Friday, October 2, 2015


Pope Francis and the Vatican communications' system have succeeded in polarizing the Church in a way that Pope Benedict was thought to have the capability of doing but never did! It all hinges on Pope Benedict being very clear with his language that normally meant he could not be spun. Whereas Pope Francis as a good Italian is guilty of what he constantly complains about: he talks too much and too much off the cuff! He is not clear always and comes across ambiguously thus opening himself up to be spun! And now this is true even of his small, symbolic gestures that use few words!  And the good bishops, priests and laity in the trenches suffer. I have been a victim by some in Macon's gay community of the "Who I am I to judge" meme that is constantly spun outside of the pope's complete context.

The Pope's pithy sayings lead to these kinds of soundbites that can be used against orthodox Catholics by those opposed to Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxis!

 And this has led to our Church being polarized in a way that it wasn't even during the horrid period right after Vatican II lasting until Pope Saint John Paul II! And that's saying a lot! Loose lips and the internet are the perfect storm for this unprecedented polarization!

And now we have this tit for tat that is sure to cause more spinning and much, much, much more polarization! The article is one sided and does not extend Pope Francis' sense of mercy to Kim but to the one who is supported in the article!  Thank you Vatican:

Pope Francis held a private meeting with a same-sex couple in the United States the day before he met with Kim Davis, the county clerk who opposes same-sex marriage.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Yayo Grassi, who along with his partner met the Pope, declined to disclose details about the short visit, but said it was arranged personally by Pope Francis, who is a longtime friend.

Here is John Allen's Crux commentary or lament!

The Vatican must speak on conscientious objection

For as long as anyone can remember, the Vatican has had a special genius for snatching public relations defeat from the jaws of victory. Even by that standard, the fracas surrounding Pope Francis’ meeting with Kim Davis last week, which broke out immediately after his massively successful US trip, sets a new standard.

Without necessarily blaming the pope’s own media team, which seemingly was caught as off-guard as everyone else, there have been three separate breakdowns in communications strategy:
  • Apparently believing (or perhaps just hoping) that the pope’s brief encounter with the Kentucky clerk wouldn’t leak out.
  • Not being prepared to respond immediately when the news did break, thereby creating an interpretive vacuum.
  • Issuing a belated statement saying the pope did not intend to endorse Davis’ position “in all its particular and complex aspects,” but leaving unresolved precisely what he did mean by it.
One predictable consequence is that just as the past 48 hours were consumed by speculation over who put the pope up to the meeting, the next 48 will probably be marked by conspiracy theories as to who put him up to issuing the statement.

Another is that liberals will take a maximal reading of the statement, suggesting the pope has disavowed Davis, while conservatives will argue it simply means Francis hasn’t written her a blank check. Perhaps intentionally, the brief text could lend itself to either interpretation.
For a pope who by rights should be basking in the after-glow of a bravura outing to Cuba and the United States, it’s a fairly depressing scenario.

Aside from Machiavellian subplots and political spin, there is one serious conclusion to be drawn from the mess: There is now an urgent need for the Catholic Church to elaborate on precisely how it understands the right, and the limits, of conscientious objection.
Francis said on the papal plane returning to Rome that conscientious objection is a “human right,” including for government officials. Taken in tandem with news of the Davis meeting, many observers assumed he was talking about her stance in Kentucky.

In light of Friday’s statement, that conclusion now seems unfounded.

One problem is that Davis’ legal difficulties stem not just from her own refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but from allegedly interfering with her deputies doing so. Arguably that’s tantamount to using a public position to enforce her own religious beliefs on others, something official Catholic teaching rejects.

More basically, the situation creates a conflict between a right — freedom of conscience — and a duty, in this case the responsibility of public officials to carry out the law.

One could argue that people in Davis’ position should be entitled to an exemption from personal involvement in implementing a law they regard as immoral, since otherwise large numbers of people of faith might effectively be disqualified from public service. Obviously Francis’ strong rhetoric on religious freedom generally while he was in the country cuts in this direction.

That’s different, however, from saying that public officials on their own ought to be able to deny people services, such as the issuance of marriage licenses, to which they’re entitled.

The Vatican has now put itself in a position where it will face enormous pressure to speak clearly on what constitutes a legitimate claim of conscientious objection, and what the limits of those claims are.

Doubtless its take will be slightly different than the claims being floated by Davis and her supporters, as well as the position of secularists who don’t see any reason to accommodate religious sensitivities at all.

Whether that conversation unfolds in the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family, which is set to open on Sunday, or in some other venue, remains to be seen, but it will have to take place.

The bottom line is that the Vatican has thrust itself squarely into the middle of a debate that’s destined to become steadily more intense. The only way out is a thoughtful and clear statement on what exactly the Church understands by “conscientious objection,” and the sooner the better.
If Rome wants to get past Kim Davis and back onto higher ground, that’s the way forward.


Vox Cantoris said...

What an embarrassment and a disgrace. They should have left it at "no comment." Who cares what Tweeting priests think? They threw this poor woman under the bus. Oh, what must Our Blessed Lord think of all of this.

Anonymous said...

But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one . (Matthew 5:37)


Seeker said...

Part of Master plan...

Anonymous said...

The situation at hand might be perceived that the Pope is being governed by people beyond his control; that the Holy Father is not his own man.

First, this is now a trend in communications issued by the Holy See. The Pope speaks, Fr. Lombardi defames our Pope by implying "there he goes again", you know, wink-wink, it is just South American hyperbole..

Second, the Holy Father spoke directly, off the cuff when he opined (declared?): conscientious objection to unjust laws is a human right of all men, including government officials. When the liberal dogs of main stream the media commence to object, we have Fr. Lombardi adding a "Spirit of the Council obfuscatory commentary" to the Pope's unambiguous statement.

The liberal gene, because it can not and will not abide such a clear- but to them offensive- statement to stand, makes liars out of otherwise man of goodwill.



Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Everyone spins Pope Francis and most fail to read or listen to his words all of them and together and now out of context.They do to them what fundamentalists have done to the Bible, cherry pick to make their own selfish points.

Mark Thomas said...

Powerful forces within the Church, and outside the Church, the "mainstream" news media, are determined to destroy any positive significance that opponents of sodomite marriage attached to the Pope Francis-Kim Davis meeting.

Along that line, the "mainstream" news media are now pushing the following (beginning with CNN):

"The day before Pope Francis met anti-gay county clerk Kim Davis in Washington last week, he held a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina who has been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years." that?

Attention: Catholics and non-Catholics who defend and promote God's teachings in regard to will not be permitted to read anything favorable to your cause in regard to His Holiness Pope Francis' meeting with Kim Davis.

Ya got it? We will not permit you to even suggest that Pope Francis may have had even the slightest bit of sense in regard to what his meeting with Kim Davis would have meant to Culture of Life Catholics and non-Catholics.

We will continue to promote the narrative that Pope Francis is "soft" on the issue of sodomite marriage.

Now, ya got that? We control the news media. We will spin things as we please. We will present Pope Francis to the world on our terms.

What has been so obvious during the past few days is that powerful and determined pro-sodomite forces have worked overtime to portray Pope Francis on their terms.

Not surprisingly, that is to be expected of Culture of Death forces outside Holy Mother Church.

What is clear and far more horrific is that that same powerful and determined force is at work deep within the Church.

We must brace ourselves as said force will really go to work in about 48 hours from now.

Here comes the Synod.

Times of awful darkness have always been part of our Church's history. Judas' betrayal...the Apostles abandonment of Jesus Christ...the Arian Crisis...the Protestant Revolt...

Sometimes, such as when the Apostles abandoned Jesus, the darkness has been short-lived. Other times, such as in regard to the Arian Crisis, the time of darkness has been lengthy.

Today, the sodomite-related and marriage-destroying darkness initiated by powerful Culture of Death forces within and without the Church will be, I believe, prolonged.

Brace yourself...and let's pray and support each other.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

The sickness continues within the Church to spin the Pope Francis-Kim Davis meeting as meaningless.

As reported in today's Los Angeles Times...Rev. Thomas Rosica, Vatican spokesman, in regard to Pope Francis' meeting with Kim Davis:

"...Rosica...added that he doubted Davis had spent 15 minutes in a private meeting with Francis at the Vatican's embassy in Washington. "I have difficulty believing 15 minutes was spent with one individual, because there simply wasn’t time," he said.

“It would have been done on the first floor as the pope is coming down the stairs to leave -- ‘Holy Father, these people would like to bid you farewell as you go to New York’ -- That is the scenario,” he said. “It could have been 15 minutes [with] this grouping of people to say goodbye.”

In response, the Florida-based Liberty Council, which is providing lawyers for Davis, released a statement Friday defending the Davis camp's characterizations of the meeting.

The invitation to meet with Francis "was first conveyed to Kim Davis and her lawyers" on Sept. 14 and confirmed by the Vatican on Sept. 23, the statement said. The Vatican sent a car for Davis and her husband on the following day to take them to the embassy.

*******"Kim and Joe Davis waited for the private meeting with the pope," the statement said.*******

*******"There were no other people in the room. This was a private meeting between Pope Francis and Kim and Joe Davis."*******


That account differs dramatically from Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica's scenario in which "the pope is coming down the stairs to leave -- ‘Holy Father, these people would like to bid you farewell as you go to New York’ -- That is the scenario,” he said. “It could have been 15 minutes [with] this grouping of people to say goodbye.”

Is Father Rosica's scenario of the Pope Francis-Kim Davis meeting believable?

Or have Kim Davis and her representatives told the truth?

That is, that contrary to Rev. Thomas Rosica's above statements, when Pope Francis and Kim Davis met, there "were no other people in the room. This was a private meeting between Pope Francis and Kim and Joe Davis"?


Mark Thomas

Rood Screen said...

The Holy Father, while holding to the apostolic truth, is open to dialogue with everyone. That's good. The only observers who are confused are those who reject either truth or dialogue.

Anonymous said...

Here ya' go:(CNN)—The day before Pope Francis met anti-gay county clerk Kim Davis in Washington last week, he held a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina who has been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years.

Yayo Grassi, an openly gay man, brought his partner, Iwan, as well several other friends to the Vatican Embassy on September 23 for a brief visit with the Pope. A video of the meeting shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Grassi declined to disclose details about the short visit, but said it was arranged personally by the Pope via email in the weeks ahead of Francis' highly anticipated visit to the United States.

"Three weeks before the trip, he called me on the phone and said he would love to give me a hug," Grassi said.

The meeting between Grassi and the Pope adds another intriguing twist to the strange aftermath of Francis' first-ever trip to the United States. Since news broke on Tuesday of Francis' meeting with Davis, conservatives have cheered the seemingly implicit endorsement, while liberals have questioned how much the Pope knew about her case.

In a statement on Friday, the Vatican said that the meeting with Davis was not intended as a show of support for her cause and said "the only real audience granted by the Pope at the nunciature (embassy) was with one of his former students and his family."


Mark Thomas said...

"...the Battle of France is over...the Battle of Britain is about to begin."
— (Sir) Winston Churchill, June 18, 1940 A.D.

(Or should I have said that the "Battle of Francis" is over?)

I am sorry to say that the Pope Francis-Kim Davis meeting and it's hopeful significance to the Culture of Life's battle against the Culture of Death's promotion of sodomite marriage and destruction of the family is over.

That is, unless His Holiness Pope Francis does something dramatic...issues a statement in regard to the meeting in question...the Kim Davis story is history.

Within and without the Church today, the powerful and determined pro-sodomite force has won the battle at hand. They have employed all their power to destroy any sense that the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis was meaningful to the Culture of Life.

They won. That is that.

Besides, the Kim Davis saga is about to give way in about 48 hours to the Synod.

The news media and Culture of Death forces within in the Church will, with profound determination, utilize all their power to focus attention upon the Synod...and will spin the Synod in their way.

This is Pope Francis' and our orthodox bishops' greatest opportunity to seize the day to rout powerful pro-sodomite forces within and without the Church who are determined to destroy marriage and the family.

This is it. This is it.

The Battle of Francis...Pope Francis-Kim Davis over...the Battle of the Synod is about to begin.


Mark Thomas

James said...

To Mark Thomas
I like reading what you have to say, but do you have to keep using the s- word?

Anonymous said...

It gets soooo much better. Archbishop Victor Fernandez has been picked by the Pope as one of the writers of the Synod document. Fernandez is the author of a book called, "Heal Me With Your mouth: The Art of Kissing." This is no joke. You cannot get better comedy than this...not on SNL, Colbert, Monty Python...nowhere. I mean this is the best material ever. LOL!

George said...

Kim Davis:

Kim Davis stated her position thusly :"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience."

After she was held in contempt by the court, Davis through her attorneys filed an appeal from the order, asking that she be immediately released from jail and her name removed from marriage licenses, allowing her deputies to issue them..

As an elected official Ms Davis cannot simply be fired. In order to be removed from office, she would have to be impeached by the Kentucky House of Representatives and then tried by the Kentucky Senate. This is something that thankfully is not likely to happen.

Ms. Davis did return to work on September 14, 2015 and *said she would not interfere with any deputy clerk who issues marriage licenses*.

Licenses issued since Davis' refusal to issue any more state that they are authorized by "the office of the Rowan County Clerk" but *no longer bear her name*.

What she did may be seen by some as no more than a quixotic gesture, but it is good to see someone who, even at the risk of public ridicule, and despite having to endure the hardship and humiliation of incarceration, is willing to put God's law above man's.

She was successful in getting accommodation to her religious belief.

gob said...

Mark Thomas....You talk WAY too much.

gob said...

Flower....I think Mark may have a bit of an obsession....

Anonymous said...

It boils down to the fact that there is a powerful cabal of liberals in the Vatican. It has been mentioned time and time again by different sources. Fr Malacy Martin on many occasions stated that there was a powerful group in the Vatican from the highest echelons down and that "any manly Pope who tried to get rid of them wouldn't last long". He stated this during St John Paul II The Great's papacy. Pope Benedict himself said to pray that he wouldn't fall "victim to the wolves". He confirmed their existence and he did fall victim to them. Cardinal Danneels confirmed that he was part of a "mafia" type group that wants to liberalise the Church and worked to undermine Pope Benedict. You can dismiss this as a conspiracy theory all you like but there is evidence now published in several different authorised biographies that this group does indeed exist. No doubt that is why we get such contradictory statements coming from the Vatican.


Mark Thomas said...

Flower of Lucca, I thank you reading my comments. I also thank Father McDonald in major fashion for tolerating my comments and my far-too-lengthy posts. He has been very generous to me.

Flower of Lucca, what is the "s-word" please? Thank you.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous 2 said...

Regarding the use of inflammatory language by any side of the same sex marriage issue, it may be timely to remind ourselves of Bishop Hartmayer’s statement following the Supreme Court ruling this summer. After confirming the traditional Catholic position on same sex marriage and delineating what the Supreme Court decision does, and perhaps more importantly does not do, Bishop Hartmayer said:

“However, this judgment does not dispense either those who may approve or disapprove of this decision from the obligations of civility toward one another. Nor is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions differ from our own.

This Court action 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.

The moral debate however must also include the way that we treat one another – especially those with whom we may disagree. We are all God’s children and are commanded to love one another. In many respects that moral question is at least as consequential and weighty as is the granting of this civil entitlement.

This 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.

This decision has made my task as bishop more complex as I continue to uphold the teachings of my Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony and the equal transcendent dignity of every human person.”

I would suggest that for Catholics to refer to “sodomite marriage” and to characterize supporters of same sex marriage as being of the “Culture of Death” is no more in keeping with the spirit of the above statement than it is for supporters of same sex marriage to call Catholics and other opponents “bigots” and “haters.” However, the continued use of the former language on our part will certainly provide confirmation to those who want to characterize us as bigots and haters.

Of course, neither this post nor indeed Bishop Hartmayer’s words will carry much weight with those who want to see this episode (and so many other things besides) as a Manichean War of Light versus Dark, Good versus Evil, Life versus Death. But doesn’t this, too, carry the risk of succumbing to a darkness of its own, not to mention the risk of diluting or even trivializing the rhetoric over abortion?

As for the “spin” and “counter-spin” on the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, we might do well not to allow ourselves to become so agitated by this or that report. In other words, we should resist being spun around by all the spin. Instead, don’t trust everything (anything?) you read or see in the superficial surface froth of daily news reports or internet postings, but take the long view and wait to get all the facts and see things in their proper perspective.

For Bishop Hartmayer’s complete statement see

Mark Thomas said...

I would suggest that same-sex "marriage" is most definitely within the realm of the Culture of Death.

During last week's visit to the United States, Holiness Pope Francis noted that same-sex "marriage" constitutes a tremendous threat to the family.

Pope Francis said that he is concerned "for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family."

We know that the Holy Father referred to same-sex "marriage" as he issued that very concern earlier this year during his Apostolic Visit to the Philippines. At that time, Rome confirmed that Pope Francis had referred to same-sex "marriage."

Pope Francis declared in the Philippines that the "family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life. These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces, which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation."

a reference critical to gay marriage, Pope Francis on Friday warned against an ideological colonization of the family, during his five-day visit to the Philippines, Asia’s most Catholic country.

Pope Francis also warned that there is an "ideological colonization that we have to be careful about that is trying to destroy the family."

The last time that I checked, it is the Culture of Death, not the Culture of Life, that disfigures God's plan for creation...that threatens to destroy the family.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to the link of same-sex "marriage" to the Culture of Death, in 2010 A.D., Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio (our Pope) offered the following:

Same-sex "marriage" is satanic.

Are things satanic related to the Culture of Life or the Culture of Death.

The future Pope Francis declared that approval of same-sex "marriage" would "seriously damage the family.

The future Pope Francis warned that in regard to same-sex "marriage", that which is at stake is "the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children.

"At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts."

The future Pope Francis warned that same-sex "marriage" is an "attempt to destroy God’s plan..." and is the work of "the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

Is there anybody who wishes to deny that same-sex "marriage" does not belong to the Culture of Death?

Is there anybody who wishes to argue that same-sex "marriage" and supporters of same-sex "marriage" do not promote the Culture of Death?


Mark Thomas

gob said...

Mark Thomas, are you gay?

Mark Thomas said...

#1867 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that among the sins that "cry to Heaven" is the "sin of the Sodomites."

Have the Thought Police outlawed the word "Sodomy?"

Are we unable to simply refer to a sin by its name while also treating the sinner in Christ-like fashion?

The same Thought Police who deem it improper to employ the term "Sodomite marriage" may someday deem it improper to employ the term "homosexual marriage."

The Thought Police could declare that the word "homosexual" has become pejorative.

The Though Police could insist that the term "same-sex marriage" is unkind. They could argue, for example, that when two heterosexuals marry, nobody calls attention to their marriage as being a "heterosexual marriage."

Nobody says..."On October 3, Bill and Jane invite you to their 'heterosexual' marriage."

Therefore, the Though Police may deem it impolite to call attention to "homosexual" marriage. One should delete attention to the couple's sexual identity.

The Thought Police attempt now to shame Catholics who refer to a sin by name.


Mark Thomas

improper to employ, the Thought Police are free to determine that it is

Anonymous 2 said...

Mark Thomas:

I was taking my cue from Flower of Lucca, who asked why you had to keep on using the s-word. It is odd, or perhaps telling, that you did not seem to know what she was talking about.

I have two questions:

(1) Do you think your rhetoric is in keeping with Bishop Hartmayer’s statement? (I imagine many of the Bishops issued similar statements). If not, why have you apparently decided to ignore such statements?

(2) How do you think the conversation will go if you seek to engage gay and lesbians on this issue (as some of us do by the way) and you keep on referring to their marriages as “sodomite marriages” and telling them they belong to the “Culture of Death”? As I have said before, are we just preaching to the choir or trying to get others to join the choir? People like Bishop Hartmayer are clearly trying to do the latter. Bottom line: you don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of persuading anyone through the use of such rhetoric. So this has nothing to do with the Thought Police and everything to do with practical wisdom.

Think of it this way: How does it feel to be called a “bigot” or a “hater” or someone who has “declared war on women,” which is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric used by various opponents of Catholic doctrine? Are you more or less likely to listen to what such people have to say to you? Why is it any different when the shoe is on the other foot? Bigotry and hatred are also sins, so they are just referring to a sin by its name, right?

Mark Thomas said...

I am not a holier-than-thou man. I treat each person with the knowledge that they have been created in God's image.

I don't scream at people. I have had many enjoyable conversations with homosexuals. I adhere to the Church's teachings in regard to homosexuality and the treatment of homosexuals.

I once spent Easter Sunday at a friend's home. Among the guests were two men who were a homosexual couple. We had very nice conservations that day. None were about homosexuality...just everyday conversations.

Had I discussed with them...or any homosexual couple...homosexual "marriage", I would have said the following:

"I am Mark Thomas. I am a sinner. To have even the slightest bit of hope to obtain Heaven, I need God to exhibit every last bit of mercy and forgiveness that He possesses. I am neither the least bit qualified nor desirous to cast the first stone at you or anybody.

"I believe that as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "the sin of the Sodomites" cries to Heaven. I believe that as the Catholic Church teaches, sodomite "marriage" advances the Culture of Death."

"I reject your sin. However, I have Christian love for you. I am not your judge.

"Now, you know my beliefs in regard to same-sex "marriage." I have not hidden my beliefs in regard to your situation. I have been honest with you.

"Now, I would like to engage in respectful dialogue with you. I won't scream at you. I won't say simply present to you a series of 'dos and dont's'.

"Instead, I wish to offer in positive fashion as to why God's ways will set you free (set me free). I wish to offer to you a vision of hope and peace in and with God Our Father."

Anonymous, please explain to me as to how that approach is harsh and unacceptable.

Rather than simply say "no" to someone, my approach is the Church's approach. That is, let's remain positive and hopeful.

It is not simply a matter of saying "no"...or simply laying down a list of dos and don''s a matter of say "yes" to God and explaining the positive benefits to saying "yes".

But if we are unable to state in honest fashion the terms of the discussion, and to call a certain sin by its name...and to make it clear that sin advances the Culture of Death, then we are unable to engage in honest and meaningful dialogue.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Gob said, Mark Thomas are you gay? LOL! LOL!

Anonymous 2 said...

Mark Thomas:

Thank you for your response. Leaving aside the question of just exactly what the “sin of the Sodomites” was, can you please tell us where Catholic magisterial sources use the term “Sodomite marriage” or claim that same sex marriage (as opposed to abortion, for example) is part of the “Culture of Death”? I am not denying that these terms are part of Catholic teaching just saying that I have searched and cannot find these terms in the Catechism or elsewhere, but you may be more familiar with the relevant official sources.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous 2, thank you for the civil conservation that we have undertaken. Among the benefits that I receive from Church-related respectful conversations is that I delve into the Church's teachings and documents to inform my mind.

When you, for example, pose this or that question or argument to me, I dig deeper in the Holy Bible and Church teaching to discern whether my responses are in line with the True Church.

Example: One of your questions today inspired me to turn to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Web site.

Okay...on to your latest reponse...

You said..."Leaving aside the question of just exactly what the “sin of the Sodomites” was..."

Well, that is too important to leave aside. We need to define that sin. It is vital, particularly for people involved in Sodomite "marriages" (more on the term "marriage" in a minute), and people who promote said false "marriages" to understand that which they promote.

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that the "sin of the Sodomites," a phrase that appears in #1867 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that of "homosexual relations."

That is confirmed, for example, in a Sacred Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith document signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and approved by Pope Saint John Paul II.

Said document reads that "in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations."

Therefore, we have the Catholic Church's declaration as to the meaning of the term "sin of the Sodomites."

Okay...let's continue our discussion, Father McDonald-permitting, in the next post.

Thank you.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous 2 said..."...can you please tell us where Catholic magisterial sources use the term “Sodomite marriage” or claim that same sex marriage (as opposed to abortion, for example) is part of the “Culture of Death”? I am not denying that these terms are part of Catholic teaching just saying that I have searched and cannot find these terms in the Catechism or elsewhere, but you may be more familiar with the relevant official sources."

Does a Catholic, for example, require approval from a magisterial source to employ the term "Sodomite marriage?"

I don't believe that that is correct. Do you?

Has the Catholic Church declared that the only term that we may use is, for example, "gay marriage?"

Are we required as Catholics to use only the term "homosexual marriage?"

Again, I didn't realize that the Church required me, for example, to turn to a magisterial document to receive permission to use the term...take your pick..."sodomite marriage," "gay marriage," "homosexual marriage," or "same-sex marriage."

If you really wish to be precise, the Catholic Church teaches that there is not any such thing as..take your pick...same-sex "marriage", or gay "marriage", or homosexual "marriage". or Sodomite "marriage."

The Catholic Church teaches, as Pope Francis noted yesterday (and on many occasions), that the only "marriage" is marriage between a man and a woman.

Therefore, the Church teaches that there isn't any such thing as same-sex "marriage" as God has taught us that it's utterly impossible for two persons of the same sex to "marry" each other.

There simply isn't anything equivalent to "marriage" in a same-sex "marriage."

On the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Web site, we find the following question and answer:

4. Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?

"For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union.

"Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union.

"Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage."


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous 2 said..."...can you please tell us where Catholic magisterial sources...or claim that same sex marriage (as opposed to abortion, for example) is part of the “Culture of Death”?"

Do you believe that the Church teaches that same-sex "marriage" (the Church says it's not "marriage") is holy or a sin? Do you agree that something that is holy belongs to the Culture of Life? Do you agree that something that is unholy belongs to the Culture of Death?

Those are some questions that I have for you. Thank you.

Now, to answer one of your questions...

Pope Saint John Paul II, in his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, employed the term "Culture of Life" (I believe 11 times).

Pope Saint John Paul II declared that "...we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the "culture of death" and the "culture of life"."

Therefore, Pope Saint John Paul II has taught us that the "Culture of Life" consists of that which is good. Conversely, the Culture of Death consists of that which is evil.

Pope Saint John Paul II continued that "for us too Moses' invitation rings out loud and clear: "See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil.... I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live".

"This invitation is very appropriate for us who are called day by day to the duty of choosing between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death"."

Therefore, we have from Pope Saint John Paul II the meanings of the terms in question.

His Holiness Pope Francis several times this year has characterized same-sex "marriage" as evil. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he characterized same-sex "marriage" as from "the father of lies."

Pope Francis denounced same-sex "marriage" earlier this year when he warned that the "family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life."

"These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces, which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation."

His Holiness Pope Francis has portrayed same-sex "marriage" as something that is violent and vicious as said unions "disfigure" that which is holy.

The Magisterium of the Church has declared that marriage consists of a union between a man and woman only. The notion that persons of the same sex may marry each other is evil, according to the Catholic Church.

Pope Saint John Paul II declared that the Culture of Death consists of that which is evil.

Therefore, Sodomite "marriage," homosexual "marriage," gay "marriage," or same-sex "marriage," whatever term one may employ, "disfigures" and opposes "God's plan for creation."

Such a "marriage" belongs to the realm of the Culture of Death. That is why we must attempt to convince our brothers and sisters who occupy that realm to attach themselves to the Culture of Life.

As Pope Francis declared during his homily at the opening of the Synod, "error and evil must always be condemned and opposed,"


Mark Thomas