Human beings make choices and that's what sin is all about.

Human beings make choices and that’s what sin is all about.

Crisis Magazine notes how Rachel Maddow tried in vain to pin Rick Santorum down on the so-called ‘immutability’ of gayness – as if she doesn’t know.  People are much more than sexual organs; their loves and preferences are much more than physical, but if you’re a woman, and you don’t like the idea of sex with men, it probably has less to do with the fact that you don’t like heterosexual sex and more to do with the fact that you don’t like men so much.  And that of course is most certainly a choice.

When Rick Santorum recently appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, the host spent quite a bit of time during the interview trying to pin down Santorum on the question of whether sexual preference is an immutable characteristic.

Maddow: Can I ask you if you believe people choose to be gay?

Santorum: Ya know, I’ve sort of never answered that question. But I suspect there’s all sorts of reasons why people end up the way they are, and I’ll sort of leave it at that.

Maddow: But it matters in terms of whether or not—I mean, legally, in terms of the types of things that we’re describing here, in terms of whether or not the Congress should challenge the Supreme Court on these issues. I mean, if it’s an immutable characteristic. You don’t know if it’s an immutable?

Santorum: I don’t know. [Later in the interview] There are people who are alive today who identified themselves as gay and lesbian and who no longer are. That’s true. I do know—I’ve met people in that case. So, I guess maybe in that case, may be they did.

So is sexual preference, whether heterosexual or homosexual, theoretically immutable, or is it subject to change?

From here the writer, Kevin Clark, discusses the APA’s definition of homosexuality, which is entirely biased, unreliable, and recently changed from a mental disorder to an ‘immutable characteristic.’  Polling data in this area is also, I believe, inconclusive for many reasons.

On being interrogated, Santorum correctly cites examples of gay celebrities and others who have switched their stated orientations as evidence of ‘mutability,’ but he declines to draw the obvious conclusion because he’s a politician.  Yet, the fact is gay sex could never have been considered a sin and a moral failing for thousands of years up until now if it were not also a choice and a perversion of sexuality.    You can’t pervert something that is naturally there.  Gay people are groomed into the habit of gay sex; fall in with groups of gay friends; or respond to family situations so bleak that they reject their own nature and their roles as men or women.  People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.

Gay attraction is an inclination, but it’s also a cultivated habit and a choice.  Still, pretending otherwise is key to the gay agenda, which seeks to normalize and spread gay sexuality. They say you can’t make people gay, but it’s exactly what they want to do.   That wouldn’t be possible if homosexual attraction were simply an immutable reality of nature, but they can’t achieve their gay-topia if they don’t convince everyone that they’re just ‘born that way’ first.

The vast majority of people with gay attractions never act on them.  The next biggest group of those people act on them but settle into a natural male/female lifestyle.  Experts might call all these people ‘bisexual’ if they responded honestly to polls, but they’re really not, since they generally lead heterosexual lives.

The smallest group of people with SSA have sex almost exclusively with others of the same sex and reject the opposite sex.  Just like that other victim group, ‘the poor,’  this consists of a shifting group of people.  Nevertheless, we all know someone who lives a gay lifestyle for practically his or her entire life.

That rejection is a much deeper choice than sexual because men and women are much more than their bodies.  It’s a rejection of the opposite sex and the role of husband, wife, mother or father.  It’s also a rejection of one’s own nature as a man or a woman, of who one was born to be.  Like someone in prison, for various reasons this person has lost all hope in the possibility of a happy heterosexual relationship.  It’s not an ‘acceptance’ of a natural immutable orientation like they say, but a rejection, and it’s enabled and encouraged by the habitual sin of sodomy.










I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent,  and YOU kicked me!

I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent, and YOU kicked me!

Huffpo reports on the latest outrage being perpetrated against one unsuspecting Spanish bishop and faithful Catholics everywhere.

Alex Salinas is 21 years old. He was assigned female at birth, but is now living as his authentic self as a man. He is a “firm believer” and wants to be a godparent at his nephew’s baptism but the diocese of Cadiz and Ceuta is standing in his way. According to them, he is not a “suitable” person because of the life he leads, a life not “congruent with faith.”

Alex is a good name for this human.  It can go both ways.  Who designated its original female assignation, the furies?  Whoever assigned it, it was definitely not the same one who ‘authenticated’ its manhood later.

At least it wants to be a godparent. A godfather would give the bishop too many insane battles at once.

I suppose if we let this ‘it’ and its friends at the Huffington Post decide what is congruent with the faith instead of its bishop, that makes our faith really gay now.  Everything is gay, even Christ’s Church.

However, they do not find their argument to be discriminatory.

The diocese insists that “no discrimination is implied” by impeding a transgender man from being the godfather at the baptism of his nephew in the parish of San Fernando (Cadiz), indicating that it “happens frequently” with people who are not considered “suitable” because of their “lifestyle, opinions, and lack of congruence with Christian life and the Church’s regulations.”

Discrimination is good.  It’s a word stolen from us by liberals in an effort to make us their mind-slaves.  It simply means to tell one thing from another, to choose.  Rashly judging a person based on superficial or unrelated characteristics is a mistake – even a sin, but being able to see that a gay person who can’t figure out if it’s a man or a woman makes an evil choice for godparent is the good kind of ‘discriminating.’  But there’s no sense in arguing that it’s not discrimination.

When ‘discriminating’ is illegal, the only ones who are permitted to do it are judges, and even bishops have to leave their deciding to experts.

“To the church, I am still a woman, even though my documents of identification have changed,” explained Alex Salinas, who wants the diocese to reconsider their decision, which he took “as a kick in the stomach” because he is a “firm believer.”

Why do they always say you kicked them in the stomach when the only thing that happened was that they wished they could kick you in the stomach?

If you say you’re a man then you’re a man.  If you say you’re a firm believer then you’re a firm believer.  If you say you’re a bishop then provide a statement for the paper and call your lawyers.





No reason to be undignified, uncivil, or disrespectful

Feel the dignity, the civility, and the respect

On Sunday Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta released a statement on the incoherent, impeachable ruling from the depraved Supreme Court ordering us all to pretend gay people are married when the state says they are; just like we’re forced to pretend men are women, or women are men or something transitional. Being forced to sin, being forced to lie: that’s the rule in the Kingdom of Satan.

Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory released this statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same sex marriage:

Each U.S. Supreme Court decision that has ever been rendered has resulted in deep disappointment for some people and vindication for others. If we all agreed on the outcomes of these divisive cases, there would simply be no reason for the Court to convene. This most recent decision is no different.

Nothing special about this decision, yes?  More of the same, people disagreeing with each other.  Can’t we all just get along?  Whatever happened to love?

By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again, this one is no exception. It does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.

Thank God SCOTUS can’t change Catholic teaching on marriage, yet.  I suppose we should be grateful for that. But what difference does Catholic teaching matter anyway?  What if I’m not Catholic, or I’m a faux-catholic or I’m one of those many people repulsed by the Church for one reason or another? What if I hate the Church, and I’m in position to force the world to obey my commands?

This judgment, however, does not absolve either those who may approve or disapprove of this decision from the obligations of civility toward one another. Neither is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions continue to differ from our own. It is a decision that confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before. It does not resolve the moral debate that preceded it and will most certainly continue in its wake.

This evil and illicit ruling is nothing if not a license for incivility and vile behavior.  The problem is the offense only goes one way.  An attack not resisted is conquest.

Did he really call this a ‘civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it?’  I find the Archbishop’s language ‘venomous’ –  you know, like something a snake might utter.

This moral debate must also include the way that we treat one another – especially those with whom we may disagree. In many respects, the moral question is at least as consequential and weighty as the granting of this civil entitlement. The decision has offered all of us an opportunity to continue the vitally important dialogue of human encounter, especially between those of diametrically differing opinions regarding its outcome.

Who is having a moral debate?  This is a ruling. The debate’s over.  Nor is there a current debate about how we treat each other either.  There is only you and others like you urging decent people to lie down, comply, and neglect to confront evil.  There is no such thing as a ‘dialogue of human encounter.’  There is only right and wrong, life and death, Heaven and…What the Hell is this FrancisBishop talking about?

The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

Everything liberals think is complex.  That’s what they say when they’re getting ready to do something evil.  If you protest you’re just too simple.

You can’t truly ‘uphold’ Catholic teaching without correcting, shaming, silencing, and checking the advance of sin.  You can only pretend to, just like Archbishop Gregory does.  They’re always handing out human dignity like coupons and applying it like Vicks.  But those who approve of this judgment have already abused their own dignity and deserve neither respect nor deference from faithful Christians.  The problem is it’s illegal now in this world of false prelates and corrupted justice.