out by the Lorraine Kimsa Theatre for Young People in Toronto, Ontario (which commissioned homosexual playwright Ed Roy to write the play), Carl, 16, is seen leaving a gay bar by two friends, Rick and Justin, who go to Church Street “to yell at the ‘faggots’ for sport.”

When Carl is outed he is “devastated by the homophobia he encounters at school.” Rick, Carl’s chief outer, is “one of the ‘coolest’ guys at school” and a “bully and gay-basher who cannot contain his anger.” Rick “doesn’t respect the feelings of his girlfriend, Paulette,” who is “more enlightened than her friends,” “has the strength to stand up for her beliefs,” “has a good head on her shoulders, and can see people for who they really are.” Only Paulette sticks by the outed Carl. She encourages him “to enroll in the Triangle Program, an alternative school system,” where he “meets Antony and Rachel, both ‘out and proud’.”

But Carl’s problems aren’t over. “Closeted Carl doesn’t exactly fit in. At home he also feels isolated; he leaves and his father cannot convince him to come home. Carl’s future is uncertain.”

The study guide defines homophobia as “prejudice and discrimination directed towards lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transgendered individuals (LGBTQ) based on negative stereotypes and a lack of knowledge.” The guide’s “How to Prepare for a Discussion of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues” section notes that it is important to discuss homophobia, since “misunderstandings about homosexuality can lead to potentially violent situations for both lesbian and gay students/staff and this has consequences for the assailant.”

The study guide lists among the challenges faced by teachers talking about homophobia are certain “contentious perspectives,” including, “religious and moral beliefs” and and the notion that “reproduction as the basis for sexual relationships.”

According to the Oct. 2006 PRIDE in Print newsletter of the Stanislaus PRIDE Center, a social studies teacher from Woodside High School (near San Francisco) said, “I took my class to the see the play and was impressed by their reflection and discussion both immediately after the performance and days later during class. Students were vocal about the need to keep moving beyond mere tolerance, towards celebrating and appreciating those who are different. I was heartened by the entire experience.”


READER COMMENTS

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:29 AM By Ally
Why are we supposed to "celebrate" something that many religious people are taught is wrong? Are we next going to have a Masturbation club and "celebrate"? Do the same high schools that allow Triangle Clubs also encourage Catholic Clubs on campus? Or, are Catholics discriminated against because they believe that certain sins such as fornication, masturbation and homosexual "practices" should not be encouraged, much less celebrated.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:04 AM By KaraLynn
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do..."

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:56 AM By Edith
Just a quick question. Have any of the parents been asked to sign their permission for their children as young as grade six to see this play? Have any provisions been made by the school for any parents who do not wish to have their children see this play? I assume the schools taking part are public, and obviously secular in nature. With what knowledge, education, experience and moral authority are those leading these discussions after the children and students view this play, going to discuss those so called "contentious persepectives," including "religious and moral beliefs."? I sure hope that those organizing these plays appreciate and show tolerance towards those children and parents who because of thier religious and moral upbringing and faith based beliefs are able to share those faith based perspectives so that those that do not agree learn to appreciate those who are different.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:08 AM By Joe Brummer
This play sounds painfully like my youth, but aside from that, I doubt it will do much in the way of changing minds. I have grown cynical that some minds will ever change about homosexuality. Even this article is written in the most offensive ways. Rather than using the term "gay" it uses the term "homosexual" as an adjective. This is usually a red flag to me. The only people I see using the words in this way tend to be anti-gay. Use of the word homosexual as an adjective to describe all things gay changes the tone from social commentary to "clinical", it focuses only on sex and being gay is way more than just sexual attraction. Just the clinical tone such tactics bring to an article imply "disorder" rather than a "group of people". We are not a disorder, we are humans.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:25 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Brummer, In English, "gay" does not mean "homosexual." Homosexuals have basically coopted the word and insist that everyone use it as they desire. Perhaps this is no big deal if one only reads current periodicals and trash novels; it simply represents a change of meaning in the word. But if one reads old literature or wants to prevent the degradation of the language, changing the meaning of "gay" is an imposition. The English language is the common patrimony of all who speak it; it does not belong to interest groups to change as they see fit. And you shouldn't be surprised if those who disagree with refuse to accept the the terms of your "social commentary." Be thankful if we stick with the "clinical" and do not descend to the derogatory. But don't expect us to move to the celebratory. I assure you, I am not anti-gay; I am not opposed to being happy, merry, keenly alive, or exuberant. But I am opposed to sodomy, oral sex, or anything other than good, old fashioned procreation-ordered coitus, whether performed by two men, two women, or a man and a woman.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:05 AM By ELIZABETH
DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT A LIST OF WHERE THIS SO CALLED 'PLAY' WILL BE PRESENTED??????

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:36 AM By simone dubois
Mr. Brummer, As you said you are not a disorder, I agree with you there. You are a man created in the image and likeness of God and therefore objectively good. You have free will, you can choose to act on the temptation to homosexual sin or any other sin or you can choose not to sin. Many saints suffered the very same temptation. God would never make you homosexual then call you an abomination. God did not creat you as a "homosexual". The father of lies and murderer from the beginning wants your soul though. You are called to celibacy. A high and mightly calling. I pray you can answer the call.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:38 AM By Scub
"Carl, 16, is seen leaving a gay bar by two friends, Rick and Justin, who go to Church Street “to yell at the ‘faggots’ for sport.”" Mr. Bummer talks about offensive - For purposes of a "play" why do we need to know the name of the street from which names are yelled? And why is it named "Church" street? More significantly, why is it just accepted as okay - or why does no one question - that Carl, age 16, is in a Gay Bar? Why is he in a bar? Who took him into the bar? Who served him liquor? Who taught him about homosexuality at age 16? Would we be having this conversation if 16 year old Susie were in a heterosexual bar? Would we assume Susie was having sex because she was in a heterosexual bar? Where are Carl’s parents? Has Carl had heterosexual sex? Shouldn't we send Carl into a heterosexual bar? But no, everyone must be very sensitive of Carl's feelings because he doesn't have any control over his sexual urges. He must act on each and every one of them. He is different than a heterosexual person. Heterosexuals have control of themselves you know. That's why 16 year olds Rick and Justin weren't seen leaving a heterosexual bar on Demon Street.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:44 AM By Garron
Wow! I have never read so much hate filled words in my life, you folks should see the play! Even the Holy See has stated that respect and understanding does not comprise ones "religious and moral beliefs". I have an idea, lets turn to the gospel..." love one another as I have loved you"!!!! I would rather spend time with a group of loving homosexuals, because bigots make me sick, remember Christ Jesus the Lord can even cure your homophobic bigotry!! Amen!

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:01 PM By WB
-- being gay is way more than just sexual attraction -- If you hope to convince people of the rightness of your view, I think you should start by explaining what there is to "being gay", other than sex attraction. That you like Bette Midler and Judy Garland? As I see it, "being gay" is absolutely nothing but sex disorientation -- using sexuality (and giving free reign to lust) in order to compensate for some emotional and mental confusion or lack of identity. To me, it is perfectly appropriate to discuss this matter in a clinical tone since it indicates concern on the medical and spiritual level. If we don't admit the problem then we won't be able to help with the remedy. But I would be glad to hear what "being gay" is if I'm mistaken.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:18 PM By Fred H
Why does the abnormal community want to paint all religious people as homophobic bigots because we don't condone their lifestyle? Abnormal sexual relationships have been considered morally wrong by nearly everyone for thousands of years. They always have been, and they always will be, laws or no laws. Just because a few idiots yell faggot they think we all need to go to re-education camps. There are idiots who exhibit hate toward every group, Catholics, Jews, races or ethnicities other than their own, etc. What bothers me is when they continually try to force the idea that homosexual relationships are normal, and that those of us who know they are not are the abnormal ones that need to be re-educated. Diversity and acceptance applies to culture, race, ethnicicity, religion, and one's God given gender, not to people who want to openly proclaim their sexual perversions. Live and let live, show respect, but don't try to be the thought police. Where is their acceptance of our beliefs?

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:36 PM By Jeffrey Brown
When we see acting on TV we know it is NOT real. When we see real people acting in roles before us it IS real. Children are already confused enough today because of lack of faith, poor parenting, no schoolastic discipline, confused peers, video games, poor comunity law enforcement, TV ,and Hollywood, so why not just bring it to life in front of them in a play? :(

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:51 PM By bruce
Garron, loving an active homosexual means to tell him/her to stop so that they can save their soul. Love doesn't mean "go ahead and do whatever lustful activities you feel like." Right? The Word of God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah for such behavior, which is unnatural and disordered and perverse. 1 Romans 25-27: "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:12 PM By Daniel
I agree with you Mr.Zehnder, ( miracles do happen ) it's similar to the hijacking of the purest symbol of God's promise not to flood the Earth again........The Rainbow ! We should be more proactive in taking back the symbols and the words that the homosexual attackers of our Christian faith have perversed for their own use. God Bless you Christobal for getting it right !

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:37 PM By John K.
Wow, KaraLynn, comparing gay people to those who nailed Christ to the cross. That's a little much, don't you think?

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:07 PM By Observer
John K., FYI anyone who sins contributes to nailing Christ on the Cross.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:50 PM By Chuck
What America is suffering from is NOT homophobia, considering this term actually means fear of men, the actual problem is "homoprobia". Americans are constantly getting bombarded by disordered sexual deviants who call those that disagree with them bad names like racists, biggots, and homophobes. These Michael Swift (look him up on the internet) devotees are dedicated to bringing down everything this country ever stood for. Their first target is America's children, because in them is the future. They have used slang to steal the English language just like Mr Zehnder puts forth. One of the definitions of slang is words used by thieves and vagabonds for dubious purposes. Parents better wakeup and realize the ammount of danger their children are in when attending pubic school in America today. If they fail to do so Michael Swifts nightmare will come true.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:35 PM By thos
I am a Canadian and I apologize for this garbage coming out of Toronto. Conservative Catholics in Canada are appalled by the turn our nation has taken under years of Liberal government. Pray for us that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will stay in power and that they will more actively use their position to bring this country back to God. Our National Anthem says "God keep our land, glorious and free." May He do so, but let's give Him a bit of cooperation. Tom in Vancouver.

Posted Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:38 PM By thos
I am a Canadian and I apologize for this garbage coming out of Toronto. Conservative Catholics in Canada are appalled by the turn our nation has taken under years of Liberal government. Pray for us that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will stay in power and that they will more actively use their position to bring this country back to God. Our National Anthem says "God keep our land, glorious and free." May He do so, but let's give Him a bit of cooperation. Tom in Vancouver.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 2:35 AM By Vincent
Zehnder says "The English language is the common patrimony of all who speak it; it does not belong to interest groups to change as they see fit." and then "But I am opposed to sodomy, oral sex, or anything other than good, old fashioned procreation-ordered coitus, whether performed by two men, two women, or a man and a woman." Now what exactly is sodomy? Is it the sin of Sodom? Which appears to be inhospitality. And yet some interest groups have made it mean anal intercourse ... well, that's a HUGE stretch of the imagination, and is offensive in the extreme to all who uphold the highest standards of biblical scholarship. As far as I can tell, if anyone here is a sodomite, it is Zehnder, who is displaying a jaw-dropping lack of hospitality to gays. The English language evolves continuously, and I'm sure were a survey to be conducted of the English speaking peoples the world over, the word gay is now used primarily to refer to same-sex attracted people. This is not the achievement of the gay lobby - if they could "manipulate" the heterosexual majority so easily, then gay marriage would already be a reality in all these English-speaking regions. Getting in a reactionary huff isn't going to pull back the tide, Chris - I'm a gay Catholic in all senses of the word, and that's all there is to it!

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 2:48 AM By Vincent
Simone duBois is a remarkable person. Let me illustrate ... she says "God would never make you homosexual then call you an abomination. God did not creat you as a "homosexual". The father of lies and murderer from the beginning wants your soul though. You are called to celibacy." What a gift, Simone. You know who has and who hasn't been called to the gift of celibacy! And it seems that being gay is an automatic indication of having been gifted with the charism of lifelong celibacy! Such insight is mindboggling. Well, Simone, I'm a gay Catholic, and I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yahweh created me in His image and likeness, and that when he saw me (including the gift of my body and my sexuality) He said ... this is truly good! And I can assure you that I have never discerned a call to celibacy. I feel called to a lifelong union with another, and because of my sexual orientation, the other can only be a man. Quite extraordinary how you realise that God would never create one a homosexual and then call one an abomination ... now that is truly a magnificent insight, and I say Amen to that!

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 2:59 AM By Vincent
Ally says "Or, are Catholics discriminated against because they believe that certain sins such as fornication, masturbation and homosexual "practices" should not be encouraged, much less celebrated." Well, I don't think that Catholics are being discriminated against for their beliefs. The problem arises when a tiny minority of fundamentalist Catholics lobby to have their beliefs promulgated as secular law, so that gays can be denied the right to have secular marriages with all associated rights and responsibilities! Your private belief is your own business. But if you have a private belief that black people in the US should be slaves again, and if you try to enact that belief into civil law, don't be surprised if some people are willing to take up cudgels against you. And similarly, if you try and deny a gay dude the right to a loving relationship with another gay dude, and to visit him in hospital when sick, and to inherit his estate, etc, then don't be too surprised if your real, tangible DISCRIMINATION causes resentment and a bit of RIGHTEOUS ANGER. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how Catholics are being discriminated against - with a few specifics?

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 3:08 AM By Vincent
Daniel, I'd be thrilled if you were to wear a rainbow flag. But what exactly are you proposing? How are you going to "take back" the rainbow symbol? Are you going to beat up any gays who wear a rainbow symbol? Are you going to ask the secular powers to legislate against gays wearing a rainbow? And how have rainbow-flag-wearing gays attacked the Christian faith? You sound like a frightening sort of fellow, Daniel ... I would be genuinely afraid to meet you and make conversation with you. Aren't you supposed to be loving your enemies? As far as I recall, Christ died for ALL, redeeming all of us. By virtue of my Baptism, Trent teaches that I am pure and spotless ... and if I choose as a gay Catholic to wear a rainbow flag to celebrate Yahweh's gift to me of my sexuality, who are you to say that I am attacking your faith [which is also MY faith!]? Scary, very scary ... .

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 3:21 AM By Vincent
Bruce, you have missed the point of 1 Romans entirely!!! You really need some guidance, so I attach a link to an article [entitled “But the Bible says...”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1"] written by the eminent Catholic Theologian James Alison for your edification ... http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html Enjoy reading, and having your mind blown wide open! Another extraordinary Alison article is his "Is it ethical to be Catholic?" at http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng27.html

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 3:33 AM By Vincent
I think that the central point of all this is that gay youth are treated harshly at schools by their straight peers. I live in South Africa, and a recent survey of gay teens found that one in five gay and lesbian are raped or sexually abused at school, while one in three are physically assaulted in school due to their sexual orientation. 68% of gay men reported victimisation at school. A similar survey in the UK found a similar level of abuse. Now this is clearly a grave pastoral concern!!! We need to ask "who is my neighbour?" and "how can I be loving to my gay neighbour?" - love is action, not sentiment! The Catechism does not equivocate on this matter, saying (2358) that gays “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Let us have the wisdom and courage to help bring this vision to fruition in our day.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 10:14 AM By Joe Brummer
Wow, some of your responses show me very clearly that not only are some of you lacking knowledge of the scripture, but also lacking knowledge of the science of sexual orientation. It would take me many more than 1500 spaces to answer that, but I will answer WB who asked me what more to being gay is there besides sexual attraction. I would ask you the same thing, what more is there to being heterosexual the is more than your sexual attraction the opposite sex. Is that all it is for you? Sex? It has equally as much to do with emotional attraction, companionship, love, and living a life of fulfilled hearts. I would ask the person who said I should live celibate, would you ask that of yourself? If not, then you have already broken the golden rule. To argue that your religious beliefs see being gay as wrong is fine. To start to make clinical arguments with no basis in science is just silly. There is no accepted medical science to back it up. In fact the collective we call science says homosexuality is normal. Wouldn't really matter what I said to you, as it is clear your minds are already made up with no intention of learning anything more. Sad for you.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 10:24 AM By Joe Brummer
I have to agree with Vincent, but go one step further. I would be afraid to meet many of the commenters here. Their ideaology about gays and lesbians is void of science and filled with fears of gay destroying faith, etc...such enemy images of fellow humans are scary. Gays and not enemies, even if you do disagree with our lives on faith reasons, it is extremism to go so far as to claim we are enemies of faith. The bible was equally against divorce, but that seems to be okay with you folks, but gays are disorder, sick and diseased. I would be very afraid to meet any of you.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 11:09 AM By simone dubois
Vincent, I believe what the church believes. You don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with the teachings of the Church. Your visceral reaction to reality only illustrates the point. In love for you as a human person and out of respect for you, in season and out of season, I cannot affirm you in your choices. You have a heavy cross, I will pray that you can bear it.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 11:30 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent, Despite your, shall we say, queer, interpretation of Genesis, the word "sodomy" has always referred to anal sex. It has never, as far as I know, meant "inhospitable." The use of "gay" now in common parlance represents not a development but a degradation of an English word. For one thing, it is a euphemistic attempt to make something bitterly ugly seem pleasant. It is just cheap, mass-produced slang -- which, I'll admit, most English today is. But I ain't gonna have no part of it. And, please, let's not pretend that homosexuals have no political clout. You and your allies in the media and big business are taking all before you. You many not have marriage rights everywhere as of yet, but you will -- unless, of course, some economic or other disaster intervenes and people are awakened from their bourgeois media-induced stupor. And as for hospitality --- my good sir, if I saw you hungry, I would feed you. If you were thirsty, I would give you drink. But I am not going to affirm you in what I believe to be a perversion. If I did so, I would be guilty not simply of being inhospitable but of being indifferent to the good of my fellow man.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 11:44 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Brummer, "We" do not go about classifying ourselves as "heterosexual" anymore than we classify ourselves as meat-eating or beer-chugging. These words refer only to certain aspects of life, not to ourselves as such. We classify ourselves as men and women -- and in each of these words there is a wealth of meaning implied beyond the merely coital. When we do use the term, "heterosexual," we refer only to sexual "orientation." So, the question still stands, what makes "gay" people unique besides their peculiar genital practices? If there are such unique qualities to being "gay," surely you can name them.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 1:22 PM By WB
[[[[I would ask you the same thing, what more is there to being heterosexual the is more than your sexual attraction the opposite sex. Is that all it is for you? Sex?]]]] Yes, that's correct. The term "heterosexual" refers to sexuality. There's nothing more to it. If someone has another meaning to the term "heterosexual" then I'd like to know what it is. It's nothing more than one's sex attraction. [[[[It has equally as much to do with emotional attraction, companionship, love, and living a life of fulfilled hearts.]]]] So if you're gay you want companionship and love and that make you different than other human beings? I'll just say that you added nothing to an answer of what it means to "be gay". It's a disordered sex attraction -- nothing more. I will retain that opinion until you can provide some information about what it is beyond that. For the record, I am not gay and I've had many emotional bonds with other men. I've also had love for other men and loyalty to them and companionship with them. The reason this has nothing to do with "being gay" is strictly because I have never had any sex attraction to men and I have always known that sexuality is reserved to a man and a woman anyway.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 1:41 PM By Alan
Thank you, Brummer!! I agree a lot of these folks seem to have no appreciation for even the level of tollerance that the vatican has called for. -- It seems that people seem to equate something challenging the hate speech present in homphobia with a celebration of gay pride. No matter one's feelings about the rightness or wrongness of gay sex, it is still no excuse for verbal abuse of another child of God. Jesus challenges us to live as brothers and sisters - and to leave the judgment of human hearts to God.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 1:55 PM By simone dubois
Joe, Being "science" minded I refer you to just a few of some "silly" scientific studies and recommend you give fair, honest and equal consideration to them as well as the websites of NARTH and "People Can Change". You read my articles, reference some and I'll read yours. Further, if one held the biological argument from a Darwinian perspective and left religious belief out of the argument, the physical act of homosexuality in and of itself selects for extinction of the species, conversely the physical act of heterosexuality in and of itself selects for survival of the species. Finally, being a single woman I am called to celibacy as well. And Joe, "be not afraid." from "Born that way" theory "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH Bailey, Michael J., Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 3, 524-536. Collins, Francis S. (2006). The language of god, a scientist presents evidence for belief, New York: Free Press. Kirk, K. M., J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne and N. G. Martin (2000). Measurement models for sexual orientation in a community twin sample. Behavior Genetics, 30, 4, 2000, 345-356. Whitehead, Neil and Briar (1999). My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Press. Whitehead, Neil (2006). "What do first ages of SSA or OSA tell us about their origins?" In NARTH Collected Papers. "People Can Change: Men Who Have Left Homosexuality Showing Others the Way Out" offers an informative article, "Is Change Possible?" with useful research citations

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 2:25 PM By Chuck
The absolute obsurdity contained in Vincent's post asserting that the definition of sodomy is inhospitality is complete preposterousness. Sodomy defined means unnatural sexual intercourse, ESP. of one man with another or of a human being with an animal. To hurl forth accusations at Mr. Zehnder demonstrates a truly disordered mind dedicated to deviancy and debauchery. Man on Man marriage is a colossal perversion of not only the natural order, but of reality itself. To attempt to seduce and brainwash American children into this hideous deathstyle takes it a step lower. According to Vincent when authorities charge a rapist or childmolestor with sodomizing their victims, they are arresting them for being rude. Hey Vincent I hope someone beems you back UP to earth soon.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 6:23 PM By simone dubois
Vincent, Per your suggestion, I read the articles on the theology of James Alison. His work did not "blow my mind", it did sadden me. He is silver tongued indeed. Still he is not the Holy Father or part of the magisterium. He says he is catholic but he doesn't appear to actually believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. You need to read the document promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, entitled, "ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS" October 1, 1986 for denfinitive church teaching on the subject. Mr. Alison's theology disagrees with the churches interpretation of Romans per the above citation and the teaching in the catechism and is simply his personal rationale for his own choices and lifestyle.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 6:49 PM By stlouisix
It is a patent absurdity to suggest that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. See A Response to the Lie that the Sin of Sodom was Inhospitality http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m191.htm Doesn't it strike anyone as a little odd that God would nuke a city for a breach of manners? Common sense dictates otherwise as God, in His mercy, would not destroy a city for inhospitality.Throughout History, Jewish and Christian scholars of all persuasions have recognized that one of the chief sins that provoked God’s destruction of Sodom was its people's homosexual behavior. But today certain homosexual activists advocate the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Clearly it's the homosexual behavior of Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism and prominence in the account of their city's destruction. We must look to Scripture's own interpretation of the sin of Sodom. Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Augustine says (Conf. III, 8): 'Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another.' See Homosexuality Is Biologically And Metaphysically Against The Natural Law http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m070.htm

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 6:51 PM By stlouisix
Ref http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/bib_homo.htm that information is supplied in Genesis 19:5 when the men at Lot’s door say: “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’” (NASB) The clause “that we may have relations with them” is from the Hebrew word YADAH, which means “to know,” and is often used in idiomatic form to represent sexual relations (cf., Gn 4:25: “And Adam knew his wife and she bore a child”). We know that sexual relations is the meaning of YADAH in this context because it is used again in regard to sexual relations with Lot’s daughters, as Lot says in verse 8: “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations [YADAH] with man” (NASB). It is obvious to any unbiased exegete that the context of the narrative demands that sexual relations is the focus of the passage. How else do we know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved illicit sexual relations? We know it from the many commentaries in Scripture on this very event. In fact, “Sodom” is used as a figure of sexual sin and is referred to as the place of divine judgment over two dozen times in Scripture (cf., Dt 29:23; 32:32; Is 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jr 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lm 4:6; Ez 16:46-56; Am 4:11; Zp 2:9; Mt 10:15; 11:23; Rm 9:29). But more importantly, there are two explicit passages in the New Testament that tell us precisely that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual in nature. First there is 2 Peter 2:6-8: “and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)"

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 6:53 PM By stlouisix
Continuing with ref - The words “sensual conduct” are the Greek ASELGEIA ANASTROPHES. The first ASELGEIA, appears 9 times in the New Testament and is usually translated as “lasciviousness” (Mt 7:22; Rm 13:13; 2Co 12:21; Gl 5:19; Ep 4:19; 1Pt 4:3; 2Pt 2:18; Jd 4), which refers to one having lustful, lewd or wanton thoughts or behavior. We also note here that the men of Sodom were tormenting Lot “day after day.” Hence, this is not merely a one-time occasion of force exerted at Lot’s door, but a continual display of lascivious behavior long before the angels ever arrived. Then there is Jude 7: “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” Here it is even more explicit as to the nature of the sin of Sodom. The clause indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh is from the Greek EKPORNUESASAI and APELTHOUSAI OPISO SARKOS HETERAS. The first is a combination of the Greek PORNEIA, which is derivation for our English word “pornography,” and the prefix “EK,” which means “out of.” The second phrase literally means “going after different flesh.” The operative word here is “different,” which is from the Greek HETERAS. In this context it refers to sexual relations that are “different” than normal sexual relations, i.e., homosexual relations.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 7:09 PM By Joe Brummer
Chuck, the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. That is what Vincent was pointing out to you...It is a common misconception that the sin of sodom was homosexuality, it wasn't. (luke 10:10-13) But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 7:21 PM By Editor
Please keep comments to two consecutive entries. Each is 1,500 characters. Of course, you may respond if another poster comments on what you have written. But that response, too, must be no longer than two 1,500 character entries.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 9:48 PM By stlouisix
Don't come on a Catholic site, Joe Brummer, and have the unmitigated gall to say that the sin of sodom was inhospitality, which has been completely refuted in no uncertain terms. That statement would be laughable it it wasn't so pathetic. That is lie of the father-of-lies through his disciples in the pro-sodomite lobby who demand that society make them comfortable with their vices under force of law, and it's not going go unchallenged on this site. Evidently you know more than the Catholic giants, Saints Augustine and Aquinas, and 2000 years of Catholic teaching on faith and morals, i.e., Catholic dogma held to be infallible. Btw, that Bible quote you just gave has nothing to do with the matter at hand, i.e, it in no way shows that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. We're taking exegesis here, as quoted from orthodox Catholic Biblical scholars in conformity with Catholic Magisterial Teaching, as opposed to the eisegesis of those who must reinvent the Bible to accommodate their vices. Genesis 18:16-33 provides us with the actual conversation between God and Abraham concerning the fate of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 20 states: “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” Thus, the Lord has ALREADY seen the sin of Sodom, and it is exceedingly perverse. Hence, this couldn’t be the sin of “inhospitality” because the event concerning Lot and the men pounding on his door seeking to consort with the angels has not yet occurred. That event won’t occur until the next chapter, Genesis 19. And it is clear from the context in which the sodomites want to "know" Lot's guests, what "know" means in terms of traditional Biblical exegesis, i.e., it has a definite sexual meaning of which there can be no dispute among people who know what they're talking about.

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 10:20 PM By Daniel
Victor, oh Victor you need to read the part of the Bible that describes that God is the same today as he always has been and will forever be. He has no variation in his ways since before creation. Now if that is true, then what happened to Sodom will again happen to all those homosexuals in today's age that are delusion in their thinking that God made you the way that you choose to be. God made you a man Victor and if choose to rebel against what God originally intended for you then that is your choice to be against God's plan for you. As for attacking Gays, I would never. I wouldn't waste my time. God ultimately handles everything that is wrong in this world including the lifestyle you choose. I wonder why you can't procreate but have to recruit young boys and I wonder why the average lifespan of a homosexual male is 39 year of age. You think God has anything to do with that ? I pray that God opens your eyes to the truth my friend. Jesus is the Truth, ask for his salvation today !

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 11:13 PM By feetxxxl
does the play reveal the essence of the spirit of homosexuality that would cause it come against the fruit of the spirit and the spirit of christ and love your neighbor as yourself?

Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 11:55 PM By stlouisix
It is very easy to refute the ridiculous claim on the part of those who say that the “sin of Sodom” was inhospitality. If that was the case, then why didn’t God destroy Lot and his family, given that they were as inhospitable as it gets to the innocent sodomite crowd who only wanted to socialize with the strangers who were their guests? But of course, we know that wasn’t the case because Lot understood full well what “knowing” your strangers meant, as previously explained through Biblical exegesis instead of eisegesis, when he offered his daughters as substitutes for his guests with the sodomites having none of this, preferring what they thought were men instead. Unfortunately, for the sodomites, they were dealing with Angels of God who confirmed what God asked them to BEFORE the events of Genesis 19, and did what God commanded them to in regard to a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, per Sacred Scripture! Case closed!

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 12:41 AM By Chuck
Say Bummer Man, The Sin of Sodom was Sodomy. The citizens of Sodom tried to rape the Angels of God, then threatened Lott with the same EVIL intention. Lott the pillar of courage that he was even offered up his VIRGIN daughters to satisfy their disordered lust. However no matter what logic was presented the SODOMITES sought to SODOMIZE the angels and Lott. Then Bummer Man, the angels BLINDED the SODOMITES, and destroyed the cities. Reading is good.

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 5:58 AM By Joe Brummer
Daniel, The lifespan of gays is the same as everyone else. The only study to ever sow something else was done by discredited researcher Paul Cameron who also called for the mass extermination of gays. Gays do not recruit, in fact science does agree that homosexuality is not a choice. I pray open your eyes to some truths as well. That you have been sucked into the vortex of anti-gay propaganda and false science.

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:21 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Stlouissix and daniel, your comments of last evening were right on target. Excellent!

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:03 PM By Laurette Elsberry
Joe Brummer, do you really believe all those lies you spew? More scientists than the very credible and capable Dr. Paul Cameron (www.familyresearchinst.org) have documented the shorter live spans of "gay" and lesbians, as well as their high incidence of "domestic violence", drug use, alcoholism and suicide in those groups. Of course "gays" recruit. Remember the "Advocate" (GLBT magazine) imperative: "Ten percent is not enough: Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!". Look at the strides the sodomites have made with kids even in middle schools. If there was a "gay" gene, wouldn't it certainly have been a recessive trait that would have died out long ago when there was no sodomite reproduction? Let's keep the facts straight!

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:05 PM By Daniel
It's too bad bummer man that you don't live in Africa or San Franciso to see the devastation that rampid debauchery and Aids has caused. The only vortex here is the one that all the alphabet channels are running around the clock to have us believe that your lifestyle is the lifestyle of choice for all including all of our youngs boys and girls in this country. Talk about a vortex that is trying to suck you in. Oh and by the way one of my co-workers who recently died ( gay ) was about 42, so not quite the average age but close of enough. I can only say that I hope you have a chance to change your mind once God arrives to show you firsthand who is truly wrong on this issue. The only thing that Satan and it's homosexual minions can count on is that keen people like Laurette, Stlouissix, and myself one day will not have a platform to counter the lie you are trying to pull on other people that otherwise not know better. Oh, and like my best friend Chuck says........." Bummer Dude "......

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 2:51 PM By Chuck
Male Homosexuals live to the ripe old age of 39, and that is a fact. Bummer Man.

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:14 PM By stlouisix
It is a bald-faced lie to say that the lifespan of those inclined to homosexual acts is just as long as everyone else. Satinover's seminal Homosexuality and Politics of Truth speaks to these lies of Joe Brummer, summarily refuting everyone of them. The only people that I see discrediting the truth that Satinover and others speak, such as documented on the NARTH site, and by orgs like COURAGE, EXODUS, PFOX, are those who demand that society make them comfortable with their vices under force of law. To clearly see the lies of Brummer, See HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOPE: Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m076.htm The Medical Evidence Alone Should Be Enough To Convince The Fair-Minded Who Are Morally Blind That Homosexuality Is Incompatible With Good Public Health http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m157.htm Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent 'Science' http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m159.htm Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior - A Political Agenda Is Trumping Science http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160.htm Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility Due To Irrational Promotion of Homosexual Lifestyles Per NARTH http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m238.htm Hear: Dr. John Diggs at Tufts University: The Medical Truth About Homosexuality, and Its Effects on Society http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m252.htm

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:28 PM By George
I do get weary of homosexuals continually using the line: “Jesus says we must love everybody.” Translation, homosexuals insist heterosexuals are bad people because they don’t tolerate homosexuals or accept homosexuality as they feel they should. Frankly, I don’t get a flying flip what homosexuals do with each-other. But science says less than 1% (about 0.8%) of the population are born with same sex attraction (SSA). Homosexuals say about 10% of the population are homosexual (actually about 2-3% live that lifestyle). The question then arises: If 4 out of 500 are born with SSA (which doesn’t require the individual to practice homosexuality), why is it that about 15 out of 500 people practice homosexuality? Well, plays like the one that is the topic of this discussion are one way. Recruiting, grooming, etc. of children – and convincing them that – well, it’s just all so “okay”… Those mean ol’ heterosexuals, they’re just so – well, mean, uncaring, and intolerant! No, heterosexuals aren’t mean and uncaring. They actually care very much. But they care about their children. If 4 of 500 are born with SSA, and 4 of 500 were practicing the lifestyle – well, we would have a starting point for discussion. And homosexuals could still overcome SSA, just as heterosexuals are encouraged to cross-over and practice homosexuality. Human beings can have sex with pretty much anything. However, a life a debauchery is not something children should be lead into – by anyone. If you claim to be homosexual, chances are, some older person got to you – you weren’t “born that way.” If you are a Bible believing Catholic "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt 18:6). Love is a factor, but with love comes “obedience.” We are called to be faithful and obey.

Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:34 PM By George
Just for fun, let’s take a little walk through the 1st chapter in the book of Romans. Homosexuals never quote from here: “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Posted Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:07 AM By John L. Sillasen
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." What a great quote, Joe Brummer! It's similar to the one where Jesus says drowning someone with a millstone who harms a kid who believes in Him is better than the judgment. Here is the deal on this schtueck: Sodom got nuked ... a temporal destruction. The final judgment is somewhat longer than time ... that is the comparison here. Sodom was nuked because of the inhospitality to God, demonstrated by homosexual activity, and especially the last straw, which was that the sodomites wanted to do it to the angels visiting Lot. Read the post quoting the book of Romans, 1st chapter ... St Paul was particularly great in his vocation of converting the world to Christ, because Christ took him up to the third heaven and taught him personally while there. Whatever St Paul says, you'd best believe it is the Word of God, from the mouth of Christ living in Paul.

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 4:23 AM By Vincent
Simone says "You need to read the document promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, entitled, "ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS" October 1, 1986 for denfinitive church teaching on the subject." Well, Simone, let's look at slavery. As late as 1866, and possibly in response to the 13th amendment to the US constitution (which abolished slavery), the Vatican’s Holy Office of the Inquisition [now the CDF] declared “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery … . It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” At the Second Vatican Council this stance changed to “… everyone must consider his every neighbour without exception as another self, taking into account first of all his life and the means necessary to living it with dignity .... whatever insults human dignity, such as .... slavery .... where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons .... are infamies indeed .... they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator.” [Gaudiem et Spes #27]

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 4:24 AM By Vincent
Pope John Paul II went further in asserting slavery to be intrinsically disordered. I suspect that it was the beliefs of the lay faithful, coupled with changes in civil law, that led to this profound change in official Catholic teaching. Today the issue tearing the churches apart is not slavery, but homosexuality. The Anglican Church appears to be on the brink of schism over this issue, with supposedly orthodox prelates and laity wanting to throw out those prelates and lay believers who want full and unconditional inclusion of their gay brothers and sisters in Christ. In much the same way as the Vatican’s 1866 statement that slavery is consistent with natural and divine law was merely the theological flavour of its day [as opposed to authentic Catholic doctrine] - and, dare I say it, that the Vatican’s 1986 statement that gay sexual relationships are always intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural and divine law is merely the current official theological flavour of the day.

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 4:24 AM By Vincent
Which is quite a different thing to saying that the doctrine of the Incarnation, or the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour is merely the theological flavour of the day. There is a world of difference between essentials and incidentals of the Faith. If the ultimate test of orthodoxy is fidelity to the divine law, and if the divine law is love, and if the Divine himself is love, then I fail to understand how a loving gay couple’s lovemaking can be unorthodox, let alone intrinsically disordered and evil. Now were a priest to publically assert this, he would in all likelihood have his priestly faculties suspended by an irate bishop or cardinal who has to toe the Vatican’s party line or else. And this is where I believe the laity can play a crucial role in ensuring that the Church reform herself in spite of the Vatican’s reluctance to change. Much as happened with the slavery issue!

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 7:42 AM By Vincent
Authentic scripture scholars are generally in agreement that the sin of Sodom is most certainly not the “sin” of homosexuality. At best, you could argue that it is the act of gay rape. In fact, if the Sodomites had wanted to rape two women, no one would claim that the passage is incontrovertible proof that the sin of Sodom was heterosexual sex! It would simply be the sin of rape, and we’d all move on quite happily! And why does Lot offer his daughters to them? Because heterosexual rape is less of a sin than homosexual rape? Methinks not! Because his virginal daughters are his property, part of his commercial assets [for that is how women were seen back then]. Their rape would render them unmarriageable, so he would lose his assets. But why offer them, then? Because the angels were guests under his roof, and had to be shown hospitality – their welfare was paramount.

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 7:43 AM By Vincent
Let us remember Jesus’ criteria for entering the kingdom – did we feed the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner … I’m afraid, boys, but these are Christ’s criteria! For when we are hospitable to the stranger, we have been hospitable to him. We are to love one another other as he has loved us. All so consonant with the Divine commandment. Rape is a violation of a person, be it gay or straight rape, and is an awful crime. But to equate this to consensual and covenantal lovemaking between two gay dudes – sorry, boys, it just doesn’t work. Unless you are reading your own vile prejudices into the story. Try these sites for some edification … http://www.glow.cc/isa/sodom.htm http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 10:09 AM By Chuck
Rectal Rape is not hospitality Vincent.

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 10:28 AM By stlouisix
You don't know what you're talking about, Vincent. You continuously spew lies on a Catholic site that are to be dismissed out of hand. All of your laughable retread args have been summarily refuted by orthodox Catholic sources to include the lunacy of the sin of Sodom being inhospitality. The only people promoting that rot are the ones who promote vice as virtue under force of law. Your ridiculous assertion that they are authentic Scripture scholars is pathetic, and requires no further comment. For the true history on the Catholic position on slavery see the Catholic encyclopedia, not the skewed anti-Catholic lies of Vincent. The bottom line is that what you think is of no consquence, Vincent. What the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals is. Get that straight at least, since you have problems with everything else. You don't even know Who Jesus Christ is with your hateful anti-Catholicism spewed on this site. Jesus Christ, as Second Person of the ONE Triune God, DESTROYED, Sodom and Gormorrah for a Sin that God saw BEFORE the events of Genesis 19, which puts your lies in the trash where they belong. What doesn't compute, Vincent, is your determination to put your soul at risk of eternal perdition with the blessings of Catholics on this site. That is not going to happen. Hopefully and prayerfully one day you will understand your errors. Catholics in more than name only are not going to allow their propagation on this site. There is nothing "gay" about being inclined to acts that when accurately described cause feelings of extreme revulsion. Look in a mirror when speaking of vile prejudices, Vincent. Yours against the Perfect Truth Who is Christ and the Church that He founded upon Peter the Rock ring out loud and clear as can be seen by anyone on this site capable of right reason. Vincent has simply proven that what we're witnessing is an attack on both the Faith and reason. Those attacks will be repelled!

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 2:27 PM By Chuck
Where are the men that came in to thee at night? Bring them out so we may KNOW them. Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this EVIL. I have two daughters who as yet have not KNOWN man: I will bring them out to you, and ABUSE you them as as it shall please you, so that you do no EVIL to these MEN, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof. But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a stranger, was it to be a judge? Therefore we will afflict thee more than them. We all know what happens from there. Vincent get off the soy boy.

Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 11:00 PM By Daniel
Vincent, stop defining your existence by the type of sex you have and the SEX you have it with. There will be no marriage in heaven, not even the type you think should exist on this planet. So the bottom line that God wants you to reach is picking up your cross and following HIM ! Not the men that you visit regularly and the things you do with them. As much as you and the gay world would like to think that John the Beloved was less than a heterosexual male, when did you see Jesus embrace a homosexual ? Jesus in every instance fled from evil. Do the same and you will realize that Jesus can do away with your desire for men. Your soul is what Jesus wants and not what YOU want or desire on this earth. It's simple, Fill your heart with his love and the desires of this earth will seem like nothing. He will SAVE your Life and he will give you the love that your Earthly father did not give you....

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:33 AM By John L. Sillasen
"that led to this profound change in official Catholic teaching": posted by Vincent. There has never been a change in official Catholic teaching, by official meaning the Magisterium. Vincent obviously has scanned a lot of material, but it would be a richer experience if he would actually read what he has looked at. Another point is the "teaching of the Church: Vincent, I had to find out what this means before the world came out with the internet resource ... man, you have it quick and easy; just search it up ... Magisterial teaching never changes. There is occasionally a new pronouncement or dogma, but not a change in belief. For example, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (Mary's, lest there be no mistaken identity here, as typically there is) never changed what was believed, but only confirmed it magisterially. Vincent, when are you going to assign a name to your homemade religion?

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:43 AM By KaraLynn
John K. You misunderstand me. I was not comparing gays to Jesus on the Cross. WE are to be like Jesus and we are to view those who live sinful lives and do things against God's laws with His attitude on the Cross. He said about those who were crucifying Him, "Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing..."

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:44 AM By KaraLynn
John K. You misunderstand me. I was not comparing gays to Jesus on the Cross. WE are to be like Jesus and we are to view those who live sinful lives and do things against God's laws with His attitude on the Cross. He said about those who were crucifying Him, "Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing..."

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:46 AM By KaraLynn
Vincent, You need to read what the Catechism says about homosexuality. It states that it is OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED and that homosexual sex MUST NEVER BE CONDONED. Don't presume to tell Catholics what the Church teaches and how to live what the Church teaches when you don't know anything about it yourself.

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:56 AM By KaraLynn
Vincent, And further more, you cannot compare Church teaching about slavery to the one about homosexuality. Homosexuality is about the NATURAL LAW that God established. It cannot be changed. Jesus Himself talks about what God intended for marriage and human sexuality in the Gospels: "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8). When Jesus uses the term "from the beginning", He is talking about the same "beginning" we read about in Genesis 1. It's a law that was established at the foundation of the world, and Jesus said that no man can separate that.

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:29 AM By John L. Sillasen
Vincent, did you omit the pitch about David and Jonathan? If you did, then you might bring that out so that we can correct you on it.

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:30 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Catholic Gentlemen, you are all caving in to Vincent's hatred. Can't you see that he is spouting the professional sodomite line which he has bought into 100%. He will not be deterred by anything you say. Put the name "joe brummer" into Google and see what you get. Sure, I can't guarantee this is your raging CalCatholic participant, but the rhetoric is the same.

Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:49 PM By John L. Sillasen
I've run into people even harder of heart than Vincent, and sometimes they give it all up and turn to their savior, Jesus Christ. Many famous men and women turned from evil to good. And many unknown souls have likewise converted to Christ. Vincent may choose to follow the path to heaven. Jesus took all the sin upon Himself. We are formed in His image, and therefore are called in Christ to take a bit of the burdern of others on our own shoulders. Vincent still is wearing a full bandolier, and it likely would take him a while before he considers getting rid of it. Someone has to plant the seed of faith.

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device













 
Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com