Tuesday, September 19, 2017


The bishop of San Diego just became what he castigated, judgmental. This time, though, it isn't the judgmental statements against those who promote unchastity, be it gay, straight or marital, it is against those who uphold the Church's teaching on sexuality and judge those who don't uphold that teaching.

You can read a synopsis of the Bishop of San Diego's judgments HERE.

Let's face it, there is a vacuum of leadership in the Church that has led to the current divisiveness reminiscent of the 1960's and 70's. The source of this divisiveness is the promotion of the new and improved in rupture with previous Church teachings and the demonization of what was once practiced in the Church, be it liturgical, moral or theological.

It is opening the eyes to a new generation of Catholics (who have no memory of the 1960's and 70's) as to what happened in the Church in that period of time that has led to the loss of actual participation in the Church with upwards of 88% of Catholic, if not more, in some parts of the USA and the rest of the world not attending Mass or simply becoming nones.


John Nolan said...

It's sad when a Catholic bishop chooses to employ the literally meaningless term 'homophobia'. An irrational fear of the same? Even if the 'homo' refers to homosexuals, those who may disapprove of homosexual practices can hardly be described as having an irrational fear of those who indulge in them. There may be some who would not frequent a public lavatory for fear of some queer making unwelcome advances to them, but I haven't met any.

What is doubly sad is that there are bishops who are not just unorthodox, but also unintelligent. The shepherd might smell of the sheep (Bergoglio) but he is expected to have more brains than they.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Homophobia is a pejorative description to shame those who uphold the Church's teaching because what is implied is that one hates what one is, so the homophobic is homosexual, but hates his orientation.

I don't know of anyone who is afraid of homosexuals as most of us know someone who is. When I worked in fast food and a department store, there were many i knew and had no problem with them--they were hard workers. They are also in the service industry, such as nursing and the like. Who cares!

But should we all have a healthy fear of sin and what it could do to the sinner, especially those charged in the Church with assisting in the salvation of souls who otherwise by be damned?

Joe Potillor said...

Poor San DIego....

Daniel said...

We are all human, and that means we all judge each other, for good reasons and bad. Show me a person who's not judgmental, and I'll show you a person with no taste.

Being judgmental crosses the line when you try to punish, hurt or coerce somebody else based purely on your own taste or preference. Or better yet, try to influence the government to do the same.

Anonymous said...

John says there are bishops who are not just unorthodox, but unintelligent...OK, give us a list...so I will know whether to donate to the diocesan annual appeal next time...

George said...

I'm puzzled by the below statement by Bishop McElroy:
“Many times, our discussions in the life of the church suggest that chastity has a singularly powerful role in determining our moral character or our relationship with God. It does not.”

To be chaste is to refrain from any sexual act outside of that which is allowed within a God-ordained marriage and which, while within a marriage, is not contrary to Divine law. We know God's law because it has been revealed to us through scripture and His Holy Church, else how would we know it? Are we by our conduct to be worse than animals, who after all, conduct themselves subordinate to their natural inclinations and cannot be held morally responsible in any way for their actions. They are not capable of knowing God's spiritual laws and so, unlike man, are not under the obligation to obey them.
We please God when we do what He desires of us. Through our spiritual works and actions and obedience to His Holy laws, the Image and Likeness of God which we are made in, evinces it's pre-eminent purpose and produces its Divinely desired manifestation, and this because our God desires it and has made it so. God's purpose for us and our love for Him is made manifest and evident in our accordance with His Holy Commandments and Beatitudes.
The goal we seek and the destination we should strive for require us to discipline ourselves and subdue our earthly passions. Those things that we do that are contrary to what He desires of us, unless we change our ways, will not allow us to one day experience the Beatific Divine Presence of our Holy God.

rcg said...

John stole that last line from me. Damned Brexit stopped my royalties.

The lengths that people go to 'defend' homosexual activity gives more proof that it is disordered. I am convinced it is a mental condition related to alcoholism. The term homophobia is silly and is used in an even more silly way. I have to admit that I once wonder if the bishops and priests that defended homosexual activity so energetically were worried about contributions. Now I wonder if something more personal is not up with them. On the other hand I do think the bishops in the USA are worried about legal action against them and the Church. It is coming and I don't believe selling out a small portion now will save anything for later.

Dialogue said...

Opposition to the coercive imposition of disordered, fruitless relationships onto human society is born of common sense, not irrational fear. I pity the quiet homosexual, but I fear only the aggressive perversion of the natural order of human society by homosexual activism.

TJM said...

The Bishop of San Diego sounds like he has "issues." If he thinks he will pack em in with his left-wing views, he will be deeply disappointed. These views didn't help the Anglicans thrive.

Daniel said...

It's 2017, and the average person in most places knows several gay people among their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, et al.

They don't see them as perverts, "queers," people suffering from a "disorder" like alcoholism, people who want to destroy society or subvert the institution of marriage.
They see them as everyday people with strengths and flaws, but who generally just want to pursue their own happiness in their own way, as God created them. (In this country, we believe everybody has that right.)

The Church has every right to condemn them, exclude them and label them.

But when those everyday people see overheated language (see previous posts) that contradicts the evidence of their own eyes, it makes them question other church teachings as well. The Church becomes a little less credible & relevant to them. Because if they're wrong about your son or your cousin, you'll obviously wonder what else they're wrong about.

I am pretty sure such issues have more to do with the Church's declining stature in the West than liturgy.

Most likely, the tin-foil zucchetto wearers here will say, Go, good riddance, sinners, etc. etc. (but also blame the Novus Ordo for declining church attendance.)

But people who live in the real world, outside your academic/ecclesiastical ivory towers, hear and talk a lot more about life issues than about the language of the Mass or the quality of church music.

John Nolan said...


Do stop saying 'it's 2017' - we can all read a calendar. It doesn't mean that what was immoral yesterday is moral today. By all means argue the case, although it is a difficult one to make.

Of course everyone has encountered homosexual people. In most cases it makes no difference at all to how one relates to them, since what they get up to in private is their own affair. The general rule is that they can do as they please as long as they don't frighten the horses.

A good friend and brother officer of mine was a serial adulterer. I felt sorry for his wife, but it was not for me to interfere. The Church defines what is sinful and what is not, and in general it conforms to over three millennia of Judaeo-Christian morality. Adultery might have regrettable social consequences but society has not, generally, sought to criminalize it.

Adultery is certainly a sin, but there is evidence that some people find it difficult to resist. In the case of the Kennedys their priapism might well have been considered an objective disorder. I doubt that in their heart of hearts they thought the Church approved of their actions. Jimmy Carter famously confessed himself a sinner in that he 'had committed adultery in his heart'. The mens rea without the actus reus - a touch of scrupulosity?

French kings, if they thought they were mortally ill, would banish their mistresses from Court so that they could make their peace with the Church and die shriven. Of course, since we are in 2017 (as you never cease reminding us) the prevailing ethos is 'I'll do as I like, and expect the Church to endorse my actions - if it doesn't, then I'll leave and blame the Church for forcing my decision.'

rcg said...

The Church condemns the act, not the people. There is a clear eschelon of participation in homosexual acts that can excuse people that can not help themselves and distinguishes them from people who will not help themselves. Even in this last group it is easy to concieve of people who are so addicted to their urges that they don't want to resist them but instead seek to satisfy them. This is part of addiction behavior and working ceasesly to find others to help satisfy or at least justify and facilitate the satisfaction is clearly addictive behavior.

TJM said...

John Nolan - 1
Daniel - 0

Dialogue said...


How does knowing someone with a particular proclivity in a particular year affect the quality of that proclivity?

Daniel said...

John, things have sure changed over those three millennia of Judeo-Christian morality.

We don't stone adulterers anymore, we don't own slaves, we can all enjoy barbecued pork. The church no longer holds Inquisitions. And so on and so on.

Most likely, people a thousand years from now will look back and see more changes, and they will just look like common-sense, normal life. They'll wonder why it took so long.

If you're opposed to changing, then you've got to be a better argument than "We've always done it this way." Otherwise you'll go the way of the strumpet-stoners, and sooner, rather than later.

Because, after all....it's 2017.

Dialogue said...


Catholics believe in natural law and the Apostolic Tradition, neither of which have ever required stoning adulterers, owning slaves, abstinence from pork, etc.

The Church is still morally and theologically free to conduct inquisitions, but a man still cannot impregnate another man, nor can a woman impregnate another woman, no matter how great their mutual lust.

John Nolan is clearly in favor of various changes in the Church and in the world. I'm not aware of him ever using "we've always done it this way" as a moral argument.

I recommend that you study philosophical rhetoric and logic so that you can construct more effective arguments.

bvs said...

Daniel. You're a bore. Yawn. However, don't let that stop you. Vade vade bore on.
Apologise as per above ad-hominem; but, really you do make a case for pesticide. #2017

Daniel said...

Sorry, bvs, I'm not hear to entertain you, but to raise questions. When you resort to ugly ad-hominem (see, I know some Latin, too) attacks rather than refuting arguments, you illustrate why the world changes in ways you don't like. Discuss, don't attack.

Perhaps you think the world would be a better place if you could exterminate the people who disagree with you like insects. That's been tried before, hasn't it? #1939

John Nolan said...


Dietary laws are not a moral issue. That we don't stone adulterers does not mean that we approve of adultery. Sharia law does indeed call for adulterers to be stoned, and in certain countries they are. It is quite possible to disapprove of this practice without approving of adultery or sodomy.

You have a strange and relativistic view of ethics. I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to the Decalogue, since you are clearly neither a Christian nor a Jew. Nazi Germany was basically a Christian country yet the rulers decided to impose a new 20th century morality which allowed, even approved of, euthanasia and genocide. Since the Third Reich was intended to last for a thousand years, they, like you, expected to look back and see it as 'common-sense, normal life'.

I suspect that you have not bothered to follow through the implications of your published statements. It is just as well that you use this blog, since there are contributors who are more intelligent and informed than yourself and from whom you might learn something. Unless, of course, your mind is irreversibly closed.

JM said...

The Washington Post invited me to share my experiences with the pushback to my book on LGBT Catholics. "Ironically, these groups, like the website Church Militant, which tout their desire for traditional Catholic practices consistently set themselves against bishops and religious superiors. Thus, groups that have zero legitimacy in the Church (and which have often been criticized by Church leadership) are setting themselves up against legitimate authorities. Pope Francis himself, for example, is a frequent target. In this way, such supposedly 'traditional' Catholic websites are subverting tradition. As a result of their hateful content, they cause confusion, frustration and contempt. Such campaigns can never lead to the kind of results that St. Ignatius calls indicative of the 'Good Spirit': consolation, calm and peace. You can judge these unofficial inquisitions by their fruit."

Anonymous said...

John Nolan, Do stop saying "We can all read the calendar" because we all know that we can all read a calender.

And do stop saying, "...it was not for me to interfere." It most certainly was. Would you stand by while an arsonist set fire to your neighbor's house because, " it was not for you to interfere"? I didn't think so.

John Nolan said...


Arson is a crime; adultery and private homosexual acts are not. If you are the sort of person who thinks it is his duty to lecture individuals on their sexual morality, then you are a sanctimonious busybody.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

You are dealing with a simpleton. I am just trying to figure out who this simpleton is because I suspect he posts here sometimes under a nom de plume

Anonymous said...

John Nolan, So you are obligated to intervene only when your brothers sin is "illegal" or "criminal"? That more baloney. And you know it.

It is not necessary to "lecture" your wayward brother or sister about his/her philandering, But you simply cannot maintain that Catholic moral theology allows you to turn a blind eye and, comfortably, not intervene.

Bean said...

"I am exceedingly grateful to Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., archbishop of Philadelphia." Fr. Martin

"Some of the recent attacks on Martin, sparked by his book Building a Bridge, have been inexcusably ugly. Fr. Martin is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire. Like all of us as fellow Christians, he deserves to be treated with fraternal good will. It’s one thing to criticize respectfully an author’s ideas and their implications. It’s quite another to engage in ad hominem trashing." Archbishop Chaput

Daniel said...

John Nolan, my mind is by no means closed & I appreciate your offer to educate, edify & enlighten me. You can start anytime.

TJM said...


John Nolan already has, you're just not listening.

Liberal worldview: It is my opinion, thus it is a fact!!!

Anonymous said...

"Liberal worldview: It is my opinion, thus it is a fact!!!"

Which is PRECISELY TJM's worldview....


John Nolan said...

What should matter is the substance and quality of the argument. The anonymous commentator who believes it is his Christian duty to expose the sins of his neighbour might do well to revisit what Scripture says about motes and beams, or reflect on Our Lord's invitation to those without sin to cast the first stone. Baloney? I think not.

I have been contributing to this blog for some years. I hope that what I have to say is of interest to those who have the patience to read it. If not, feel free to ignore it. I try to be succinct and don't believe in hyperlinks; I do my own research and expect others to do likewise. I don't claim infallibility for my opinions, and welcome informed counter-arguments - this is the essence of civilized debate.

Instead, I get anonymous and pseudonymous commentators who make unwarranted inferences from what I have written, try to tell me what I think or (in their superior wisdom) what I really mean. Now that's sad, and says more about them than it does about me.

John Nolan said...

I might, if I were in a position to do so, counsel a woman against having an abortion. I would not tell a homosexual acquaintance to desist from his activities because they are sinful - sin is a matter for his conscience, God, and his confessor (assuming he is a Catholic).

If he were to solicit my opinion on homosexual practices, then I would give it, at the same time making it clear that it is not in fact my opinion, but the unequivocal teaching of the Catholic Church, which I am obliged to accept.

Anonymous said...

No one said "expose" the sins of others. You said it was not you place to interfere in the doings of a good friend and brother officer when you were aware of his grievously sinful and destructive behavior. Your excuse? Its not criminal.

What kind of good friend or brother turns a blind eye to the sinful and destructive behaviof of the man he claims to love?

These are not unwarranted inferences.

John Nolan said...

It's not a good idea to interfere in someone else's marriage, however well you know the person. Even relatives must tread carefully for fear of exacerbating the situation.

Your analogy of arson and adultery is inappropriate for the reason I stated. It's not put forward as an excuse. That is the sort of unwarranted inference which is either deliberate or the result of a failure in basic reading comprehension.

Your rhetorical question (penultimate sentence) is so sanctimonious as to be risible.

I think in future I shall refrain from replying to anonymous attacks, so feel free to rant with impunity and make an even bigger fool of yourself.

TJM said...

John NOlan, bene est!

Anonymous said...

Only a false man declines to "interfere" in a "friend's" life when that friend is endangering his soul.

"Risible?" Not at all. You'd stop him from shooting himself if you could, but you deny responsibility for calling him to greater holiness.

Refrain all you want; you are still wrong.

TJM said...

No, Anonymous (Kavanaugh), YOU are still wrong

John Nolan said...


Is it Kavanaugh? It does have features of his style - for example the inapt and inept analogies, and the attribution of motive without evidence to support it. On the other hand I can't believe that a priest would call a man 'false' because he declines to enquire into another man's soul or interfere to call someone to 'greater holiness' who is not in the least religious and for whom the concept of holiness has no meaning.

In fact, a priest would counsel prudence - do not become an accomplice to another's sin by word or action, instruct by example rather than precept, and pray for the sinner. It is God who calls us to holiness and we all fall short to a greater or lesser degree.

Also, surely Fr K would not hide behind anonymity; only a 'false man' does that.

TJM said...

John Nolan, I hope you are correct, but I seem to recall that when Father K decides to lob a bomb he reverts to Anonymous.