An Argument With The Catholic Right

I can understand how Catholics might feel defensive when someone from an opposing group starts posting on their blog, but the lies and outright hatred shown on DTF-jayg.blogspot.com has to be seen to be believed. For days I have tried to be the voice of reason and get these people to have a simple conversation about how we can all live together in peace, but no matter how hard I tried there seemed to be no way to get through to them. My question to readers; do you really think they believe everything they say? Read from the more than one hundred comments and see for yourself exactly how far they are willing to go when lying to themselves and the world:



Friend of the Court

In a huge blow to parental rights and Religious freedom, David Parker's lawsuit has been dismissed by Federal Judge Mark Wolf. The lawsuit asked that Lexington, Massachusetts Public schools inform parents when their children, (as young as 6) are to be taught about homosexuality and trans-genderism in the public school classroom, so that parents could opt out their child.

As Parker's lawyers argued in their rebuttal of the ACLU's defense, this “is nothing short of an intentional attempt to wipe the [Parker's] faith away altogether. The obvious and well-pleaded impressionable age of the children, combined with the State's abject unwillingness to even notify the parents that it intends to indoctrinate on these extremely personal topics virtually ensure that if the State gets its way, the [Parker's] children will not harbor the families' beliefs.”

Worcester Police apparently are also investigating Catholic Activist Larry Cirignano on Civil Rights violations and hate crimes for escorting ACLU board member Sarah Loy away from the front of the Vote on Marriage Rally at Worcester City Hall last December 17th. That court case is April 11th. When Mrs. Loy was out of reach of Mr. Cirignano, she suddenly ended up on the ground, perpendicular to the direction she and Cirignano had been moving.

posted by JayG @ 12:32 AM 216 comments
216 Comments:

At 11:02 AM, Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Indeed the persecution is intensifying. And what of parental rights? The Supreme Court once noted that "the child is not the mere creature of the state."

Jay, thank you for bringing this to the attention of faithful Catholics and others of good will who are concerned about the common good.

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/02/persecution-watch-parental-rights-under.html

At 2:15 PM, John Hosty said...

I forget who said this but it was not I, "I pay the schoolmaster to teach my boy, but it is the other children who do the teaching."

What is taught at the home is one thing, but it does not take into account that children will need to know about and learn how to apporpriately interact with people of different backgrounds. The schools could easily say they won't teach anything about the gay community, but that will not prevent children from learning about it in the streets. They go to school with kids from same sex families.

I think the most appropriate way to handle this issue is to either be involved in setting the curriculum, or to have your child taught privately. The schools are not forcing your kids to go there, so this point is moot.

At 7:38 PM, William said...

First of all, I thought you had left this forum. Secondly, why should Catholics have to pay taxes to support public schools AND absorb the additional cost of paying for private schools?

Am I to assume that you are in support of school vouchers?

At 8:58 PM, JayG said...

Do you realize what you are actually saying? There were 10 children in David Parker's son's class, who beat him behind the school. Was that teaching?

At 9:37 PM, Anonymous said...

The Nazis would beat Jewish people unconscious and call it "education." Apparently John is of the same mind.

At 9:41 PM, Anonymous said...

I wonder if John considers this "education":

HOMOSEXUAL TEEN STABS DEVOUT CATHOLIC TO DEATH

Violent reaction to suggestion that teen try to change sexual orientation

CHICAGO, November 21, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A homosexual teen stabbed a middle-aged devout Catholic woman to death, apparently after she suggested that he try to change his sexual orientation.

Police arrested Nicholas Gutierrez, 19, after he confessed on video and the body of fellow Sikorski Funeral Home employee, Mary Stachowicz, a 51-year-old Polish translator, was found in a crawl space beneath his apartment. He has been charged with first-degree murder, attempting to conceal a homicide and burglary.

"She was a very intense person concerned about the good of the parish always seeking things for the poor as well as the spiritual welfare of people," said Rev. Francis Rog of St. Hyacinth Church.

At 1:14 AM, John Hosty said...

Typical of this forum to start with the attacks. Parker's son was attacked because of an altercation in the lunchroom that boiled over into the recess playground. Read the incident report from the school and you will see I am right.

Violence is wrong no matter who commits it. It should be openly denounced, and people should distance themselves from those who practice it. Verbal violence is wrong too, so bear that in mind when making your comments. Respect is mutual, and earned.

William, I left one discussion because it was becoming a lynch mob. As far as I understand I am free to post here any time I like. I have said nothing derogatory to you, so stop the digs, ok?

Your point about not paying for a service you are not receiving is a good one. Gay couples want to know the same answer. I am in favor of vouchers, yes.

Anonymous said...
"The Nazis would beat Jewish people unconscious and call it "education." Apparently John is of the same mind."

Could you cite your source? Not to say that the Nazis weren't cruel to the Jewish people, but I had never heard this one before, and I pride myself on my Holocaust knowledge. Thanks for the timely response if you will.

The woman bullied that man to the point where he had a mental breakdown and confused her for his own mother. From the insane rage she created by her bullying, she is dead. Unfortunately the evil society has created is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother. I can't imagine the terrible things she must have said and done to him when he was under her "care". You know what could have cause a woman to treat her own child so poorly? Blind unquestioning loyalty to religion.

When are Christians going to remember that Love is supposed to be the most significant thing they promote, not hatred of their gay neighbors. It is after all a primary directive of Christ Himself.

At 8:39 AM, JayG said...

Point:
The StarFleet Federation issued a prime directive, but Jesus gave commandments.

At 9:53 AM, Margaret said...

In another thread here at DTF, I wrote:

"As for Mr. Hosty, he writes, 'In return for my good will I have been equated to a pedophile, had my faith in God questioned, and had many ugly insinuations cast against me. I am done. God is my judge, and He is your judge as well. Only He sees into the hearts of men and knows who they are. I will live in peace with all of you, and where you try to trespass on my rights, I will be there to answer with a calm neighborly but opposing point of view. We CAN all live together in peace, it seems that some just don't want to. I pray that some day you will see the wisdom of allowing people to choose their own path.'

Such an attitude is rather unfortunate. I have read absolutely no posts where Mr. Hosty was labelled as "a pedophile" or which questioned his faith in God or which have levelled "ugly insinuations" against his person.

If Mr. Hosty is really done with this forum it is simply because the majority of visitors to this wonderful forum don't share his world-view and have soundly refuted his arguments from both Natural Law and American history (recall his selective quotations from George Washington).

I invite Mr. Hosty not to resort to emotional posts aimed at attempting to convince faithful Cahtolics or people of good will that their views are somehow "hateful." This cheap tactic is unworthy of an adult.

Now it seems he is at it again. Having returned to this Blog after failing to make a case for same-sex "marriage" from the Natural Law, Mr. Hosty is apparently out to convince us that the rights of parents are not being trampled upon and that, "Parker's son was attacked because of an altercation in the lunchroom that boiled over into the recess playground," and not because of any persecution.

However, as Jay has noted, "There were 10 children in David Parker's son's class, who beat him behind the school."

While Mr. Hosty becomes hypersensitive when others disagree with him and accuses them of being "a lynch mob," he apparently doesn't view 10 children beating up Mr. Parker's son as anything resembling "a lynch mob."

It is my sense that Mr. Hosty isn't here to debate. He's here to propagandize for the homosexual agenda. And that is unfortunate.

As for the Nazis beating Jews unconscious, it occurred regularly. I'm surprised that Mr. Hosty would even attempt to dispute that fact. The Nazis were involved in all sorts of atrocities against their prisoners (both Jewish and Gentile). Children would be submerged in water and electrocuted. At other times, children would be placed in a bath of ice cold water and then steaming hot water as part of Nazi "medical research." This is all well-documented.

Interestingly, a disproportinate number of Nazi officials were practicing homosexuals and Hitler himself was arrested on a morals charge (sodomy) in the 1920's.

At 10:01 AM, John Hosty said...

Margaret, your post does not deserve a response, and anyone else who wants to simply attack me will be ignored. I am here to have a rational debate about our fears and what we can do about them.

At 10:11 AM, John Ansley said...

Historian Samuel Igra would disagree with you John.

Igra's primary value to us today is that he was an eyewitness to the changes that occurred in Germany; an eyewitness with a uniquely prophetic sense of the danger of "gay" influence in society. Igra's Thesis was that Homosexuality was at the root of Nazi evil:


"I had finished the writing of [Germany's National Vice]," writes Samuel Igra, "when my attention was called to a British White Paper, 'Concerning the treatment of German Nationals (including the Jews) in Germany,' in which the following statement is made: 'The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversion may offer an explanation of this otherwise inexplicable outbreak.' [Page 20. His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1939].
"The author of that statement is Mr. R. T. Smallbones, who was British Consul-General at Frankfort-on-Main from 1932 until the outbreak of the war in 1939. Previous to 1932 he had been stationed in other German cities. His opinion therefore rests on firsthand experience of the German people for a long period of years. I am convinced that his explanation is the correct one. For, as a matter of fact, the widespread existence of sexual perversion in Germany, not only at the time the Hitler movement rose to power but also under the Kaiser's regime, is notorious... And authorities on criminal sociology are agreed that there is a causal connection between mass sexual perversion and the kind of mass atrocities committed by the Germans (ibid:7).

The Roehm Purge, then, was not a "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, but a re-alignment of power behind the German government which was primarily forced upon Hitler by powerful political elements whose support he needed to maintain control. Igra goes on to point out that not only did the majority of the SA homosexuals survive the purge, but that the massacre was largely implemented by homosexuals.

The law against homosexual conduct had existed in Germany for many years prior to the Nazi regime as Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, to wit: "A male who indulges in criminally indecent activity with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment" (Burleigh and Wipperman:188). When Hitler came to power he used this law as a means of tracking down and punishing those homosexuals who, in the words of one victim, "had defended the Weimar Republic, and who had tried to forestall the Nazi threat" (ibid.:183). Later he expanded the law and used it as a convenient tool to detain other enemies of the regime.
In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and bathhouses, and groups which promoted "gay rights" (Plant:50). Ostensibly, this decree was a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity in Germany, but in practice it served as just another means to find and destroy anti-Nazi groups and individuals. "Hitler," admit Oosterhuis and Kennedy, "employed the charge of homosexuality primarily as a means to eliminate political opponents, both inside his party and out" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248).
The masculine homosexuals in the Nazi leadership selectively enforced this policy only against their enemies and not against all homosexuals. Even Rector lends credence to this perspective, citing the fact that the decree "was not enforced in all cases" (Rector:66). Another indication is that the pro-Nazi Society for Human Rights continued to participate in German society for several years after the decree. In The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann remind us that Rohm was a leading member of the SHR; and we know from Anthony Read and David Fisher that the SHR was still active in Germany as late as 1940 (Read and Fisher:245). Furthermore, Oosterhuis and Kennedy write that "although he was well known as a gay-activist, [Adolf] Brandt was not arrested by the Nazis" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:7). Some of Brandt's files were confiscated by the Nazis in their attempt to gather all potentially self-incriminating evidence.
In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with Paragraph 175a which criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire (Burleigh and Wipperman:190). (Interestingly, the new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word "unnatural" from the definition — Reisman, 1994:3). This new law provided the Nazis with an especially potent legal weapon against their enemies It will never be known how many non-homosexuals were charged under this law but it is indisputable that the Nazis used false accusations of homosexuality to justify the detainment and imprisonment of many of their opponents. "The law was so loosely formulated," writes Steakley, "that it could be, and was, applied against heterosexuals that the Nazis wanted to eliminate...the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergymen" (Steakley:111). Kogon writes that "The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homosexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for proceeding against Catholic priests or irksome critics" (Kogon:44).
The charge of homosexuality was convenient for the Nazis to use against their political enemies because it was so difficult to defend against and so easy to justify to the populace. Since long before the Nazis, homosexuals had generally lived clandestine lives, so it was not unusual for revelations of their conduct to come as a surprise to their communities when it became a police matter. This is not to say that actual homosexuals were not prosecuted under the law. Many were. But the law was used selectively against the "Femmes."

John, you have written that Margaret's post "does not deserve a response," and that, "anyone else who wants to simply attack me will be ignored."

Margaret wasn't "attacking you." She was attacking your argument. Mr. Parker's son is the victim here, not yourself. And he has been victimized by the same "gay" agenda which fostered so much hatred and cruelty in Nazi Germany.

The facts of history are not on your side.

At 10:18 AM, John Ansley said...

Another historian has documented the role of homosexuality in Nazism and Hitler's rise to power:

http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/gaynazi.html

At 10:27 AM, John Ansley said...

Taken from the link noted above:


"Hitler blamed the Jews for "spreading softening and effeminacy," but looked to the army for salvation. He praised the "army of the old Reich" for its success in breeding men who "lost the softness of youth and had gained bodies hard as steel." [68] Militarization was seen by Hitler as the means to ensure against the decline of Aryan youth.
It is clear that Hitler saw the Jews as contemptible for both their alleged effeminacy and desire to pursue erotic satisfaction through heterosexual expression. For Aryan youth he approved of male-to-female sex undertaken only for procreative goals within the matrimonial setting. Are we to assume that Hitler did not recognize the self-evident reality that males have sexual needs apart from a conscious intention to reproduce? Given his desire to forbid males from satisfying erotic longings by having sex with females, the implied alternative of encouraging homosexuality comes into clear focus. The likelihood emerges that Hitler held a pro-homosexual viewpoint which was a factor in the formation of both Nazi ideology and tactics. His toleration of open homosexuality within the leadership of the SA is undisputed. Additionally, the typical SA member was an unmarried male between the ages of 18 and 30.

The Fuhrer definitely had a place for butch homosexuality in his designs for silencing his opposition and the later pursuit of military conquest. In Evil Sisters, Bram Dijkstra describes Hitler's fascination with the "Greek ideal" of masculinity and physical perfection -- "neo-Platonic dreams of a world populated by an immortal elite of purely masculine souls." [69] Hitler's obsession inspired this additional comment by Dijkstra: [70]


The Fuhrer's suppressed homoerotic longing for a 'truly masculine' beauty he
himself patently did not possess became most apparent when he expressed
his hope that the young Aryan male would learn to shed his clothes more often
in public.

Hitler's admiration for butch homosexuality is complemented by his contempt for erotic heterosexuality and the "effeminate" Jews, who he believed harbored desires to seduce Aryan women. These elements of his thinking, combined with his love for Aryan supremacy, masculine beauty, strength, and the glories of military conquest, were the building blocks for the construction of his own brand of fascism."

At 10:32 AM, JayG said...

"The woman bullied that man to the point where he had a mental breakdown and confused her for his own mother. From the insane rage she created by her bullying, she is dead."

John, I hope you did not intend this as a veiled threat to us, as this poor woman "was
stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment."

Even if she bullied this man, and that is highly debatable, she in no way deserved what happened. If, as more likely, she merely commented on this lifestyle as being wrong or immoral, then Gutierrez was guilty of not only murder and rape, but a hate crime.

At 11:37 AM, William said...

John Hosty has often complained that faithful Catholics here constitute "a lynch mob" and that we are "attacking" him - as opposed to his flawed arguments. Now, as Jay mentions, he seems to be suggesting that Mary Stachowitz was "bullying" her murderer simply by evangelizing and that this somehow justified her murder.

Is John Hosty trying to justify (in his mind) future violence against faithful Catholics?

At 12:17 PM, John Hosty said...

You guys are a hoot! I did not bring this subject up in the first place, now it is twisted to the point that I am threatening you?! Come on guys, you are better than this. Are you going to hide behind lies and fear so that we can't have a discussion about how to live together in harmony?

At 12:20 PM, John Hosty said...

Let's see now... 4 different people attacking me, including the moderator, and no productive discussion what-so-ever. Can we at least try, or is this all you've got in you?

At 12:37 PM, Matlee said...

John, you have attempted to justify Mary Stachowitz's murder at the hands of a homosexual and have downplayed the beating Mr. Parker's son received - which resulted from his family's stance on homosexuality being taught in the classroom.

You are coming across as a disturbed person.

At 12:57 PM, William said...

Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).

In Chapter Six, they outline “ten categories of misbehavior,” drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the gay lifestyle, not gay sexuality mind you, “is the pits.” They want gays to improve their image by addressing “what is wrong with a lot of gays.” (276)

What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

• The authors say “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.

• They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to “If it feels good, I´ll do it!” If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend´s lover, he´ll do it, justifying it as an act of “sexual freedom” and the friend be damned.

• They say gays suffer from a “narcissistic” personality disorder and they give this clinical description: “pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.”

• As an example of this narcissism, the authors say “a very sizable proportion of gay men” who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.

• They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such “forbidden” aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.

• They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.

• Many gays are “single minded sexual predators” fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are “the real queerbashers.” Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.

• “Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long.” They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The “cheating ratio of ‘married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”

• Even friendships are based on the sexual test and hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover.

• The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

At 3:38 PM, John Hosty said...

Wow is the BS piling high here. This discussion is going to make a great blog article for Live Love and Learn.

Christ gave you two commandments:

Love God and no other gods before Him, and love thy neighbor as thy self. Am I your neighbor or not?

At 5:27 PM, JayG said...

John,
I know sometimes things get heated here, but no one is attacking you. If we didn't love you, we'd ignore you. I know you think that our disagreement with same sex marriage is a personal attack against you, but we're trying to present our side. Please try to understand, and try not to assume victimhood so quickly.

At 9:42 PM, William said...

I think this observation from Kirk and Madsen is particularly relevant: "..gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas."

Paranoia. Illogic. Emotionalism and crackpot ideas.

Sounds dead on.

At 10:36 PM, Renee said...

While not everyone will have children, everyone does have a mother and father including those who have same-sex attraction. A recent writing from my own blog if I could share.

http://uponchristianhill.blogspot.com/2007/02/marriage-from-childs-point-of-view.html

It isn’t that my parent’s marriage was picture perfect. We all have our problems and life is imperfect, it how my parent’s marriage helped me with my own life. Ten/Fifteen years ago marriage was something that wasn’t talk about in terms of themselves in high school and college. As mentioned before we only talked about how to protect ourselves from AIDS and to enjoy ourselves, when it came to sexual behavior.

While in high school and college, my peers always talked about their parents and their relationship with each other. Even though it was never considered a factor in success and happiness, we talked about gender, incomes, and race, even sexual orientation but never how marriage affected society in formal terms. Informally though I could tell you the lives of dozens of parents, because we spoke so much of them.

(As a teenager) We talked about how well they got along with each other, if they fought, if they were divorced, remarried, abandoned us, and even if they smoked pot. Parents were important to us, even though educators, marketers, and counter sub-cultures wanted us to ignore what they represented to us.

A stable home in which there was no chaos and uncertainty. A home in which life was predictable day in and day out, it was one less thing to worry about so you could focus on your studies. I didn’t understand the value of the family, so at 19 my arguments were not great. In fact being a self-describe democrat I was attacked not because I was white, from the suburbs, or that my parents could afford to send my to a third tier public university (well I was kindaof ), it really was because I was created from husband and a wife in which my father and mother indeed loved each other and understood the obligation of marriage.

So when people say the definition of marriage hasn’t affected anyone and never will. The reality is marriage has affected everyone, because everyone has a mother and a father and that relationship between their mother and father is the number one factor upon their survival and well being.I will be the first to attest my parent’s intact marriage affected me in more good ways then bad. Marriage is very important, it wasn’t the public status or legal benefit that protected me it was my parents who were the true protectors.

I won't apologize for my parent's marriage, just as I won't apologize for my own. Because I care about the responsibility that a man and woman have for one another when they engage in expressing love for one another, and I want others to honor that responsibility that I have with my husband doesn't mean I don't care about those who are called not to be married.

At 8:41 AM, Marie Tremblay said...

Mr. Hosty's posts betray a double standard in his thinking. Unable to see that the parental rights of Mr and Mrs. Parker are being violated (not to mention the countless others who oppose homosexuality being taught to their children), he writes, "I think the most appropriate way to handle this issue is to either be involved in setting the curriculum, or to have your child taught privately. The schools are not forcing your kids to go there, so this point is moot."

And yet, Mr. Hosty demands a level of respect at this Blog which he refuses to grant the Parkers. When William reminded him that he had left this forum on his own initiative, Mr. Hosty wrote: "William, I left one discussion because it was becoming a lynch mob. As far as I understand I am free to post here any time I like. I have said nothing derogatory to you, so stop the digs, ok?"

However, as Margaret noted: "While Mr. Hosty becomes hypersensitive when others disagree with him and accuses them of being "a lynch mob," he apparently doesn't view 10 children beating up Mr. Parker's son as anything resembling "a lynch mob."

It is my sense that Mr. Hosty isn't here to debate. He's here to propagandize for the homosexual agenda. And that is unfortunate."

While Mr. Hosty has asserted that the "The schools are not forcing your kids to go there" [public schools] "so this point is moot," he fails to appreciate the fact that no one is forcing him to visit this Blog.

However, in a very real manner, parents who cannot afford private schools are forced to send their children to public schools. Therefore, this point is not "moot" as Mr. Hosty asserts.

Like many dissenters I have known, Mr. Hosty feels obliged to thrust the fact of his dissent on others while at the same time demanding that they accept him as a friend. And in this way he subtly demands that we affirm him as dissenting, that is, treat his dissent as an acceptable difference of opinion and so provide him with a sense of being justified.

This we are bound in conscience not to do. Love for Mr. Hosty, as well as love for the truth requires us to challenge Mr. Hosty's dissent as often as he confronts us with it.

I challenge Mr. Hosty to treat others with the same level of respect which he demands. Referring to others posts, he writes: "Wow is the BS piling high here.." And yet, when others disagree with his posts (and much more charitably) he responds: "When are Christians going to remember that Love is supposed to be the most significant thing they promote, not hatred of their gay neighbors. It is after all a primary directive of Christ Himself."

There isn't much love in Mr. Hosty's posts. Referring to the views of others as "B.S." is not very loving.

Also, Mr. Hosty should refrain from slanderous accusations. He accused William of hurling "digs" writing: "William, I left one discussion because it was becoming a lynch mob. As far as I understand I am free to post here any time I like. I have said nothing derogatory to you, so stop the digs, ok?"

But William hadn't insulted Mr. Hosty. He simply wrote, "First of all, I thought you had left this forum. Secondly, why should Catholics have to pay taxes to support public schools AND absorb the additional cost of paying for private schools?

Am I to assume that you are in support of school vouchers?"

If Mr. Hosty is really interested in debate, he should refrain from such dishonest tactics.

At 10:33 AM, Renee said...

Marie,

You fell for it. They know they can't "win" the debate of marriage, so they create chaos. When I was in college I approached a friend who was bisexual I spoke of concern about the behavior of the gay group's tactics on campus. I told him I agree with 90% of their objectives, even though I do not support their lifestyle. He was understanding, but it seem the leadership wanted to antagonize the whole university and anyone who would say something was labeled whatever it was back in the day.

While in school I heard some very articulate arguments for civil unions, and those arguments that could encompass many situations not just homoseuxal relationships. I've been called everything in this debate. I've just learned to stay on the correct path, and not get diverted. Even when I talk about the needs and problems within "heterosexual" marriage such as no fault default diovrce or the penalities we recieved for being married I always get a homosexual 'cry me a river' because they are being denied benefits.

As a mentioned in my above post, not everyone will be a mom and dad, but everyone has a mom and a dad. We want mom's and dad's relationships to be strong and stable for the children. Even if your parents were never married or had a bad marriage, wouldn't you want a society that would of supported and encouraged marriage?

Marriage creates the foundation so men and women can express love and open themselves to having children. I refuse to have my sexuality to be interchanged with any other orrifice of the body. I won't apologize for having a vagina either.


Marriage must be recognozied by all, so others will not disturb the relationship. Government can play a role, by making it easier for families to sacrifice their individuality to raise children. At this point in my life, despite having an education I have absolutly no ecomonic power except for the turst of my husband as we raise three small children. Even when I do re-enter the workforce I will not have the expereince or senority that other will have.

As a society we need "kids", not as children but in the future as adults to maintain the economy and protects in our elder years; thats rational enough reason why the government would want to encourage such responsible behavior between a man and a woman.

In Massachusetts we are having an economic family crisis of sorts, couples who want to settle down and have kids can not afford to live here and are moving out. People brainstorm ideas, but when they are talking about keeping "families" here, they are not talking about the divrse model in which anything could be defined as family they are talking about heterosexual men and women who want held accountable to each other in every aspect of their lives.

At 11:29 AM, Marie Tremblay said...

Renee, thanks for your comments. Actually, I haven't fallen for anything though. I simply wanted to highlight the dishonesty of Mr. Hosty's comments.

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy.

At 6:14 PM, John Hosty said...

"Paranoia. Illogic. Emotionalism and crackpot ideas."

"...intrinsically evil..."

"...beastiality..."

"...pedophelia..."

"...Nazis..."

"Mr. Hosty demands a level of respect at this Blog which he refuses to grant the Parkers."

When things are said about a group that includes me you are saying about it me via proxy. I assume that people can follow this line of logic.

"It is my sense that Mr. Hosty isn't here to debate. He's here to propagandize for the homosexual agenda."

On the contrary, here is a question I posed on on of the other threads that was never answered:

"By what terms can we live together in peace?"

I am not expecting you to embrace my way of life, or me as a person. We should be able to outline what we expect of each other though. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Allow me to give an example of what I mean with my own answer to this:

-be a citizen in good standing with our laws

-contribute either time or money into the community in which you live

-remember to be couteous and receptive to courtesy

-promote your beliefs as it is your freedom to do so

-do not promote violence

-remember that people are individuals and refrain from casting stereotypes


"he fails to appreciate the fact that no one is forcing him to visit this Blog."

No, nobody is forcing anyone to be here. We are never going to learn from one another if we do not have dialog, so that's why I am here.

"Mr. Hosty feels obliged to thrust the fact of his dissent on others while at the same time demanding that they accept him as a friend."

If I am unwelcome here, say so. It would not be reasonable for you to expect me agree with things that I do not. We can have a conversation about it that remains polite and helps us to understand each other if we try.

"I challenge Mr. Hosty to treat others with the same level of respect which he demands."

I didn't think saying that something is BS is disrespectful. People are making a lot of gross assumptions about my motives and intent without talking with me or asking me what I think. I am sorry if you think that BS is a disrespectful statement, I will try to do better in the future. Try to bear in mind that I am human too, and sometimes passion causes people to overreact.

"You fell for it. They know they can't "win" the debate of marriage, so they create chaos."

There is already chaos, and I don't like it either. The way to fight fear is with knowledge, that's why we should talk more. Try to remember that I am not a "they", my name is John.

"Renee, thanks for your comments. Actually, I haven't fallen for anything though. I simply wanted to highlight the dishonesty of Mr. Hosty's comments.

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy."

I hope this post helps people understand why I would confuse your good intentions for attacks. If you are trying to show me respect and love I am just letting you know that it is not being felt. Perhaps I am guilty of the same since it is accused of me. Tell me how I can do better for you and I will try harder.

I hope people will stop speculating about my intentions and simply talk about the matter at hand. The article is about David Parker and his suit.

I believe that Mr. Parker has every right to have his children learn what he wishes. He does not have the right to tell the school system what to teach though. If he was upset about what they were learning he could have taken actions that would not have led to his arrest. He did follow the proper channels in his law suit, the judge just did not agree with him on what is best for all.

On a side note, I am very sympathetic about Mr. Parker's child being attacked, I just don't think it happened for the reasons that people are saying. No one should have violence acted upon them for their beliefs. Violence is unacceptable for any reason.

At 9:01 PM, Renee (I can't sign in) said...

There is a larger concern with the courts then how a parent wants to address homosexual behavior, but it brings us a whole new understanding of in loco parentis. Teachers are not so much in place of the parents, they actually replace and displace the parents when a child enters school. Parents
don't like even their own parents getting into their business now we have to deal with special interest groups and teacher unions?

It doesn't matter the topic. With home schooling becoming so popular for various reasons, and now with the start of online high schools modeled much like online universities maybe sooner or later public schools will lose it's importance as they did in the 20th century. Prior to the last century almost all schooling was done at home or if a parent could done through private means. Now that many parents are just as qualified as many teachers to teach the basics and private tutors and educators are available to fill the gaps. Parents no matter their opinion on this particular topic will be wary then just forking a
five or even a eighteenyear old to any particular school.

I guess it first started in the late 60's with court decisions that allowed disruptive freedom of speech within schools, despite the fact there was plenty time and space to speak out on current issues in other places. seuxality is one issue in schools, but there are multiple others in which choatic tactics by both right and left use to get attention or divert it.

At 9:07 PM, John Hosty said...

Tell me how would you handle this situation:

A gay married man is asked by his 5th grade students what his wife's name is.

At 9:43 PM, William said...

Mr. Hosty, your posts speak for themselves. And they are extremely bizarre. And your attempt to justify the murder of Mary Stachowitz was just plain chilling.

No one here has called you a Nazi or a pedophile. However, perhaps you write from a guilty conscience as many homosexuals are in fact pedophiles (witness the sexual abuse within the Catholic Church which was predominantly homosexual in nature).

Mr. Ansley wasn't referring to you as a Nazi. However, it is interesting that you studiously avoid discussing the well-documented fact that homosexuality played a major role in the rise of Hitler and Nazism.

At 10:22 PM, Matlee said...

I too hope that John H will share his thoughts on anus licking and eating fecal material.

Until then, this might be of interest


Physician Says Science of Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behaviour is Being Trumped by Political Agenda

Interview provides information resource on medical dangers of homosexuality

WEST CONSHOHOCKEN, Pennsylvania, September 19, 2003

(LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday, Zenit News published a lengthy interview with Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons regarding the serious medical consequences of homosexual behaviour that are being ignored, if not suppressed, during current public discussions on homosexuality. Dr. Fitzgibbons is a principal contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's statement on "Homosexuality and Hope" and has spoken widely on the issue.

Fitzgibbons indicates that recent historical changes in institutional views of homosexuality have not been helpful for those who have been acting on the disposition. He tells Zenit that "Homosexuality was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness -- abnormal behaviour -- until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in psychiatry because of political pressure."

He continues that "The sexual practices of homosexuals involve serious health risks and illness. Specifically, sodomy as a sexual behaviour is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems". Later in the interview he provides far more detail about his claims and the results of research by himself and others on the issue.

Regarding mental health consequences, Fitzgibbons states there is a "strong link between homosexual sex and suicide, as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems."

"The youth suffering from these disorders" Fitzgibbons tells Zenit, "were four times as likely as their peers to suffer from major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer from generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer from multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide."

Gay activists often claim that lack of social acceptance is the primary cause of mental problems experienced by persons who engage in homosexual activity but Fitzgibbons provides evidence to the contrary. He reports that an extensive study in the Netherlands, where homosexuality has long been accepted and protected under law, indicates that "psychiatric disease cannot be attributed to social rejection and homophobia". The high rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behaviour in the Netherlands contradicts the gay activist assumption about the cause of these disorders among homosexuals.

Fitzgibbons expresses concern that persons involved in homosexuality have been left at high risk by most medical groups that have "embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle, despite all of the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks."

"It seems", he tells Zenit, "the politically correct homosexual agenda is trumping science."

See the entire Zenit interview at
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=41158

At 2:07 AM, John Hosty said...

I would have thought that the old school polite society would not want to discuss the explicits. I don't think it is a good idea, but I am not going to stand in the way of two consenting adults.

Now would anyone like to answer my question?

A gay married man is asked by his 5th grade students what his wife's name is. How would you have him handle this, and why?

At 5:46 AM, Renee said...

It's rude of children to ask adults personal questions. I think that is the problem I've seen growing up over the years through the 80's and 90's teachers in general becoming to friend-like with their students. It's none of the child's business. There seems to be conflicting arguments in relationships that don't fit marriage, one one hand I'm told it is none of my business then on the other hand my ten year old is learning someone else's business.

At 8:38 AM, Renee ( I can't sign in again) said...

Dale,

That was innapropriate. Like really innapropriate! Think for a moment or two our job isn't to damn people but to help them.

Next time why not suggest next time to just offer that a person should get a regular check up with their primary; if you really cared about their health. What I do when I talk to women and their own sexual activity or issues of family planning, I just gently remind them to be sure to see their GYNs and I might just follow up with some Natural Family information on the basis of basic understanding of the female body.

There is a double standard when we talk about sexual activity vs. other health concerns. If a person has high cholesterol the doctor has no problem pushing a healthier diet on the patient to avoid unhealthy foods, but doctors are unwilling to tell patients no matter the gender or orientation to remotely even consider to abstain from sexual activity as a matter of health.

Jay, maybe we need moderation.

Renee

At 9:17 AM, Matlee said...

I have to agree with William Renee. I know what you're saying, his choice of wording was a bit blunt. But isn't that the point? The practice he describes is sickening. Why attempt to sugar-coat the practice?

If your sensibilities have been offended, I'm sorry about that. But many devout Catholics are more offended by the actual practice he describes.

On a less blunt note, Mr. Michael Brown reports:

Former homosexual attributes healing to prayer
Turin, Feb. 26, 2007 (CWNews.com) - In Turin, Italy, a left-leaning newspaper has published the testimony of a former homosexual who says that through prayer he was able to overcome same-sex attractions.

La Stampa carried an article on the experiences of Luca Di Tolve, who says that he has rid himself of homosexual impulses. He says that his sexual impulses were healed as a result of reading the Bible and the works of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, as well as praying the Rosary three times a day.

At 10:07 AM, Paul Anthony Melanson said...

I would have to come down on Renee's side on this issue. While it is important that we remain fortes in Fide at all times, still, charity must be our norm. Dale's posting was over the top in my opinion as he employed the use of an expletive. However, in the same vein, Mr. John Hosty's post in which he refers to the views of others who frequent this forum as "B.S." should also be deemed inappropriate.

Both William and Dale have raised an important issue. Namely, serious health concerns which result from homosexual acts. But this matter should be addressed with both charity and a certain sense of modesty.

Renee, I wouldn't be too hard on Dale. While his posting was indeed inappropriate, it must be remembered that emotions are running very high at this moment in our nation's history. There are individuals and groups who are intent on stripping Christians of their right (not to mention the right of all parents) to educate their children according to their values and faith tradition.

Mr. Parker and his family have also been treated inappropriately by the courts. Where there is no justice, there is no peace.

At 10:10 AM, John Hosty said...

Dale's wording seems to be harsh for the purpose of eliciting a certain response. I am lambasted for using the initials BS, yet the term "shit eater" is OK? Renee is right, it is out of line.

William, you would not like being called that would you? I already said where I stand with this practice, so it's not like I should need to be spoken to like this. I am used to having vulgarity used against me, but I still don't like it. We need to act and live as brothers and sisters. Can we do that? If so, where do my rights begin and your rights end? By what terms can we both agree to?

At 10:47 AM, JayG said...

John,
We don't accept gay marriage as valid, so would view discussion of it as infringing on parental rights, so we would be against a 5th grade teacher answering that student's question. A larger issue, which you have not directly confronted, but it's looming, what if the situation were a Catholic school - would you argue that a teacher married to their gay husband/wife be allowed to teach at the Catholic school, even though their very presence, as a publicly married person, publicly contradicts Catholic Church teaching.
I have a feeling that you would think gay teachers should be protected from firing by Catholic groups (as you probably assume Catholic doctrine will change), but this is a very real undermining of Religious Freedom from our viewpoint.

We won't really be able to live in peace if our children are going to be constantly and widely indoctrinated with a viewpoint that contradicts our deeply held religious beliefs.

To concede to the Judges ruling in the Parker case really means conceding to State control of our children's moral upbringing. That kind of leverage exercised by the State would be unstoppable and would mean that that our children will not learn our moral views. It’s coercion at its worst, because people assume it’s subtle and therefore benign. And you only allow it because you agree with it. You will argue that a child should learn for themselves, but you and the court have stacked the deck so that our child WILL learn your moral viewpoint.

At 11:53 AM, John Hosty said...

This is where you wrong yourself by assuming what I think. No, gay people have no business trying to teach inside a Catholic school. You have a right to your freedom of religion, and your freedom to pass your beliefs on to your children. Does this answer surpise you?

At 12:19 PM, John Ansley said...

The majority of homosexual activists are far from being people of good will who possess a respect for Christianity.

Adam Clymer, in an article written for the New York Times entitled “Senate Panel Moves to Block Bias against Gays at Work,” (April 25, 2002 edition), quoted Senator Ted Kennedy as having referred to religious objections to homosexual behavior as “an insidious aspect of American life.”

What we have witnessed in other countries (for example, Canada, Sweden and Holland) is that the expansion of hate crimes legislation will be used against any religious viewpoint that objects to homosexual behavior. And this because the philosophy underlying so-called hate crimes extends far beyond the commitment of an actual crime. It actually punishes the thought in some ways, that is, the belief system behind the crime. These laws can be quickly expanded and separated from any form of traditional crime to include any speech that homosexual activists would claim incited someone to harm a homosexual person, including sermons or homilies given from a church pulpit.

Am I exaggerating for dramatic effect? It must be remembered that Dutch authorities were urged to prosecute Pope John Paul II because of his opposition to homosexual behavior. There were homosexual activists who wanted to charge him with committing a hate crime and to incarcerate him in a prison cell.

In West Virginia, it was reported that an Assistant Attorney General in that state had been teaching police about hate crimes. The manual he was using was allegedly written by employees of the U.S. Justice Department under former Attorney General Janet Reno. A sentence about hate groups reads, “Some groups include apocalyptic Christianity in their ideology and believe we are in, or approaching, a period of violence and social turmoil which will precede the Second Coming of Christ.”

Kevin McCoy, the head of the West Virginia Family Foundation commented, “This curricula is laying the foundation for certain types of speech that are not politically correct and how they could be possibly perceived to be not appropriate within the law enforcement community...If this curricula is continued to be taught to law enforcement in this state, it will not be long before they roll out the big guns and start cracking the whip....Their goal is to get sexual orientation included. Once they do that, this is laying the foundation for law enforcement to take care of those people that they consider to be members of the hate group. Churches, pastors, the whole nine yards....I don’t think there will be any group left untouched when their agenda is finally completed.”

An individual who posted a message in response to the article containing McCoy’s comments, wrote: “Yes, Christianity is a hate group...Not all Christians are hateful but their beliefs are hateful.”

The homosexual movement is far from benign. Homosexual activists will not rest until Christianity is outlawed as a "hate crime" and orthodox Christians are "re-educated" for a "New Age," imprisoned or murdered.

I suspect this is why Mr. Hosty took such a glib attitude toward the savage murder of Catholic housewife Mary Stachowitz for having the "audacity" - he called it "bullying" - to attempt to evangelize the young man who took her life.

At 12:35 PM, JayG said...

Yes, John, I am pleasantly surprised at your answer, but as John Ansley has pointed out, my assumption was not without basis. Now if I could only convince some of my liberal fellow Catholics that there is no right by a homosexual to a job in a Catholic school, as well as convince the rest of the homosexual lobby, then we'd be making some progress.

At 1:27 PM, Marie Tremblay said...

I wrote a rather innocuous post in which I said (in part), "Like many dissenters I have known, Mr. Hosty feels obliged to thrust the fact of his dissent on others while at the same time demanding that they accept him as a friend. And in this way he subtly demands that we affirm him as dissenting, that is, treat his dissent as an acceptable difference of opinion and so provide him with a sense of being justified.

This we are bound in conscience not to do. Love for Mr. Hosty, as well as love for the truth requires us to challenge Mr. Hosty's dissent as often as he confronts us with it."

And I stand by this statement which, in my view, is very reasonable as well as charitable. However, Mr. Hosty has taken exception to it. This comes as no surprise to me. This because I detect a narcissism in Mr. Hosty's comments here at DTF.

No matter how reasonable and charitable a comment from an orthodox Catholic may be, Mr. Hosty appears determined to find fault with it and to label it an "attack" on his person and/or character.

Mr. Hosty is attempting to emotionally hijack this Blog using this tactic. And this is most regrettable. For it undermines any possibility of an authentic dialogue. This whole issue (the usurpation of parental rights by activist judges and courts) is bigger than any one of us. It is bigger than the emotional needs of Marie Tremblay or John Hosty or JayG or John Ansley or Renee etc.

Narcissism is defined by Websters as follows: 1. "Excessive love or admiration of oneself; 2. An arresting of development at or a regression to the infantile stage of development.."

This debate would be far more productive if every post from an orthodox Catholic wasn't subject to Mr. Hosty's unreasonable view that it constitutes an "attack" on his person.

His attitude is really wearing thin.

At 1:40 PM, Marie Tremblay said...

An excellent article on narcissism featured at Spirit Daily:


February 26, 2007

Study: College Students More Narcissistic
By DAVID CRARY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK (AP) - Today's college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.

"We need to stop endlessly repeating 'You're special' and having children repeat that back," said the study's lead author, Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University. "Kids are self-centered enough already."

Twenge and her colleagues, in findings to be presented at a workshop Tuesday in San Diego on the generation gap, examined the responses of 16,475 college students nationwide who completed an evaluation called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006.

The standardized inventory, known as the NPI, asks for responses to such statements as "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place," "I think I am a special person" and "I can live my life any way I want to."

The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students' NPI scores have risen steadily since the current test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30 percent more than in 1982.

Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people "or auditioning on 'American Idol.'"

"Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said.

The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."

Twenge, the author of "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled - and More Miserable Than Ever Before," said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

The researchers traced the phenomenon back to what they called the "self-esteem movement" that emerged in the 1980s, asserting that the effort to build self-confidence had gone too far.

As an example, Twenge cited a song commonly sung to the tune of "Frere Jacques" in preschool: "I am special, I am special. Look at me."

"Current technology fuels the increase in narcissism," Twenge said. "By its very name, MySpace encourages attention-seeking, as does YouTube."

Some analysts have commended today's young people for increased commitment to volunteer work. But Twenge viewed even this phenomenon skeptically, noting that many high schools require community service and many youths feel pressure to list such endeavors on college applications.

Campbell said the narcissism upsurge seemed so pronounced that he was unsure if there were obvious remedies.

"Permissiveness seems to be a component," he said. "A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for."

The new report follows a study released by UCLA last month which found that nearly three-quarters of the freshmen it surveyed thought it was important to be "very well-off financially." That compared with 62.5 percent who said the same in 1980 and 42 percent in 1966.

Yet students, while acknowledging some legitimacy to such findings, don't necessarily accept negative generalizations about their generation.

Hanady Kader, a University of Washington senior, said she worked unpaid last summer helping resettle refugees and considers many of her peers to be civic-minded. But she is dismayed by the competitiveness of some students who seem prematurely focused on career status.

"We're encouraged a lot to be individuals and go out there and do what you want, and nobody should stand in your way," Kader said. "I can see goals and ambitions getting in the way of other things like relationships."

Kari Dalane, a University of Vermont sophomore, says most of her contemporaries are politically active and not overly self-centered.

"People are worried about themselves - but in the sense of where are they're going to find a place in the world," she said. "People want to look their best, have a good time, but it doesn't mean they're not concerned about the rest of the world."

Besides, some of the responses on the narcissism test might not be worrisome, Dalane said. "It would be more depressing if people answered, 'No, I'm not special.'"

At 4:30 PM, John Ansley said...

What is the real agenda of the homosexual movement? This article sheds some light:


Homosexual Activists Claim the Vatican Violates “Hate Laws” 8/7/2003
By Stephanie Porowski

Roman Catholic bishops, clergy in Ireland could face jail time for preaching the truth about homosexuality.



In yet another affront to religious freedom and free speech, an Irish group claims police could prosecute distributors of the Vatican’s latest publication on homosexuality under “incitement to hatred” legislation. Thus the Irish government could follow Canada in squelching opposition to homosexuality.


According to The Irish Times, Aisling Reidy, director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), claims that the language of the 12-page document violates the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act. Roman Catholic bishops and clergy could now face up to six months in jail for “violating” the Act by preaching the truth about homosexuality affirmed in the Vatican’s statement.


Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst at the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America (CWA), says, “The claim that a Vatican statement against ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption’ violates Ireland’s hate-speech legislation illustrates the problem with all pro-homosexual laws. At its core the homosexual activist movement seeks to squelch dissent by demonizing all opponents as ‘haters.’”


Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s statement comes in response to the growing debate over “gay” marriage.


The document states that, while homosexuals should be treated with “respect, compassion and sensitivity, … the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition [to gay marriage] clearly and publicly and to vote against it.”


For, “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”


Reidy asserts that using this document “to say that gays are evil … is likely to give rise to hatred.” The Act makes literature that is “threatening, abusive or insulting, linked to the intent of stirring up hatred,” illegal.


In Canada, a similar “hate literature/propaganda” statute has led Canadian courts to label the use of Bible verses as hate speech.


The Gay & Lesbian Review (May/June 2003) reports that, recently, a Canadian provincial court ruled that certain passages of the Bible can be interpreted as hate speech. Under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens was found guilty of “inciting hatred” after placing an ad in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix that cited four Bible verses condemning homosexuality (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).


In a July 2001, London (Ontario) Free Press article on the Canadian “human rights” tribunals, columnist Rory Leishman warns, “Canadians who think the practice of homosexuality is sinful and wrong should beware: Anyone who expresses that opinion in public could end up in jail as a prisoner of conscience.”


Regarding the Owens case, Leishman asks, “What more evidence is needed to prove Canada’s autocratic human rights tribunals stifle the very rights and freedoms they are supposed to uphold?”


Earlier this year, Svend Robinson (New Democrat Party-British Columbia), a homosexual member of the Canadian Parliament, introduced legislation to add “sexual orientation” to the list of included grounds under hate/propaganda legislation in Canada. The House of Commons will likely vote on Bill C-250 early in the fall.


CWA has featured pro-family Parliament member Vic Toews (Canadian Alliance Party-Manitoba) who strongly opposes the bill, and Andrew VanDoodewaardM, leader of Christian Coalition International (Canada), on CWA’s nationally syndicated radio talk show Concerned Women Today to discuss the battle in Canada.


The passing of this act would further threaten religious freedom. However, few Christians in the U.S., and even in Canada and Ireland, realize that these “hate laws” serve as deadly weapons in the hands of homosexual activists.


Under the influence of homosexual pressure groups, the Irish and Canadian governments have made laws that effectively silence Christians and others who offer a message of hope—that homosexuality is wrong and Jesus can free us from all sin.


LaBarbera notes, “It’s happening. … [T]he ‘gay’ lobby will seek to bring this intolerance to the United States.”


“The ‘gay’ lobby says it is tolerant, but that is a lie. The truth is, it is the most intolerant special interest group. Their reclassification of Biblical beliefs as ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ is the first step toward banning anti-gay speech, which, of course, they will justify in the name of ‘tolerance.’ This is why Americans who love freedom should resist all ‘sexual orientation’ legislation.”

Source: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4416/CWA/family/index.htm

These developments serve as a warning to Christians everywhere. Homosexual activists will not rest until Christians are muzzled.

At 4:55 PM, Renee said...

I understand with my fellow posters regarding the need to fight the legal actions against just basic facts. Our laws now say it is pretty much a hate crime to state that men's and women's bodies complement one another as a matter of design.

One the other hand whenever possible we must take the positive option, not just the defensive in the Truth.So when you have an indiviudal encounter with a person with same sex attraction (like in a blog) we have to give them the positive option. I know with my own past, an indiviudal could give me all the evidence in the world what I was doing was harmful not just physically but also to my soul. But I couldn't change my behavior until someone gave me the positive option.

Whenever possible we have to show persons who are in grave danger with any activity that we are them to lend them a hand to support them out of their situation not just reiterating what they are doing is wrong. More likely then not they know what they are doing is wrong, but if they are mislead to think there is no other option they will defend their behavior. So with same-sex attraction, we must do more then anything to show our friendship and you can live a purposeful life within the Catholic community.

At 6:08 PM, John Hosty said...

We are all individuals, and no one person can speak for all on where they stand and what they think. I am my own man and I do not look to my gay friends for direction when trying to decide what I think is right and wrong. I think it would be a terrible mistake to tell anyone they no longer have the freedom to speak their mind or live their life by their beliefs. I defend equally your right to disagree with my beliefs, I think that is what we are supposed to do in a country so diverse.

People here can speculate about my intentions all they want, but it is a lot easier to just ask me what you don't know. In the end we will be neighbors whether we like it or not, so I think it is about time we start talking about how we can live in relative peace considering how differently we think on things.

To those of you who are trying to be civil, thank you. To those who simply don't trust me, let me know how I can help with that. I don't want you to feel that way if I can help it. I don't expect people to change their beliefs just because I am trying to be nice, I only want some civility so we can talk.

At 8:59 PM, Dale said...

God's Wrath Against Mankind

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32).

Renee, is this "positive" enough for you?

At 9:31 AM, Brian said...

I hope you all don't mind my adding a comment here. I am not Catholic but Southern Baptist and learned about your site from Paul Melanson's Blog.

I fully agree with Renee that the person who used a vulgar term for a certain practice of homosexual persons was not being charitable. In fact, there is a group of Baptists from Kansas (no connection to my church whatsoever) which practices hatred toward homosexuals and uses slogans such as "God hates fags." This is neither Christian nor dignified.

At the same time, there is something which has been missing from this thread (either that or I missed it and if this is the case I apologize). And it is this: when responding to the person who used the vulgar term, Renee wrote:

"That was innapropriate. Like really innapropriate! Think for a moment or two our job isn't to damn people but to help them.

Next time why not suggest next time to just offer that a person should get a regular check up with their primary; if you really cared about their health. What I do when I talk to women and their own sexual activity or issues of family planning, I just gently remind them to be sure to see their GYNs and I might just follow up with some Natural Family information on the basis of basic understanding of the female body."

It is totally true to say that our job isn't to damn people but help them. My concern is this though: while Renee says that if we really care about a person's physical health, we will suggest they obtain a "regular check up with their primary," (and this is a charitable idea) she makes absolutely no mention about caring for something far more important: the spiritual health of a person.

If we really love the homosexual person, shouldn't we be exhorting them to repentance (I haven't seen any such posts) and to obtain a "checkup" from their pastor or priest as the case may be?

It is admirable to show concern for the physical health of the homosexual person. But far more admirable and important to show concern for their spiritual health, for their soul.

I thank you for letting me speak my piece. God bless this effort at preaching the Word of God.

At 9:33 AM, Renee said...

Dale,

What no mention of confession? We're called to go atleast once during this Lent season. Confession is a positive thing. I didn't see you offer that at all. I don't see you offering fellowship in your posts.

You're not offering a way out. Believe me. Trust me. Believe me. I can relate to the Scripture you posted in my own life. I wish just snapping one's fingers and being able to just stop at sinning was possible, but to change out of any lifestyle is a long struggle. Conversion, reversion, and understanding how God wants us to love very rarely happens as a surpranatural miracle with a light show and an improptu appearance of Jesus Christ, Himself.

Let's say we take it out of the context of sexuality, and you see someone morbidly obese eating a bag of chips. Do you shame them or do you ask them if they would like to go for a stroll and for a good 30 minutes just listen.

I've been thinking for a quite a bit, since I've encountered John H.'s posts. What if John H. was my son? With my own process of coming fully back to the Church (my issue wasn't homoseuxality), nothing had changed phsyically (I recieved no mystical super power) but once I was at peace I didn't have to sin anymore and live that lie.

At 12:10 PM, JayG said...

A quick look at a past post will hopefully show that we've charitably called all to repentence, and underscored the seriousness of this need

At 4:48 PM, John Hosty said...

We do agree Dale, that's why I can't understand why you are still talking about it. We have an opportunity to talk and to understand each other a little better. Are we going to make use of this time, or waste it?

At 8:02 PM, John Hosty said...

Jay, thanks for putting the link to our old conversation. It brought back a point I would make in defense of what Renee had to say.

"Christ calls us to live in peace with those who are in diametric opposition to the teachings on the Bible. Rather than force Muslims or others that do not follow, Christ asks for Christians to be an example of His light. Love will show those who have not seen His path, and allows them to decide for themselves to follow. This happens at the other persons pace, and not the Christian's. Some take longer to see the value and come around, and good Christians should resist the urge to give up on those they personally deem as unworthy."

At 9:01 PM, JayG said...

There's truth in what you say John, however you often continue on and equate verbal disagreement with physical violence - which is wrong. Jesus said He did not come to bring peace, but the sword, which meant there would be divisions, He would set people at variance with each other, as we are now over the definition of marriage. We will continue in this vein; firm yet courteous. I think St. John Chrysostom would call it cathartic, "Because this more than anything is peace, when the diseased is cut off, when the mutinous is removed."

At 10:16 PM, Dale said...

I had a comment which was deleted because I am not welcome here while a practicing homosexual is. I get the message, only those Christians sympathetic to the gay agenda will be heard.

At 7:09 AM, Matlee said...

John Hosty wrote, "We have an opportunity to talk and to understand each other a little better. Are we going to make use of this time, or waste it?"

This is an excellent question. However, every time someone raises a valid point regarding the homosexual movement, John refuses to acknowledge it or to discuss it in any way. How is this a "dialogue"?

How will we ever "understand each other a little better" when John refuses to address the legitimate concerns raised by Catholics or even to acknowledge them?

John asks, "Are we going to make use of this time, or waste it?" You tell us John. Both JayG and John Ansley have raised the issue of the clear record of the homosexual movement's persecution of Christianity and you have not responded to date.

A couple of questions for you: Do you still believe Mrs. Stachowitz was justifiably murdered by a homosexual man because she was trying to witness to him? Do you think Dutch authorities should have charged Pope John Paul II with a hate crime as homosexual activists were demanding? Do Christians like David Parker possess any parental rights whatsoever? Is Christianity a hate group? Is the Bible hate literature?

Yes John, let's not waste any time. Let us know how you feel.

At 8:16 AM, JayG said...

Actually Dale, you are welcome here, but I didn't want the post with the scatological detail left here, as it would not help convert someone who is already engaged in this perverted behavior and it unecessarilly scandalized those who may never have heard of it or given it any thought. A second post was deleted because you insulted Renee.
Shall we get back to Matlee's point?

At 10:27 AM, Renee said...

Being heterosexual, it's impossible to have a frame of reference what it is like to have same-sex attraction. I couldn't imagine it if I tried. I know atleast with Catholicism we acknowledge that many persons no matter how hard they try will be attracted to the opposite sex, on the other hand I do some people growing up as a teenager could be confused considering the gay exposure in middle schools.

Taken from Rev. Gabriel B O’Donnell, OP Columbia Magazine publication of the Knights of Columbus/ January 2007 p. 24


“The Church does not condemn homosexuals or homosexuality. Every person, created in the image and likeness of God, possesses a dignity and worth that demands respect and compassion from one’s brothers and sisters in the human family. While the origins of same-sex attraction are not yet scientifically clear, most of those who are oriented do no choose this sexual attraction. A man or woman cannot be blamed or condemned merely because he or she experiences such an attraction….



The Church must condemn homosexual acts because they are contrary to God’s plan expressed in natural law and in divine revelation. The complementarity of man and woman as male and female is inherent in God’s creative design for human race. “Precisely because man and woman are different, yet complimentary, they can come together in union that is open to the possibility of life.”



Most important was this paragraph.


“Same-sex attraction is a source of great suffering for many men and women who call themselves ‘gay.’ Often misunderstood and rejected by their families and friends, they fear they will not be able to live normal, productive lives. As they retreat into enclaves of like-minded persons, the homosexual subculture provides an apparent safe haven, but it does not really solve the problem.”

At 10:38 AM, Renee said...

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/02/day-after.html#comment-9165302609047277812

The Parker case has a lot more then an issue if a five year learns that some families are not the two parent dad/mom. It is one thing to teach a child due to tragic or imperfect events that someone is not living with both their biological father and mother, and another for educators say that biological father’s and mother’s are not important. I don’t fear homosexuals, I fear the government!

From Opine Editorials

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/02/day-after.html#comment-9165302609047277812


"This just goes to show that state controlled childhood education is the antithesis of free society. State sponsorship is one thing, but state control quickly turns into indoctrination.

It is no accident that all oppressive regimes begin with childhood indoctrination. From Nazism to Maoism to the current spate of Jihadism, all depend on free access to children away from the protection of their parents. In notable contrast, the Great Experiment of American Democracy, itself an unprecedented shift in world views, did not use, much less rely upon, child indoctrination to move from minority to majority status.

The inevitable perversion of even the best intentioned of state controlled education systems is obvious when one realizes that no parent, not one, sends their child to school with the hope they will adopt any view of sexuality. No parent, no matter how radical or traditional, hopes their child will adopt a state sponsored view of sex. Rather, they want their child to learn from the schools a collective view of mathematics, science, history, literature, etc., and to learn sexuality, morality, and spirituality from home.

Nobody views the schools as the place for their child to learn about sex. Some may view the schools as where others' children should learn about sex, but definitely not their own children. Such autocratic, inegalitarian, anti-pluralistic intent is not the provenance of freedom and democracy."

At 12:45 PM, Matlee said...

Let's hope John Hosty will assist us in understanding his particular philosophy by providing us with an answer to the questions I posed.


I am very patient and happy to await a response to the questions I posed.

At 1:12 PM, Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Renee, you are not far from the Kingdom of God dear sister in Christ. Your last posting was so beautifully put.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that: "Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.'" (CCC, 1849).

All of us need to remember that God loves people unconditionally and that those of us who profess to be Christian are called to do the same. Like the prodigal's father in Jesus' parable, the heavenly Father loves people even when they sin. Indeed, God loves even the damned. If He did not, they would cease to exist for His love holds all things together and in place.

In Sacred Scripture we read, "You are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people's sins, so that they may repent. For you love all things that exist and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have made anything if you hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours. O Lord, you who love the living." (Wisdom, 11:23-26).

To Mr. Hosty, I have this to say. Please be assured of our love and concern for you as a human being created in the Imago Dei who is worthy of respect and compassion and friendship.

And because we really do love you my friend, we must remind you that being loved by God is not enough to be in friendship with Him, because friendship is mutual love. Consequently, one's first and greatest responsibility is to love God (CCC, 1822).

Mr. Hosty, Jesus has said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). This is the test of our love for Him. If we really love Jesus, if we truly desire to have a relationship with Him - the Prince of Peace Who came that we might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10) - we must prove our love for Him by abiding in His love by keeping His commandments.

May we all strive (with the help of God's grace without which nothing is possible) to attain a righteousness which exceeds that of the Pharisees. For Jesus has told us all that unless our righteousness does exceed theirs, we (none of us) will ever enter the Kingdom of God.

God love you.

At 5:13 PM, John Hosty said...

"This is an excellent question. However, every time someone raises a valid point regarding the homosexual movement, John refuses to acknowledge it or to discuss it in any way."

You will see that I do not answer posts I think are meant to inflame rather than resolve. In the spirit of good will I will do my best to answer what you have posted and see where your heart is. In regard to "the homosexual movement's persecution of Christianity", to my knowledge there is no organized effort to bring down religion. All the people that I work with and speak to on my side of this issue are simply wanting to live in society peacefully in co-existence with people of other walks of life. My personal belief is that we should all be judged by our actions and intents. If we are to be judged at all, it should be as individuals, for that's what we all are. We should all practice what we preach, so for me to ask for peace I must return it in kind.

"A couple of questions for you: Do you still believe Mrs. Stachowitz was justifiably murdered by a homosexual man because she was trying to witness to him?"

This is an ugly example of how far things can go wrong if we don't practice peace. There is no justification for murder. My only reservation is that the articles I have read on this matter suggest that this woman had crossed the line of trying to reach out, and had taken on the role of abuser that this boy had from his mother. If this was the case it would still not make his actions right, it would just make it easier to understand his motive. He is mentally ill, I wasn't there to see the two interact, so my opinion in this matter is simply that; my opinion. My hope is that we see no more incidents like this

"Do you think Dutch authorities should have charged Pope John Paul II with a hate crime as homosexual activists were demanding?"

No. The Pope is trying to do what he thinks is best for his people. I don't agree with what he has to say, but I will always defend people's right to freedom of speech.

"Do Christians like David Parker possess any parental rights whatsoever?"

Yes. The Parkers have the right to teach their child whatever they wish. I am even for them having the power to opt out of educational sessions that they do not approve of. All I am interested in teaching children is that violence is universally wrong. There can be no exception to this rule. Personally I think that children that are not taught to respect diversity will be at a disadvantage, but that is their parent's call.

"Is Christianity a hate group?"

This question is too broad. Some people that call themselves Christian are hateful, and some have formed groups that share this common bond. Again it comes down to the individual and personal responsibility of your actions. If you live your life from the point of view that all people are your brothers and sisters, then you are a good Christian. Being Christian to me is more than going to mass, its walking the walk. I don't believe that all people that label themselves Christian are in fact Christian. I can call myself a loaf of bread, it does not make it true. Christianity when properly practiced is not only beautiful, it changes the world for the better.

" Is the Bible hate literature?"

One cannot ignore the passages that were used to justify the Crusades, but for the most part God calls for love and peace. Man's interpretation of what is written has caused much trouble, and I am not interested in debating the meaning of passages.

"Yes John, let's not waste any time. Let us know how you feel. "

Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy, and I encourage you to do the same.

I have a question of my own if I may. In reference to Renee's post "The Church must condemn homosexual acts" What does the church call its members to do? How does one condemn homosexual acts? What are the specific resposibilities of those who are Christian to do when they are presented with someone who fits this description?

I appreciate the effort that is being made by people here to speak to me with respect. We are all searching for answers, peace, security for ourselves and our loved ones. We seem to be on different paths attempting to find the same things. Part of my path allows me to have a deep respect for those who I disagree with. I understand your point of view, and I do not see you as a threat to me. That is exactly why I am reaching out to this group here. I want you see me for who I am, and hopefully you will see me the same way I see you. Anybody can exchange ugly comments, but I see real opportunity here. Let's help each other.

At 9:10 PM, William said...

We're not all searching for answers John. Some of us have discovered the answers in Christ's Church. I sense hostility and violence in your last post.

At 9:14 PM, William said...

For your consideration John H:


In his Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, Pope John Paul II provides us with an excellent definition of Christianity:

Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it. This, as has already been said, is why Christ the Redeemer "fully reveals man to himself". If we may use the expression, this is the human dimension of the mystery of the Redemption. In this dimension man finds again the greatness, dignity and value that belong to his humanity. In the mystery of the Redemption man becomes newly "expressed" and, in a way, is newly created. He is newly created! "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly-and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being-he must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter into him with all his own self, he must "appropriate" and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself. If this profound process takes place within him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also of deep wonder at himself. How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he "gained so great a Redeemer," and if God "gave his only Son "in order that man "should not perish but have eternal life."

In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say: the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church's mission in the world and, perhaps even more so,"in the modern world". This amazement, which is also a conviction and a certitude-at its deepest root it is the certainty of faith, but in a hidden and mysterious way it vivifies every aspect of authentic humanism-is closely connected with Christ. It also fixes Christ's place-so to speak, his particular right of citizenship-in the history of man and mankind. Unceasingly contemplating the whole of Christ's mystery, the Church knows with all the certainty of faith that the Redemption that took place through the Cross has definitively restored his dignity to man and given back meaning to his life in the world, a meaning that was lost to a considerable extent because of sin. And for that reason, the Redemption was accomplished in the paschal mystery, leading through the Cross and death to Resurrection." (RH, No. 10).

We are created in the image and likeness of God and have been endowed by nature with the capacities to reason and make free choices. And our dignity as persons is rooted in our relationship to God. Again, in the words of John Paul II: "The dignity of the person is manifested in all its radiance when the person's origin and destiny are considered: created by God in his image and likeness as well as redeemed by the most precious blood of Christ, the person is called to be a 'child in the Son' and a living temple of the Spirit, destined for the eternal life of blessed communion with God....In virtue of his personal dignity the human being is always a value in himself and for himself, and as such demands being considered and treated as a person and never as an object to be used, or as a means, or as a thing." (Christifideles laici, No. 37).

This phrase "child in the Son" points to Christianity's special basis for affirming the dignity of every human being. A dignity which St. Paul explains in Galatians 3: 26, 28: "In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith....There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and as such is endowed with dignity. But this dignity also implies a responsibility: to seek religious truth, embrace it once it is found, and to live in accord with it - see Dignitatis humanae, No. 2 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2104-2109.

God loves each and every human person unconditionally. But being loved by God is not enough to be in friendship with Him because friendship is mutual love. Therefore, our first and greatest responsibility is to love God (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1822).

We will never fully appreciate God's love for us. It is an inexhaustible mystery. However, the choice is ours as to how to respond to that love. St. Louis de Montfort explains in his work Love of Eternal Wisdom:

"..in order to draw closer to men and give them a more convincing proof of his love, eternal Wisdom went so far as to become man, even to become a little child, to embrace poverty and to die upon a cross for them. How many times while here on earth could he be heard pleading, "Come to me, come to me, all of you. Do not be afraid, it is I. Why are you afraid? I am just like you; I love you. Are you afraid because you are sinners? But they are the very ones I am looking for; I am the friend of sinners. If it is because you have strayed from the fold through your own fault, then I am the good shepherd. If it is because you are weighted down with sin, covered with grime and utterly dejected, then that is just why you should come to me for I will unburden you, purify you and console you."

Eternal Wisdom, on the one hand, wished to prove his love for man by dying in his place in order to save him, but on the other hand, he could not bear the thought of leaving him. So he devised a marvellous way of dying and living at the same time, and of abiding with man until the end of time. So, in order fully to satisfy his love, he instituted the sacrament of Holy Eucharist and went to the extent of changing and overturning nature itself. He does not conceal himself under a sparkling diamond or some other precious stone, because he does not want to abide with man in an ostentatious manner. But he hides himself under the appearance of a small piece of bread - man's ordinary nourishment - so that when received he might enter the heart of man and there take his delight. Ardenter amantium hoc est - Those who love ardently act in this way. "O eternal Wisdom," says a saint, "O God who is truly lavish with himself in his desire to be with man."

[ The ingratitude of those who refuse]

How ungrateful and insensitive we would be if we were not moved by the earnest desire of eternal Wisdom, his eagerness to seek us out and the proofs he gives us of his friendship! How cruel we would be, what punishment would we not deserve even in this world, if, instead of listening to him, we turn a deaf ear; if, instead of loving him, we spurn and offend him. The Holy Spirit tells us, "Those who neglected to acquire Wisdom not only inherited ignorance of what is good, but they actually left in the world a memorial of their folly in that their sins could not go unnoticed" (Wisd. 10:8). Those who during their lifetime do not strive to acquire Wisdom suffer a triple misfortune. They fall (a) into ignorance and blindness, (b) into folly, (c) into sin and scandal. But how unhappy they will be at the door of death when, despite themselves, they hear Wisdom reproach them, "I called you and you did not answer (Prov. 1:24). All the day long I held out my hands to you and you spurned me. Sitting at your door, I waited for you but you did not come to me. Now it is my turn to deride you (Prov. 1:26). No longer do I have ears to hear you weeping, eyes to see your tears, a heart to be moved by your sobs, or hands to help you." How great will be their misery in hell! Read what the Holy Spirit himself has to say about the miseries, the wailings, the regrets and the despair of the fools in hell who, all too late, realise their folly and misfortune in rejecting the eternal Wisdom of God. "They are now beginning to speak sensibly - but they are in hell" (Wisd. 5:14). (LEW, Nos 70-72).

Taken from La Salette Journey

At 9:48 AM, John Ansley said...

Mr. Hosty, you wrote: "Anyone can exchange ugly comments, but I see real opportunity here. Let's help each other."

And yet, when Marie Tremblay wrote: "Like many dissenters I have known, Mr. Hosty feels obliged to thrust the fact of his dissent on others while at the same time demanding that they accept him as a friend. And in this way he subtly demands that we affirm him as dissenting, that is, treat his dissent as an acceptable difference of opinion and so provide him with a sense of being justified.

This we are bound in conscience not to do. Love for Mr. Hosty, as well as love for the truth requires us to challenge Mr. Hosty's dissent as often as he confronts us with it," you took exception to her remark.

In the interest of promoting understanding, I would like to remind you of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about homosexual acts: "The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are 'sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner." (CCC, 1867).

And again: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357).

Therefore, Marie was right to say that, "Love for Mr. Hosty, as well as love for the truth requires us to challenge Mr. Hosty's dissent as often as he confronts us with it."

In a recent post in which you made reference to the murder of Mary Stachowitz at the hands of a homosexual man, you wrote: "This is an ugly example of how far things can go wrong if we don't practice peace. There is no justification for murder. My only reservation is that the articles I have read on this matter suggest that this woman had crossed the line of trying to reach out, and had taken on the role of abuser that this boy had from his mother. If this was the case it would still not make his actions right, it would just make it easier to understand his motive. He is mentally ill, I wasn't there to see the two interact, so my opinion in this matter is simply that; my opinion."

Are you also prepared to admit then that the murder of Matthew Shephard (a terrible crime to be sure) should not be used by those within the homosexual community to advance hate crime legislation? After all, such homosexual activists weren't actually present when Mr. Sheppard was brutally murdered and are therefore in no position to judge the motives of his assailants. Homosexual activists who attempt to use Mr. Sheppard's murder to advance the homosexual cause were not actually present to witness the interaction between Mr. Sheppard and his attackers.

Back to natural law. In a previous thread, you were unable (or unwilling) to make a case for approval of homosexual acts or same-sex "marriage" from the Natural Law. Could you provide us now with such an argument?

Thank you.

At 12:22 PM, John Hosty said...

"I sense hostility and violence in your last post."

Do you care to elaborate on your conclusion? An acusation should be followed by an explanation so we can understand why you feel this way.

Guys, I am trying my best to show that you need not fear people that are different than you. We are going to be neighbors, we should learn to get along peacefully.

I believe God exists in a different form than you do. My vision of God is that He made me a gay man, and wants me to be happy as one. My inner peace comes from knowing I am loved by my creator, my life partner, and a large supportive family.

I am not wishing for a debate about religion. My effort is to see if we can communicate about our fears, and see if we can find a way to live together in peace. So far I have seen no one willing to actually talk about that.

I am no more going to change my sexual orientation than you are going to change your faith. I accept the fact that you have a right to your path, and hope that we can agree to disagree. My goal is to see if we can look past our differences, and learn to respect the other things we have in common.

The gift of life is too valuable to spend focused on mutual ugliness. Our time is better spent living our lives as we see fit, loving those who love us back, and learning what we can about the world so we can pass on our wisdom to those who will listen.

At 12:55 PM, William said...

John Hosty wrote, "I am no more going to change my sexual orientation than you are going to change your faith."

This is most unfortunate as it indicates a total unwillingness to conform to God's Will for his life. And the consequences of remaining in the sodomite "lifestyle" are very grave.

He also writes, "Guys, I am trying my best to show that you need not fear people that are different than you. We are going to be neighbors, we should learn to get along peacefully."

I don't feel "afraid" of people who are different than me. But I do get the impression that John is afraid of trying to change and to leave behind his sinful "lifestyle." He also seems to fear real dialogue. When asked to present his argument from Natural Law justifying homosexual acts or same sex marriage, he once again refuses to do so.

Don't be afraid of the truth John. I challenge you to remain open to the truth about the gravely sinful nature of homosexual acts and to honestly consider abandoning the homosexual lifestyle.

Don't be afraid of the Prince of Peace John. He is ready to forgive you and welcome you with open arms should you decide to repent and begin the journey toward conversion.

Don't be afraid. Christ has come for sinners John. Give Him a chance.

At 2:17 PM, John Hosty said...

Thank you for your invitation William. While I contemplate what you have said and where I stand with God, is it possible for us to have dialog about what expectations we have from each other now? Living in peace requires that we understand each other, and have ground rules we both abide by. What are some of the things you'd like, aside from me leaving my sexual orientation?

Remember, I am not here to have a religious debate. I am not entertaining the natural law argument. Thanks for understanding.

At 4:54 PM, Renee said...

"I have a question of my own if I may. In reference to Renee's post "The Church must condemn homosexual acts" What does the church call its members to do? How does one condemn homosexual acts? What are the specific resposibilities of those who are Christian to do when they are presented with someone who fits this description?"


How does one do it? Very carefully. It isn't just acts between two people of the same sex, but there are plenty of acts between two people of the opposite sex we must condemn also. For one I feel duped regarding the concept of sexual revolution, that sex could be merely recreational and in no way creation of new life on Earth. Defenders of such practices can not independently have reason for their actions, so they say the Church is out of date or archaic or misrepresent the teachings of Christ. They'll say being chaste is impossible. So when I approach women

When I encounter women who have had in the past or present non-marital sex, using contraception, or have had an abortion they are all very defensive. So first I listen. I listen for a long time, even on the Internet I might ask them to give me a few days so I can read up on a subject. It seems like by being there for them on their own they come to conclusion that these expereinces were not positive and definitely not done out of love.

These issues burden women so deeply. As a women I feel in control and free in Truth of my body.

At 4:58 PM, Renee said...

Here is one of two posts that approach the subject in which I have to condemn which is contraception.

http://uponchristianhill.blogspot.com/2006/10/addressing-nfp-in-american.html

Devout Catholics understanding NFP

I've come upon several posts on the Internet with concerns that couples shouldn't be aware of NFP until there is a grave reason, not prior. Most recently on Dom's blog Bettnet.com Many Catholic couples are perfectly happy with letting the whim of their sex lives dictate if they will have children or not, without the use of any form of NFP effective or not (many couples still use rhythm with no problem). So there is concern that such conscious planning of one choosing to have sex based around the natural fertility of a women, could lead to selfishness. And the other concern is "Why is it the Church's role to teach effective NFP anyways?"
I do think is a valid question is “Why does the Church have to teach this?” I know non-Catholic women who are just as upset this information wasn’t covered in a basic health education class.
Many women suffer from various irregular, erratic, and painful menstrual cycles and all they are offered is the Pill which shuts down the cycle, ovulation, and technically a woman’s sexuality. On a basic foundation of attraction men find women on the Pill less attractive, because of their inability to produce pheromones. Over the past 40 years we’re becoming neutered.
Many well meaning parents even Catholic parents, allow their teenager girls go on the Pill as a remedy that could be handled with better understanding and nutrition of the body, particularly during PMS. Even though as a teenager we start having menses at 13, our bodies are still developing until 18 so hormones fluctuate cycle to cycle, acne and bad periods are a part of puberty.
As secular health ed does a great job explaining the cardiovascular system to prevent heart disease or the respiratory system to prevent lung cancer, it does nothing regarding caring for the reproductive system. The best thing for a healthy reproductive system is to abstain until you are in a life long monogamous relationship, unfortunately abstinence is laugh at and condoms which don’t protect at all against skin to skin STDs and do a poor job fluid transmitted STDs, never mind family planning.
Think about it, if contraception is going to fail it will fail when a women is in her fertile cycle. Sharing bodily fluids increase the spread of disease. Two facts that they refuse as a matter to teach sexual freedom in health ed.
Imagine if they taught in health ed to just be a bulimic when it came to eating unhealthy foods to keep fast food joints in business?
Imagine we kept information regarding smoking, to keep the tobacco companies in business?
But that is exactly what we do; we keep information from women and men to keep the contraceptive/abortion/pharmaceuticals against STDs industry alive.
I have to be more reflective in how I approach this subject with Catholic men. I don’t have a problem with women; sometimes I have the best conversations with nominal Catholics and non-Catholic women on the subject.
Women’s bodies are so much different then men’s. Women are well biologically speaking “delicate” in terms in how our fertility works. I don’t mean weaker, but alot of things have to all come together on the women’s side to not only ovulation and conceiving but promote implantation of a child days later along the wall of the uterus, and maintain pregnancy to full term.
Since our bodies are designed to carry and birth children, medical issues arise differently then men. A man might get a STD that even might cause infection but probably not effect fertility, in terms of sperm production and ability to ejaculate. On the other hand STDs can affect a women’s fertility in so many other ways.
Women’s bodies stop the ability to procreate completely with menopause, while even though men’s fertility declines to a degree the ability to produce effective sperm and be aroused to the point of ejaculation is consider normal in geriatric males, not females.

As to handle the two side to NFP or not, I found a great post from the thread.

By Brain Carl from Dom's thread on bettnet.


Our Lord has given us a Church in which the basic states of life, consecrated life and secular life, can be lived out in a variety of ways. He has done this because, being our Creator, He knows human nature. He also knows that not all people are the same, and that there are to be a variety of ways in which the human being may ultimately come to perfection.
Hearing some defenders of NFP and some opponents of NFP speak, I am reminded of hearing Dominicans and Jesuits argue about which order has the better charism. This isn’t to equate the use or non-use of NFP with a religious order’s charism, but merely to suggest an analogy. There are at least two good ways for married couples to approach fertility and openness to life in conjugal love; which will be the best for a particular couple depends very much on the couple’s personalities and dispositions, just as whether a young man ought to be a Franciscan or a Jseuit will also depend very much on his personality and dispositions.

At 5:00 PM, Renee said...

Here is the other one

http://uponchristianhill.blogspot.com/2006/10/addressing-nfp-in-american.html

Addressing NFP in American reproductive medicine

I had a recent conversation with a commenter “Aimee” on my blog. She addressed several issues the general public, who may not be Catholic or have no interest in Catholicism and may or may not have a personal interest in natural family planning such as the Billings Ovulation Method or more secular methods from Taking Charge of Your Fertility, which refers to the practice as Fertility Awareness Method, usually such methods are termed “BOM” or “FAM”.

Also I’ve been in reflection on how to address persons who have undergone sterilization procedures, I hope to get across that it is not the person I’m angry at but the medical community who isn’t taking full advantage of the medical research natural family planning has brought over the past 50 years. I don’t want to shame people for acts they couldn’t possibly have full knowledge of, and well I don’t want to shame people at all. My goal is to move forward, and to give women even if it may not be ourselves a better understanding of our fertility and sexuality. That indeed from a medical point of view and a personal understanding we can do a lot better then what is offered to us from mainstream American reproductive medicine.

Billings’ motto is “Knowledge that every woman ought to have”. The numerous signs and indicators a women’s body produces within her cycle is more then just for family planning, but also for proper medical diagnosis and better treatment of our sexual bodies without drastic measures. Toni Weschler the author of TCOYF states this….



It is unfortunate that the Fertility Awareness Method is even referred to as a method, because in reality, it should be seen as a fundamental life skill that all women should learn, just as they are now taught basic feminine hygiene. This is because the practical knowledge women glean from charting their cycles will aid them from puberty to menopause, and all life phases in between.
While this vital information has been slow to disperse into the mainstream, the good news is that things are finally starting to change. A grassroots movement has begun to spread among women everywhere, which I would like to think is reforming women's health one fertility chart at a time.



Also a great resource to understand Catholic teaching on Natural Family Planning is from a Billling Ovulation Instructor, Sara Fox Peterson. Sara Fox Peterson is a full time mother, a writer and a certified teacher of the Billings Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning. She holds a BS in biology and an MS in human physiology, both from Georgetown University, and lives in Maryland with her husband and children. She has multiple columns explaining how the Catholic understanding of sexuality of women and men, is truly integrated with such knowledge and addresses commonly asked questions from non-Catholics and Catholics on why such information is invaluable to everyone.

Here are some titles to her columns….

An Open Question
Catholic Contraception?
What if It's Too Late?
What's the Difference
Medical Exceptions
The People Who Actually Do This
The Pill: Questions and Answers

I hope this helps readers. I realize I posted a lot of information. This undestanding doesn't happen overnight, so I'm not upset if someone disagrees with me because for most internalizing and digesting this knowledge takes time.

At 5:08 PM, Renee said...

Ok a post about same-sex attraction. I have no frame of reference of what it is like to have same-sex attraction so I guess all I can do is first listen and help dig up any information as needed as a Catholic.

At 5:58 PM, William said...

John, you said, "I am not here to have a religious debate. I am not entertaining the natural law argument. Thanks for understanding."

You should know that I am not here to have a secular debate. I am not entertaining secular humanist arguments. Thanks for understanding.

By the way, if you're not interested in discussing this isue from a religious perspective or from the Natural Law, there are plenty of secular Blogs out there.

At 7:37 PM, John Hosty said...

My question is how we treat each other. If we are neighbors, am I supposed to smile and nod when I see you, or do you prefer I keep my distance. If I hear you have a tragedy, do I offer my condolences, or simply stay away.

What I am hoping for is that you will teach your children not to commit violence against people like me. Verbal or otherwise I consider to be off limits for us both. Is that too much to ask?

At 10:04 PM, William said...

Since you ask John, I would prefer that you keep your distance from myself and my children.

You wrote, "What I am hoping for is that you will teach your children not to commit violence against people like me."

What I am hoping is that you will tell your friends in the homosexual community to refrain from any violence directed against Christians - verbal or physical - and to refrain from attempts to demonize Christianity as a hate group or the Bible as hate literature.

At 12:42 PM, John Hosty said...

These are the ground rules we need to begin with. I would be happy to stay away from you and not acknowledge you politely when we see each other. I don't associate with children, so no problem there. It is in my nature, as most people, to be more polite than that, but if we are to behave like brothers in a cold war at your request so be it.

I can only answer for myself when I say you are safe from all violence, both physical and verbal. I cannot speak for the rest of the gay community, but I can help spread the word. I am sure you cannot speak for the straight community with any authority, and only the same is expected in return.

I do not call Christians a hate group, and do not see the bible as hate literature, so I don't expect I'll change my position.

So here we have your needs met. You don't have to talk to me, worry about your children, or worry about violence, or propaganda against your religion. Were do we grow from there? What promises do you provide me? How do your expections give you an avenue to reach out and minister to those who have not seen Christ? Are gay people not worthy of the effort like other sinners? Does God call you to give up on trying when you feel like it?

Thanks so much for the answers. It is helping me and others to understand what is happening.

At 4:48 PM, William said...

First of all, this "cold war" as you refer to it started with yourself. You wrote, "What I am hoping for is that you will teach your children not to commit violence against people like me. Verbal or otherwise I consider to be off limits.." And because of this argumentative post, I simply stated that I expect the same from the homosexual community. That's fair isn't it?

And then you write, "Are gay people not worthy of the effort like other sinners? Does God call you to give up on trying when you feel like it?"

Of course not. But He does command His followers to "shake the dust off their sandals" when individuals and groupd absolutely refuse to consider the Good News and to avoid throwing our pearls before swine.

And no I am not calling you a swine here - or any other homosexual person. What Jesus is saying is that there are some people who cannot be reached because they don't want to be. Such people will never even consider conversion, will never consider the need for repentance and to embrace the Gospel. It would seem that (at least for now) you are one of those persons. This because YOU wrote: "I am no more going to change my sexual orientation than you are going to change your faith. I accept the fact that you have a right to your path, and hope that we can agree to disagree."

And that is precisely what I am agreeing to do: I am agreeing to disagree. You have made it crystal clear that you won't even consider abandoning the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, I am not giving up trying because I "feel like it" but because you have said that you will not consider the need for repentance.

And that is your choice. But Sacred Scripture commands me to avoid such people. And Jesus told His Disciples to shake the dust off their sandals when they encounter hard-hearted people who won't accept the Good News or even consider the objective need for repentance.

I am simply respecting the tone which you have set.

At 6:03 PM, John Hosty said...

But William, it was you who said that I shouldn't even be as civil as to wave hello when we pass each other in the street. This is the "cold war" I was referring to.

There are many people out there that are not going to adhere to your religious precepts. Muslims live in your town, yet if you are to pass them on the street you would show a neighborly level of respect. God does not call you to excommunicate those that differ in belief with you, does He?

Can you at least admit to yourself that the clear anomousity shown in your writings comes from your own personal feelings, and not simply as a result of my not following your beliefs? Why are you so angry?

At 7:00 PM, William said...

Actually John, you have set the tone here. Your rejection of God, His Love and His Commandments constitutes the real animosity here.

Recall what Paul M posted from St. Louis de Montfort:


"[ The ingratitude of those who refuse]

How ungrateful and insensitive we would be if we were not moved by the earnest desire of eternal Wisdom, his eagerness to seek us out and the proofs he gives us of his friendship! How cruel we would be, what punishment would we not deserve even in this world, if, instead of listening to him, we turn a deaf ear; if, instead of loving him, we spurn and offend him. The Holy Spirit tells us, "Those who neglected to acquire Wisdom not only inherited ignorance of what is good, but they actually left in the world a memorial of their folly in that their sins could not go unnoticed" (Wisd. 10:8). Those who during their lifetime do not strive to acquire Wisdom suffer a triple misfortune. They fall (a) into ignorance and blindness, (b) into folly, (c) into sin and scandal. But how unhappy they will be at the door of death when, despite themselves, they hear Wisdom reproach them, "I called you and you did not answer (Prov. 1:24). All the day long I held out my hands to you and you spurned me. Sitting at your door, I waited for you but you did not come to me. Now it is my turn to deride you (Prov. 1:26). No longer do I have ears to hear you weeping, eyes to see your tears, a heart to be moved by your sobs, or hands to help you." How great will be their misery in hell! Read what the Holy Spirit himself has to say about the miseries, the wailings, the regrets and the despair of the fools in hell who, all too late, realise their folly and misfortune in rejecting the eternal Wisdom of God. "They are now beginning to speak sensibly - but they are in hell" (Wisd. 5:14). (LEW, Nos 70-72)."

We are commanded by Our Lord to "shake the dust from our sandals" when we encounter someone who is so hostile to the Gospel - to the Good News - that they refuse to listen to it or to consider it.

Read the words of St. Montfort very carefully. Reflect on them. Do what you want. Either way, while I will be praying for you I will simply ignore you from now on.

Your hatred of God and His Commandments will have consequences. As long as you understand that.

At 8:17 PM, John Hosty said...

"Either way, while I will be praying for you I will simply ignore you from now on.

Your hatred of God and His Commandments will have consequences. As long as you understand that."

Isn't this what you've done from the begining? You would have to be ignoring my words and replacing them with your own to hear that I hate God, or threaten violence like you formerly acused.

This is the familiar point I come to with most Christian activists when they are faced with the realization that they are in fact responsible for their own actions. William, it is you who hate me and not I who hate God.

I've come hear in peace and extended my hand in friendship, yet you have given every excuse in the book not to have to behave in a Christian way. You want people to believe that you cast my friendship aside because I have not repented my homosexual acts. Yet when I give you pause to consider how you treat other people that do not meet your beliefs, you are unwilling to compare the two. This shows you understand the hypocracy of your acts. It shows ill intent.

I'll pray fo you too, and I hope that this exchange that we have had here gives everybody a little something to think about. My door is always open to those who follow the path of peace. I won't turn my back on you. Perhaps one day you will allow yourself an honest self actualization, and be able to come to terms with why you feel so strongly against who would otherwise be your friend.

What I have said here I believe to be the truth. I've tried to say it in the politest way I can, and not to enflame or cause pain. Sometimes the truth needs to be said before it can be acted upon. People should be judged by their actions and intentions, and not by things that are impossible to change.

It seems people forget that I am a lapsed Catholic. I once followed to the letter what you all prescribe to the point I was a Eucharistic Minister and part of the Youth Group that visited Pope John Paul II in Denver 1993. Parishoners still rejected me because people just don't like gays, period, and I am not in the slightest overtly feminine. We are told that so long as we do not commit the sin of the act we are in good standing, but those are just words. My experience is that some people are powerfully pre-disposed. Others have found in this the ability to control those who are like minded by feeding them things to fear, ie; Rev. Phelps. People are so tuned towards that hatred of gays that men who are simply to feminine acting are abused because they appear to be gay.

I say all of this to get it out in the open and talk about the real problems between the two worlds. If we don't have honest dialog about our mutual problems we have no reason to expect they will ever change for the better. We need to think people, and we need to be completely honest with ourselves, and each other. Without dialog there is only stagnancy at best.

At 9:11 PM, William said...

How ungrateful and insensitive we would be if we were not moved by the earnest desire of eternal Wisdom, his eagerness to seek us out and the proofs he gives us of his friendship! How cruel we would be, what punishment would we not deserve even in this world, if, instead of listening to him, we turn a deaf ear; if, instead of loving him, we spurn and offend him. The Holy Spirit tells us, "Those who neglected to acquire Wisdom not only inherited ignorance of what is good, but they actually left in the world a memorial of their folly in that their sins could not go unnoticed" (Wisd. 10:8). Those who during their lifetime do not strive to acquire Wisdom suffer a triple misfortune. They fall (a) into ignorance and blindness, (b) into folly, (c) into sin and scandal. But how unhappy they will be at the door of death when, despite themselves, they hear Wisdom reproach them, "I called you and you did not answer (Prov. 1:24). All the day long I held out my hands to you and you spurned me. Sitting at your door, I waited for you but you did not come to me. Now it is my turn to deride you (Prov. 1:26). No longer do I have ears to hear you weeping, eyes to see your tears, a heart to be moved by your sobs, or hands to help you." How great will be their misery in hell! Read what the Holy Spirit himself has to say about the miseries, the wailings, the regrets and the despair of the fools in hell who, all too late, realise their folly and misfortune in rejecting the eternal Wisdom of God. "They are now beginning to speak sensibly - but they are in hell" (Wisd. 5:14). (LEW, Nos 70-72)."

"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 likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in heir 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 hate God." (Romans 1: 25-29, 30).

At 9:35 PM, John Hosty said...

These quotes do not accurately represent our exchange or my position. More so, it is an attempt to evade direct dialog by making unsubstantiated and inflamtory statements. People can see for themselves what is happening, I need say little more unless requested.

At 8:02 AM, JayG said...

If you are seeking God, keep seeking Him. If you can admit that there is at least a debate about want God wants, and that possibly the Scriptures are saying that same-sex sex is wrong, entertain that possibility and go to confession, even if you have a conditional attitude to the sin - confess it. Grace has happened in other seemingly more intractable situations. You don't have to be in communion with the Catholic Church to ask a priest for forgiveness of sins, a power delegated by Jesus to the Apostles in the upper room after the resurrection.

At 10:13 AM, John Ansley said...

Inclusivity can never mean justifying sinful acts:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5358130

At 10:18 AM, John Ansley said...

The link I provided may be broken or incomplete. Here is the article:

Gay-friendly Mass on way out
Critics say the service downplays the 'disorder' of homosexuality and distorts the church teachings
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 03/05/2007 12:19:04 AM MST


Click photo to enlargeMonsignor Robert Bussen officiates the state's first... (Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune )«12»Father Bob, as everyone calls him, knew the Catholic Church had little credibility with gays, given its opposition to same-sex marriage and the tendency of some to blame the priest sex-abuse scandals on homosexuality.
But Monsignor Robert Bussen lives in Park City, a community known for its diversity and openness. So when U.S. Catholic bishops called on their own to start ministering to persons with "homosexual inclinations," Bussen saw a chance to do something bold.
He designed a special monthly Mass for gays, lesbians and their families at St. Mary of the Assumption in hopes of making them feel welcome.
The first such Mass was held in January, and a second followed in February. Although both were sparsely attended by same-sex couples, the Masses prompted many others to thank Bussen throughout the weeks and share their stories of a gay daughter, son, uncle or neighbor.
It also attracted some local media attention.
"It was a tremendously affirming experience," Bussen said this week. "The Mass was more symbolic than anything, reaching out to families who love their church and their children and don't want to have to choose. But [the church] has to earn their respect. They will not tolerate any more rhetoric that attacks their children."
What Bussen didn't expect was the immediate opposition within his own parish and the state - or the pulsing controversy his actions created across the country as the news spread via the Internet. He found himself in the midst of a firestorm of criticism.
Now, after only three months, the experiment is about to end. The March 17 Mass will be the last.
And Father Bob is left to wonder how his good intentions could have gone so terribly wrong.
"St. Mary's is a good and holy place with few divisions or factions," he says. "This was like shining a bright light on a magnificent statue and then the tiny cracks become visible."

The bishops' mandate
The Catholic Church believes in treating gay and lesbian members with kindness and friendship, but it condemns same-sex marriage, civil unions and adoptions by gay couples, according to a 2005 statement issued by the U.S. Catholic bishops.
Catholic teachings distinguish homosexual attractions and actions - the former is not sinful, the latter is. Homosexuals living a celibate life should be encouraged to participate fully in the church, but, the statement says, "the church has a right to deny roles of service to those whose behavior violates her teaching."
Those ministering to gays within the church should not "use their position of leadership to advocate positions or behaviors not in keeping with the teachings of the church," the statement says, nor should they "belong to groups that oppose church teaching."
And that's where criticism of Bussen comes in.
St. Mary's parishioner Joseph Ozog says Bussen failed to fully explain the church's position on homosexuality in the Mass, seeming to celebrate it rather that help people resist its temptations.
"You're not supposed to be ambiguous as far as church teachings are concerned," he said.
Ozog, who has a tape of the sermon, says it leaves the impression that "it's OK to be a practicing homosexual."
The Masses could create a gay subculture within the parish, another thing the bishops oppose, he says.
He also objected to the fact that Bussen attended a meeting of Dignity, a organization of Catholics whose stated mission is to change the church's doctrine on gay marriage. And he joined other religious leaders at an interfaith service during the Winterpride Festival in February.
Ozog and several others met with the Park City priest to register their objections but said he was unresponsive to them. So they wrote letters to Bishop-elect John Wester; Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, interim administrator the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake; and to the Vatican.
"This is not about Father Bob. He's a wonderful, caring man," says Ozog, who moved to Park City last year. "We just want to be sure that he's representing the views of the church."
The Rev. Erik Richtsteig of St. James Catholic Church in Ogden is also critical of Bussen's form of outreach.
"We have to be open to people who have homosexual attractions," he says, "but that is different from a ministry to people who identify themselves as gay and lesbian. There's a whole bunch of culture baggage that comes with that. [Such people] make that attraction the center of their lives."
According to Catholic teaching, Richtsteig says, "homosexuality is not something they have to feel guilty about. They did not ask for it and are not morally culpable for it. But it's still a disorder, something they have to watch, not something to be proud of."
That Mass affected more than Park City, he says. It affected the whole Utah church, implying approval of Bussen's methods.
In fact, diocesan leaders support him.
"He's not doing anything unorthodox," Fitzgerald says. "We have special Masses for youths, teens, elderly and Hispanic. Our bottom line is to care for the people, and that's what he's doing."
Even with the support of his superiors, Bussen thought it best to discontinue the Mass. He believes the opposition is more about him than about the service.

The mind of a gay priest
For the past few years, an anonymous Catholic priest has been publishing a Web log about his struggles with his homosexuality.
The writer describes being in the seminary in the 1970s when nearly 20 percent of the priests left to get married. He explored a slow awakening to his own sexuality, rampant homophobia in the church and the need to help other priests confront these issues.
Eventually, the blogger writes that he is at peace with himself.
"My bishop gave me the supportive counsel," he writes. "I was right in claiming, embracing and cherishing this dimension of my life. . . . This holy fire is sacred, not secret. It must not be trashed by anyone."
After Bussen began celebrating the Mass for gays and lesbians, some people concluded that he was the author of the blog and circulated it.
Some members of his parish confronted him and, Ozog says, he acknowledged he was the author.
They felt it indicated a kind of moral ambivalence about church teachings and have sent a complete copy of the blog, now closed to the public, to the Vatican.
In an interview, Bussen declined to confirm or deny the authorship or talk about his sexual orientation.
"In the Catholic Church, the emphasis should not be on the personality of the priest. It asks us not to make public declarations. There should not be the gay priest and the straight priest," he says. "I have never told my parishioners that I am straight or gay. I simply try to be their pastor."
Bussen is hardly alone in not wanting to discuss his orientation.
Priests rarely discuss sex at all. Though some researchers have put the number of gay priests as high as 40 percent, no one knows for sure.
He points to a recent survey in which a small percentage of priests said they were straight and an equally small number said they were gay, but the vast majority said they didn't know. They all take vows of celibacy, after all.
Eliminating healthy talk of sexuality is dangerous, even for celibate priests, he says.
"Celibacy does not mean you're not a sexual being. If you suppress your sexuality, it's going to come out somewhere else. It will do violence to you or the people you serve - alcoholism, power-seeking, pornography, workaholism and abuse."
Though Bussen's critics believe he is not upholding the church's teachings on this, no one has suggested he has broken his vows.
So the conversation about the blog, he feels, is a distraction from the work he was trying to do.
The ensuing controversy about the special Mass has divided his parish, thrust the gays and lesbians who attended into the public spotlight, and put too much emphasis on him, Bussen says with a mixture of sorrow and resignation. "If it's to be about me, it can't continue."
Still, the effort hasn't been all bad for the community.
On Thursday, he plans to moderate an open-ended discussion about homosexuality at St. Mary's for the entire parish.
"We are not as open as I thought," Bussen says. "We have some growing up to do."
pstack@sltrib.com

At 9:40 AM, Matlee said...

William quoted from the great marian saint Louis de Montfort regarding those who refuse to listen to God and His Commandments. In response, John Hosty asserted that these quotes were "an attempt to evade direct dialog by making unsubstantiated and inflamtory statements."

There is nothing in the quotes from St. Louis de Montfort which are "unsubstantiated" since this great saint quotes from Sacred Scripture to reinforce the point he is making and the Church venerates him as a holy man and a genius in matters of faith and morals. Moreover, there is nothing "inflammatory" in these quotes.

Mr. Hosty insists that he is here to engage in "dialogue." However, his idea of "dialogue" is specious. He wants to set all the terms and becomes defensive when others won't agree to his terms.

He doesn't want to discuss these issues in the light of Revelation, he doesn't want to discuss these issues in the light of Natural Law. What he wants is discuss these issues purely from a secular perspective.

The Montfort quote is actually very relevant here. An authentic dialogue with Mr. Hosty is impossible as long as he insists upon making up all the rules and turning a deaf ear to both Sacred Scripture and Natural Law.

At 9:57 AM, Matlee said...

Mr. Hosty has also asserted that, "My vision of God is that He made me a gay man, and wants me to be happy as one. My inner peace comes from knowing I am loved by my creator, my life partner, and a large supportive family."

But what proof does he have that God made him a "gay man"? Revelation is clear (in both Old and New Testaments) that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and are sins which "cry to heaven."

By asserting that God made him "gay," Mr. Hosty is engaging in blasphemy. He is really saying that God created him to engage in gravely sinful acts. This is extremely perverse. God is never (and cannot be) the Author of evil. Nor does God contradict Himself. He would never create someone to engage in a grave sin and then condemn that very sin. This is sheer rubbish.

Mr. Hosty mentioned the Inquisition.This is most ironic. The Inquisition confused sin with sinners and judged both. But liberals like Mr. Hosty make the same mistake and judge neither. But if you don't judge the sin, you don't care about the sinner. If you don't hate the cancer, you don't love the patient.

The key distinction, between objective and subjective, head and heart, truth and love, justifies hardhearted judgmentalism objectively without succumbing to hardness of heart subjectively. There is no more contradiction between Christianity's hardnosed doctrines and its softhearted love than there is between the hard objective truths of anatomy and the surgeon's compassion for the patient.

Mr. Hosty is right about one thing with regard to this ongoing attempt at dialogue: "People can see for themselves what is happening."

Yes they can Mr. Hosty. And what readers of this exchange will see is that your comments (for the most part) are of little merit.

At 11:23 AM, John Hosty said...

It amazes me the level of effort that goes into NOT having a conversation in earnest.

At 12:38 PM, Margaret said...

John Hosty writes, "It amazes me the level of effort that goes into NOT having a conversation in earnest."

Is he referring to his own efforts to muzzle orthodox Catholics who post from a faith view?

I cannot help but notice that John H refuses to address the valid points raised by others concerning authentic dialogue.

John Hosty is violating the principles of authentic dialogue. As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God. Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed. Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good. But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth. The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.

John Hosty is not open to the truth about human sexuality and wishes to muzzle any communication regarding homosexual acts which is rooted in truth. This is why he has said that he isn't interested in a dialogue about religion or even the Natural Law.

John Hosty is extremely dishonest in this approach. All the more so since he claims God made him a homosexual. On the one hand he says that he doesn't want to dialogue on these issues from the standpoint of religion or Natural Law and on the other he makes the specious claim that God made him a homosexual.

His message is clear: it's "okay" for him to invoke God in an attempt to validate his sinful lifestyle but it's not okay for Catholics - or other Christians - to invoke God's Revelation (which prohibits homosexual acts) to show where his reasoning is flawed.

John Hosty isn't here to dialogue. He's here to proselytize for the homosexual agenda. And that's his affair. But he should be honest. Dialogue is not his goal.

At 1:39 PM, William said...

Precisely, well said Margaret. But he's even dishonest about others. He said that: "William, it is you who hate me and not I who hate God."

I never said that I hated John. But he has indicated his hatred of God. Love of God means keeping His Commandments - see John 14:15. But John says that he has no intention of keeping God's Commandment which forbids homosexuality: "I am no more going to change my sexual orientation than you are going to change your faith.."

In other words, he has no intention of avoiding homosexual acts, of keeping God's Commandments. Such an attitude is due to a hatred of God. Jesus says that if we love Him, we will keep His Commandments.

There are two forms of atheism: formal and practical. John falls under the second form of atheism. The practical atheist says that he believes in God but his actions betray his atheism. Much like the man who attends Mass on Sunday and then spends the afternoon with his mistress. That's not a relationship with Jesus. That's not friendship with Jesus. That's living a lie.

At 2:10 PM, William said...

In 1 John 2: 4-6, we read: "Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to live just as he lived."

How do we know when our love for neighbor is authentic? Sacred Scripture teaches: "In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments. For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world." (1 John 4:2-4).

We know we love our neighbor when we keep God's Commandments. Therefore, it was slanderous for John to suggest that I hate him. In reality, his actions prove that he has no love for God. Because the Scripture says that if we love God we keep His Commandments.

John has no love for his neighbor either. This because Scripture teaches clearly that, "we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments."

The Word of God is very clear on this. If you love God you keep His Commandments. And the fact that you keep the Commandments of God is proof of your love for neighbor.

At 5:33 PM, John Hosty said...

"I cannot help but notice that John H refuses to address the valid points raised by others concerning authentic dialogue."

I went and addressed several of the points in a rather long post, but it did little good. People are saying things that are not true about me, but the truth is evident to those who seek it. I don't expect there will be any change of heart from those seeking an excuse to abuse their neighbors, but my door will remain open to all.

Peace is always worth the struggle, and it is peace I wish for us all, not just myself. Perhaps some day you will wish that for me and not have it dependent upon my conformity to your religious beliefs. There's a big world out there, and its not all Catholic, so you should try thinking about how to act accordingly.

At 10:05 PM, William said...

John Hosty wrote, "Peace is always worth the struggle, and it is peace I wish for us all, not just myself. Perhaps some day you will wish that for me and not have it dependent upon my conformity to your religious beliefs."

However, peace is not mere absence of conflict; it is the tranquility of order, that is, the harmony resulting when people and other realities are as they ought to be. St. Augustine explains this in De civitate Dei 19.13.

John Hosty says that he's interested in peace but this is a falsehood. This because the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that: "Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity..." (No. 1849).

Sin, according to the Catechism, injures human solidarity. In other words, it disrupts peace among men. Sin wounds the community.

The Catechism also teaches us that: "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him." (No. 1855).

Romans 1 says that: "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." (v. 25-27).

John Hosty lacks charity and peace because he has embraced a "lifestyle" of sin which robs him of these realities.

At 8:27 AM, Margaret said...

You are right William. Vatican II, in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) had this to say:

"Peace is not merely the absence of war; nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies; nor is it brought about by dictatorship Instead, it is rightly and appropriately called an enterprise of justice. Peace results from that order structured into human society by its divine Founder, and actualized by men as they thirst after ever greater justice. The common good of humanity finds its ultimate meaning in the eternal law. But since the concrete demands of this common good are constantly changing as time goes on, peace is never attained once and for all, but must be built up ceaselessly. Moreover, since the human will is unsteady and wounded by sin, the achievement of peace requires a constant mastering of passions and the vigilance of lawful authority."

Notice that last sentence? "..the achievement of peace requires a constant mastering of passions..." This because sin wounds peace and does damage to community. Sin is a barrier to peace. The person living in sin (and especially grave or mortal sin) is not at peace with God and will never be at peace with his fellow human beings.

At 10:18 AM, William said...

Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, has this to say about keeping the Commandments:


"Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: he did so by creating man and ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the "natural law". The latter "is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation". He also did so in the history of Israel, particularly in the "ten words", the commandments of Sinai, whereby he brought into existence the people of the Covenant (cf. Ex 24) and called them to be his "own possession among all peoples", "a holy nation" (Ex 19:5-6), which would radiate his holiness to all peoples (cf. Wis 18:4; Ez 20:41). The gift of the Decalogue was a promise and sign of the New Covenant, in which the law would be written in a new and definitive way upon the human heart (cf. Jer 31:31-34), replacing the law of sin which had disfigured that heart (cf. Jer 17:1). In those days, "a new heart" would be given, for in it would dwell "a new spirit", the Spirit of God (cf. Ez 36:24-28).20

Consequently, after making the important clarification: "There is only one who is good", Jesus tells the young man: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). In this way, a close connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments: God's commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation. The commandments are linked to a promise. In the Old Covenant the object of the promise was the possession of a land where the people would be able to live in freedom and in accordance with righteousness (cf. Dt 6:20-25). In the New Covenant the object of the promise is the "Kingdom of Heaven", as Jesus declares at the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount" — a sermon which contains the fullest and most complete formulation of the New Law (cf. Mt 5-7), clearly linked to the Decalogue entrusted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This same reality of the Kingdom is referred to in the expression "eternal life", which is a participation in the very life of God. It is attained in its perfection only after death, but in faith it is even now a light of truth, a source of meaning for life, an inchoate share in the full following of Christ. Indeed, Jesus says to his disciples after speaking to the rich young man: "Every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life" (Mt 19:29)."

One cannot say that they love God while engaging in homosexual acts. Pope John Paul II makes it clear that Jesus' words, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17), show "a close connection...between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments: God's commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it."

In rejecting God's Commandment prohibiting homosexual acts, John Hosty is thereby rejecting "the path of life" and will never be at peace with God or neighbor.

At 10:23 AM, William said...

Hopefully now John will live up to his own words, "we need to be completely honest with ourselves, and each other.."

Indeed we do. And as part of that honesty, each and every one of us must acknowledge his or her own sins and strive to keep the Commandments.

Only then will we encounter a true peace with both God and neighbor.

At 11:09 AM, John Hosty said...

timately you will have to pay for your sins of dishonesty and unneighborliness. I have peace and happiness, I have tried to reach out and help you all with your hatred, yet my hand is slapped away no matter how patient I am with the constant attacks to my character. Peace be with you; my door is as open as my heart to you.

When you are done telling me how evil and dishonest I am maybe we can then lay down some ground rules for us to live by as good neighbors do... ;)

Talk to you soon.

At 12:20 PM, Margaret said...

As I wrote previously:


John Hosty is violating the principles of authentic dialogue. As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God. Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed. Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good. But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth. The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.

John Hosty is not open to the truth about human sexuality and wishes to muzzle any communication regarding homosexual acts which is rooted in truth. This is why he has said that he isn't interested in a dialogue about religion or even the Natural Law.

John Hosty is extremely dishonest in this approach. All the more so since he claims God made him a homosexual. On the one hand he says that he doesn't want to dialogue on these issues from the standpoint of religion or Natural Law and on the other he makes the specious claim that God made him a homosexual.

His message is clear: it's "okay" for him to invoke God in an attempt to validate his sinful lifestyle but it's not okay for Catholics - or other Christians - to invoke God's Revelation (which prohibits homosexual acts) to show where his reasoning is flawed.

John Hosty isn't here to dialogue. He's here to proselytize for the homosexual agenda. And that's his affair. But he should be honest. Dialogue is not his goal.

Let's all pray that John will have a change of heart and open himself to authentic dialogue.

At 3:18 PM, John Hosty said...

"John Hosty is violating the principles of authentic dialogue. As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God."

I have a question. How do you behave when you have a neighbor that does not believe in God? Or a Muslim neighbor? Hindu? How about Buddhist?

You can evade the question all you want, it just makes you look foolish. Quid Pro Quo.

At 4:30 PM, Matlee said...

Margaret has already answered that question writing, "genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth. The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community."

Thus far, Mr. Hosty has been hostile toward authentic dialogue and has done everything in his power to avoid it.

Hopefully Mr. Hosty will put away his dishonest tactics and approach real dialogue with an openness to truth.

At 4:55 PM, Margaret said...

Matlee, it is my impression that John Hosty doesn't understand what I wrote. In Humanae Personae Dignitatem, The document On Dialogue With Unbelievers, issued by the Vatican in 1968, the Church calls for dialogue with all men, but contains cautionary statements:

“All Christians should do their best to promote dialogue between men of every class, as a duty of fraternal charity … However, the nature and purpose of dialogue does not exclude other forms of communication, such as, among others, apologetics, contention, and controversy, nor does it rule out the defense of the rights of the human person.”

And again:

“When engaging in dialogue, there must be no ambiguity about truth, as though it could be postponed until after dialogue, as some false forms of irenicism seem to do. Indeed, dialogue should originate in the common moral obligation of all to seek the truth, especially in the realm of religious problems.”

But John Hosty apparently isn't interested in this moral obligation to seek the truth - especially in the real of religious problems.

Astute visitors to this Blog will see this for themselves when they read his posts which are strong on emotion and short on substance.

At 6:12 PM, John Hosty said...

"Thus far, Mr. Hosty has been hostile toward authentic dialogue and has done everything in his power to avoid it.

Hopefully Mr. Hosty will put away his dishonest tactics and approach real dialogue with an openness to truth."

Would you mind telling me what I have been dishonest about? If you are going to accuse things you should back it up with proof.

I have already said I am not going to have a debate about religion because quite frankly it is impossible to win on either side. I can no more prove my beliefs to be the truth than you can yours.

Try living a little more like Christ and be a little less attacking. The hypocracy here is overwelming. This is going to make a great post on my blog. Thanks for all the comments, keep them coming!

At 9:43 PM, Matlee said...

Margaret, your post was excellent. Thanks for that Vatican document on dialogue. People like John Hosty aren't intellectually equipped to debate religion or natural law with educated Catholics. This is why they always turn and run.

If John were really interested in having a dialogue, he would answer the many hard questions put to him. But his modus operandi is to remain silent or to accuse others of "attacking" him or subjecting him to abuse.

I've seen this tactic from other individuals who post at discussion forums. It is a tactic unworthy of an adult.

At 10:16 PM, William said...

I just love this quote from Humanae personae dignitatem....


"“When engaging in dialogue, there must be no ambiguity about truth, as though it could be postponed until after dialogue, as some false forms of irenicism seem to do. Indeed, dialogue should originate in the common moral obligation of all to seek the truth, especially in the realm of religious problems.”

Beautifully put.

At 9:07 AM, Matlee said...

It's not just that John Hosty doesn't understand the principles of dialogue, it would appear that he doesn't even understand the meaning of the word.

Websters defines dialogue as follows: "An exchange of ideas or opinions."

And yet, John doesn't want to discuss any of these issues from the standpoint of divine revelation or natural law. In other words, he refuses to acknowledge our faith perspective and is not here to engage in an exchange of ideas.

I get the impression that John Hosty doesn't really read our posts but is here simply to impose his views on us. In a recent post, he was so anxious to bang out his comments on the computer keyboard that he missed the first two letters in the first word of his post: "timately you will have to pay for your sins of dishonesty and unneighborliness.." He meant to type the word "ultimately."

And what of his post? While he refuses to consider our posts about the sinfulness of homosexual acts, he castigates us as sinners who will have to pay for our "sins of dishonesty."

John Hosty invokes religion when he feels like it. He refuses to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexual acts but accuses us of the sins of "dishonesty" and "unneighborliness." He invokes God to justify his homosexuality saying "God made me gay," but refuses to acknowledge what the Church teaches about homosexuality or what we may know about homosexual acts from the Natural Law.

John Hosty isn't here to dialogue. And he knows it. When he is ready to do so, he will find a warm reception here.

At 10:24 AM, William said...

St. Albert the Great gives four reasons why he considers homosexual acts as the most detestable ones: They are born from an ardent frenzy; they are repugnantly obscene; those who become addicted to it are seldom freed from that vice; they are as contagious as disease, passing quickly from one person to another. (See Evangelium Lucae XVII, 29).

St. Thomas Aquinas, writing about sins against nature, explains: "However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passages in Ephesians (5:12): 'For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.' For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature." (See Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26).

St. Peter Canisius, on the sin of sodomy, says that: "Those who are not ashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this turpitude that can never be sufficiently execrated." (See Summa doctrina christianae, III, a, b - Cooniae Colenium, 1557, p. 455).

At 10:56 AM, John Hosty said...

Matlee,

The problem is that you and I want to discuss two different things. I laugh at you saying I am not intellectually equipped to discuss things with you, this is typical of the hatred and attacks I was refferring to.

Please continue with what you are saying though. By His stripes I am redeemed. Isaiah 53:5

At 11:22 AM, John Ansley said...

Homosexual activists are waging a war of aggression against Christians and the teachings of Christianity regarding homosexuality.

His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley is justifiably concerned:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030606.html

Homosexual activists know that they cannot win the intellectual debate. As a consequence, they are out to silence Christians through persecution.

At 2:43 PM, Matlee said...

It is encouraging to see John Hosty referring to Sacred Scripture: "By His stripes I am redeemed. Isaiah 53:5"

Perhaps now John will grace us with his biblical exegesis and explain exactly which Scripture justifies his assertion that God "made him gay."

While he's at it, perhaps he could explain this passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation..."

Is John suggesting that sacramental confession is not necessary for one who has engaged in homosexual acts?

At 6:17 PM, John Hosty said...

Genesis 18:20-19:26: God nukes Sodom and Gomorrah


The debate: Did God destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were a bunch of queers?


The text:

The LORD said, "Abraham, I have heard that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are doing all kinds of evil things. Now I am going down to see for myself if those people really are that bad. If they aren’t, I want to know about it"….That evening the two angels arrived in Sodom….[Abraham’s nephew, Lot, gave the angels lodging]….Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!"….[Then Lot] said, "Friends, please don’t do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I’ll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them"….[The angels stepped-in and defended Lot’s family]….The two angels said to Lot, "The LORD…has sent us here to destroy the city. Take your family and leave." (CEV)

The point: God’s heart is with the downtrodden, the outcast and the stranger—and "he" demands we give them true justice and loving compassion.


Deep thoughts: The story of God’s destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is the most famous and easily one of the weakest of the biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality. So how did these abused verses become such a favorite among the queer-haters?

First, it wasn’t because of their careful reading of the story itself. Despite all the hype, this Bible story makes no mention of homosexuality whatsoever. What? I’m serious. Nowhere does the storyteller inform us whether any of the men had ever in their lives even engaged in male-male sex, nor does he moralize on the general subject of homosexuality (e.g., Is it ethical for men to fall in love with each other and form relationships?). Instead, we read a narrative that includes an attempted gang-rape of two male angels by all of the town’s men—young and old.

Newsflash to queer-haters: just as biblical stories about male-female rape are not a judgment on heterosexuality, neither is this story of attempted male-male rape a condemnation of homosexuality. Male-male rapes are acts of violence, not homosexual romance. For example, in the Greco-Roman world it was not uncommon for a soldier to rape an enemy soldier as a final act of humiliation and violence on him. Regardless of what the men of Sodom would have done to the two angels if given the chance, their attempted violence was the final testimony that they were ready to get all blown up by God (per the story teller).

Strangely enough, the story never does say what sins these people supposedly did to piss God off in the first place—remember, "he" heard something was going on down there?! Admittedly, God’s vision problems do concern me (e.g., is God affected by cloud cover?), but luckily the Bible does contain several other passages which do specify the source of God’s initial anger.

Yet, this passage didn’t become a queer-haters’ favorite from anything said about Sodom and Gomorrah in the rest of the Bible. So after you’ve read the S & G story with your relatives, painstakingly take the time to read to them the other Bible passages that refer back to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (e.g., Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 23:14; Luke 10:10-12). Why don’t any of these texts mention homosexuality as one of the many sins of these "wicked" cities?! What we do learn is God’s anger came from these people’s blatant inhospitality, pride and heartless treatment of the poor.

Now for the answer to why queer-haters keep abusing this passage. Can you say indoctrination? As such, your conservative Christian relatives and their pastor are merely repeating "Bible lessons" they’ve learned regarding a subject that makes them very uncomfortable (i.e., human sexuality)—it’s not like they’ve actually thoroughly researched the debate over homosexuality and the Bible.

Historically, this indoctrination started slowly around 50 B.C. At that time some Jewish writers contemporized the story in a way that fit their world-view. Now the story of Sodom was the story of Rome—the new Sodom. No longer was the story a morality play against social injustice but a statement of God’s judgment against the evils of the Roman Empire—especially in regards to all eroticism.

Don’t be surprised that interpretations change, for most, if not all, biblical passages have undergone a variety of reinterpretations since they were initially written. Like the case of this story, the Church has often reinterpreted the Bible’s demands for social justice into merely calls for personal morality—a morality that was afraid of all sexuality, causing some theologians in the early Church to glorify celibacy as superior to marriage.

Bottom line: At worst, this passage condemns male-male rape—which isn’t the same as homosexuality, nor is it part of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle." Yet, since all rape is a great evil, maybe the real moral tragedy of the Sodom story is the Bible’s failure to condemn Lot for offering his daughters so freely to the crowd—what a coward and jackass of a father.

And as far as mortal sin goes, here's another one:

Hatred of a neighbor is to deliberately wish him evil, and is thus a grave sin (CCC 2303 and Galatians 5:19-20).

Another sin we can talk about is pride. What sin would you say it is when you tell someone they have not the intellectual capacity to discuss religion with you?

By the way, I went to confession so you are no longer talking to a sinner. There is no more excuse to prevent our discussions.

At 9:20 PM, JayG said...

John, your interpretation does not fit with the rest of the Bible:
Lev18:21. Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to be consecrated to the idol Moloch...
18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination. 18:23. Thou shalt not copulate with any beast:
The Hebrew word for lie is shakab
(shaw-kab') - a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose):--X at all, cast down, ((lover-))lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.
It's the same word used adultery - to lie with your neighbor's wife. It's the same word as when a man seduces a virgin and lays with her (Ex22:16). You're not supposed to do it, and if you do, you are supposed to repent and ask forgiveness.

At 10:44 AM, Matlee said...

It is encouraging that John Hosty is now beginning to engage in a dialogue rather than engaging in tactics designed to prevent it.

Since Jay has soundly refuted John's argument regarding the five cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (which were destroyed for many abominations but chiefly homoseual acts), I would like to comment on John's last post.

He wrote, "I went to confession so you are no longer talking to a sinner. There is no more excuse to prevent our discussions."

We are all sinners John. No one here has ever suggested otherwise. However, Holy Mass is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins, only those which the Church calls venial.

You have been to confession? That is absolutely wonderful news. However, please remember that a confession is only valid if there is a firm purpose of amendment. In other words, if one confesses with the intention of further engaging in homosexual acts, one hasn't really confessed.

At 1:02 PM, Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker said...

There's so much here, I don't really know where to begin. Suffice it to say that there is a preconception that same-sex love is against "natural law" and against Roman Catholic doctrine. Actually, Roman Catholcism (but not all Catholicism) acknowledges that same-sex attraction is not a disorder, but that acting on that attraction sexually is "intrinsically disordered." So much good theological and scientific works have appeared that refutes this assumption that it's pointless and fruitless to enumerate them. However, many people blindly make the assumption that there is something wrong with being Gay and, then, select anecdotal "evidence" to blame Gay people for all sorts of societal ills: from the breakdown of the family to the savagery of Nazi Germany. Actually, the only perversion that created Nazi Germany was the same hateful animus that fuels the current obsessive homophobia of many professing Christians and others who seek a scapegoat, a convenient and safe target to persecute, so as to externalize their rage (largely born of assorted frustrations) and their ensuing desire to blame "the other," "the stranger," for all sorts of contemporary societal ills. Christianity is about love! Period! It's about loving God and loving others, and not judging them! To selectively blame Gay people for such atrocities as the Holocaust defies description and rationality! To blame John Hosty for trying to find some meeting of the minds concerning how we can all live in peace with one another is tantamount to trying to kill the messenger who is showing the world the reality of Gay people's lives as they live their lives in God's world, the very God who created us all to live in Him, be we straight or Gay, black or white, male or female. It's high time that people stopped trying to justify anti-Gay animus with sanctimonious and religious rhetoric that have far too often come to replace the Word of God that is Love Incarnate, as well as the incorporation of the Holy Spirit in the Christian's heart Who prompts us to love and never judge or in any way hurt others for who they are and whom God made for Himself and for the world! That is the Christian message of grace (God's unmerited favor to us), regardless of the Christian denomination to which we belong. Whenever we depart from in any way loving and embracing any of God's children; when we seek to judge or in any way demonize any of God's children; when we use any minority group as a target against which to vent our anger and/or seek to deny its members civil and sacramental rights, we betray the Christian message, and we betray ourselves as not being the Christians we think we are and state that we are!

At 4:24 PM, Jerry Maneker said...

This post has been removed by the author.

At 4:54 PM, William said...

The following comment was left at this forum:

"Roman Catholcism (but not all Catholicism) acknowledges that same-sex attraction is not a disorder, but that acting on that attraction sexually is "intrinsically disordered."

First of all, the Catholic Church is Universal with its leadership in Rome under the Holy Father and his Magisterium.

Secondly, you are simply wrong in saying that the Catholic Church "acknowledges that same-sex attraction is not a disorder.." I'm not sure where you get your information but you need to devote more time to what the Church actually teaches. On October 1, 1986, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a document titled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons which states: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Try again.

At 5:09 PM, John Hosty said...

William, you might want to tone down the condesention; Dr. Maneker is Professor Emeritus at the University of California at Chico. He's also straight, married, and has two kids, so no need for hateful vitriol as he is not gay. You can save that for me... ;)

At 6:49 PM, William said...

The word is condescension, not "condesention" John. And I'm not impressed by the credentials of a man who cannot get his facts straight....whether he's straight or not.

At 9:23 PM, John Hosty said...

You can't handle the truth.

At 9:51 PM, William said...

And what "truth" is that John? I have already refuted your professor's silly notion regarding the Church's teaching on the homosexual inclination using a document from the CDF.

By the way, Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" used your same line. Just before he was court martialed.

At 10:20 PM, JayG said...

Rev. Dr. Jerry,
How do you expect us to believe that "[s]o much good theological and scientific works have appeared that refutes this assumption (that acting on [same-sex] attraction sexually is 'intrinsically disordered') that it's pointless and fruitless to enumerate them", when you can't get a basic point of Catholic teaching correct.

Also, is Madison Bear Garden still downtown, and do they still throw the Wildcat students in the creek on their birthday?

John,
Was William's succinct quote of a Catholic document actually "vitriol"? Granted, William destroyed the good doctor's point with a single quote, but I would not call that vitriol?

At 1:40 PM, John Ansley said...

Rev. Dr. Jerry Manaker wrote:

"many people blindly make the assumption that there is something wrong with being Gay and, then, select anecdotal "evidence" to blame Gay people for all sorts of societal ills: from the breakdown of the family to the savagery of Nazi Germany. Actually, the only perversion that created Nazi Germany was the same hateful animus that fuels the current obsessive homophobia of many professing Christians and others who seek a scapegoat, a convenient and safe target to persecute, so as to externalize their rage (largely born of assorted frustrations) and their ensuing desire to blame "the other," "the stranger," for all sorts of contemporary societal ills."

There is much truth in what he has written. The posts I left quoted from well-respected historians who have documented the fact that homosexual ideology and homosexuality played a vital role in the rise of Nazism.

As I said to John Hosty:

Historian Samuel Igra would disagree with you John.

Igra's primary value to us today is that he was an eyewitness to the changes that occurred in Germany; an eyewitness with a uniquely prophetic sense of the danger of "gay" influence in society. Igra's Thesis was that Homosexuality was at the root of Nazi evil:


"I had finished the writing of [Germany's National Vice]," writes Samuel Igra, "when my attention was called to a British White Paper, 'Concerning the treatment of German Nationals (including the Jews) in Germany,' in which the following statement is made: 'The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversion may offer an explanation of this otherwise inexplicable outbreak.' [Page 20. His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1939].
"The author of that statement is Mr. R. T. Smallbones, who was British Consul-General at Frankfort-on-Main from 1932 until the outbreak of the war in 1939. Previous to 1932 he had been stationed in other German cities. His opinion therefore rests on firsthand experience of the German people for a long period of years. I am convinced that his explanation is the correct one. For, as a matter of fact, the widespread existence of sexual perversion in Germany, not only at the time the Hitler movement rose to power but also under the Kaiser's regime, is notorious... And authorities on criminal sociology are agreed that there is a causal connection between mass sexual perversion and the kind of mass atrocities committed by the Germans (ibid:7).

The Roehm Purge, then, was not a "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, but a re-alignment of power behind the German government which was primarily forced upon Hitler by powerful political elements whose support he needed to maintain control. Igra goes on to point out that not only did the majority of the SA homosexuals survive the purge, but that the massacre was largely implemented by homosexuals.

The law against homosexual conduct had existed in Germany for many years prior to the Nazi regime as Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, to wit: "A male who indulges in criminally indecent activity with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment" (Burleigh and Wipperman:188). When Hitler came to power he used this law as a means of tracking down and punishing those homosexuals who, in the words of one victim, "had defended the Weimar Republic, and who had tried to forestall the Nazi threat" (ibid.:183). Later he expanded the law and used it as a convenient tool to detain other enemies of the regime.
In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and bathhouses, and groups which promoted "gay rights" (Plant:50). Ostensibly, this decree was a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity in Germany, but in practice it served as just another means to find and destroy anti-Nazi groups and individuals. "Hitler," admit Oosterhuis and Kennedy, "employed the charge of homosexuality primarily as a means to eliminate political opponents, both inside his party and out" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248).
The masculine homosexuals in the Nazi leadership selectively enforced this policy only against their enemies and not against all homosexuals. Even Rector lends credence to this perspective, citing the fact that the decree "was not enforced in all cases" (Rector:66). Another indication is that the pro-Nazi Society for Human Rights continued to participate in German society for several years after the decree. In The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann remind us that Rohm was a leading member of the SHR; and we know from Anthony Read and David Fisher that the SHR was still active in Germany as late as 1940 (Read and Fisher:245). Furthermore, Oosterhuis and Kennedy write that "although he was well known as a gay-activist, [Adolf] Brandt was not arrested by the Nazis" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:7). Some of Brandt's files were confiscated by the Nazis in their attempt to gather all potentially self-incriminating evidence.
In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with Paragraph 175a which criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire (Burleigh and Wipperman:190). (Interestingly, the new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word "unnatural" from the definition — Reisman, 1994:3). This new law provided the Nazis with an especially potent legal weapon against their enemies It will never be known how many non-homosexuals were charged under this law but it is indisputable that the Nazis used false accusations of homosexuality to justify the detainment and imprisonment of many of their opponents. "The law was so loosely formulated," writes Steakley, "that it could be, and was, applied against heterosexuals that the Nazis wanted to eliminate...the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergymen" (Steakley:111). Kogon writes that "The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homosexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for proceeding against Catholic priests or irksome critics" (Kogon:44).
The charge of homosexuality was convenient for the Nazis to use against their political enemies because it was so difficult to defend against and so easy to justify to the populace. Since long before the Nazis, homosexuals had generally lived clandestine lives, so it was not unusual for revelations of their conduct to come as a surprise to their communities when it became a police matter. This is not to say that actual homosexuals were not prosecuted under the law. Many were. But the law was used selectively against the "Femmes."

And then I quoted from another historian and included the link to the article. The article says that:

"Hitler blamed the Jews for "spreading softening and effeminacy," but looked to the army for salvation. He praised the "army of the old Reich" for its success in breeding men who "lost the softness of youth and had gained bodies hard as steel." [68] Militarization was seen by Hitler as the means to ensure against the decline of Aryan youth.
It is clear that Hitler saw the Jews as contemptible for both their alleged effeminacy and desire to pursue erotic satisfaction through heterosexual expression. For Aryan youth he approved of male-to-female sex undertaken only for procreative goals within the matrimonial setting. Are we to assume that Hitler did not recognize the self-evident reality that males have sexual needs apart from a conscious intention to reproduce? Given his desire to forbid males from satisfying erotic longings by having sex with females, the implied alternative of encouraging homosexuality comes into clear focus. The likelihood emerges that Hitler held a pro-homosexual viewpoint which was a factor in the formation of both Nazi ideology and tactics. His toleration of open homosexuality within the leadership of the SA is undisputed. Additionally, the typical SA member was an unmarried male between the ages of 18 and 30.

The Fuhrer definitely had a place for butch homosexuality in his designs for silencing his opposition and the later pursuit of military conquest. In Evil Sisters, Bram Dijkstra describes Hitler's fascination with the "Greek ideal" of masculinity and physical perfection -- "neo-Platonic dreams of a world populated by an immortal elite of purely masculine souls." [69] Hitler's obsession inspired this additional comment by Dijkstra: [70]


The Fuhrer's suppressed homoerotic longing for a 'truly masculine' beauty he
himself patently did not possess became most apparent when he expressed
his hope that the young Aryan male would learn to shed his clothes more often
in public.

Hitler's admiration for butch homosexuality is complemented by his contempt for erotic heterosexuality and the "effeminate" Jews, who he believed harbored desires to seduce Aryan women. These elements of his thinking, combined with his love for Aryan supremacy, masculine beauty, strength, and the glories of military conquest, were the building blocks for the construction of his own brand of fascism."

The historians I quoted from make it clear (and Rev. Dr. Manaker would know this if he took the time to read their articles) that they are not attempting to castigate homosexual persons. They are simply acknowledging the documented fact that homosexual ideology contributed greatly to the rise of Hitler and Nazism.


It is noteworthy that Rev. Dr. Manaker doesn't seem at all concerned about the persecution of Christians at the hands of homosexual activists. He writes that Christians (whom he deems "homophobic") are always seeking "a convenient and safe target to persecute, so as to externalize their rage (largely born of assorted frustrations) and their ensuing desire to blame "the other," "the stranger.."

But as Jay has noted in another thread, "Just who is persecuting whom?" A careful read of his article and the various responses will clearly show that while Catholic teaching calls for respect and compassion for the homosexual person, homosexual activists are bent on eradicating Christian thought from culture and on imposing their agenda on those who accept the Church's teaching.

If there's any "rage," it's from homosexual activists who want to silence Christians in the public square and force their children to undergo homosexual indoctrination.

At 1:54 PM, John Ansley said...

A little background on Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker:

In a statement here: http://www.ppgg.org/85clergystatement

Dr. Maneker signed a statement opposing parental notification for minors before an abortion:

NO on Proposition 85 Clergy Statement


As religious leaders, we work to create strong families. We believe that caring families and healthy communication are the best resources for guiding and teaching future generations.

We know that parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, especially in the case of a major decision like an unplanned pregnancy. We take heart in the fact that the wide majority of teens already talk with their parents about pregnancy decisions.

We also recognize that teenagers who do not talk to their parents about this decision usually have a very good reason. As pastoral counselors, we know the complexities of family life intimately. We know that domestic violence, incest and substance abuse are a reality in our communities.

As people of faith, we are called to consider the well-being of the most vulnerable in our communities. One of the primary teachings of the world's religions is to love our neighbors as ourselves and to care for each other in times of need.

In difficult times, we all want and need someone who guides and supports us. The sad truth is that not every young woman finds this blessing in her parents. For those young women who live in families where neglect and violence are a reality, requiring parental notification before abortion could lead to more abuse, more teenagers out on the street, and desperate young women willing to take matters into their own hands. The most scared and vulnerable teens are the ones most likely to be harmed. In good conscience, we cannot allow this dangerous initiative to put their safety at risk.

We call upon you to join with us to work to ensure that every teenager has trusting and loving adults they can talk with, that young people receive education about abstinence and responsible sexual behavior, and that all people have access to birth control methods and information. For those teenagers who find themselves scared and pregnant, we must make sure they have access to trained counselors and doctors who will listen to them and provide safe medical care. These are real world solutions that will ensure the safety of all our daughters and honor our responsibility to protect those in our communities who are most in need.

Clergy who signed the No on Proposition 85 statement:


Rev. Mark Cordes
South San Francisco, CA

Rev. Katie Kandarian
Hayward, CA

Rev. Mary Elyn Bahlert
Oakland, CA

Rev. Myrna Bernadel-Huey
San Leandro, CA

Rev. Odette Lockwood-Stewart
Berkeley, CA

Rev. Linda Prendergast
Pinole, CA

Rev. Sara Vurek
Fairfax, CA

Rev. Lee Williamson
Hayward, CA

Rev. Barbara Hamilton-Holway
Kensington, CA

Rev. Bill Hamilton-Holway
Kensington, CA

Rev. Charles Cordes
Alameda, CA

Rev. Dr. David Sammons
Berkeley, CA

Fr. John Bell
Oakland, CA

Rev. Norman Cram
Sonoma, CA

Rev. Paul Mitchell
Los Angeles, CA

Rev. Dr. David Borglum
Alameda, CA

Rev. Bob Matthews
Alameda, CA

Rev. Frank Baldwin
Orinda, CA

Rev. Daniel Smith
Los Angeles, CA

Rev. Gerry Brague
San Carlos, CA

Rev. John Hadsell
Piedmont, CA

Rev. Richard Roe
Palo Alto, CA

Rev. Sally Brown
Palo Alto, CA

Rev. Easton Long
Sacramento, CA

Rev. Doug Monroe
Napa, CA

Rabbi Camille Shira Angel
San Francisco, CA

Rev. Jola Bortner
Stockton, CA

Rev. Rick Mitchell
Walnut Creek, CA

Rev. Karen Stoyanoff
Costa Mesa, CA

Rev. Albert Cohen
Pasadena, CA

Rev. Brandon Austin
Pleasanton, CA

Rev. Giovanna Piazza
Santa Ana, CA

Rev. Patricia O’Reilly
Pasadena, CA

Rev. Lindi Ramsden
Sacramento, CA

Rev. Lydia Ferrante-Roseberry
Oakland, CA

Rev. Greg McGonigle
Davis, CA

Rev. LeAnn Blackert
San Leandro, CA

Rabbi Roberto Graetz
Lafayette, CA

Rev. Carolyn Talmadge
San Francisco, CA

Rev. Laura Horton-Ludwig
Stockton, CA

Rev. Fred Rabidoux
San Francisco, CA

Rev. Dennis Duhaylungsod
Fremont, CA

Rabbi Kenneth Chasen
Los Angeles, CA

Rev. Harry Allagree
Ukiah, CA

Rabbi Leah Lewis
Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Julie Saxe-Taller
Berkeley, CA

Rev. Craig Brammer
Vallejo, CA

Rev. Nancy Nelson
Half Moon Bay, CA

Rev. Ted Firch
Sacramento, CA

Rev. Sandra Decker
Berkeley, CA

Rev. Roger Straw
Benicia, CA

Rev. Juan Acosta
Imperial Beach, CA

Rev. John Freesemann
San Jose, CA

Rev. Faith Whitmore
Sacramento, CA

Rev. Robin Crawford
Pacifica, CA

Rev. Dr. Mark Richardson
Los Osos, CA

Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser
Sacramento, CA

Rev. Elizabeth Brick
Sacramento, CA

Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker
Chico, CA

Rev. Sarah Halverson
Costa Mesa, CA

Rev. Wilma Houston White
Costa Mesa, CA

Rev. Diana Akiyama
Los Angeles, CA

Rev. Larold Schulz
Claremont, CA

Rev. Meghan Conrad
Grass Valley, CA

Rev. John Varga
Los Angeles, CA

Rev. Dr. Ignacio Castuera
Pomona, CA

Rev. Dr. Myrna Tuttle
Santa Barbara, CA

Rev. Kathryn Schreiber
Hayward, CA

Rev. Jeffrey Spencer
Fremont, CA

Rev. Garnet McClure
Fremont, CA

Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Thousand Oaks, CA

Rev. Dale Edmondson
San Leandro, CA

Rev. Lucy Kolin
Oakland, CA

Rev. Greg Stewart
San Francisco, CA

Rev. Judith Meyer
Santa Monica, CA

Rev. Kathleen Owens
Pasadena, CA

Rev. Kristi Denham
Belmont, CA

Rabbi Morley Feinstein
Los Angeles, CA

Rev. Donald J. Cunningham
Alameda, CA

Rev. Pamela Kurtz
Alameda, CA

Rev. Jerald Stinson
Long Beach, CA

Rev. Drew Nettinga
San Leandro, CA

Rev. Dr. Stanley Smith
Orange, CA

Rev. Dr. Diana Gibson
Menlo Park, CA

Rabbi Allen Bennett
San Francisco, CA

Rev. Dr. Lynn Rhodes
Berkeley, CA

Rev. John Millspaugh
Mission Viejo, CA

Rev. Sarah Millspaugh
Mission Viejo, CA

Rev. Katie Goetz
Palo Alto, CA


At another link, Dr. Maneker provides his biography:

http://www.radicalchristianity.net/page18.html

At 2:50 PM, Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker said...

Yes, Madison Bear is still there, but I don't know if they throw anyone in the creek or not, but if they did it before, I wouldn't be surprised if they still do it. Regarding, "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder," I did intend to write, "not a sin," rather than use the term "disorder," yet, the point still holds true! Being Gay is not a sin according to the Roman Catholic Church (and there are other Catholics, such as Independent Catholics who are not in communion with Rome) but acting on it is considered to be a sin. I don't have any expectation of changing anyone's mind, or even do I have a desire to try to change your minds. My point is simply this: you can preach exclusion or inclusion; you can preach legalism or grace; you can preach vitriol or love. It's your choice! Popes have been wro
ng before! The Papacy has changed its mind before! (e.g. Galileo) The God of grace (unmerited favor), faith (trusting God over and above seen circumstances), love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness, however, never changes! If you choose to reject in any way your Gay brothers and sisters, there is nothing I can do about it!

At 4:24 PM, John Hosty said...

This post has been removed by the author.

At 4:29 PM, John Hosty said...

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What people should be willing to talk about is the fact that our society here in America is not completely Catholic, nor are it's laws designed to enforce Catholic teachings. Our laws are a representation of what the total body thinks is best to serve everyone's needs. For far too long some have been denied equality because of a certain aspect of themselves, be it the color of their skin, their gender, heritage, or sexual orientation. Catholics have every right to believe what they want, to teach what they want, and to live their lives based on those beliefs.

One's rights end where another person's equal rights begin however, and our society has mandated a social philosophy that says we are all equal in the eyes of our government. My right to believe that God made me gay and wants me to find happiness in accepting who I am, and as I am, is protected as equally as any beliefs other people have. When people try to use God as a reason to deny my equality we have to refer back to our Constitution, and not the Catholic doctrine, since the country is founded on the former and not the latter.

I am trying to give people an opportunity to see that gay people, like everyone else, are all individuals, and deserving of the same individual justice that everyone else receives. I am no more responsible for someone else's loud inappropriate behavior than any of you here who are arguing against my points. At some point I should become "John Hosty" and not simply one of "them". By being able to see people as individuals it will help you to remember that justice dictates we do not prejudge one another. True justice is only found through fairness.

I also am trying to give those who will never come to be friendly neighbors an opportunity to put on the table what exactly they expect from the gay community, and have meaningful dialog over that issue. You can't bitch about not getting what you want, then when someone asks, have nothing to say. That is not getting either of us anywhere.

I have responded to the unending requests for debate on a religious level, now it is your turn to in kind talk about what I ask. I will not insult your intelligence by saying you lack the intelectual capacity to do so like you did to me, I will simply ask that you come to the table. Tell me what you want.

I don't think that people are so unreasonable as to think they can expect the gay community to stop in their tracks. That will never happen, and has never happened, even when being gay meant the death penalty. It is high time that we sit down and hash out how we are going to live together as neighbors, both sides in good standing with our mutually supported government.

Control is an illusion, and something that niether side has. The best we can hope for from one another is cooperation, and to get cooperation we need dialog over our needs.

As most of you know I come from a long line of Catholic heritage. I understand and respect why so many of you find peace within by its teachings. You should not misunderstand people who differ in opinion as an attack on that faith. What matters most is that we learn to follow the most important thing to us all, and that is while living in a society of conflicting ideas, we respect those who show us respect.

Most people won't bother trying to have a conversation with those who are diametrically opposed to their beliefs, but I believe it is important. It helps me to question myself, and in doing so grow in understanding. It also helps me dispell fear; the hobgoblin of us all. I see RESPECT as the key to our mutual problems. When we find it in our hearts, we have found the solution that evades us.

They say only Nixon can go to China, so why not an overactive gay rights activist come to a uber-conservative group and find an eager ear? Sometimes strangers are friends you have not yet met. My door is open as well as my heart and mind.

One thing I would ask is that people start posting their own thoughts instead of the cutting and pasting of someone else's work. That type of exchange does not eleviate the stress that has brought us together. We need to be more Christ like, and rise above the clamour as we are called to do.

At 6:34 PM, Matlee said...

In an article titled "Gay friendly Mass on the way out," Peggy Stack noted that: "The Catholic Church believes in treating gay and lesbian members with kindness and friendship, but it condemns same-sex marriage, civil unions and adoptions by gay couples, according to a 2005 statement issued by the U.S. Catholic bishops.

Catholic teachings distinguish homosexual attractions and actions - the former is not sinful, the latter is. Homosexuals living a celibate life should be encouraged to participate fully in the church, but, the statement says, "the church has a right to deny roles of service to those whose behavior violates her teaching."

Those ministering to gays within the church should not "use their position of leadership to advocate positions or behaviors not in keeping with the teachings of the church," the statement says, nor should they "belong to groups that oppose church teaching."

Inclusivity doesn't mean accepting sinful acts or attempting to redefine what is disordered.

Dr. Maneker, in a glaring example of hypocrisy, wrote: "you can preach exclusion or inclusion; you can preach legalism or grace; you can preach vitriol or love. It's your choice!"

And this after he described Catholics who oppose homosexuality as "homophobic" and wrote, "the only perversion that created Nazi Germany was the same hateful animus that fuels the current obsessive homophobia of many professing Christians and others who seek a scapegoat, a convenient and safe target to persecute, so as to externalize their rage (largely born of assorted frustrations) and their ensuing desire to blame "the other," "the stranger," for all sorts of contemporary societal ills."

And this isn't "vitriol"?

John Ansley was right. Dr. Maneker isn't concerned about the persecution of Christians at the hands of hate-filled homosexual activists who want to muzzle Christianity and indoctrinate the children of Christians into the homosexual ideology.

At 11:25 PM, John Hosty said...

When ugly things are said that happen to be true the only way to discern whether it is vitriol is by the intent behind the statement. If Jerry meant to hurt someone by saying this, then perhaps his statement is vitriol, but it makes what he said no less true.

I am ready to have our conversation about how we can all live together in peace. The question is when are you going to get tired of making excuses not to have that talk.

A rose bush is not a rose bush because people call it one. It is a rose bush because it grows roses. How true that is for Christians as well.

We are all sinners, and therefore undeserving of God's love. It is only through the humility of Christ's acts that we gain an understanding of how God wants us to act.

Though persecuted by the moral majority, and tortured by His oppresors, Christ did not only allow Himself to suffer at the hands of haters, he did so for their sake. Through love we find Christ and the inherent good in all mankind.

At 11:52 PM, Paul Jamieson said...

Ah - John "Holocaust" Hosty is at it again.

David Parker and the 2nd shot heard around the world will always be remembered as someone who stood up!

Please keepo fighting the good fight

These haters of Christians and in particular - the FALSE Christians - will lose!

At 12:38 AM, JayG said...

I think you have to preach the Truth, then those who choose to be included will include themselves and those who choose to be excluded will exclude themselves. Love has to be based on truth, or it's not love.
I also think the vitriol comes from those who want us to stop calling homosexual acts sinful; as if our not calling them sinful anymore could change that. They are what they are. If someone really thought that they were not sinful, it wouldn't matter what I thought.

As for living in peace, I'd expect that we would not go and change the definition of marriage as an exercise in raw judicial power, nor would I expect that most accept indoctrination of our children in public school as peacful coexistence.

I also want to add that I am a New England Patriot football player, I'm just not in union with coach Bill Belichek and owner Robert Kraft.

At 1:59 AM, John Hosty said...

But Jay, we are all sinners. Their is no heirarchy in sin that says one sinner is more worthy than another. None can earn the love and salvation of God, and that's why it is freely given. We are most certainly not called to give up, or turn our backs on our fellow man. We are called to be as Christ like as we can, and that calls for ministering to those who seem unworthy and unwilling to change. Christ's redemption is unconditional, in loving thy neighbor we honor that spirit.

"As for living in peace, I'd expect that we would not go and change the definition of marriage as an exercise in raw judicial power, nor would I expect that most accept indoctrination of our children in public school as peacful coexistence."

Well, at least you're starting to talk. My elevation to the level of equal in marriage in no way takes away from the sanctity of your beliefs. I have to argue that my actions in life do not change your unless you can prove otherwise.

As for the indoctrination of children in schools, get involved in helping shape the curriculumn at the schools your children attand and you won't have to worry what they are learning. Personally I think it is enough to teach children that there is no acceptable reason for violence. The other thing I might want children to consider is judging people as individuals rather than stereotypes. Inodoctrination is not possible when sexuality is hard wired in from birth. I can no more enjoy a woman's sexual company than you can a man's. If anything most gay people want to see children protected from the pain they suffered at the hands of haters.

"I also want to add that I am a New England Patriot football player, I'm just not in union with coach Bill Belichek and owner Robert Kraft."

Huh? This is kind of from left field, and I have no understanding of why you would share this now. If you are what you say then you have even more responsiblity to behave in a role model fashion that encourages people to spread joy rather than fear.

As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." I have found peace and happiness for myself, and I feel an obligation to spread that joy. Thanks for inviting me to continue posting here. That shows courage and promise for the future.

At 10:04 AM, Richard B said...

John Hosty, you are so, so, so wrong in your personal, subjective, understanding of what it means to be like Christ. You have clearly shown that you, of your own choice, do not accept His teaching, which is an essential part of being a disciple of Christ, and then, and only then will you know the truth, and the truth will make you free. At present you are a slave to "disobedience to the Will of the Father".

Their has been a lot of talk on this particular subject on this page of DTF. And it has come to the point that, as the saying goes, "talk is cheap". There has been so much talk, that those in defense of Christ's teaching, have done so until they are "blue in the face".

Forget the talk people and now say at least one Hail Mary a day for Hosty in hopes that the Light of Truth will overcome......

At 10:14 AM, William said...

There is a serious reason to doubt both Dr. Maneker's credibility as an academic as well his (and John Hosty's) desire for authentic dialogue. And it is this: Arthur Evans, co-founder of Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), explains how the homosexual movement came up with the word homophobia to characterize their opposition:

"By good fortune, George Weinberg, a straight psychologist who had long been a friend of our community, regularly attended GAA meetings. Watching with fascination our zaps and the media responses, he came up with the word we had been struggling for - 'homophobia,'...meaning the irrational fear of loving someone of the same sex...The invention of the word 'homophobia' is an example of how theory can be rooted in practice. The word didn't come from an arm-chair academic viewing the movement at a distance....Instead, it came from personal interactions among active, thinking people who acknowledged a shared value: the transformation of society for the better." (Arthur Evans, "The Logic of Homophobia," http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/viewpoint/101600vi.htm).

George Weinberg thus classified moral opposition to homosexuality as a phobia: "I would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his prejudice against homosexuality." (Quoted in Jack Nichols, "George Weinberg, Ph.D. - Badpuppy's February Interview," http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/020397in.htm).

Weinberg's rationale has inevitable religious consequences: A sexual morality in accordance with Natural Law and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church is harmful since it engenders prejudice and irrational fears. The homosexual movement employs words and concepts as semantic weapons to change individuals and society. Concepts like compassion are meant to build acceptance while others, like homophobia, are meant to inhibit and even paralyze reactions.

By affixing the homophobic label to its opponents, the homosexual movement hopes to both intimidate and disqualify its antagonists, brushing off their arguments based on right reason as "irrational fears."

Dr. Maneker and John Hosty are both, therefore, extremely dishonest. They are not here to engage in authentic dialogue. They are here to bully and indoctrinate.

At 11:26 AM, Dale said...

Right William. Bravo! Both Dr. Maneker and John Hosty have used the word "homophobic." This is a red flag.

As long as they continue to use this word as a semantic weapon (or accuse orthodox Christians of "fear") perhaps we shoud employ the regular use of fecal-eaters?

At 6:30 PM, Matlee said...

Renee was right about Mr. Hosty (and other homosexual activists) when she wrote, "They know they can't 'win' the debate of marriage, so they create chaos."

That's the only reason Mr. Hosty is here apparently: to create chaos. Everytime he posts a comment he sows discord and destroys community.

But then, no one who lives a sodomite lifestyle can be at peace with God, himself or his neighbor.

It's an impossibility. Sin destroys peace. Anyone who lives in mortal sin has lost sanctifying grace and is not at peace with God or self. And this wounds community by destroying any possibility of healthy relationships based upon genuine love.

Mr. Hosty says that he won't turn his back on us. But he already has. He has ruptured community by turning his back on God and, as a result, his neighbor.

At 8:44 PM, John Hosty said...

The hatred and lies published here will be a testiment to all who wonder who are the real villians. I actually have to smile when I read all this because you are making yourselves look like fools.

Dale even goes to the point of outright lies, saying I use the word "homophobic" and that I say a "significant number" of heterosexuals eat fecies.

Do any of you ever get tired of making excuses as to why you are not obligated to live as Christ taught? Is this what you call treating people with dignity and respect? For shame.

In the end you will have to answer to a higher source than your neighbors, and if you think you are doing God's will by lying and insulting, think again. See you next time... ;)

At 9:23 PM, JayG said...

John,
you said: "we are all sinners. Their [sic] is no heirarchy [sic] in sin that says one sinner is more worthy than another"

True enough, but there is a hierarchy of sin; 'He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.'1Jn5:16.

you also said: "None can earn the love and salvation of God, and that's why it is freely given. We are most certainly not called to give up, or turn our backs on our fellow man. We are called to be as Christ like as we can"

partly true.Salvation is a gift, it cannot be earned, but it can be refused. And you cannot earn salvation by appearing to love you neighbor while rejecting God's gift. You say we are all sinners, but you act like homosexual acts are not sinful. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand you to reject the notion that homosexual sex is sinful. So I am left wondering just what your standard for sin is.
As I've said before, the unforgivable sin is to not ask for forgiveness.

At 9:36 PM, JayG said...

Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication [proneia], and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

At 10:44 PM, Mrs Theresa LeBlanc said...

Hello, I am a Catholic laywoman from Groton, Massachusetts. For those of you not familar with this quaint Massachusetts town, it is located near Pepperell in North Central Massachusetts. I live not far from Blood Farm.

I have three daughters and one son with my husband. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal and have tried to respect homosexual persons in accordance with what the Catholic Church teaches. I raise my children to respect people from every walk of life (as do most Catholics in my experience) and to shun any form of unjust discrimination or injustice.

If anything, I have always been somewhat sympathetic to the gay community and tried to support gays and lesbians here in Central Mass.

However, having read recent articles regarding David Parker and his family, not to mention the crackdown on religious freedom in Canada because of homosexual agitprop, I have changed my mind regarding the gay community.

Additionally, I am alarmed at the comments and tactics of a person who comments here and who seems intent on ridiculing the beliefs of Christianity and on hurling insults.

I feel like I have been duped over the last 12 years or so into believing that the gay community was reasonable and that they could be accomodated without infringing on the rights of Christians.

It appears though that the gay community won't stop until Christians are no longer allowed to participate in public life or allowed the same freedoms which they gays and lesbians demand for themselves.

Someone commented that the gay community is waging a war against Christianity. A year ago I would have laughed at that assessment. Apparently I would have been wrong.

At 11:25 PM, Matlee said...

Mrs. LeBlanc, the hatred of the homosexual community runs deep. So does the lying.

In his last post, homosexual activist and anti-Catholic bigot John Hosty said that he's never used the word "homophobic." Perhaps that's true at this forum - although he regularly accuses us of "fear" or being "afraid."

But read this excerpt from a hate-filled and anti-Catholic Blog post which was published at John Hosty's Blog, "Live, Love Learn." This excerpt is from John's interview of Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker:

"Q: What can be done about all this, now that we have arrived where we
are today, with our country divided over issues like gay marriage,
immigration, and religious tyranny?

A: All decent people, particularly Christians, must confront the perversion of the only Gospel to be found in Christianity: the Gospel of grace (God's unmerited favor to us), faith (trusting God over and above seen circumstances), love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness. There is no other Gospel in Christianity! We must fight against the false gospel of legalism, perfectionism, and exclusion that is promulgated by the modern day Pharisees in our midst who are attempting to hijack the terms "conservative" and "evangelical," just as they are trying to hijack the term "Christianity" itself.

As I've written before, I'm an evangelical, dammit! And I won't allow purveyors of a false gospel, about whom the Apostle Paul felt so strongly that he wrote, "God damn them" (Galatians 1:8-9), to pervert the beauty of the Gospel of liberation into their twisted notions of God, the Bible, themselves, and other people, thereby seeking to put yokes of bondage on people, the very yokes of bondage from which Jesus came to set us free. These legalists and biblical literalists have thrown God's grace back in His face, and are seeking to lead gullible, vulnerable, biblically iliterate people away from the only Gospel to be found in Christianity. And for that grievous sin, as well as for the sin of wittingly or unwittingly helping to create and "legitimate" the shame, self-loathing, suicides, bashings and murders of LGBT people, they are to be assiduously confronted and told in no uncertain terms that they are not speaking for God, the Bible, or for the Gospel!

If we don't confront them, we are culpable in their sins! ("Illegal immigrants," or another vulnerable minority group is now waiting in the wings for the haters' full venom to be expressed when they don't perceive there to be as much mileage to be gained by condemning and oppressing LGBT people as they thought.) It is important to remember, as I've written before, every single drop of blood shed by LGBT people, either through suicide, bashing, and/or murder is on the hands of homophobic clergy and their followers, and this message must be hammered home as loudly and as often, in as many venues as possible, for Christianity to have the credibility that it deserves."

You will no doubt have noticed the reference to "homophobic clergy." This even though John Hosty would have you believe that he doesn't use or approve of the word (why then do we find it so frequently at his Blog as in this interview).

No doubt you also noticed the other hate-filled slurs directed against Catholics and other Christians who are orthodox in their faith and oppose homosexual acts as sinful.

Referring to such orthodox Christians, John Hosty quotes Rev. Dr. Maneker, who attributes to these orthodox Christians "the false gospel of legalism, perfectionism, and exclusion that is promulgated by the modern day Pharisees in our midst who are attempting to hijack the terms "conservative" and "evangelical," just as they are trying to hijack the term "Christianity" itself."

For John Hosty and Rev. Dr. Maneker, Christians who accept what Scripture has to say about homosexual acts are evil and responsible for the deaths of every homosexual person. In the words of Dr. Maneker:

"every single drop of blood shed by LGBT people, either through suicide, bashing, and/or murder is on the hands of homophobic clergy and their followers, and this message must be hammered home as loudly and as often, in as many venues as possible, for Christianity to have the credibility that it deserves."

Mrs. LeBlanc,John Hosty published this hate-filled and bigoted post at his Blog.

His hatred is evident to all.

At 8:38 AM, JayG said...

The Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker also does not understand the meaning of Anathema (Galatians 1:8-9), and mistranslates it in a way which takes the Lord's name in vain.

It means excommunicate, and is related to the word haram: to cut off, to seperate. Anathema or excommunicated people are to be cut off from the Church, or to be "put out of the synagogue" (John9:22) as a means to bring them to their senses so they repent, as well as to protect the faithful from scandal. God won't judge them until their death, and we can't judge them, though we are called to judge their behaviors and actions.

At 9:00 AM, John Hosty said...

Funny how all these people are unregistered users here. It would be easy for them all to be the same person, as we have seen on knowthyneighbor.org, and no one would be the wiser.

I have yet to have anyone point out how I have been hatefull of deceitfull here

At 10:07 AM, Matlee said...

John Hosty wrote, "I have found peace and happiness for myself, and I feel an obligation to spread that joy."

But this anti-Catholic bigot has published an interview with Dr. Jerry Maneker at his Blog which is laced with vitriol and a level of anti-Catholic rhetoric which is nothing less than demonic.

Now that John Hosty and his friend Dr. Maneker have been exposed as the anti-Catholic bigots they are, his claim to be peace-loving and desirous of "dialogue" will be seen for what it is: a collosal fraud.

John Hosty is a hatemonger. That he would publish Dr. Maneker's hateful and anti-Catholic diatribe at his Blog speaks volumes about his own bigotry and his lack of commitment to peace and authentic dialogue.

Pray for him.

At 10:44 AM, William said...

It is disingenuous for John Hosty to complain about the possibility of individuals posting using different names at this Blog. There is no evidence of Catholics doing this. But there is evidence that Mr. Hosty may have done this himself.

In another thread, "anonymous" posted the following:

"Anonymous said...
I defer to Rev. Dr. Professor Emeritus Jerry Maneker of the University of California at Chico:

"Regarding same-sex love as being a sin, however, that is clearly not the case from reading either the Old or
the New Testament. In fact, if it were that important an issue, I imagine it would have been listed in the Ten Commandments; the prophets would have mentioned it; Jesus would have condemned it. Neither of these things occur!"

http://www.christianlgbtrights.org

In this thread, Mr. Hosty introduced us to Dr. Maneker using his own name. Isn't it likely that "anonymous" and John Hosty are one and the same person?

I have no proof of this but what are the odds?

Having read Mr. Hosty's interview of Dr. Maneker which is posted at his blog, I am appalled. Not only at the sheer hatred of Christians who stand against homosexual acts but at the level of angry rhetoric and prejudice.

Mr. Hosty, you do a profound disservice to the common good. I challenge you to repent of the anti-Catholic hate you have fostered at your blog and to renounce this form of violence directed against the Christian community.

At 11:24 AM, John Hosty said...

I have no hatred for Catholics, else I would not be here trying to save you from your hatred of me.

All of you are behaving like gays are not worth saving. I will remind you that The Bible says, "What shepard will not leave his flock to go and get the stray?"

If all of you continue down this dishonest road and do not repent for the mortal sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor, one of the Ten Commandments (homosexuality is not) you will not get into Heaven.

The same set of rules that govern me also gvoern you. There is no double talk at God's table, and unconditional love is given freely to those who follow Him. Peace be with you.

At 12:06 PM, William said...

John Hosty writes, "I have no hatred for Catholics, else I would not be here trying to save you from your hatred of me."

No hatred for Catholics? John's interview of Dr. Maneker proves otherwise. In this hateful interview posted at John's anti-Catholic blog, Dr. Maneker accuses faithful Catholics (and other Christians) who oppose homosexual acts as "pharisees" and as guilty of "legalism" and a false gospel.

He then accuses us of having blood on our hands: "every single drop of blood shed by LGBT people, either through suicide, bashing, and/or murder is on the hands of homophobic clergy and their followers, and this message must be hammered home as loudly and as often, in as many venues as possible.."

Once again, I challenge John Hosty to repent of his anti-Catholic bigotry and of his unwillingness to enter into an authentic dialogue with Catholics or to cease posting at this forum.

At this point, I think we should consider sharing John Hosty's hateful anti-Catholic bigotry - and Dr. Maneker's as well - with the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Ordinarily I wouldn't consider doing this. However, John Hosty has been cutting and pasting this thread and posting it as his blog along with commentary aimed at portraying Catholics who post here ar DTF as being hateful and having an animus toward homosexual persons.

Perhaps it is time to involve the Catholic League and Dr. Donahue? Jay, what do you think?

At 12:57 PM, Matlee said...

I have the very clear impression that Mr. Hosty can't be honest about anything. He has even tried to convince us that he doesn't employ the word homophobic or homophobia, writing: "Dale even goes to the point of outright lies, saying I use the word 'homophobic'.."

And yet, at his blog titled "Queer Today," the Masthead reads:

"QueerToday.com represents the queer voice of the LGBT rights movement. We advocate for the liberation of all LGBTQIP...etc. people. We actively speak out against racism, sexism, classism, HOMOPHOBIA and other forms of injustice. We will get our silenced opinions heard in the mainstream media and LGBT media through demonstrations and campaigns."

William is right. Mr. Hosty should repent of his anti-Catholic hatred. But he should also repent of his dishonesty at this forum.

At 1:46 PM, William said...

John Hosty is dishonest about other things too. He writes, "I have no hatred for Catholics, else I would not be here trying to save you from your hatred of me."

And yet, he has left the following comment at the Knowthyneighbor blog: "The Catholic Church is in my opinion, evil. I am disgusted at the sheer arrogance, and bigotry. Some people will never learn." (Source: http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/home/2007/01/news_flashlarry.html

Astute readers will observe hatred and dishonesty. His comments are proof positive that he isn't here to dialogue. He's here to bash Catholics and other Christians who don't share his hateful agenda.

At 2:14 PM, John Hosty said...

OK, let's assume everyhting you say about me is true; I even cause cancer. Does that give you the right to turn your back on me and your responsibility to spread the love of Christ? No, it does not. You people are starting to sound like a broken record, it would be nice to hear something else for a change.

I tried following your link, but it must be cut out. Do you think you could cut and paste what I wrote here with the time and date stamp so I could look at it? I have had heated exchanges with others, but I am trying to turn over a new leaf. That's not so easy to do when the good people in the kindness of their hearts see it fit only to tell you how much you suck.

Let's get past the nastyiness and have dialog about what you want from the gay community. Otherwise you force a situation where people don't know how to please you. Is that what you want?

At 3:30 PM, William said...

Here is a better link:

"The Catholic Church is in my opinion, evil. I am disgusted at the sheer arrogance, and bigotry. Some people will never learn." Posted by: John Hosty ...
knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/home/2007/01/news_flashlarry.html

John Hosty writes, "Let's get past the nastyiness.." The word is nastiness" John. And it is YOU who cannot seem to move beyond it.

Your anti-Catholic hatred is now known by all who frequent this blog. You have called the Mystical Body of Christ "evil." You are here to spread hatred and anti-Catholic bigotry.

This situation has been reported to the Catholic League.

At 3:33 PM, William said...

Folks, the link must be too long...will try again for documentary purposes:


knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/
home/2007/01/news_flash
larry.html

At 4:06 PM, William said...

Just in case John Hosty gets the idea of contacting the knowthyneighbor blog and having them delete his hate-filled anti-Catholic comment, a copy has already been forwarded to the Catholic League and I have printed off a hard-copy of the article on Larry Cirignano as well as his comment.

At 4:59 PM, John Hosty said...

William, as I said I have had heated words with others in the past. I have not lied about that, or about my earnest desire to reach out and try to heal the wounds between our two worlds. Why would I ask my firend Tom Lang to delete a comment? I've nothing to hide. I have also said in the past that I renounce Catholicism, but it is just the hatefullness of the radical element like you I wished to be away from. Now I better understand that part of the cross I have to bear is in helping you overcome your hatred, and therefore become closer to Christ.

What is the issue with the Catholic League; I don't get why you bring them up? No man should be treated as condemned by his fellow man while their is still hope to save his soul. I believe in your ability to get past this, I will not turn you away. I pray for all of you every night in the hope that you'll only consider what you are doing, and why.

"As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him."

Does your net have holes?

At 5:09 PM, JayG said...

EZ 33:8. When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.
33:9. But if thou tell the wicked man, that he may be converted from his ways, and he be not converted from his way he shall die in his iniquity: but thou hast delivered thy soul.

At 5:29 PM, John Hosty said...

Romans 14:10-13

10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

At 5:37 PM, John Hosty said...

Proverbs 6:16-19

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:

haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,

a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

At 5:40 PM, John Hosty said...

Proverbs 10:18

He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.

At 6:05 PM, John Hosty said...

Proverbs

He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy.

A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.


I have given you my humble best effort to make peace with those who fear and hate me. What else can I do to show you I mean what I say?

At 10:08 PM, JayG said...

John,
You need to interpret Scripture in context. Rom14 is about food...and imposing the Mosaic laws about clean and unclean food on Gentile converts, which was wrong because Jesus had already declared all food to be clean.

Rom 14:3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not: and he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth. For God hath taken him to him....
14:14. I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
14:15. For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

At 11:33 PM, John Hosty said...

Jay, you misunderstand; food is a metaphore. It speaks first figuratively, then is more specific.

"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another."

It would be silly to think this statement was about food. What God was trying to do is give us examples, and then tell us not to do it. The sin of pride brings people to look down on others. This lesson is about hubris.

Stop and thik of the points that are brought up:

faith
food
judgement
which day is more sacred
Christ's sacrifice
forgiveness


This is the driving point at the end:

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men."

At 8:00 AM, JayG said...

John,
You can't 'metaphor' away all of the condemnations of same-sex sex, nor can you 'simile' gay marriage into what Jesus Himself said was between one man and one woman, who become one flesh.

I think 2 Peter 3:15-16 applies here: "As our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand, that the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

At 8:46 AM, John Hosty said...

Jay, you are not called to ostracize me by God. Your actions put a block in the way of my path to God and closer relations to my neighbors. By telling people I am unworthy to talk to you or trust, condemn me in your mind, but it is you that is condemned, for hatred is the path of another...

As we are all sinners and looking for redemption, let he who is without sin step forward and speak against me.

Religion is based on faith. Where is your faith in God that He will make sure everything is all right? Do you think He needs your help, or does not see what is right? I do not second guess him, I simply follow what He asked, and that was to love God and my fellow man. I am truly sorry that you cannot see that I am trying to be a good neighbor to you in earnest. How can I reach you?

At 9:46 AM, William said...

John Hosty, the anti-Catholic bigot, writes: "I do not second guess him [God], I simply follow what He asked, and that was to love God and my fellow man. I am truly sorry that you cannot see that I am trying to be a good neighbor to you in earnest. How can I reach you?"

But at one of his anti-Catholic blogs, this dishonest homosexual activist writes: "The Catholic Church is in my opinion, evil. I am disgusted at the sheer arrogance, and bigotry. Some people will never learn."

John Hosty has a funny wat of "reaching out" to Catholics. And his idea of love is obviously very perverse. Is he being a "good neighbor" by accusing our Church of being evil? Is he being a "good neighbor" by posting an interview with Rev. Dr. Maneker in which that hate-filled and bigoted academic refers to faithful Christians who oppose homosexual acts as "pharisees" and "legalists" who have "blood on their hands?"

The answer is obvious to anyone of good will. John Hosty and his friend Dr. Maneker have been reported to the Catholic League. Hopefully their anti-Catholic bias and their hate-filled rhetoric will be addressed by this organization.

At 9:49 AM, William said...

The above post should read, "John Hosty has a funny way of "reaching out" to Catholics." Ham-handed this morning and the t was too close to the y.

At 10:06 AM, John Hosty said...

Make every excuse you can for not being a loving, caring, compassionate Christian William. Its not like the faith is based on these things, right? ;)

As far as the quote goes, you already covered that one and received an explanation. You also have already said you "reported" me to the Catholic league, so no need to keep repeating yourself.

I think the point that all of you seem to be missing is that yes, you can find passages in the Bible that go against homosexuality. You can find passages that support many things if you look for it. They are few and far between, yet the Bible calls for love, peace, and compassion throughout most of the New Testament. What do you think it calls to focus on?

As we are all sinners and looking for redemption, let he who is without sin step forward and speak against me. For you to say my sins are too great to be forgiven is hubris, and a sin in and of itself. Why don't you try humbling yourself before your critics and see how it feels Wiliam? Through the grace of humility I have learned much, but there is still so much more to learn. I am sure God has not forsaken me, for he knows not to through the baby out with the bathwater.

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men."

At 10:07 AM, John Hosty said...

Are you so wrapped in your hatred that you are willing to abandon the word of God because it is I that read it to you?

At 10:18 AM, William said...

Anti-Catholic bigot John Hosty is part of a movement to demonize the Catholic Church and to portray it as a criminal institution.

At another blog owned by yet another homosexual activist, we read:

"The credibility of the entire Catholic Church rests on the actions taken by its leadership. People don't want to be a part of an organization that sponsors or tolerates hate and physical assault. Cardinal O'Mally must immediately distance himself from Larry Cirignano and the entire Catholic Citizenship Group's actions in Worcester and elsewhere. They have no credibility and are just repackaging semantics in an attempt to ban equal rights in Massachusetts. No one can say it's 'just about the vote,' anymore - not when an innocent woman is attacked.

Update: Tom Lang, of Knowthyneighbor.org, had this to say as a witness to the event:


What was so unusual and calculated about Larry Cirignano's assault on Sarah Loy was that he left the podium area right after he gave his speech and pushed Sarah to the ground, then he returned back to the podium to stand next to Evelyn Reilly and Kris Mineau as they waited for Ambassador Flynn. This was not your average "heated moment." This was a premeditated, aggressive and uncalled-for assault by the President of the Catholic Citizenship on a young lady who was exercising her right to assemble, protest and voice her free speech...the key components to our American Democracy. And wasn't THAT supposed to be what this rally was organized for? Or maybe Larry Cirignano was not aware of this.
Also, Mike - as always - offers great commentary. Especially poignant is watching rightwingnutopia squirm as it tries to justify what happened (after all, it's her fault Cirignano charged 30 feet from his podium to attack a protester anyway and all planned of course).

posted by Ryan Adams at 6:35 PM"

And this comment by John Hosty followed:

5 Comments:
John Hosty said...
"I find Cirignano's actions inexcusable, and it would be in everyone's mutual best interests to rid ourselves of leaders like this, no matter what our cause.

I cannot fathom anyone trying to rationalize a grown man throwing a woman to the ground, let alone the fact it was unprovoked." (Source: http://ryanpadams.blogspot.
com/2006/12/let-people-
vote-or-else.html)

That John Hosty would be involved with people who want to characterize the Church as "an organization that sponsors or tolerates hate and physical assault" says it all.

This entire thread has been sent to the Catholic League.

At 1:05 PM, JayG said...

John,
God has not forsaken you, nor would He. But I cannot stand silent when you quote Scripture towards your own ends. Keep reading Scripture, but remember two things;
1. Not just some but "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:" 2Tim3:16
2. Scripture says that it is the Church that is the Pillar, foundation, mainstay and ground of Truth. 2Tim3:16

At 1:58 PM, John Hosty said...

William, I stand behind these statements. These are not about the Church, but rather they are about bad leadership and a call to correct that wrong. The act of violence that Larry Cirignano committed reflects poorly upon those who would justify it.

Do not confuse my anger for his actions and the inadequate response from the Cardinal as a denunciation of the entire religion. Like I said before, Christianity is a beautiful religion that has the power to change the world for the better when practiced true to its roots. That root is unconditional love.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast". - Ephes. 2:8-9.

The sin of pride makes people think they are better than someone else, but the Christian act of humility brings us back to focus on how Christ would have us behave. Some of the first shall be last because they are proud of their place with God, and some of the last shall be first because they have grown in their respect and learned true appreciation for what God has given.

Continue to speak ill of me, and twist what I have said into libel. I will not lower myself to that level in return. I will only continue to minister the word of God to you, and hope one day we can break bread together and speak of living in peace. Pax Christi.

At 2:00 PM, John Hosty said...

The Bible tells us: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God:” - Romans 3:23 and “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” - Romans 3:10.

At 4:40 PM, JayG said...

John,
It'a a matter of attitude, and attitude towards Jesus who commanded us to keep His commandments. This is serious, because "Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God." Rom6:9-10

And how to we get righteousness or justification when there are none of us who are righteous? The next verse in Romans offers the hope that we all need: "And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God." Rom 6:11

Jesus did not affirm the adulteress in her sin, He told her to go and sin no more. And one big difference in the Trinitarian God versus all the false gods and demons idolized throughout history is that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob has always used mankind to carry out His plan, no matter how badly we perform, no matter how much we resist.

At 10:06 PM, Brian said...

I would encourage Catholics who visit DTF to ignore John Hosty from now on. He's obviously hungry for attention and will constantly spew anti-Catholic hatred while selectively interpreting Scripture in a vain attempt to get that attention.

He's not worth the time and trouble. Jesus said not to cast our pearls before swine. You cannot reach those determined to damn themselves by rejecting God's Commandments and by preferring their will to His.

Ignore him.

At 10:12 PM, John Hosty said...

The gift of salvation is freely given and cannot be achieved via merit. So long as your heart is open to Christ and you attempt to follow His word you shall receive His blessings. God knows man is fallible, that's why we need to help one another down the path towards Christ. We should not concentrate on berating each other, our time is more valuable than that. Instead let us find common ground and work together on the things we can. If God sees fit to cast me aside for my indiscretions that is for Him to decide. The world has enough pain and anger, what we really need to do is start spreading peace and joy.

Be the change you wish to see in the world, and in doing so be someone whose inner peace brings others to emulate the Christ within. Christ did not win over the world by fear of retribution, He did so by being a living example of the love He wished to see in us all. This is what we are called to reproduce.

At 12:29 AM, John Hosty said...

Matthew 7:6 Pearls and Pigs

Jesus came not to be served, but to serve. He did that. His faithful disciples also assume the role of servant. They serve God, one another, and those who are lost, and those who are in need and distress. In this materialistic society where self-centeredness is the rule of the day, the Christian is taught to be gracious and compassionate.

Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

At 8:01 AM, Marie Tremblay said...

John Hosty has said: "The Catholic Church is in my opinion, evil. I am disgusted at the sheer arrogance, and bigotry. Some people will never learn."

In saying that the Catholic Church is evil, John Hosty has engaged in blasphemy. According to the Catechism, blasphemy "is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself [if deliberate] a grave sin." (2148).

The prohibition of blasphemy extends to: inward or outward utterances against God of hatred, reproach, or defiance; speaking ill of God, misusing God's name (cursing), language against Christ's Church, the saints, and holy things, and invoking God's name to cover up criminal deeds.

John Hosty has used language against Christ's Church, calling His Mystical Body "evil." This is the same as calling Christ Himself "evil."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that: "The Church is the Body of Christ. Through the Spirit and his action in the sacraments, above all the Eucharist, Christ, who once was dead and is now risen, establishes the community of believers as his own Body." (805).

This way of expressing the nature of the Church is not a mere metaphor. As a persecutor of the early Christians, Saul of Tarsus thought he was opposing an institution and discovered it was a Person: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5).

By writing that the Catholic Church is "evil," John Hosty has called Jesus Himself "evil." This constitutes [objectively speaking] a mortal sin. I would encourage Mr. Hosty to make a sacramental confession and to repent of his blasphemy against the Lord Jesus.

I would also remind Mr. Hosty that it is not enough to quote from Scripture. One must also live by God's Word. Blaspheming against the Lord Jesus and engaging in acts of sodomy are [objectively speaking] gravely sinful acts. No authentic Christian will engage in such perversity.

At 8:03 AM, JayG said...

John,
To paraphrase you, we are attempting to "[b]e the change [we] wish to see in the world, and in doing so be someone [who] ...brings others to emulate ... Christ"; that's why we defend Traditional Marriage and work against its redefinition.

Also, though no one can merit or earn heaven, we are all still judged and those who know what is right will be judged more harshly than those who do not know LK12:47-48

At 9:05 AM, John Hosty said...

Marie, I already explained that I spoke out of anger and used the wrong words. I was referring to the people in leadership who were not doing their jobs properly and not stepping up to denounce violence when Larry Cirignano pushed Sarah Loy to the ground. Violence is wrong no matter who commits it, and I still believe that it was wrong of Cardinal O'Maley to look the other way and not comment on this issue.

Jay, I am glad to see you mention marriage, but if that is what you are defending here why haven't we had word one of it in this entire thread?

Just a side note on what Brian had said, you need not ignore me. If you don't want to talk to me, Jay can simply tell me to go away. I am respectful enough to listen, and I mentioned this option at the begining of the thread. I too was turn between leaving the thread alone because I feared so many posts would seem like I was being self indulgent, but I also did not want to leave any of these challenges to my character unanswered like I had before on another thread. That only seemd to fuel the vitriol more.

At 10:09 AM, William said...

John Hosty writes, "Marie, I already explained that I spoke out of anger and used the wrong words. I was referring to the people in leadership who were not doing their jobs properly and not stepping up to denounce violence when Larry Cirignano pushed Sarah Loy to the ground. Violence is wrong no matter who commits it.."

And yet, he still has not repented of his actions. He still has not apoloized for his blasphemous attack on our Lord Jesus and on His Church which is the People of God.

Until John renounces his anti-Catholic bigotry and removes hate-filled anti-Catholic diatribe at his blog, his words are empty.

I would exhort John Hosty to renounce the verbal violence he has directed at the Church and the verbal violence he has directed at those Christians who oppose homosexual acts on moral grounds. To publish an interview with Dr. Maneker in which that hate-filled bigot accuses Catholics and other Christians who oppose homosexual acts of being "pharisees" and as having blood on their hands, is reprehensible.

John Hosty is perpetuating a hostile atmosphere at this forum and demanding respect toward his person while refusing to show respect for Catholics and ther Christians who oppose homosexual acts.

He is destroying peace and community with his violence.

At 10:17 AM, John Ansley said...

Mr. Hosty has said time and again that Catholics here are "judging" his person. On the contrary, the comments here have been judgmental of Mr. Hosty's words and actions and not his person.

Here is a relevant piece from La Salette Journey:


Judging which is acceptable

There are some - even many Catholics, poorly instructed in their faith, who believe that all judging is wrong. These Catholics apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...

Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

Very often, the poorly instructed Catholic will be heard to remark "I don't like the word 'judge,' or to those of us who defend the Church's authentic Magisterial teaching while exposing error they will say: "You're judging."What if we are? Judging isn't always sinful. It is only sinful when we judge another's interior dispositions, when we judge their soul. But we are entirely free to judge words, ideas and actions which fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi (Light of Christ).

Sacred Scripture (which these confused souls obviously don't spend much time with) makes this abundantly clear: "should you not judge those inside the Church"? (1 Corinthians 5:12), and again: "the saints will judge the world and angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and again: "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and again: "Let prophets speak and the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Not all judging is sinful. This is just common sense. Our legal system is structured in such a way that when a person commits a crime, he or she is tried before a judge and sentenced (judged) if found guilty. Likewise, it is our right (and duty) to judge words, ideas and actions which are not in conformity with the Gospels or which fail to conform to the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church and to expose these as fallacious and/or sinful. In so doing, we are not rendering a judgment against a person. We are following the teaching of the great Saint Augustine (Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church), who said: "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - kill the error, love the one who errs. This killing of what is sinful or erroneous is necessary if our charity - our love of neighbor - is to be genuine. Otherwise, our love is counterfeit. It is a fraud.

At 12:17 PM, Matlee said...

John Hosty just commented, "Jay, I am glad to see you mention marriage, but if that is what you are defending here why haven't we had word one of it in this entire thread?"

This is largely because many of us have asked John to provide us with an argument from Natural Law as to why same-sex marriage should be permitted and he has refused to provide us with such an argument. In fact, he has made it clear time and again that he won't dialogue about Natural Law.

So come on John. Don't be afraid. We await your case for same-sex marriage based upon the Natural Law or Divine Revelation.

At 12:27 PM, JayG said...

Good points John (and Paul!),
The Israelites were ruled by 72 Judges who were considered to be appointed by G_d. But the people clamored for a King, like the Gentiles had, at which point G_d said to Samuel, "it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." [1 Samuel 8:7]

At 12:39 PM, patriziapessoa said...

The lies and deception here is disgusting. You might as well martyr Hosty if you continue in this way. Don't bother responding to me, I am not going to come back to this festival of hatred and bigotry.

At 2:09 PM, William said...

Patriziapessoa wrote: "The lies and deception here is disgusting. You might as well martyr Hosty if you continue in this way. Don't bother responding to me, I am not going to come back to this festival of hatred and bigotry."

Perhaps Patriziapessoa would be so kind as to inform us all just what "lies and deception" he/she is referring to. As for martyring Mr. Hosty, that's not necessary. He's doing a fine job all by himself of committing credibility suicide.

Festival of hatred and bigotry? You have the wrong blog. That festival may be found at "Live, Love Learn" or "Queer Today." You may also order lectures on hate and bigotry given by Rev. Dr. Maneker and made available by John Hosty Ministries: A ministry dedicated to wresting the Scriptures unto destruction.

At 2:12 PM, William said...

By the way Patriziapessoa, you should have written: "The lies and deception here are disgusting."

At 8:13 AM, Paul Anthony Melanson said...

At some point in every person's life, a choice has to be made: Do I follow my conscience (which must of course be correctly formed) or go along with the crowd?

From Robert Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons":

Norfolk: Look, I'm not a scholar, and frankly I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not — but damn it, Thomas, look at these names! You know these men! Can't you do as I did and come along with us for fellowship?
To which More replies:

More: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come along with me — for fellowship?

At 11:08 AM, William said...

John Hosty, the anti-Catholic bigot and homosexual activist, had this to say at his blog last year about an article from his fellow anti-Catholic bigot Dr. Maneker:

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Stuffed Animal, the Gay Warrior of Christ!
From Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker's website:

Stuffed Animal, who hosts the excellent blog, Christ, The Gay Martyr, alerted me to this article! It further highlights the following: 1. The Vatican may very well be using LGBT rights as a cynical diversion from its own sexual sins of pedophilia and its coverup by assorted Bishops who should be serving prison time from criminal facilitation. And, but for the extraordinary power of the Roman Catholic Church they would be serving that prison time! 2. Shame, self-loathing, and suicides of Gay people can be largely directly laid at the feet of the Vatican and all those "religious" leaders and denominations that obsess over condemning LGBT rights both within the "Church" and, most pointedly, within civil society over which they should have absolutely no control, given the fact that no Western nation is a Theocracy--at least, not yet! 3. The ignorance and twisted views concerning sexual matters by celibate men having the temerity to teach us about love and sex defies explanation and even rational explanation!

There are 35 comments on Rev. Dr. Maneker's site accompanying this thread. You should read all of them, and any others that come after this thread is posted. What are your thoughts on this?"

http://livelovelearn247.blogspot
.com/2006/09/stuffed-animal-gay-warrior-of-christ.html

The next time this hate-filled anti-Catholic bigot raises his head at this forum, let's recall these truly horrific words. For they constitute further proof that Mr. Hosty doesn't come here to promote "peace," "joy," or "mutual understanding."

At 5:07 PM, Ryan Charisma said...

You absolutely should recall these words of Mr. Hosty, because they're TRUE.

Just because there's a more of you than him, doesn't make you right.

I have no problem with Jesus - it's his followers that need to be stopped.

As for Mr. Parker's son. His son isn't the only kid that ever was picked on in school. We all were. And I'm willing to bet the incidents are doubled for gay youth. But that doesn't matter does it?

As for the discussion of homosexuality in school -absolutely. How else will the children (who know their gay) realize they're not alone in the world? And how will the non-gay children realize that gays are just as valid as human beings as heterosexuals? Why can you take my tax money and pour it into schools and then say "thanks for your money, now disappear." WRONG - the days of the closet are gone. The days of children committing sucide MUST come to an end. Any all of you have the blood of these children on your hands for making them feel "less than" through boards like this and through your religon. Learn Christ's real lessons. Not just the one's that the Republican party picked for.

As for Stachowicz murder, that's a terrible horrible event. But when we look at the "big" picture - the murders are usually reversed. Harvey Milk, Mathew Sheppard and on and on and on. And those aren't ok either.

So what have we learned?

1) Jesus' teachings are good
2) The Bible is fiction
3) Mr. Parker is an idiot
4) His son was treated as any other kid is at thier age
5) And no murder is justifiable

Oh yes, and the most important one

Queers, like blacks & women, deserve equal rights.

At 6:10 PM, William said...

No. What we have learned is that:

1. The homosexual movement is a hate movement.

2. Anti-Catholicism is part and parcel of this hate movement.

3. Homosexual activists want to stamp out any expression of orthodox Christianity.

4. The homosexual hate-movement wants to forcibly indoctrinate the children of Christians into the homosexual "lifestyle."

5. Homosexual activists cannot engage in authentic dialogue, nor do they even know what this means.

6. John Hosty is a self-absorbed cry-baby.

7. Dr. Jerry Maneker is a hate-filled anti-Catholic bigot who cannot get his facts straight.

At 8:54 PM, JayG said...

Ryan,
Since there is no long term study of gay long term and hopefully monogamous relationships, with or without children, how do you answer the charge that this is just one big social experiment, with kids.

If it is your premise that gay marriage is beneficial for kids, that gay families are as good at raising children as Traditional families with one mother and one father, do you offer any supporting evidence? What does gay marriage, as an institution, bring to the table?

This is the big question for us, as we do not believe customized group rights should be tossed around like spare change. We see the Goodrich decision as an exercise in raw judicial power in the face of an impotent executive and a fawning legislature. Your individiual rights are equal to mine, but marriage is not a right, it's an institution designed to domesticate men, protect women, and raise children. Why do you need to call your living arrangements marriage?

At 9:12 PM, William said...

They need to call their living arrangements marriage because their principal objective is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexuality into gradual - even if reluctant - acceptance.

It's all part of their strategy.

At 10:00 AM, Mrs. Theresa LeBlanc said...

I visited John Hosty's blog to view the comments from this thread which he posted at his own site. I couldn't help but notice how he neglected to include those comments made by himself and Dr. Jerry Maneker and which are extremely critical of the Church.

As I said before, I used to think the gay movement was about civil rights (something we can all approve of). But it's really about much more. I think William is absolutely right when he calls it a hate movement.

I don't know how one can view it as otherwise. Gay activists want to silence Christian opposition to same-sex "marriage," indoctrinate our children in the public schools, enact hate-crime legislation which would label the Bible as "hate literature," and silence Christian ministers in the pulpit by hurling them into jail if they speak out against homosexual acts.

If that's not hate, what is it? Love?

At 11:25 AM, John Hosty said...

The libel against me here is worth no more than a shrug and a laugh. People are not idiots, and all you are doing by putting such hate into your posts is making others recognize how hateful you are.

You absolutely refuse to discuss what terms you are able to live in peace with your gay neighbors because there are none. You have no intention of living in peace with them, which is shameful.

Call me every name in the book you can think of if you want, it is not going to change the fact that God calls Chrisitans to minister peace, love, and joy. This is something that you can't handle doing towards gays, not because of their actions, but because of your own inner shortcomings. This is why you feel the need to demonize me, because you fall short of your own standards, and need an excuse.

Until you are able to live by the values Christ gave us all you will continue to suffer from the fear and hatred you allow to dwell in your heart. This conscience decision to hate rather than love is what causes your pain, and it is just that you suffer.

At 11:34 AM, William said...

John Hosty is not being demonized by persons at DTF. He is demonizing himself with his truly ugly remarks against the Church. He is angry because some of us have cut and pasted his own comments aimed at demonizing the Church.

John Hosty is an anti-Catholic bigot. Words have meaning. To call the Church "evil" is reprehensible, to suggest that Christians who oppose homosexual ACTS have blood on their hands is reprehensible, to publish an interview with anti-Catholic bigot Dr. Jerry Maneker which accuses us of being "homophobes" and "pharisees" is reprehensible etc.

John Hosty is angry because we have held his own words up to him. And he doesn't like what he sees.

Perhaps that voice of conscience is an indicator that he needs to change his tactics.

At 2:55 PM, Anonymous said...

I think I can read for myself William. What I read on this page does not make Catholics look good. Where on this page does John Hosty say or do anything against you?

At 4:36 PM, Matlee said...

Anonymous writes, "I think I can read for myself William. What I read on this page does not make Catholics look good. Where on this page does John Hosty say or do anything against you?"

I think the reality is that anonymous hasn't read the posts carefully. For they show that those promoting the "gay" agenda have engaged in anti-Catholic rhetoric while Christians have repeatedly called for authentic dialogue and this call has fallen on deaf ears.

I reissue the challenge which John Hosty has repeatedly ignored: provide us with an argument from the Natural Law or Divine Revelation to justify same-sex "marriage."

I would like to see that. And I am still waiting patiently.

At 5:47 PM, John Hosty said...

Matlee, you must have missed my answer, so I'll give it to you again. We do not live in a theocracy, so your views on morality and religion are not to be made into laws that others must follow. That is why there is no discussion on natural law vs. gay marriage.

As far as the rhetoric goes, I've never experienced a website so openly hateful towards someone that has shown in return nothing but respect and restraint. Many people here want others to think I hate Catholics, but my words show the truth.

The answer to your pain is within. Start looking to your own decisions in life and ask yourself why you need to spend so much time hating someone you really never gave a chance to get to know. This is an ugly thing you are doing here, but I am glad to let you continue because you are bringing yourself and the truth into light. Looks to me like I am no longer alone in the quest for truth and peace.

Peace be with you. My door and my heart is still open to all.

At 5:48 PM, John Hosty said...

Matlee, you must have missed my answer, so I'll give it to you again. We do not live in a theocracy, so your views on morality and religion are not to be made into laws that others must follow. That is why there is no discussion on natural law vs. gay marriage.

As far as the rhetoric goes, I've never experienced a website so openly hateful towards someone that has shown in return nothing but respect and restraint. Many people here want others to think I hate Catholics, but my words show the truth.

The answer to your pain is within. Start looking to your own decisions in life and ask yourself why you need to spend so much time hating someone you really never gave a chance to get to know. This is an ugly thing you are doing here, but I am glad to let you continue because you are bringing yourself and the truth into light. Looks to me like I am no longer alone in the quest for truth and peace.

Peace be with you. My door and my heart is still open to all.

At 6:32 PM, Matlee said...

John Hosty is leaving once again because he refuses to accept my challenge: to provide an argument from the Natural Law (which may be known through the use of reason alone without the aid of Divine Revelation) in support of same-sex "marriage."

He closes with this remark: "Many people here want others to think I hate Catholics, but my words show the truth."

Of course not, people who love the Catholic Church always refer to it as "evil" and the People of God as "homophobes" with "blood on their hands." Indeed one can just feel the love.

Don't go away angry John. Before you go, let's hear your argument from Natural Law. If you're not up to the challenge as I suspect (it is my firm belief that you lack the intellectual tools to sustain anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument), then send Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker in your stead.

If you're not prepared to do either, then adieu: game over.

At 9:11 PM, John Hosty said...

On the contrary Maddam, I have no intention of turning my back on you and leaving. I am more convinced than ever you need saving after how pompus that last post was.

Natural law has no place in our government. All citizens are deserving of equality in this country, sorry you can't handle that.

I will be more than happy to continue this ad infinitum. My patience is more than a match for your hatred.

Dr. Maneker is a very intelligent man and has washed his hands of this ping pong match. Perhaps I should too, but I am seeing that other people are listening so our talks are doing some good for others at least.

At 9:31 PM, Matlee said...

John, your ignorance is showing again. You wrote, "Natural law has no place in our government." Our civil laws have their foundation in the Natural Law John.

Please share your argument from Natural Law as to why same-sex "marriage" is acceptable.

You're avoiding the issue.

At 9:44 PM, Matlee said...

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II, Q. xciv). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

Let's have your argument from Natural Law John.

And while we're waiting, you also wrote, "My patience is more than a match for your hatred."

You're the only one wh has called Christ evil John. You're the one whose anti-Catholic bigotry has been well documented at DTF.

Put away your hatred for a moment John and make your case. Don't be afraid of dialogue.

At 1:23 AM, John Hosty said...

Could you show me where I said Christ was evil? No, you can't because that is an intentional mistruth created to elicit a specific response from readers. They are not dumb you know.

Natural Law has no place in a democracy that values all people's beliefs equally. There are people who don't believe in a God at all, so how do you rationalize asking them to follow a religious based law? Logic would dictate that you cannot.

Now in turn, why do you insist on avoiding a conversation about how we can all live in peace together? Obviously there are always going to be gay people around; there always has been. Being gay is not against the law, having sex is no longer illegal either. Do you know why? Because people realized they were wrong to outlaw something private between two consenting adults, so they changed the laws. Marriage is no different.

I hear that Kris Mineau is going to a wedding where two people who were cheating on their former spouses with one another are now marrying each other. Don't you find that wrong? In my opinion that is certainly more wrong than a monoganous gay couple of 12 years getting married. Love comes in many forms, so if my love is wrong I am willing to pay the price with God when I meet Him. I don't owe anything to people who constantly twist the truth and misrepresent the facts in order to scare others into following what they think.

You will know a real Christian by the love they bring into the world. It was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who once said:

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."

He also said:

"All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality."

We all have common goals we could be working on. Rather than constantly trying to convince people how evil I am you could be working with me on projects that benefit us both and make the world a better place. You may one day understand that and then better understand why I am making such a strong effort to reach my biggest critics. I am not your judge, I am only called to be a good neighbor to you. You make that very hard to do, but I am not at liberty to simply give up because I don't seem to be getting through.

I pray for you that you will stop your berating attacks and learn to reach out to those who you revile. Only through love and humility will you know the full glory of God. Christ said that we would know His people by the love they bring. Where is yours?

I think more likely there is a mixture of anymousity here because of past negative experiences with gay people, or perhaps we have some closet homosexuals too. There are many reasons that people fear, but a blanket fear of all gays is simply not based in rational thought. All people are indiviuals, you included.

The bottom line is hate is a very negative emotion and it brings trouble to those in its path as well as the practitioner. Free your soul of your negativity and allow yourself to be washed in the spirit of unconditional love. Love conquers all and is the key to happiness.

At 8:31 AM, Matlee said...

But John, you have called Christ "evil." As I posted previously:

"In saying that the Catholic Church is evil, John Hosty has engaged in blasphemy. According to the Catechism, blasphemy "is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself [if deliberate] a grave sin." (2148).

The prohibition of blasphemy extends to: inward or outward utterances against God of hatred, reproach, or defiance; speaking ill of God, misusing God's name (cursing), language against Christ's Church, the saints, and holy things, and invoking God's name to cover up criminal deeds.

John Hosty has used language against Christ's Church, calling His Mystical Body "evil." This is the same as calling Christ Himself "evil."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that: "The Church is the Body of Christ. Through the Spirit and his action in the sacraments, above all the Eucharist, Christ, who once was dead and is now risen, establishes the community of believers as his own Body." (805).

This way of expressing the nature of the Church is not a mere metaphor. As a persecutor of the early Christians, Saul of Tarsus thought he was opposing an institution and discovered it was a Person: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5).

By writing that the Catholic Church is "evil," John Hosty has called Jesus Himself "evil." This constitutes [objectively speaking] a mortal sin. I would encourage Mr. Hosty to make a sacramental confession and to repent of his blasphemy against the Lord Jesus.

I would also remind Mr. Hosty that it is not enough to quote from Scripture. One must also live by God's Word. Blaspheming against the Lord Jesus and engaging in acts of sodomy are [objectively speaking] gravely sinful acts. No authentic Christian will engage in such perversity."

Now you have written: "Natural Law has no place in a democracy that values all people's beliefs equally. There are people who don't believe in a God at all, so how do you rationalize asking them to follow a religious based law? Logic would dictate that you cannot."

What would you know about logic John? Have you studied philosophy? God made man a social being, and in doing so He sanctions the formation of the state as the necessary means of regulating man's social life and gives it the authority for this purpose. Therefore in the natural order the state is the institution entrusted with the task of framing civil laws as the positive laws needed to supplement the Natural Law. But there cannot be a law unless there is an obligation to observe it. The argument may be put as follows:

a. Whatever is indispensable to man's life in society is prescribed by the Natural Law. For the Natural Law requires man to conform his conduct to the norm of morality, which includes man's social relations to his fellow man.

b. But obedience to the civil law is indispensable to man's life in society. For society must be guided by law and the Natural Law must be supplemented by positive law.

c. Therefore obedience to the civil law is prescribed by the Natural Law.

John, I don't expect you to understand this right away (and perhaps never), but all human positive laws, if they are to impose any moral obligation, must derive this binding force from the Natural Law.

The only alternative is to suggest that authority comes from the people. And you have suggested this, writing: "Natural law has no place in our government."

What is the basis then for civil law? Majority consensus? Suppose that ten years from now a majority of Americans voted for the extermination of homosexuals in death camps and laws were enacted to satisfy the will of the majority. Would you agree with such laws? If not, why not?

At 8:37 AM, Matlee said...

If you have any questions regarding the Natural Law, I may be reached at: marietrem@yahoo.com

However, I will be awaiting your response.

Marie Matlee Tremblay.

At 11:20 AM, William said...

Don't expect John Hosty to provide you with an answer Matlee. He's too bust spewing anti-Catholic hatred and will avoid any real and meaningful dialogue.

Let's hope he will summon the integrity to answer your very simple question. I won't hold my breath.

At 12:20 PM, Matlee said...

I know William. He doesn't possess the intellectual gifts required to formulate an intelligent, coherent argument or to answer my questions put to him.

Moreover, John Hosty is being dishonest when he asserts that he doesn't want to approach these questions from the perspective of religion or Natural Law and then posts the following at his Blog:

"I'm an evangelical, dammit! And I won't allow purveyors of a false gospel, about whom the Apostle Paul felt so strongly that he wrote, "God damn them" (Galatians 1:8-9), to pervert the beauty of the Gospel of liberation into their twisted notions of God, the Bible, themselves, and other people, thereby seeking to put yokes of bondage on people, the very yokes of bondage from which Jesus came to set us free. These legalists and biblical literalists have thrown God's grace back in His face, and are seeking to lead gullible, vulnerable, biblically iliterate people away from the only Gospel to be found in Christianity. And for that grievous sin, as well as for the sin of wittingly or unwittingly helping to create and "legitimate" the shame, self-loathing, suicides, bashings and murders of LGBT people, they are to be assiduously confronted and told in no uncertain terms that they are not speaking for God, the Bible, or for the Gospel!" (Interview with Dr. Jerry Maneker).

John Hosty invokes religion when he feels like it. And when he's cornered, when he cannot provide a biblical basis for his peculiar beliefs, he says, "I'm not here to discuss religion."

In an earlier post, Mr. Hosty asserted that God made him "Gay." When I asked what the Biblical basis for his belief was, he became angry and (true to form) avoided the question.

Mr. Hosty, like most homosexual activists I have encountered, relies heavily upon emotion. In fact, his comments are long on emotion and short on substance.

Once again, I challenge him to answer my previous post - which I will post again to refresh his memory:

But John, you have called Christ "evil." As I posted previously:

"In saying that the Catholic Church is evil, John Hosty has engaged in blasphemy. According to the Catechism, blasphemy "is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself [if deliberate] a grave sin." (2148).

The prohibition of blasphemy extends to: inward or outward utterances against God of hatred, reproach, or defiance; speaking ill of God, misusing God's name (cursing), language against Christ's Church, the saints, and holy things, and invoking God's name to cover up criminal deeds.

John Hosty has used language against Christ's Church, calling His Mystical Body "evil." This is the same as calling Christ Himself "evil."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that: "The Church is the Body of Christ. Through the Spirit and his action in the sacraments, above all the Eucharist, Christ, who once was dead and is now risen, establishes the community of believers as his own Body." (805).

This way of expressing the nature of the Church is not a mere metaphor. As a persecutor of the early Christians, Saul of Tarsus thought he was opposing an institution and discovered it was a Person: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5).

By writing that the Catholic Church is "evil," John Hosty has called Jesus Himself "evil." This constitutes [objectively speaking] a mortal sin. I would encourage Mr. Hosty to make a sacramental confession and to repent of his blasphemy against the Lord Jesus.

I would also remind Mr. Hosty that it is not enough to quote from Scripture. One must also live by God's Word. Blaspheming against the Lord Jesus and engaging in acts of sodomy are [objectively speaking] gravely sinful acts. No authentic Christian will engage in such perversity."

Now you have written: "Natural Law has no place in a democracy that values all people's beliefs equally. There are people who don't believe in a God at all, so how do you rationalize asking them to follow a religious based law? Logic would dictate that you cannot."

What would you know about logic John? Have you studied philosophy? God made man a social being, and in doing so He sanctions the formation of the state as the necessary means of regulating man's social life and gives it the authority for this purpose. Therefore in the natural order the state is the institution entrusted with the task of framing civil laws as the positive laws needed to supplement the Natural Law. But there cannot be a law unless there is an obligation to observe it. The argument may be put as follows:

a. Whatever is indispensable to man's life in society is prescribed by the Natural Law. For the Natural Law requires man to conform his conduct to the norm of morality, which includes man's social relations to his fellow man.

b. But obedience to the civil law is indispensable to man's life in society. For society must be guided by law and the Natural Law must be supplemented by positive law.

c. Therefore obedience to the civil law is prescribed by the Natural Law.

John, I don't expect you to understand this right away (and perhaps never), but all human positive laws, if they are to impose any moral obligation, must derive this binding force from the Natural Law.

The only alternative is to suggest that authority comes from the people. And you have suggested this, writing: "Natural law has no place in our government."

What is the basis then for civil law? Majority consensus? Suppose that ten years from now a majority of Americans voted for the extermination of homosexuals in death camps and laws were enacted to satisfy the will of the majority. Would you agree with such laws? If not, why not?

At 1:06 PM, John Hosty said...

"John Hosty has used language against Christ's Church, calling His Mystical Body "evil." This is the same as calling Christ Himself "evil."

No, it is not the same. What some people in the leadership of the Church have done with the direction it now goes in is the real blasphemy. I have never said anyhting other than I love Christ. This is at least the third time I have addressed this lie, but I am sure that you will try to pretend I did not give you an answer and try to imply it again. I'll be waiting to see how you corrupt the truth again.

Perhaps you also forget I recently went to confession, or perhaps you just don't believe in its ability to wash away old sin.

"I would also remind Mr. Hosty that it is not enough to quote from Scripture. One must also live by God's Word."

That's sound advice, you should take it.

"What would you know about logic John? Have you studied philosophy?"

Actually yes, I did take philosophy in college. One doesn't need a formal education in reason to understand that when living in a multi faith country there is no place for one religion to inject its beliefs as law for others.

"What is the basis then for civil law? Majority consensus?"

Yes, that's exactly what they are based on, and if you think that they are based on "Natural Law" so strongly, why is no one using that as an argument against gay marriage in court? Surely if it is the truth they should be duscussing it most intensely, right?

"Suppose that ten years from now a majority of Americans voted for the extermination of homosexuals in death camps and laws were enacted to satisfy the will of the majority. Would you agree with such laws? If not, why not?"

What a sadly telling and disgusting example you provide. I am not afraid of any of you, and wording like this is nothing more than intimidation. I am reposting all of this to my blog in order to make sure that the truth is not hidden by trying to erase this. I am also reporting this to the Catholic League.

At 2:28 PM, Matlee said...

I asked John Hosty the question, "What is the basis then for civil law? Majority consensus?"

And he has responded:

"Yes, that's exactly what they are based on.."

But then he takes exception to my question:

"Suppose that ten years from now a majority of Americans voted for the extermination of homosexuals in death camps and laws were enacted to satisfy the will of the majority. Would you agree with such laws? If not, why not?"

To which Mr. Hosty responded:

"What a sadly telling and disgusting example you provide. I am not afraid of any of you, and wording like this is nothing more than intimidation."

John misses my whole point. Which is ample proof that he never studied philosophy in college. If civil laws are based upon merely majority consensus, and John says that they are writing, "that's exactly what they are based on," on what basis would he object to a majority consensus enacting civil laws calling for the extermination of homosexuals in death camps?

John has proven my point by saying that such a law would be "disgusting." Of course it would. And any true Christian would oppose such a law. But we would oppose such a "law" (I put the word law in quotation marks because an unjust law is no law at all) on the basis of both Divine Law and Natural Law.

But since Mr. Hosty has said that civil laws are based upon a majority consensus alone apart from any considerations of either Divine or Natural Law, what would be his basis for opposing a civil law calling for the xetermination of homosexual persons.

One can only conclude that Mr. Hosty doesn't understand the point I am making because he is not intellectually equipped to do so.

At 2:31 PM, Matlee said...

Errata:

I meant to write "extermination" above, not xetermination. Type.

At 3:09 PM, Brian said...

John Hosty is contradicting Jesus Himself. When Saul was persecuting the Church, Jesus made it clear to him that he was attacking Himself.

By saying that an attack on the Church is not an attack on Jesus Himself, John Hosty is calling Jesus a liar.

John is blaspheming again.

At 3:30 PM, JayG said...

William, Mattlee, and Marie T.,
You have done well refuting many of John's hasty and illogical comments, but I want to take one minor exception. While you have laid out the logical link between the Church of Christ, and the mystical body of Christ, and shown that John clearly called the Church evil, I find it difficult to conclude that John has knowingly called Jesus Christ evil. This is because we have not shown that John understood the connection between the Church and the mystical body of Christ, nor have we seen clear intent on John's part that he wanted to call Jesus evil. Without full knowledge and intent, a mortal sin is not committed (blasphemy in this case). I would simply caution against rash judgement on this point - there is obviously plenty wrong with what Mr. Hosty says that we do not need to pick on the one issue where his culpability is in doubt.
Please do keep correcting John's muddled thoughts on this subject, for his, as well as others, edification.

At 5:32 PM, William said...

Jay, I actually agree with you when you warn against rash judgment. However, irregardless of a person's moral culpability, an act may be called objectively gravely sinful.

For example, a person may engage in the act of masturbation. Objectively speaking, the act is gravely sinful. However, certain factors may diminish culpbility.

It is for Jesus to judge John Hosty's moral culpability. However, objectively speaking, he has engaged in blasphemy. To refer to Christ's Mystical Body as "evil" is to refer to Jesus as "evil."

John has said that he attended World Youth Day in Denver and that he was brought up Catholic. One would think that he would be familiar with the Church's teaching on this particular point.

However, irregardless of his personal culpability or lack thereof, objectively speaking it is blasphemy to refer to the Church as "evil."

I don't believe that anyone is judging John's interior dispositions.

At 5:34 PM, William said...

On another note Jay. John Hosty HAS repeatedly accused some of us of attacking and even threatening him simply for disagreeing with him.

Would you consider this to be rash judgment?

At 6:18 PM, Matlee said...

Right William. It must be remembered that “Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil” (CCC, 1754).

Or, as Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor, 81, “particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.”

Without judging John Hosty's culpability from the moral standpoint, objectively speaking he has engaged in blasphemy.

At 10:21 PM, JayG said...

The poor quality of catachesis over the last 40 years, John's included,
could very well have left John with an inability to distinguish our calling out his blasphemy in objective terms from our charity at not holding him morally culpabile for his apparently unintended insult to Jesus.
And yes, John is guilty of rash judgment, as well as misrepresentation of facts and victimhood.

At 7:41 AM, John Ansley said...

The choice is ours. We can choose to be marked on the forehead with the sign of the Cross or with the mark of Antichrist. Choose quickly, the hour is fast approaching: http://www.markmallett.com/blog/?p=257#more-257

At 9:40 AM, John Ansley said...

It is good that Jay has addressed the whole matter of rash judgment for clarification purposes and that others who post here have indicated that they have no intention of engaging in rash judgment in their various criticisms of Mr. Hosty’s posts.

There is one concern which I have and would like to address. While it is always important to avoid rash judgment, which the Catechism defines as assuming as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor (No. 2477), we must also avoid making the assumption that a person’s particular circumstances diminish their culpability altogether. This is for the Lord Jesus to judge.

Not all circumstances influence the morality of an act in the same manner. Some circumstances actually lessen the gravity of a sin. For example, a lie told to protect an innocent person from serious harm or even death is not the same thing as a lie told so as to inflict harm on an innocent person. However, no circumstance can alter the intrinsic evil of a bad action. And just as we cannot assume as true that Mr. Hosty is morally culpable for having [objectively speaking] committed an act of blasphemy, neither may we assume that he is not morally responsible. Such a judgment is for the Lord Jesus.

There is something which concerns me greatly. Mr. Hosty has assured us that he made a sacramental confession recently. However, in order for the sacrament of penance to be valid, a penitent must possess a firm purpose of amendment. That is, he or she must resolve to avoid, by the grace of God, not only the sins confessed but also the dangerous occasions to sin.

Mr. Hosty has said to others at this forum: "Perhaps you also forget I recently went to confession, or perhaps you just don't believe in its ability to wash away old sin."

Nothing could be further from the truth. However, Mr. Hosty has also written: "I hear that Kris Mineau is going to a wedding where two people who were cheating on their former spouses with one another are now marrying each other. Don't you find that wrong? In my opinion that is certainly more wrong than a monoganous gay couple of 12 years getting married. Love comes in many forms, so if my love is wrong I am willing to pay the price with God when I meet Him."

In other words, Mr. Hosty is not in possession of a firm purpose of amendment. If he were, why would he write, "Love comes in many forms, so if my love is wrong I am willing to pay the price with God when I meet Him."

Mr. Hosty is saying that he will continue in his relationship with a member of the same sex. In what way does this constitute a firm purpose of amendment? Even if he did in fact confess his homosexual relationship and the acts associated with such a relationship, without a firm purpose of amendment, the sacrament would be invalid.

Mr. Hosty's statement is, for me, terrifying. For it indicates that Mr. Hosty believes he can deceive God. The God who, according to Sacred Scripture, can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Such an attitude toward the sacrament of penance is, in my opinion, gravely disturbing.

At 11:25 PM, Ironshaft said...

Dude, you claim to be a "New England Patriot Foootball Player. That measn you shower with other men. That's fucking gay.

At 8:25 PM, Anonymous said...

Here's what the real world thinks of your comments:

http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.
do?diaryId=6719

At 10:27 PM, JayG said...

Apparently John did not get my oblique reference to Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker being "Catholic" but not in union with the Roman Catholic Church, which would be like me saying I was a Patriot but not in union with the real team. That's pretty funny...except it shouldn't be.

It's been said that when you don't have faith, it's not that you believe in nothing, it's that you'll believe anything. GKC I think.

At 11:35 PM, Anonymous said...

Lying about being a Patriot is a bigger sin than being gay.

At 4:00 PM, cocacj said...

Hosty....these folks are nothing but blatant homophobic BIGOTS who aren't interested in a GENUINE dialogue with you.

The only thing they know how to do is bash and HATE others for NOT being part of their FLOCK.

They hate in the name of THEIR god....we both know of their evil that lies just beneath the surface.


Post a Comment