Showdown at the Lyon Cathedral

Prepare to be disgusted and then edified.

This from LifeSite with my emphases and comments:

Catholics Defend French Cathedral de Lyon During Homosexual "Kiss-In"

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

LYONS, June 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Approximately 200 young Catholics came to the defense of the Cathedral of Lyons, France, during a "kiss-in" protest held by homosexuals in front of the building last month.

The homosexuals reportedly came on the eve of the "World Day Against Homophobia" in May to kiss each other in front of the cathedral, [vile] presumably in protest against the Catholic Church’s 2,000-year-old condemnation of homosexual sex acts[I believe the condemnation is in the Old Testament as well.  It is also written into our being as images of God.]

In a video recently released by ACI Prensa, [Included at the bottom of this post.] the counter-protesters can be seen forming a line several layers deep in front of the cathedral, holding up crucifixes, the flag of Vatican City, and a large banner stating "No More Catholophobia." [OORAH!] They chanted slogans such as "Saint Jean (the Cathedral) is ours!" and "Europe, Youth, Christianity!" [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

In video recordings of the event the homosexual demonstrators are seen jeering, blaspheming, and insulting the Catholics, while the Catholic counter-demonstrators are seen kneeling, praying, and singing hymns. [Right on schedule.]

The homosexualist protesters were eventually dispersed by police as they lacked permission for the demonstration. Some of the Catholics were also arrested by police.

However, according to ACI Prensa, the counter-demonstrators rejoiced that the "kiss-in" had not gone ahead as scheduled.

The May "kiss-in" followed a similar event scheduled in February for Valentine’s Day in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris[vile] The "kiss-in" was moved away from the cathedral when homosexualist demonstrators were met by a large group of young Catholics, chanting "habemus papam!" (we have a pope!). [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

 

WDTPRS compliments the young French Catholics.

I wonder how many of them attend the TLM.  That would be interesting to know.

I have a priest friend in Lyon.  Perhaps he might know something.

If any of you have news, send word to WDTPRS.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j3jc-qPo3U]

 

Technorati Tags:

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Showdown at the Lyon Cathedral

  1. doanli says:

    Good for the YOUNG French Catholics!

    Maybe there is hope for Europe after all.

  2. Dr. Eric says:

    Two things, notice how some of the homosexual protesters covered their faces? And, I now have hope that the spirit of Charles Martel has not entirely vanished from the French people.

  3. wchoag says:

    From what I have heard, a significant portion of the young Catholics are affiliated with the SSPX.

  4. DBuote says:

    AMEN!

  5. Virgil says:

    Not sure what all the fuss is about. There is no prohibition to kissing in Scripture, or in cannon law, or in Church teaching. “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” Goes a long way. And quite chaste. [B as in B. S as in S.]

    There is, however, prohibition against unjust discrimination against gay and lesbian people in the Catechism. Seems to me that a kiss-in was a perfectly Catholic way to celebrate the World Day Against Homophobia.

    Not sure what the young counter-demonstrators were demonstrating against. Why should “Catholics” counter-protest against a celebration of Church teaching? [Ridiculous.]

  6. Supertradmum says:

    Virgil,

    If you look at the news agencies, you will see that many have correctly reported that the “kiss-in” was a demonstration of homosexual men and lesbians kissing in front of the Cathedral with the express intent of protesting the Church’s stand against homosexuality-a grave disorder and serious sin.

    These two demonstrations have nothing to do with love or care of those who find themselves hated. And, we do discriminate against homosexuals. They cannot be priests, deacons, and teachers in the Catholic Church or most Catholic school systems.

    Father Z is absolutely correct in his take on this obvious anti-Catholic, anti-Pope demonstration.

  7. Jack Hughes says:

    HORAH !!!! Catholic Marines in action !!!, seriously though Its good to see Catholics standing up against sodomites in Europe. Problem in the UK is that in my experiance most young Catholics are pro- homosexual ‘marriage’ and think the Church is the problem. GRRRR

  8. medievalist says:

    No wonder liberals constantly moan and freak out about the “future of the church”. The future is here and the liberals don’t like what they see, so they’d rather pretend that we’re in crisis with no future. Acutally, the future looks pretty bright.

  9. medievalist says:

    P.S. Did any one else notice the apt “TLM” in the lower left-hand corner of the first frame of the video? Perhaps God was sending a message via the TV channel’s name.

  10. Maltese says:

    Imagine the world-wide media attention that would be garnered if there were a “wine-drink-in” in front of a Mosque, or a “pork-bbq-in” in front of a synagogue; oh, the media would be all over it! As it is, this is the first I’ve heard of this in-your-face provocation.

  11. Jack Hughes says:

    medievalist

    I’m afraid the future is not here yet, in fact I doubt I’ll see the future in my lifetime

  12. Virgil says:

    I think you are correct, supertradmom. Or at least half correct. I sit here in Turin, and it is Gay Pride day. In America, the Pride celebrations are pretty much organized and sponsored by various gay civic organizations, including churches. In Europe, though, they are extremely political and anti-clerical. Here in Turin, among sponsors of today’s Pride celebration is the “Consulta torinese per la Laicità”!

    However, my main concern is the image of the Church, and the Truth of Her teaching.

    The impression of the story?
    1. The Church is PRO homophobia.
    2. The Church is ANTI gay people.

    The Truth is clear, and quite the contrary. The Truth?
    1. The Church is ANTI homophobia, if you define “homophobia” as an irrational fear of gay people and unjust discrimination. The kissers in the story should be THANKING the Church for preaching this Truth. Too bad they don’t hear it when it’s preached.
    2. The Church is PRO gay, because She numbers gay couples among those called to holiness. The kissers in the story should be THANKING the Church for welcoming them. Too bad they don’t hear the welcome.

    This is my frustration, or rather in the plural: these are my frustrations. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

    We Catholics sound like, “Gay people are evil.”

    We gay people sound like, “Catholics are evil.”

    Fact is… both sides of those barricades should be in a brotherly embrace. “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” It goes a long way. Brick by brick. [Don't you DARE.]

  13. Supertradmum says:

    I still think, Virgil,you missed the point of the demonstration. And as Solzhenitsyn once saied, “With evil, there is no detente.” And as to the story, what do you expect from the liberal media? Personally, I would not want to kiss anyone publically, much less someone outside my immediate family, but I am not Italian.

  14. diezba says:

    If you really want to get fired up, watch this video on YouTube taken by someone on the Catholic side of the demonstration that repulsed homosexual activists away from Notre Dame de Paris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERG-r7i1lT4

    The best part is the chant:

    V. Habemus—
    R. —Papam!

    And when the camera turns back toward the Cathedral, you can see that there’s a significant contingent of young, spirited Catholics pushing the homosexual activists away from the church.

  15. TJerome says:

    I applaud these wonderful young Catholics for defending the Faith and the honor of the Cathedral. I suppose some left-wing loon government types in France will sue or prosecute these brave young people for hate crimes or something. I know the Democrats and Obama in the US certainly would.

  16. Supertradmum says:

    Then we shall all end up in jail.

  17. Mr. Graves says:

    Wonderful post! It’s so encouraging to see young people standing up for their Catholic faith! Is there an emoticon more smiley than “:-)”?

    :-)

  18. JFrater says:

    I am not sure if this is the same clip that recently appeared on Rorate Caeli, but in that clip you can see the police using pepper spray and beating the Catholic protesters with clubs. Can you believe that in 21st century France, the police would beat Catholics praying outside a Cathedral? Maybe hate for the SSPX is far deeper than many of us realize.

  19. Marcin says:

    Maltese,

    a “pork-bbq-in” in front of a synagogue?

    Voilà – one was scheduled in Paris for this Friday in proximity of a Mosque, as duly reported by Fr. Z:
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/06/problem-over-paris-pork-party/

  20. TomB says:

    Yes — I can’t wait for the homo activists to take on the muslims. I’ll bet they are afraid to do that.

  21. Miseno says:

    I love the differences between two crowds. This is very encouraging. People usually speak in terms of doomsday when speaking of the state of French Catholicism. Nice to see another side.

  22. B.C.M. says:

    Je vous salut Marie…

  23. ipadre says:

    God bless these young people! They have the courage of Paul. The lines are being clearly drawn. The spiritual battle has surfaced. Soon, we will not be tolerated. Like our brothers and sister who have preceded us, we may have the grace of martyrdom. May the martyrs, saints and holy souls pray that we have the courage to live for and give our lives for Christ and His Holy Church!

  24. ray from mn says:

    It is wonderful to see good news from Europe (or anywhere) showing young Catholics, or Catholics of any age, defending our faith.

  25. I normally agree with Supertradmom in just about everything, but I have to disagree with her here.

    Virgil, I do not for a second think “you missed the point of the demonstration.” I think you are being deliberately obtuse, and in fact I think your real agenda is to undermine Catholic prohibitions against homesexual behavior and to distort what the Church really teaches about homosexuals. Your first post, slyly citing Scripture to justify the hate crime committed in front of the cathedral by the homosexuals, tells me all I need to know about you.

    In any case, way to align yourself with hate-filled, anti-Catholic bigots. You rock!

  26. Geoffrey says:

    “Personally, I would not want to kiss anyone publically, much less someone outside my immediate family, but I am not Italian.”

    Ouch! I hope that isn’t veiled ethnic bigotry! I am part Italian!

  27. Traductora says:

    I spend time in Spain, where we kiss anybody of either sex not only once but twice every time we meet or are introduced. I doubt that this was the kind of kiss they were exchanging, however…and I’m glad we were spared pictures.

  28. Servant of the Liturgy says:

    Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war…

    Anyway, I echo the good Fr.’s sentiments: positively vile.
    Pray for all of them.

    As a final note, I love when there are groups defending the Church who identify themselves under the office and auspices of the pope…”chanting ‘habemus papam’” and singing “God Save the Pope” are all really cool, and particulary unique ways of defending Holy Mother Church.

  29. Maltese says:

    Marcin-shoot, somehow I missed Fr. Z’s post on the pork party which might offend Muslimss, infra.

    I have friends who are vegetarians, and that fact hinders me not one iota in having a great BBQ (where they are invited, btw)

    When in Rome.

    I don’t mind Muslims, but my hair is raised when they throw their weight around and try to impose their weirdo values on me. Now, I may be a very reasonable man up to that point, but once they start saying there should also be “sharia” law alongside english common law (still used by the UK and the USA) I’m going to politely say: no thanks, and take our system or leave it!

    If they decide not to accept our system, I say we politely deport them back to whence they came…

  30. JP Borberg says:

    Virgil, you are wrong. The Church does not call gay COULPES to holiness, she calls gay INDIVIDULES to holiness. Part of any gay individual being holy is them not being part of a gay couple (in the usual use of ‘couple’ in this context), as the Church quite explicitly and consistently calls gay couples unholy.

    In case you genuinely don’t understand, I’ll put it in small, logical steps for you. It’s been made fairly clear we are to love the sinner but hate the sin. First up, sin is the opposite of holiness. Next, homosexual actions are gravely sinful. Therefore for an individual to be in a homosexual relationship (with its implied actions) is a grave sin. That is, to be part of a homosexual couple is a grave sin. That is, homosexual couples, considered as a social unit, are gravely sinful. Therefore homosexual couples CONNOT be called to holiness, as ‘homosexual couples’ are intrinsically unholy.

    However, homosexual individuals ARE called to holiness. Before they can begin to achieve this, they must leave the state of grave sin, which means they must cease being part of a homosexual couple.

    If we truly love homosexual individuals, we must want them to understand this, so confusing the issues by speaking and acting in a way that suggest ‘homosexual couples’ (and by association, homosexual actions, such as the kissing in this protest) can somehow be holy is not loving homosexual individuals. It is, in fact, the opposite, as even appearing to condone someone’s sinful actions is condoning their potential damnation. And that’s hardly loving, is it?

  31. TonyLayne says:

    @Virgil: I’ll simply content myself with saying that I doubt the kind of kissing the activists were planning would be considered “holy” even if performed by heterosexual couples.

  32. jesusthroughmary says:

    JP –

    You beat me to it. You’re exactly on point, and I have nothing to add to your statement.

    Virgil seems to be genuinely confused. From his previous posts, it seems he himself is a homosexual trying to reconcile two irreconcilable worldviews because he is unwilling to renounce either. I pray that he comes to realize that the Church’s teaching is the only loving one, the only realistic one, and the only way to true freedom for homosexuals (as individuals, not as couples).

  33. Virgil says:

    Sorry to prompt Father Z’s red fire! I guess I was being a bit obtuse, and thereby my comments weren’t as direct as they should be. Let me try again, step by step.

    A. The World Day Against Homophobia was the cause for the demonstration.

    B. Homophobia is bad. This is the judgment of the protesters, and also the teaching of the Church. (According to the Catechism, gay people “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”)

    C. The protesters and the Church agree.

    This is why I ask what the fuss is about. We agree! For heaven’s sake, work together! Fight homophobia! Greet one another with a holy kiss, with bread and salt, but not with jeers and spitting!

    Why did the protesters single out the Church? Because they (and many gay people, in fact) mistakenly believe that the Church hates them.

    Why did the counter-protesters object to the kissing? Because they (and many Catholics, in fact) mistakenly believe that the Church calls them to object.

    And yes, jesusthroughmary, I am a Catholic gay trad.

    But my confusion is not because I try to reconcile “Catholic trad” and “gay” in my own life. You say it correctly – it’s about worldviews. Neither of these worldviews, as portrayed in the media, can be reconciled with Truth.

    When gay people see only hatred and evil coming from the Church, they are wrong.

    When Catholics, especially trads, see only perversion coming from gay people, they are wrong.

  34. Dear Virgil,

    It strikes me that you are missing a fundamental distinction: precisely, that between homosexuality and gay[ness] (if you will).

    The former, i.e. homosexuality in its strict sense, is a condition in which or under which one is the subject of disordered sexual desire.

    The Church calls people with this disorder to continence. She offers God’s grace to help with the brunt of this cross, and God’s mercy when persons have fallen and repented.

    Gay[ness], on the other hand, is a lifestyle choice – and the gay lifestyle is destructive of the soul and corrosive of society (though I should add that the gay lifestyle – or something like it – has never been the cause of civilizational collapse; usually, “immorality” has become prevalent in societies already in an advanced state of civilizational pathology).

    The Church condemns every form of unjust discrimination against homosexuals – and rightly so.

    The gay protestors at the Lyon cathedral, however, were not really there to protest “homophobia” in any meaningful or critically useful sense. They were there to advance a political agenda that would see the Christian order of society destroyed and replaced by a strangely modified form of secular humanism with the gay lifestyle (fundamentally sterile and hedonistic at its core) at or near the center.

    I am a real, “live and let live” sort of fellow, more than willing to forego a question if it means I will not have to listen to a lie: but sin is sin, and to organize society around sinful indulgence of disorder is a recipe for disaster.

    Best,
    C.

  35. JP Borberg says:

    Virgil, I doubt you are really this naive, but I’m on holiday, so I’ll play along.

    There is kissing, and there is kissing. I may kiss my friend in the street in a chaste and holy manner. In my bedroom, I may kiss my wife in a very different way that is also chaste and holy. But if I were to kiss my friend in the street the way I kissed my wife in the bedroom, it would be neither chaste nor holy.

    Do you really think that the homosexuals in front of the Cathedral were intending to kiss each other in a chaste and holy manner? Bear in mind it would hardly be a ‘kiss in’ if that’s all they did. And beyond that, a ‘holy kiss’ cannot be a gay pride thing, as any kiss that is homosexual is sinful. Yes, two men can kiss in a way that is not sinful, but such kissing is not even sexual, much less homosexual.

    You may have an interesting point as to whether or not this was bad PR or a missed teaching moment, but my main concern is that you keep pretending that a homosexual ‘kiss in’ is a holy thing that Catholics should be okay with. You either do not understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, or you are deliberately distorting it. If the former, stop protesting and learn. If the latter, give up and go find somewhere else to troll. Your audience here will not be that easily fooled.

  36. Virgil says:

    Thanks, Chris. Thanks, JP. As usual your comments here are pretty level-headed. And as usual, I agree pretty much with you. I understand how my initial posts were a bit provocative, but I’m not trying to fool anyone, nor am I naive to the real emotion on both sides of the barricade in the video. Homophobia is evil. That is the teaching of the Church. Both sides of the barricade should be ashamed.

    But let me dwell for a moment on the missed opportunity, because that’s the cause of the anger that I found myself confessing this morning before mass. It’s also the cause of the BRICK BY BRICK comment that startled Father Z.

    Welcoming more gay folk to become more active in the Church is important. And I believe that it is part of the “Marshall Plan”, as Father Z calls it. Go to any EF mass, or Reform of the Reform parish, and you will find a number of gay men at the backbone of this liturgical excellence.

    I felt very proud this morning after mass at my EF chapel here in Turin. Assisting at mass was a contingent of new faces, and I overheard them talking in the piazzetta that they were in town for Gay Pride, which was this weekend. Of course the gay guys seek out the EF mass! Welcome!

    Which brings me to another bit from the same section of the Catechism (2357-2359). It answers for me the question, “Why are there always so many gay men at mass?” Answer from the Church, “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross.” AMEN!

    How would life in Lyon be different if those folks, kissing against homophobia, knew that they were welcome inside that Cathedral?

    How would the liturgical life of that Cathedral be different, if those folks were inside the building and not outside?

    How much faster would the “Marshall Plan” succeed if more gay people heard the call? Or if more bishops and priests issued the call?

  37. Virgil,

    Of course they are welcome to pray inside the cathedral.

    They are not within the bounds of civil behavior, when they suck face outside the cathedral.

    Best,
    C.

  38. Mike says:

    “Of course the gay guys seek out the EF mass! Welcome!”

    Virgil: I suggest you check out docs from the CDF on this issue. Self-identifying as “gay” is a problem…and not just for potential seminarians!

    Litugical life would be not different–perhaps. What would be different is there would be more people inside who have set up a wall within themselves, blocking off the call to repentance…and yes, adulterers, liars, thieves, drunkards, etc. are also potentially in the same shape.

    Sincerity here means a firm commitment to change, to repent, NOT to affirm my identity with what God’s law has told me is beneath my dignity and can ultimately lead me to eternal death.

  39. JP Borberg says:

    Ok Virgil. Homosexuals, like sinners of all stripes, are welcome in the Church. Provided they acknowledge their sin and repent, just like the rest of us. You are yet to mention this important prerequisite.

    And yes, if homosexuals at large don’t know all this they need to be taught. Why there is this misunderstanding among them and how we are to go about rectifying it is an interesting question, and one more than worthy of discussion.

    And yes, how to remove real homophobia from the Church without compromising or appearing to compromise our moral stand is also an interesting topic.

    However, you said above that homosexual couples are called to holiness, and that homosexual acts such as those taking place outside the Cathedral were holy. Both of these statements of yours are false. This is important, because to be so profoundly wrong on basics facts of what is holy and what is not is necessarily a huge impediment if you are trying to help others to be holy.

    Yet, having been called on these points, you seem pretty insistent in NOT acknowledging them. This throws your sincerity into doubt, makes discussion impossible, and provokes anger in those you are jerking around. So, be honest with yourself and us. Do you really believe that:

    1/. The Church teaches that homosexual individuals involved in homosexual relationships (ie, ‘homosexual couples’) can be holy?
    2/. The Church teaches that homosexual acts, such as homosexual kissing (such as would be performed in a gay rights ‘kiss in’), are holy?

    If this is what you truly believe, stand up and say so. If you have changed your mind, say so. If you said something you didn’t actually mean, say so. Whatever your position, you said something that’s false. You need to stop fudging and speak to that issue if you want people to take you as more than a trolling liar.

  40. Dear Virgil,

    For the record, I agree with everything JP Borberg said, except the very last thing he said.

    I do not take you as a trolling liar.

    I do get the sense that you are working out of a broken anthropology.

    Would you care to address the issue I raised regarding the distinction you are not making?

    Best,
    C.

  41. albizzi says:

    Oddly enough, the custom of kissing in France are different according to the regions.
    30 years ago man kissing a woman whose he wasn’t a relative was rare enough.
    Then I could see this custom spreading in the south of France, mainly among colleagues in the offices, and more recently after only staying together fore a few hours (during a dinner or a party for example). Being a man, I found that not so unpleasant, moreover if the woman is nice.
    Now the custom is beginning (always in the south) of men kissing men, not in a sinful way of gay people, but I find myself very reluctant because:
    1/ This looks ambiguous, too familiar, and a bit disgusting (I kiss my father, my brothers, some close friends, and that’s all).
    2/ Being obliged by my business to travel in muslim countries of northern Africa (mainly in Algeria), I found that this custom (men kissing men) is widespread while it is STRICTLY forbidden to kiss any woman who isn’t a very close relative.
    The muslim countries are very hypocrital societies, where homosexuality is very harshly punished through “bastonnade” and even death penalty, while it is rampant underground since the lack of available women due to the widespread polygamy: It is easy to understand that
    when a man has 4 wives at home, he deprives at least 3 other men of having at
    least one . Therefore a number of men have sexual intercourses with other men although they aren’t really gay.

  42. Andrew says:

    We are either male or female. There is no other definition. If anyone says “I am a gay man” he is not making a statement about his own identity, because he is a “male” no different than any other male.
    The error in logic persued by Virgil rests in this, that he thinks the Church, who welcomes all men (male and female) should specifically embrace “gay men” as a separate category of humans, as if that was some unique additional gender. Virgil! You are a man. A male! Your personal phantasies (don’t we all have more than we might wish for?) is not the Church’s business, or the government’s business, or the society’s business. You figure out how you want to live, and nature is a good guide for all of us. (Biology 101 anyone?) You have your rights as a male member of society: you don’t need any additional special treatment. If I was to meet you and shake hands with you I would only see a male human being. What your personal preferences might be does not change your identity and it certainly does not require any special recognition. In fact, if anyone entertains some homosexual tendencies, I prefer not to be informed. If some men choose to come to a public place to advertise their perversion, publicly, and demand acceptance, then I am offended. And I will seek to express my displeasure and profound disapproval.

  43. JP Borberg says:

    Chris, that’s a good point. While I stand by everything else I’ve said, that last bit was out of line.

    As I obviously cannot maintain charity in this discussion, I will apologise and withdraw.

    Sorry for the harshness.

    Goodnight.

  44. robtbrown says:

    The practice in some cultures of men embracing or kissing a male friend or relative as a greeting has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.

    And when I kiss my 85 year old mother, that also has nothing to do with sexuality.

  45. Gail F says:

    The fact that men kissing other men in greeting is common in some countries doesn’t have anything to do with the kind of kissing that would have gone on at this event. Anyone who really believes that a little “peck” or an “air kiss” would have happened here has his head in the sand.

    Andrew: I like the way you put that last comment. So true. We are men and women, and someone’s being “gay” does not make him or her a different, additional gender. The “GLBT” people earnestly believe, or say they do, that these are different genders. It’s time for some common sense.

  46. Virgil says:

    Sure, Chris, I can clarify the distinction you address, and also the two questions that JP asks about it.

    1. Can gay couples be holy? The Church teaches YES. Again, I quote from Catechism 2357-2359.

    “by the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

    “Disinterested friendship” is the phrase Victorians used to describe Greek gay couples, who loved each other selflessly. I guess that “disinterested” had a different ring in Victorian times! It is also a poor English translation of “amicitiae gratuitae auxilio” (“the gracious friendship of a helpmate”).

    In short, gay couples ehlp each other attain holiness, like prayer and sacraments etc.

    2. What sexual (or pseudo-sexual or vaguely sexual) acts are prohibited to Christians? Is kissing a no-no?

    Monty Python said it best. “Every sperm is sacred.” John Paul II said it better in the Theology of the Body, which I shant quote, as the opus really needs to be read in full.

    But the gist of Catholic moral theology on sex is that there is only one form of permissible climax: husband and wife, in missionary position, without any barrier. The rules of sex are the same for gay people as they are for strait people. They are very tough. Most gay couples fail. Most strait couples fail.

    But kissing is not climaxing. Nor should it be a near occasion of sin.

    I do, however, object to it when it is done in public. I see it daily on the streets of Italy, boys and girls in liplocks, and it grosses me out. So, yes, I have a problem with boys and boys in liplocks in public in front of a Cathedral.

    3. Why use the word “gay” rather than “homosexual?”

    For me, it’s part semantics and part personal taste.

    Church documents use both, and use them pretty much interchangably. (And Lifesite News, the source of Fr Z’s original post has a peculiar habit of using the word “homosexualist”, which sometimes brings a chuckle.)

    “Homosexual” has a huge connotation of the conjugal act. The “homo” part is 4 letters, to teh “sexual” part’s 6 letters. It’s been a very long time since I’ve been involved in such conjugation, so I find it hard to think of myself as “homosexual.”

    On the other hand, I am quite “gay.” I rejoice in the rich cultural heritage. I thank God for the gift of the graced friendship of my helpmate. I value the grace that other gay men and lesbians bring to my life, and to the life of the Church.

    4. How best to fight homophobia in the Church?

    Relentless visibility to the fact that we are there in the pews, singing in the scholas, sending our kids to Catholic schools, loving our Church, and struggling to live lives that are pleasing to God.

  47. TJerome says:

    Virgil, let’s cut to the chase. Are you suggesting anal and oral sex between men is OK with the Catholic Church? I suggest to you very strongly that this group of gay protestors at Lyon will accept nothing less than the Church’s approbation for these practices. They’re not asking for recognition of a platonic relationship. The Church has already said that’s fine.

  48. Virgil,

    The articles, 2357-2359, to which you refer, do not discuss homosexual couples. They discuss homosexual persons.

    Also, your personal preference of the term, “gay”, as opposed to “homosexual”, is frankly very confused. Please revisit my earlier remarks, and consider whether what you say even makes sense, if what I say there is objectively correct.

    Again, while I do not doubt your good faith, it strikes me that you are missing a fundamental point: the lifestyle built around and celebratory of the objectively disordered desire for sexual congress with a member of the same sex, i.e., the gay lifestyle, is structurally incompatible with Christian living.

    Finally, there is no homophobia in the Church.

    There are Christians who are homophobes, and the Church condemns their homophobia.

    To recognize sin for what it is, to call a disordered lifestyle by name, to safeguard against exposure to the deleterious manifestations of such a lifestyle: none of these is homophobic; they are all and each one prudence.

    Best,

    C.

  49. Tim says:

    It seems to be there are far worse things in the world today than two people kissing, regardless of their sex. Let young Catholics take a stand against the indiscrimate destruction of God’s creation (cf. Gulf of Mexico) or the slaughter of individuals (cf. Kirghizstan), etc. etc.

  50. robtbrown says:

    2. What sexual (or pseudo-sexual or vaguely sexual) acts are prohibited to Christians? Is kissing a no-no?

    Monty Python said it best. “Every sperm is sacred.” John Paul II said it better in the Theology of the Body, which I shant quote, as the opus really needs to be read in full.

    But the gist of Catholic moral theology on sex is that there is only one form of permissible climax: husband and wife, in missionary position, without any barrier. The rules of sex are the same for gay people as they are for strait people. They are very tough. Most gay couples fail. Most strait couples fail.

    But kissing is not climaxing. Nor should it be a near occasion of sin.

    That is a dishonest distortion of Catholic teaching and the natural law.

    The kissing done by married couples is appropriate because it is a prelude (even indirect) to the conjugal act. The kissing done by homosexuals is morally depraved because it is not. It is little else than a parody of God’s plan for human sexuality.

    BTW, it is not morally permissible for a adulterous couple to engage in sexual or romantic acts even if they don’t produce orgasm.

    No one here is buying your nonsense. Are you?

    I do, however, object to it when it is done in public. I see it daily on the streets of Italy, boys and girls in liplocks, and it grosses me out. So, yes, I have a problem with boys and boys in liplocks in public in front of a Cathedral.
    Comment by Virgil

    That just confirms what is often said, that homosexuals are puritan about heterosexual romance.

  51. elmo says:

    Tim: We humans are capable of doing two things at once; decrying both the destruction of our natural habitat by corporate and political greed and attempts to force the Church to accept homosexuality are no more difficult than walking and chewing gum at the same time. However, since WDTPRS is a Catholic blog it make sense to discuss things that happen within the context of the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean that nobody cares about the oil spill; just that discussion of such is (at this point) outside the scope of this blog.

  52. TJerome says:

    Tim, the Gulf of Mexico disaster is an accident. Homosexual kissing is not. So what’s your point?

  53. Athelstan says:

    Hello Elmo,

    We humans are capable of doing two things at once; decrying both the destruction of our natural habitat by corporate and political greed and attempts to force the Church to accept homosexuality are no more difficult than walking and chewing gum at the same time.

    Precisely.

    The Church is indeed capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

  54. Jack Hughes says:

    Like our brothers and sister who have preceded us, we may have the grace of martyrdom. May the martyrs, saints and holy souls pray that we have the courage to live for and give our lives for Christ and His Holy Church! – Ipadre

    May St. Philomena, St. Lucy, St. Anges, St. Robert Southwell, St. Edmund Campion St. Swithun Wells and the Martyrs of Comppiegne be an example to us all.

    These Beloved Servents and Handmaids of Christ are Alive; M. Garat- l Aine, Elizibeth the 1st, Henry the VIII, Rospierre and Diocletian are dead.

  55. robtbrown says:

    Tim: We humans are capable of doing two things at once; decrying both the destruction of our natural habitat by corporate and political greed
    Comment by elmo

    Do you travel everywhere by bicycle?

    Or do you every travel by car, bus, train, or plane? Have you ever bought anything plastic? If so, then that “corporate and political greed” is simply supplying the product that your life demands.

  56. Supertradmum says:

    Geoffrey,

    Virgil is in Turin, so the Italian reference was for his location, as one sees kissing in public in Italy. I have yet to see kissing in public in Luxembourg, but then, someone may have. There are different national traits, to which to mention those, is not bigotry. When I visit my Mexican friends, we embrace, and when I visit my British friends, we shake hands or just say hello. My Luxembourgian extended family does not hug or kiss, except for Grandmas and Grandpas. When in Turin, do as the Turinians do, was my little point. And not about homosexual kissing, or even any type of kissing which is not for public view…Of course, the news was not about innocent kissing of Grandma’s cheek.

  57. holeksa says:

    The people in pink, black, wearing masks and up side down crosses ect… are anarchists. They where invited this time by the fags for “back up”.

    Here is another video some of the french youth in action at Notre Dame.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-ga2jnzCA

  58. Supertradmum says:

    “Fag” is a cigarette in England. I did not know that it was a rude term for homosexuals until I was at a dinner at Notre Dame with friends from England and America, surrounded by football players. My smoker English priest friend asked my American smoker male friend,”Do you have any fags?” Oh my goodness, almost the entire football team stared him down. Someone then explained the American slang meaning. holeska, I do believe you should not use the term, just as we do not use “Chink” or “wetback”, etc.

  59. Virgil says:

    Oh, it’s difficult. This entire thread is evidence of the difficulty.

    Q. What do gay and lesbian Catholics ask of the Church?

    A. Guidance in the path to holiness.

    The Church is giving mixed messages.

    The Catechism, the liturgy, Scripture, various magisterial documents point in that direction. They tell me clearly how to be holy, and I have done my best to live that way.

    But so much of this thread, like the counter-protesters in the video, just try to say, “GO AWAY!” Either that, or they want to talk about anal sex.

    No wonder the protesters in Lyon believe the Church has a problem with homophobia. Chris is SPOT ON. The Church is not homophobic, but there are a lot of Christians who are.

    As for me, I and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  60. Supertradmum says:

    Virgil,

    I hope this helps. If a person has homosexual or lesbian tendencies, that does not make them gay. If one chooses a gay lifestyle, that is a problem. All of us have tendencies to sin. All of us are called to holiness. The call to holiness is the narrow gate of the Scriptures. Lay single men and women, divorced Catholics, or widows and widowers are called to celibacy. You are called to celibacy, which is a way to holiness. Of course, it is hard, but we have the beautiful Mass and the sacraments to help us.

    Avoid temptation, pray, get an excellent spiritual director, surround yourself with holy friends and keep seeking Christ. If you seek Him, you will find Him, as He loves you and all of us individually.

  61. Jack Hughes says:

    @Virgil

    The counter-protesters arn’t saying GO AWAY, they are protsting at a disgusting attempt by people to impose their disodered desires on Holy Mother Church.

    I truely sympathise with anyone who suffers from this heavey cross and is trying to live a life of chastity (as it appears you are), I do not sympathise with the protestors who defy Church teaching and flaunt their aberant lifestyle and DEMAND that the Church change its teachings to conform to them.

    From what I can see in the video (my french is EXTREMELY rusty) I believe that the counter protesters are merely defending the defined teachings of Holy Mother Church and standing up for her.

  62. elmo says:

    RobtBrown and Althesian: I’ll let TJerome’s remark on this issue speak for me and avoid the rabbit hole.

    Back to the subject at hand: It seems that there is some confusion on this topic as described on this thread. Some of it appears to be genuine, and others seem to be trying to make it confusing.

    I believe as an unmarried woman I may be able to add different perspective. Homosexual coupling is not a path to holiness according to the Church. Unmarried heterosexual coupling is also not a path to holiness. If I and a few hundred of my fellow singles decided to have a heterosexual “kiss-in” demonstrating our disapproval of the Catholic Church’s teachings on chastity, I would expect there to be trouble. And if I showed up on this thread defending this demonstration by saying that as a single Catholic with a profound and sincere desire and affection for the opposite sex I believe that the Church should be responding to my fellow singles’ perverse behavior with the holy kiss of peace, I should be considered nuts.

    There are many heterosexuals who will never marry due to various reasons. We are still called to obedience to the teachings of the Church. If I fall in love with a man and express it sexually (not even necessarily genitally), I sin. I know when I am sinning. I don’t need a rule book to tell me how far I may go before whatever I do is a sin. All it takes is a single glance. A passing thought. Having a spiritual director is a big help. One told me he thought I was spending too much time alone with a particular man and I later realized he was right. First, I obeyed the priest not understanding, and then later I understood why he discerned I was about to fall into a trap that I couldn’t see at the time. This is why obedience is fundamental to living a holy life.

    There is no way of reconciling a “gay” identity with obedience to the magisterium. To be “gay” is to put one’s own same-sex affections and desires above the teachings of the Church. It’s saying: I want this identity more than I want to be holy. It’s given into the idea that the Church wants us to be unhappy when what the Church wants for each of us is to be holy. Today’s gospel says it perfectly: “Then to all he said, ‘If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross every day and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake, that man will save it.’” Virgil, you and I both have a cross concerning our affections for men. Let us take up this cross for the sake of the gospel. And let us pray for each other.

  63. Hoanyeon says:

    Virgil is a satirist, a poor one at that.

  64. holeksa says:

    Here is the video before there most recent one.
    The Catholics pushed them out of the square in front of the Church.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERG-r7i1lT4

    These two vids are the non-heteronormativity point of view.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K1OdueVxkc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5rFxEFkLg

    Pax Vobis !

  65. TJerome says:

    I’m waiting with baited breath for Virgil to answer my direct and pointed question. If he can’t, I guess I know where he’s coming from.

    Elmo nailed it.

  66. Virgil,

    I am glad you find what I said about the Church not being homophobic to be SPOT ON.

    I was responding to your #4:

    4. How best to fight homophobia in the Church?

    Relentless visibility to the fact that we are there in the pews, singing in the scholas, sending our kids to Catholic schools, loving our Church, and struggling to live lives that are pleasing to God.

    So, you will forgive me if I am confused.

    Are you retracting the entire #4?

    Are you retracting your formulation of the issue, only?

    If the latter, then you must tell us what you want from the Church/Christians.

    It sounds like you want complete acceptace of “visibly gay” people, which in turn sounds like a desire for acceptance of the gay lifestyle, and people in it, along with the assumption that such people are chaste in the very minimal sense that they are not misusing their genitalia.

    As it should be clear from my remarks, I reject the substance of such a desire and of such a vision for the Church, out of hand.

    Again, Virgil: please clarify.

    C.

  67. TonyLayne says:

    From what I can see, the GLBTQ argument seems to stem from an adolescent view that can be summed up as: “If you love us, you’ll accept what we do.” The only sensible parental (Catholic) response is, “It’s precisely because we love you that we don’t accept what you do.” This generally provokes a tantrum: “You don’t really love us! You’re just full of hate! Hate, hate, HATE!” And when the parent-figures try to explain themselves, we get the equivalent of sticking fingers in the ears and yelling, “La-la-la-la! I’m not listening! Nobody’s talking! La-la-la-la!”

    Virgil, you’ve cited CCC 2357-2359 a couple of times. The you must know that § 2357 states: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’(CDF Persona humana 8). 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.” You must also know that § 2359 declares baldly, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Your dubious, wink-wink-nudge-nudge citation of the Victorian usage of “disinterested friendship” (funny, but I seem to recall the Victorian period ended more than ninety years prior to the release of the Catechism) only accentuates your out-of-context fallacy. It reminds me very much of Kate Childs Graham of what Fr. Z is pleased to call the National Catholic Fishwrap, who used § 1776 to justify not only her lesbian partnership but also her support of abortion rights. At the very least, it’s intellectually dishonest.

    The message the Church is giving isn’t mixed in the least. Rather, you’re trying to be holy on your own terms, which to be fair isn’t a trait limited solely to gay people. But the terms of sanctification aren’t negotiable. We have to pick up our crosses, not pretend that they’re not there.

  68. robtbrown says:

    RobtBrown and Althesian: I’ll let TJerome’s remark on this issue speak for me and avoid the rabbit hole.

    I was merely responding to your (and Tims’s) comments.

  69. robtbrown says:

    BTW, Tim’s comments are a good example of what the pope has noted as the contemporary emphasis on social morality but with the de-emphasis on personal morality (i.e., sexuality).

  70. robtbrown says:

    Virgil,

    It is true that the Church is clear on the path to holiness–it is the perfection of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Faith is an act of assent to First Truth, thus an act of the intellect. Embracing concepts that soil the intellect, such as giving disordered and ordered affections equal moral status, obviously impede the growth of Faith. Thus, they turn the soul away from the path to holiness.

    BTW, I consider homophobia a non-word, a tricked-up attempt to manipulate via guilt.

  71. robtbrown,

    The gay activists at the Lyon cathedral were doubtless using the cover of a protest against “homophobia” to insult the Church and show contempt for both morality and civility.

    I think, however, that “homophobia” is a legitimate, even if an overused and much-misapplied, term.

    Allow me now to add to your remarks regarding the, “[embrace of] concepts that soil the intellect, such as giving disordered and ordered affections equal moral status.”

    I am reminded of a notion that profoundly influenced St. Bonaventure, one rooted in what I take to be the correct reading of Plato’s symposium: the need for order in the soul, in order that the soul complete its erotic ascent to the embrace of divine beauty, truth and goodness.

    The point is that eros is not an irrational force, even though in our present darkened (soiled and broken) condition, we often seem led by it to unreason.

    Giving in to disordered desire perpetuates and strengthens the desire itself (as appetite increases when it is indulged), so that giving in to, e.g. homosexual desire – whether specifically to a deformed parody of coitus, or more broadly, to “cultural” manifestations of the disorder – is a real impediment to eros.

    Best,
    C.

  72. TJerome says:

    No response from Virgil yet on my direct question.

    “Virgil, let’s cut to the chase. Are you suggesting anal and oral sex between men is OK with the Catholic Church? I suggest to you very strongly that this group of gay protestors at Lyon will accept nothing less than the Church’s approbation for these practices. They’re not asking for recognition of a platonic relationship. The Church has already said that’s fine.”

    Now I am very curious as to why Virgil isn’t responding. Does he believe these practices are licit?

  73. robtbrown says:

    I think, however, that “homophobia” is a legitimate, even if an overused and much-misapplied, term.

    Completely disagree. It is a PR term, designed to mitigate opposition to homosexuality.

    Allow me now to add to your remarks regarding the, “[embrace of] concepts that soil the intellect, such as giving disordered and ordered affections equal moral status.”
    I am reminded of a notion that profoundly influenced St. Bonaventure, one rooted in what I take to be the correct reading of Plato’s symposium: the need for order in the soul, in order that the soul complete its erotic ascent to the embrace of divine beauty, truth and goodness.
    The point is that eros is not an irrational force, even though in our present darkened (soiled and broken) condition, we often seem led by it to unreason.
    Giving in to disordered desire perpetuates and strengthens the desire itself (as appetite increases when it is indulged), so that giving in to, e.g. homosexual desire – whether specifically to a deformed parody of coitus, or more broadly, to “cultural” manifestations of the disorder – is a real impediment to eros.
    Comment by Chris Altieri —

    Agree, but my point referred only to the intellect and the act of Faith. I was not addressing the effects of acts of disordered appetites but only the argument that Virgil was making.

    Acts of disordered appetites of course denigrate Charity.

  74. robtbrown,

    I am not sure how far we can take the discussion of the legitimacy of homophobia as a term, without at least running the risk of rabbit-holing the thread.

    On the grounds that the gay activists claimed to be protesting against homophobia, then what homophobia is, would be reasonably close to the original of the thread – but we agree, at least, that the activists were using the cover of a protest against homophobia to insult the Church and show contempt for both morality and civility (as I said above).

    So, why do we not agree to disagree, or to carry on the discussion in another forum, say, via e-mail?

    craltieri@yahoo.com

    With regard to the part of my last, with which you agree: I know you were only referring to the intellect and the act of Faith. It strikes me that the problem is actually more broadly anthropological.

    That would be a rabbit hole, indeed, albeit a far more interesting and edifying one.

    Best,
    C.

  75. Also, and more generally, I get the sense that Virgil is working out of an anthropology very similar to, and perhaps grounded in, the same anthropology that motivates Eve Tushnet’s work.

    I think that Eve is in good faith, but I also think her anthropology is gravely flawed, and frankly dangerous.

    Best,
    C.

    for reference: http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/

  76. TJerome says:

    Virgil, or Virgil, where are you?

  77. Ed the Roman says:

    Umm, I can say nothing useful to Eve’s anthropology, since I don’t really know what hers is, and I’m not an anthropologist.

    But Virgil is waffling in order to not come out and either clearly or reject the teaching of the Church on same-sex activity. Eve does not do that at all.

    I remember previous posts by Virgil well enough that I don’t have any doubt that if, as I assume, the kissing in Lyons was of the “get a room” variety, he still approves of it.

    And the idea that the Church teaches the missionary position, specifically, made for a good laugh.

  78. TJerome says:

    I think Virgil ran back into the closet.

  79. catholicmidwest says:

    [B as in B. S as in S.]

    Bravo, Fr. Z.

  80. Patrick J. says:

    I think Virgil ran back into the closet.
    Comment by TJerome — 22 June 2010 @ 11:04 am

    Could this be “strike three.”

  81. New Sister says:

    Virgil – same-sex attraction is not an immutable trait. There is reparative therapy for it (although the APA is seeking to make this professionally unethical…), which can boast ~ a 50% success rate.

    Per an African-American Baptist preacher, “I met a lot of people who used to be gay, but ain’t met nobody who used to be black!!”

  82. robtbrown says:

    Also, and more generally, I get the sense that Virgil is working out of an anthropology very similar to, and perhaps grounded in, the same anthropology that motivates Eve Tushnet’s work.

    I think that Eve is in good faith, but I also think her anthropology is gravely flawed, and frankly dangerous.
    Best,
    C.

    You’re probably right about the anthropology, but maybe you’re giving them too much credit. They seem more interested in explaining away certain behaviors than in finding the truth.

    IMHO, their comments, though sometimes decorated with complex reasons and historical references, simply reduce the moral act to intention.

  83. Virgil says:

    Ah, TJerome, Chris, and others. No, I have not disappeared. I have only rested.

    The reference to Eve Tushnet is apt. Also John Heard, if you know his work. These folks get it. Although I have a few issues with Eve’s anthropology as well.

    Fact is, there are many thousands, millions, of gay folks in the Church, and we are some of Her most ardent advocates.

    No, sex that is not open to procreation is not a good thing. It’s not good for gay folks. It’s not good for strait folks.

    The problem is the double standard.

    - Such things are bad for gay folks, ergo we should be shunned from the Church, forbidden from speaking at “Catholic” events, and denied jobs and pensions.

    - Such things are bad for strait folks, but we just won’t mention it, okay? Divorce, birth control, anal sex… Let’s not talk about it.

    We gay folks, wll a lot of us anyway, are following a righteous path, often with much suffering. We try to provide for our families. We try to steward our children.

    Why are some folks sowing hatred (call it homophobia if you like) and making life even more difficult for us?

    The Church offers those Lyonese kissers a path to holiness. But those nutty counter protesters are blocking the way.

  84. Supertradmum says:

    Dear Virgil,

    Some things are bad for straight folks, as you say and in good Catholic catechesis, such things are discussed. Many heterosexual couples who are married do not understand what is and is not appropriate even in marriage, as there has been a lacuna of information and good teaching on these subjects.

    However, two wrongs do not make a right, and the main reason for sex is still procreation, not merely mutual edification or self-giving, which are also part of the marriage act. You know this, as stated above.

    The larger question of homosexuality is not merely sex, but disobedience to nature and to God, the Author of Nature.

    Again, a gay lifestyle is wrong simply because it is disobedient. If I as a married person had committed adultery, that would also be a wrong choice. I think you are confusing lifestyle with temptations and proclivity. I no longer have a husband, therefore, I must and willingly am celibate. You and I have the same temptations and stresses in daily life as single people in a very couple-oriented society. Just pray and be open to the graces God wants to give you. You are no different than the millions of singles who remain celibate. But, the lifestyles of both you and those hetero singles must be celibacy and reasonable, God-fearing friends who do not lead you astray.

  85. robtbrown says:

    Virgil,

    You continue to make the same mistake by equating homosexual acts with heterosexual acts outside of marriage. The latter are sins of concupiscence, the former sins against nature. At first, I could attribute it to invincible ignorance, but now it seems you are being disingenuous.

    I am in sympathy with anyone with homosexual tendencies, but we all have our crosses.