Creepy homosexual demonstration at Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral

Really creepy people.  It is very creepy to disrupt legitimate worship services.

They are cowards, too.  You can bet they wouldn’t do this at a mosque.

And to think that Rahm Emanuel will soon be mayor there.

From LifeSite News:

Gay protesters swarm Chicago cathedral, police do nothing

by Kathleen Gilbert

Fri Feb 25

CHICAGO, February 25, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law against a mob of homosexualist activists who disrupted Mass at the Holy Name Cathedral to protest “anti-gay bigots” who support the Church’s teaching on marriage.

The Gay Liberation Network staged the rally on the eve of Valentine’s Day, shouting and chanting loudly as churchgoers entered to celebrate Sunday Mass. The demonstration’s primary target was Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who has spoken out in defense of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Protesters had staged a similar disruption around the same time last year.

In response to the protest, George, who was not present at the cathedral, acknowledged that the issue is deeply emotional on both sides but, “No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment.[It’ll get a lot worse.]

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released a video of the protest showing rainbow flag-waving protesters shouting and holding signs stating, “It’s time to stop being nice to anti-gay bigots.” “The Catholic leadership has ranged itself against equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for too long!” declared one homosexualist protester. Others called for an end to government cooperation with the Church’s charitable activities on the basis of its “bigoted” views. [Very creepy people.]

Churchgoers withstood the angry protest passively. One said that the pastor present for the Mass “was almost attacked and was called a bigot.” The Chicago Tribune reported that there was a small counter-protest defending traditional marriage and Cardinal George.

While it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance [WHY?  Why will they not enforce the law?] – a move that NOM castigated.

“It’s outrageous that the city of Chicago stepped in and basically told police not to enforce a law for this one occasion,” said NOM president Brian Brown.

“Gay Liberation Network is not above the law. If the city believed the ordinance was unconstitutional they should either repeal it for everyone, or go to court to get a determination. What happened instead was indefensible: stripping Catholics of their legal right to attend religious services peacefully.” [It’ll get worse.  These are very creepy people.]

“We don’t know yet if this signals a new phase in the gay marriage movement: organized protests at churches nationwide.”

Jeff Field, a spokesman for the Catholic League, told LifeSiteNews.com that the city council’s refusal to protect the Catholic worshippers was “disappointing to say the least.”

“Everybody has a right to practice their religion. For the city council to deny that right for Catholics is disappointing,” said Field, who pointed out that Muslims and Orthodox Jews shared a religious dedication to traditional marriage. “You wonder if they would allow protests in front of a mosque or a synagogue during their religious services,” he said. [Picture that.]

H/T Sancte Pater

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Creepy homosexual demonstration at Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral

  1. Mike says:

    This will be the Normandy of the re-evangelization of the West. If we don’t take this ground, and affirm and explain the natural law, we’ll never take Berlin, ie, the practical atheism that has infected so many.

  2. TNCath says:

    The city of Chicago’s failure to enforce the law is only the beginning of a very long period of what will soon be official persecution of the Church, the likes of which haven’t been seen since the days Caligula or Nero. We’d better prepare ourselves to mean what we say when we sing this verse from the great hymn “Faith of Our Fathers”:

    Our fathers chained in prisons dark,
    Were still and heart and conscience free.
    How truly blest would be our fate,
    If we like them should die for Thee.

    We are in for some very difficult years ahead.

  3. HyacinthClare says:

    Reminds me of the police presence evaporating away from the Catholic churches in Egypt and Iraq, just before the terrorists got there.

  4. catholicmidwest says:

    Nah, they just picket us because:
    a) We don’t have the gonads of the Baptists, who’d let them have EVANGELIZATION with a megaphone and an electric guitar at 120 decibels. Damn the press.
    b) They know we are soft on this topic since we have let it get away from us, unfortunately.
    c) What’s his face from the Obama camp is now mayor and will probably emasculate our ability to get police help and they are expecting that. Fun, fun, fun. Not. Tough times are ahead probably.

  5. Bornacatholic says:

    Catholic men of Chi-Town, where are you? If that happened in my presence, I’d drag the nearest pervert out of Church while asking other Catholic men to help me clear the Church of these pests.

    For the love of God Catholic men when are you going to start acting like men?

    That perverts are allowed to disrupt Holy Mass in a Consecrated Catholic Church while men sit-by passively is a flat out scandal. Stop waiting for the Cops to protect you. The American Government hates your guts.

    Bishops, ask Catholic men in Parishes to form a defense on the steps of our Churches to protect Clergy, Communicants, and Consecrated Churches from these execrable pagans.

  6. catholicmidwest says:

    Bornacatholic,
    I agree. Get up, block the doors with bodies by getting behind the clergy and start tag team preaching to them. They show up for church. Give em Church and lots of it!
    Make it impossible for them to enter without getting their ears full of good loud positive evangelization. Keep it up as long as it takes. It won’t hurt anybody.
    When the coast is clear, shut the doors, post a preaching vanguard at the door and start mass. Come on. What’s the matter that we can’t use our brains or grow a pair without having 999 dithering conferences first?

  7. ipadre says:

    These radicals respect no one. The even attack people in Courage who choose freely to live celibate lives.

    It’s diabolical and will get much worse. ST. Michael the archangel, defend us in this battle!

  8. Randii says:

    Politically gay marriage is waning as a conservative issue – as the article below notes. Many potential GOP Presidential hopefuls didn’t comment at all on President Obama not defending DOMA and otheres were surprisingly circumspect in their comments. Romnay, Gingrich and Palin to name three.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/politics/25marriage.html?_r=1&ref=us

    In terms of the Tea Party movement they are primarily about economic issues and many are libertarian when it comes to social issues like gay marriage.

    I’m guessing you will see the government take a more active role in pushing those churches still opposed to gay rights. Eventually we will likely see the tax exempt status removed from churches which don’t embrace gay rights. Especially as we are seing conservatives starting to walk away from the issue or even become supporters of gay marriage – out of a live and let live populism which is bubbling up among younger conservatives – incluyding young Catholics and evangelicals which polls show are surprisingly open to gay marriage.

    This split amongst conservatives over gay marriage and gay rights came fully into the open at the recent CPAC convention.

  9. catholicmidwest says:

    Um, my guess is that they’ll go down the street and try the methodists instead after that. If we do it well enough.

    Damn the press. We’ll be the heroes (and the villains!) of Youtube and you know what?? That has huge evangelization potential in itself. At least we’ll be sticking up for what we believe. A lot of people admire that. It’s one of the absolute top requirements for a believable religion if you’re an outsider looking for someplace to go.

  10. Dr. Eric says:

    We’ve already lost this battle. We lost it decades ago, this is just the fruit of the seeds that were planted before I was even born. All those pretty churches will have rainbows and pink triangles in them and Catholics will worship in basements.

  11. catholicmidwest says:

    Randii,
    For the 99999th time, this isn’t about politics. Honest. Really.

  12. ttucker says:

    It’s pretty obvious today that laws are enforced selectively. The President has arbitrarily chosen not to defen DOMA even though he embodies the Executive Branch and is sworn to uphold the law. DOMA is the law of the land. Here is yet another example on a municiapl level.
    And that is really a pity because it degrades respect for law, and only law allows us to live
    without arnarchy.
    I can see anarchy looming on the horizon. When it comes, I hope the monasteries will keep the flame of civilization alive as they did during the fall of the Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages.
    St. Benedict, pray for us.

  13. catholicmidwest says:

    Randii,
    I’m not sure why some people seem to think that the Church is somehow tethered inexorably to the current state of political affairs, specifically the political affairs of this country. It’s so stupid it’s really funny. I mean we got past Hitler & Mussolini, we got past Henry VIII, we got past the French Revolution & the Spanish Civil War. We even got past the Mughal emperors and the Moors and did it in pretty fine shape, I might add. We even had the Romans several times in different flavors and ended up taking them over, lock stock & barrel, for 2-count em-2 millenia.
    Umm, you’d think some people had never seen a history book before, not to mention a MAP.

  14. amenamen says:

    Some clarification is needed

    Those poor souls, confused and angry, should find better things to do with their time. Angry with the Church, and misled by people who should know better, their actions are indeed “creepy”, rude, and uncivilized, to say the least.
    By their actions they show the vulgarity and irreverence that is rooted in their message. The gentleness and charity of the parishioners entering Holy Name Cathedral provided a splendid contrast to the ugliness of their protest.

    But the article does not answer some very basic questions:
    1 Did the staff of the cathedral ever actually call the police, or ask that the protesters be removed or arrested? There is no indication that they did.
    The article quotes the leaders of the NOM, but not the priests that work at the cathedral.
    Cardinal George’s statement, issued after the fact, affirmed that “Catholics should be able to worship in peace”. But he does not seem to criticize the police or the city government for how they handled the situation. His message seemed to be a gentle reminder, not a call for police intervention.
    2 From the picturees, it looks as if the protesters were on a public sidewalk in front of the cathedral. Did they ever actually enter the cathedral to disrupt the Mass? Did they form a barricade to prevent parishioners from entering the doors? Did they physically assault anyone, grab anyone or hurt anyone? If any such crime was committed, I did not see it in the video.
    If all they did was yell slogans and wave signs while standing on a public sidewalk, that would seem to be an example of “free speech”, protected by the First Amendement. We pro-lifers can appreciate that precious freedom, too, and we should make abundant use of it ourselves.
    Were the protesters so loud that they could be heard inside the Church? Were they so loud that the parishioners could not hear the prayers or the homily? Was the Mass actually “disrupted”? That is not clear from the video, either.

    There may come a time when the police, or the national guard, must be called in to restore order, but I think that the archdiocese was wise to handle the situation with patience, restraint and forbearance.

    3 Thank God that the Catholic Church in Chicago, and Cardinal George in particular, are speaking so clearly about the moral teachings of Christ. Otherwise, the homosexual activists would not be protesting about the “bigots” in the Catholic Church. The presence of those protesters is a good sign, that the Church is being faithful to its mission. It would be a bigger problem if the priest is wearing the rainbow stole and seeking applause from the “diversity” crowd.

  15. Supertradmum says:

    How many people will go to hell if they do not repent? Is it too late to explain this is not a civil rights issue, but a moral issue? Where are the Knights of Columbus? They could be on the steps talking to these people, just like some of us in the past have talked to people going into abortion clinics.

  16. PostCatholic says:

    This looks to me like a protest taking place on a public sidewalk, and clearly there is more to the story. Did these folks enter the cathedral and disrupt the service? Did they make (amplify?) enough noise to drown out the service? Did they prevent people from entering (looks like that might have been the case)? All of those can be considered infringement on Federal civil rights. I’ve seen all those tactics before and they’re plain wrong. How was the pastor “almost attacked”–that’s very worrying indeed, it suggests he had good reason to fear for his safety. That cannot not be tolerated.

    I agree 100% that people should be able to express their religious inclinations without being unreasonably harassed. Where I live we’ve had very creepy folks from Westboro Baptist Church show up to protest outside our (non-Christian, pro gay rights) UU church and even several public schools, and their presence and hateful message was very upsetting, but a legal exercise of their First Amendment rights. We just had to live with it.

  17. catholicmidwest says:

    PC,
    Correct. They have a secular right to stand off the property on the sidewalk and make horses’ asses of themselves if they wish. They do NOT have the right to trespass and disrupt services. That has happened in the past many times (the crazy sash people, you know). Nor do they have the right to exert any force or violence on others which would be assault.

  18. PostCatholic says:

    We agree entirely, catholicmidwest. It’s just unclear to me where the legal trespass or assault was from the article and video Rev. Zuhlsdorf posted.

  19. lizfromFL says:

    So who should be contacted at the police department to address this?

  20. catholicmidwest says:

    Yeah, well, PC,
    I think the Catholic community probably has a tendency to react emotionally to all this, and maybe they don’t see how to handle it at all. I mean, there are a couple of possible approaches. But we’d better figure out what we can’t stop them from doing, and what we can stop them from doing and get that straight in our heads. Step ONE.

  21. catholicmidwest says:

    I said “emotionally,” but maybe I should have said “emotionally & hysterically.” These things pose real problems for us and the protesters know it damn skippy. That’s why they pick on us.

  22. kolbe1019 says:

    Too many Catholic Cowards… Scared to preach the truth, scared to do penance, scared to excommunicate, and scared to forcibly kick the gays out of church.

  23. PostCatholic says:

    I can assure you we had our own emotional and hysterical reactions to Westboro Baptist, catholicmidwest. Even lawful protest can be intimidating, particularly when criminal protest looms in our memories. Not too long ago a man walked into my own minister’s former parish and killed several people because he had political disagreements with our denomination.

  24. kolbe1019 says:

    Did our Lord not make a whip, kick tables over, and drive people out of the temple!?!

  25. Mike Morrow says:

    In pre-WWII Germany, the National Socialist government similarly suspended law enforcement when such lack of action supported its pograms against “undesirable” groups. Today, U.S. neo-Democrat thugs (forgive the tautology) continue to faithfully follow the path illuminated by their National Socialist progenitors.

  26. MikeM says:

    I hope someone’s planning legal action against the City of Chicago. The other side uses the courts as a weapon for their side all the time. Our side constantly brings the proverbial knife to the proverbial gun fight.

  27. flyfree432 says:

    creepy?

  28. Supertradmum says:

    flyfree432,

    Do you have a dictionary? Second definition of creepy is “annoyingly unpleasant; repulsive” which is what sin makes of us if we persist in depravity. It is hard to come against such and love the sinner, which is what we must do, despite their creepiness. If we do not see that they are creepy, we may have lost some discernment.

  29. It reminds me of account of Lot’s house in the book of Genesis, when the mob outside wanted to “know” the angels who were visiting (Gen. 19:1-11).

  30. Supertradmum says:

    That is really creepy.

  31. digdigby says:

    We’ve got our shock troops – Knights of Columbus with ceremonial swords.

  32. catholicmidwest says:

    digdigby, kolbe,
    Let’s stop playing playhouse in the backyard now. We must have some secular lawyers that work in chanceries. I’m sure we do. So find out what they can do and what we can do. And KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF PEOPLE. You can preach, but you can’t touch. The last thing we need is for that to start being the issue.

  33. catholicmidwest says:

    PC,
    I’m sorry to hear about the brush with violence that your denomination had to endure. That’s the kind of thing that shouldn’t happen to anyone. It is scary.

  34. Jayna says:

    I was at Mass at the cathedral that morning. I was wondering why they were on the sidewalk as I thought they had to be further back (across the street or something). They were right on the steps of the church, effectively blocking the path to the front doors. At least you couldn’t hear their chanting inside.

  35. EXCHIEF says:

    When law enforcement, city councils and the president all choose to enforce only the laws they agree with the country is headed to anarchy. If Obama’s decision not to uphold the DOMA and Chicago’s refusal to enforce laws preventing the disruption of religious services are left unchallenged we invite more of the same. As pointed out, Hitler’s Germany did the same and they were not challenged early on. Now, not later, is the time for a stand to be taken. IMO impeachment proceedings hould be initiated against Obama for his DOMA violation of separation of powers and a demand for the removal of whatever Chicago officials made the decision in this case needs to be made. Bullies only survive and succeed when left unchallenged.

  36. chironomo says:

    Probably not coincidentally, Pres. Obama (Chicago Incarnate) ordered the US Justice Department to cease defending the Defense of Marriage act just this week. There is definitely some connection to this and the police’s refusal to enforce as well.

  37. Dirichlet says:

    Pater dimitte illis non enim sciunt quid faciunt.

  38. ByzCath08 says:

    There is a federal law 18 USC 247 that says:

    Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section—
    (1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or
    (2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;
    shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
    (b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

    So if the protesters interfered with the mass or the parishoners attempting to get to/enjoy the mass, they could be arrested under Federal Law. Considering that abortion clinics are using Federal Law to have sidewalk counselors arrested, maybe its time we resort to that tactic as well.

  39. Dirichlet says:

    ByzCath08, I wouldn’t count on them enforcing those laws. The President himself decided not to enforce DOMA, which he swore to uphold when he took office. Sure we can organize, whine, go to court, etc. but the truth is that the tyrants of relativism hate Christ and His Church so much they never miss an opportunity to attack Them, even if that implies leaving their civic duties aside.

    Rough times ahead, I know.

  40. Titus says:

    There is a federal law 18 USC 247

    That’s a criminal law, so you’d have to get the US Attorney in Chicago to prosecute people under it. Seems somewhat unlikely.

    More useful are several other remedies, including 42 USC 1983. This statute provides a private right of action (the right to sue for damages) against a state official who violates someone’s constitutional rights under color of state law. So if the police refuse to protect your property on the grounds that the city council instructed them not to, you might have a cause of action against the police (which is handy, because the police carry insurance; protesters probably don’t). (I’m actually not 100% sure about this law’s applicability—I can’t think of any case I’ve seen where it was used to hold an officer liable for not doing something.)

    Then there’s the writ of mandamus: if the law prohibits a certain action and the city refuses to enforce the law, thereby harming you, you can petition a court and receive a court order requiring the city officials to enforce the law. Failure by them to do so can result in severe contempt penalties.

    For various reasons it would probably be easier to get redress from a court in a case like that than it would from a political body or appointed official (for instance, you can’t have the US Attorney replaced because he demonstrates bias against you).

  41. Where are the Knights of Columbus? Time to put down the beers, turn off the game, and get out to defend our churches.

    I say that as an officer of a Knights council.

  42. Titus says:

    We’ve got our shock troops – Knights of Columbus with ceremonial swords.

    The 4th Degree isn’t going to be much use in this case. Now, if the old anti-Catholic myth that the Knights buried a rifle under the church for each boy born in a parish were true, maybe it’d be different.

  43. digdigby says:

    Titus says – Now, if the old anti-Catholic myth that the Knights buried a rifle under the church for each boy born in a parish were true, maybe it’d be different.
    The only thing Catholics bury anymore are statues of St. Joseph. Especially since the Real Estate bust.

  44. Animadversor says:

    According to the Chicago Municipal Code, Title 8-4-010 Disorderly conduct.:

    A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:

    (j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute.

    It would seem that the protesters did do what the ordinance intends to forbid. Apparently, though, the reason that the police did not intervene, according to the site of The Advocate, a gay magazine, is that the ACLU approached the City of Chicago before the protest and obtained from the Corporation Counsel, Mara Georges, an indication that the ordinance would not be enforced. There were apparently some questions about the constitutionality of the ordinance. I, myself, no fan of the ACLU do not think those questions are unreasonable.

    Another relevant part of the same Municipal Code might be at Title 8-4-110 Disturbing places of worship.:

    Any person who shall disquiet or disturb any congregation or assembly met for religious worship by making a noise, or by rude and indecent behavior or profane discourse within the place of worship, or so near to the same as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, shall be fined not exceeding $50.00 for each offense.

    The protesters did not appear to be “within the place of worship,” and it is hard to see how, out on the sidewalk, their antics might have disturbed “the order and solemnity of the meeting,” the clergy and people having gathered in a large and solid building with thick walls. But to know for sure the answer to that, one would need concrete evidence from disinterested persons inside the Cathedral.

    As others have noted, it’s going to get worse.

  45. Marc says:

    “Anti-gay bigotry” is The gay mafia’s new McCarthyism

  46. flyfree432 says:

    supertradmom,

    I have never seen a homosexual successfully evangelized by calling them creepy, whatever you think of their actions. Discussions like this just further their understanding that we do not care about them or love them. They are deliberately provocative and serve no purpose, kind of like asking me if I have a dictionary. I spoke to one such person who said they think Catholics hate them and that we think God hates them and used this post as an example, and that is why they protest. I explained to them what the catechism teaches, how much we love them and want to see them saved, and how much God abhors the acting out of homosexuality – not that we think they are disgusting because they have such trials in their life. It completely changed the way they thought of Catholics. Let’s not stoop to the level of the Westboro crowd. Calling homosexuals creepy is going to do nothing to help us win the right to be heard by them so we can effectively preach the Gospel. Unfortunately the attitudes of some here will do nothing to further the new evangelization and may even harm the cause of Christ.

    It reminds me of a meeting I went to about starting an EF only parish. The new pastor asked those in attendance of their hopes and dreams. Answers ranged from “never having to see jeans at Mass” to “no more bad music” to “having every woman veil”. It took a young man to finally speak up and say “I hope this parish will be such a light to the world that men will see our good works and want to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.” Priorities.

    Let’s not forget our evangelistic mission, and heap such kindness and love on our enemies that they can’t help but to want what we have – the truth of salvation.

  47. Jacob says:

    I think at least in the Northern District of Illinois, the US Attorney may be amiable to pursuing a case. Patrick Fitzgerald hasn’t been afraid of enforcing the law before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald

  48. Supertradmum says:

    flyfree 432,

    Before my re-conversion to the One, True, Holy Catholic Church, I was creepy. I was a selfish, arrogant agnostic who thought she was smarter than the Church. That sin made me a horrible person. To say anything less is to lie. Sin is creepy. People who insist on identifying with sin must be confronted with the hard truth-or “tough love” as we used to call it. We cannot pretend these events are pretty or civil. Love and kindness look at creepiness in the face and challenge the lies.

    When St. Francis kissed the leper , he was reaching out to a stinking, decaying person who needed love and care. The love and and care did not pretend that leprosy was not anything less than disgusting. Perhaps reality therapy is what some of our lost brothers and sisters need-not merely glossy acceptance. Sin is creepy and deadly for the soul. The way out of sin is through repentance.

  49. paulbailes says:

    If the Church wants to be respected by outsiders, it should stop despising itself.

    The orgy self-loathing that the Church brought upon itself during V-II and after leads inevitably to the result we read about in Chicago.

    As far as having decent Catholic men stand up and resist – they should have done that 40 years ago when the Church authorities took the TLM away from us.

  50. thickmick says:

    We hate the sin, not the sinner. Pray for them and their conversion, Hail Mary..etc.

    BTW what’s with all the KOC stuff…everyone knows that when there’s real butt to be kicked you call the AOH, baby.

  51. flyfree432 says:

    Supertradmom,

    We are getting utterly off topic, but “sin” may be “creepy”, however sinners are made in the image of God, and loved by Him. It is simply an inappropriate word to call people because of how most homosexuals are going to take it. This is not aimed at you – but anyone who has a conversation with a homosexual. Please never, ever engage a homosexual in conversation until you’ve taken the time to educate yourself, for the sake of their soul as well as your own. If you do not understand how they think and what they feel it is better for you to simply leave it alone than to end up saying something that is going to further harden their heart against God when they might have otherwise been open to hearing the message of salvation. You have to win the right to be heard – and calling people creepy does not do that. Effective ministry is relational. I recommend working with Courage. Tough love does not require someone to act like a jerk, and calling gay people creepy does nothing for evangelization. I know a good number of people with homosexual tendencies who now live celibate Catholic lives despite the things many Catholics have said to them.

    Yes, there are homosexual groups that cannot be reasoned with, but there are many people we can reason with – and some of it is going to depend on our reaction to stuff like this.

    It is like when I was looking at the Catholic Church. I did not become Catholic for the longest time because of Catholics like those at the Fish Eaters website. Telling me how I was going to hell as a Protestant heretic did nothing to endear me to their message. It was the patience, friendship, and and love of so many Catholics at Scott Hahn’s Biblical Center and Phatmass.com to explain the faith and tackle my ideas head on with me that lead me home. Those who saw me as an enemy to be reckoned with for teaching that Catholics worship Mary could have lost me for the truth for good.

  52. PostCatholic says:

    It’s still not obvious to me which law was broken that the City of Chicago refused to enforce. I completely agree that it has a duty to protect citizens exercising their first amendment rights to peaceably assemble–which includes attending a worship service just as much as attending a protest. It seems to me from the video and story posted above that this was a lawful protest, but the outrage expressed suggests there’s more to this story.

  53. Charivari Rob says:

    LifeSite posts “breaking news” – a video from a non-news organization, with an ax to grind?

    It’s such a big event that that pick up this story 12 days after it happened?

    Alleged disruption of a religious service – by people out on the public sidewalk?

    Alleged “almost attack” on the pastor – with no details of what occurred?

    Allegedly blocking access to the cathedral – when their own video shows plenty of room on the steps and people walking through the front doors?

    I don’t agree with this Gay Liberation Network or their alleged actions, but we do ourselves no favors by the type of “reporting” demonstrated in this case by NationForMarriage and LifeSite.

  54. flyfree432 says:

    Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), states:
    A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
    (j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute.

  55. amenamen says:

    Testing the law?

    Thank you “flyfree432″ for citing the Chicago statute. This citation – Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j) – is the first indication I have seen that what the protesters did was actually against a law.

    A little searching on the internet, however, shows that the protesters were aware of this statute, and they were intending to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Their ACLU lawyer wrote to the Chicago police three weeks before the protest took place, claiming that the Chicago law is against the First Amendment:

    http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letter-to-Weis-1-21-11.pdf

    Does anybody know how long Chicago has had this law? Does any other city have such a law?

  56. MikeM says:

    If the ACLU wants to claim that an ordinance keeping people 150 feet away from a location they’re protesting is unconstitutional, that’s fine with me… if they win, Planned Parenthood will have a hard time getting rid of those pesky praying abortion protestors in the future.

  57. kolbe1019 says:

    Catholicmidwest,

    You are right. I was wrong. I didn’t have my facts straight. I retract my statements. I was envisioning a much more hostile situation.

    It is sad to think that the day may come when the protest enters the doors of our churches and becomes hostile. This is the situation I was envisioning… A situation where individuals reject the possibility of civil discourse, authorities reject the rights of Catholics, and our women and children are put in harms way…

    Lord, may that day never come. If it does grant us the courage and the grace to know and do your will.

  58. jflare says:

    flyfree432,
    I see at least two serious errors rampant in your argument:
    1. I see no proof here that anyone has referred to a homosexual as “creepy” to the face of a homosexual person. It appears to me that we’ve used the term here, on Fr Z’s blog, as a fairly accurate description of VERY unbecoming behavior.
    2. I have NEVER met a homosexual activist, abortion rights activist, or any other “left-leaning” activist who has any intention whatsoever of considering a differing point of view. Trust me, I’ve tried. You give even a tiny crack of understanding, and they usually yank of foot of ground from underneath you on the spot.
    3. (OK, I lied earlier) I have no intention of taking my time to become terribly “well educated” regarding what the average picketing gay rights activist may believe. I literally do not have the time to waste. By the time they’re picketing, they’ve already developed their own “rationale” to defend what they’re doing. It’s usually a great deal of misinterpretation of many things, primarily aimed at justifying sin.
    4. Really, I think the best move against this kind of thing might be to organize a Rosary on the Cathedral’s grounds. Have some 4th Degrees–or 3rd degrees in Council shirts–standing guard over the proceedings. (Which reminds me, I need to contact the fellow in MY council about the shirts that we intended to order…..) Calm, passive, dead silence and prayer might be the best witness we might offer in this case.

    To all:
    As I understand it, this video isn’t even close to being the first time they–the gay movement–has done this. I tend to agree that the Church needs to provoke the city into doing something more vigorous to halt this nonsense. If we don’t stop them outside the Church now, how long will it be before they walk in? And how much punishment will they really suffer, especially if they’ve persuaded the city to turn a blind eye to this? I hear Rahm Emmanual’s not exactly welcoming to religious belief…..

  59. Joeski5651 says:

    Can anyone say “Teachings of the Catholic Church”? I really luv this group. At this point No one stops anyone from worshiping. ( I fear if Obama is in the office much longer that day will come sooner than later). If someone is limiting their identity as a person to a sex act, they have more problems that any one organization can resolve. A note to the protesters — READ THE CATECHISM. Be educated as to what you think you are protesting.

  60. frjim4321 says:

    I’m wondering around what it means that the topic of homosexuality gets more adrenalin pumping than the topic of liturgy on a website that’s dedicated to promoting a certain liturgical fashion. The same thing happened two weekends ago on PTB when a whole string (having to do with sexual orientation and liturgical prolicities) had to be removed because it generated so much more heat than light. It’s super interesting that the topic of sexuality is very important and emotional for people who are super interested in liturgy. That’s fascinating. I’m wondering what can be learned from this?

  61. frjim4321 says:

    = proclivities

  62. Henry Edwards says:

    frjim4321: So people devoted to traditional liturgy pretty uniformly have traditional beliefs—support for the traditional family, opposition to abortion to homosexuality, belief in the Real Presence, the sacrifice of the Mass as the sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated, loyalty to the pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, devotion to the BVM, private devotions including the Rosary, the necessity of confession for the forgiveness of sins, prayer to the saints and for the dead, the whole package.

    And you really have to wonder what all this means? Really??

  63. Bornacatholic says:

    . It’s super interesting that the topic of sexuality is very important and emotional for people who are super interested in liturgy. That’s fascinating. I’m wondering what can be learned from this?

    For those of us who are soi disdant Traditionalists that is an easy question to answer. Many of the Prelates and Priests who promoted Liturgical anomie were homosexuals; and, homosexuals are subversive.

    A prime example of a prominent homosexual is the former Prelate, Abp Rembert Weakland, who instituted the Hootenanny Mass when he was not actively using the donations of Paris honers to make sure his catamite kept clammed-up.

    “Scratch a Liturgical innovator reveal a homosexual,” became an axiom of we Traditional meanies.

  64. disco says:

    Bornacatholc, amen! Better they picket our churches than infest our seminaries. And don’t forget the $4.5 million that sodomite spent destroying his cathedral.

  65. digdigby says:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/fritzliess/4530625468/
    This is from the Gay Pride Parade in Phoenix (not San Francisco which is much worsr) To their faces I would never say they were ‘creepy’. The word is SAD. God made each of these unique human being out of nothing for eternal happiness. Period.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/fritzliess/4530625468/

  66. EXCHIEF says:

    Ordinances like the one in Chicago exist in many places and in many states are a matter of state law rather than local statute. Statutes similar, in fact almost identical, to Chicago’s have been upheld by the courts numerous times. So, just like DOMA, we have politicians rather than the courts, deciding what laws are, in their opinion, valid and worthy of enforcement. There are numerous problems with that approach, one of which is that taken to extreme it renders all laws of questionable validity and gives rise to a defense on several different theories. Incidents like this and Obama’s flaunting of DOMA are dangerous and unconstitutional.

  67. frjim4321 says:

    Exactly what I am reflecting on, the attempted demonization of opposing liturgical styles by claiming that their adherents belong to a sexual minority that is being targeted by discrimination. We see this at both ends of the trad-progressive continuum (for example, Berger’s Der heilige Schein). As we have seen quite recently ultra-conservative dioceses have not been immune from a scandal that many (inaccurately) associate with homosexuality. Thus it is not helpful to turn a lively discussion about liturgy into a witch hunt. Surely all sexual populations are well represented across the trad-progressive spectrum. Just take a look over at TLM.

    With respect to the subject of this string, this seems to have been a legal demonstration on a public sidewalk.

  68. frjim4321 says:

    TLM = TNLM

  69. Thomas S says:

    Fr. Jim,

    I’m curious why you say it’s innacurate to associate the sex abuse scandal with homosexuality when the statistics clearly demonstrate that the abuse is overwhelmingly committed against pubescent males.

  70. frjim4321 says:

    TS – – –

    Because the propensity to abuse children of either sex does not correlate with sexual orientation, it correlates with being a child abuser. I am aware that popularly some have advocated scapegoating gay priests for the sexual abuse crisis, but there is very little professional literature supporting those unfortunate attempts just as there little professional literature associating sexual orientation with preferences of liturgical fashion (except Berger, which is mainly anecdotal). Anyway, I guess we’ve gone far afield from the topic of this string. With regard to evidence, the video that was supplied by the anti-marriage-rights group did not offer any substantiation that any laws were broken; it appears that this was a peaceful protest on a public sidwalk.

    – – – Fr. Jim

  71. catholicmidwest says:

    jflare,
    They *have* walked in and disrupted our services. Don’t you remember the crazy sash people of a few years ago? We’ve also had descrated altars in the past on an occasion or two, if I remember correctly.
    We didn’t deal with it properly to get it under control and we don’t seem to be dealing with this properly either. Lots of hysteria, though.

  72. catholicmidwest says:

    frjim4321,

    The topic of homosexuals gets a lot of attention because they are blatant, political, offensive and act out in ways that are far, far out of the norm psychologically. They are not above harassing us outside our churches, and even during mass, and they have shown that.

    We are in a spot over them because we have far too many homosexual clerics in the church, who make this issue damn near impossible to manage. It is not at all helpful to have theological turncoats in our midst, some of whom have thought nothing of molesting our own kids.

    And then we have people who are homosexual, although the offspring of heterosexual Catholics, who want to fight with the church over what the church has always taught, and don’t see any contradiction there because religiously their behavior is out of bounds but they can’t stop. They clearly don’t get the concept of being Catholic AT. ALL. [FLASH: It’s not like being Italian or Polish or red-haired or fat. You don’t inherit it like a box of photos. It’s a belief system with claims, including claims about moral & immoral sexual activity!!!!!]

    It’s our own fault as a church that we allowed this to happen, but we have to deal with it no matter how difficult and downright stupid it is.

    Someone above said that Catholics exhibit self-loathing. I would agree and it comes out as self-loathing often does, as self-defeating and pointless behavior. Self-loathing is NOT humility; rather it’s ugly and pathological. Such things stand in the path of holiness.

  73. catholicmidwest says:

    flyfree432,
    Love-bombing doesn’t generally work, and in this case, it definitely won’t work. Homosexual genital activity and living in a state of grace are mutually exclusive, no matter how much pink meringue and confetti you heap on top of it.

  74. tonyballioni says:

    What I don’t get is this: why protest outside the Catholic Church? As it comes to the more conservative/traditional religions (i.e. Muslims, Hindus, Evangelicals, some Jews, etc.) Roman Catholicism is probably the most accepting of homosexuals AS INDIVIDUALS, because we make the distinction between the disposition, and the actual actions themselves.

    My best friend is a homosexual. He is a wonderful human being as is his boyfriend. I believe ,as the Church teaches that they are in a gravely sinful state, but I do not treat them like they are subhuman as many in the above named groups do, and most of my traditional/conservative Catholic friends are the same way. The Catholic Church calls upon us to act with charity in truth.

    Also, catholicmidwest, homosexual actions and a state of grace are not necessarily mutually exclusive. That implies that every homosexual action is a mortal sin. It is not. It is certainly GRAVE, and the Church is duty bound to proclaim it as such, but not necessarily mortal. To say such a thing is not in the spirit of charity. The Church has never condemned an individual to hell. I urge you to read Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” Praticularly paragraph 11, I have reproduced for your convenience:

    11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

    Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

    Here is a link to the full letter:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

  75. frjim4321 says:

    Tony, that was a helpful quote, thank you.

  76. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Fr Jim. With all due respect it now appears that when you asked your question it was not generated by legitimate curiosity but by a different agenda which revealed itself in your subsequent posts. At least that is the way to appears to me.

    As for accusations of a “witch hunt,” Abp Weakland revealed all the details I cited and more his own self. For my part, I did not even write about how he repeatedly reassigned perverted predatory Priests who then preyed on a new Parish of innocent adolescent males. Yet, somehow, merely mentioning known public facts about a major American Prelate gets reframed by you into the accusation of a “witch hunt.”

    There is no criticism of the grave evil committed by that Prelate against real, live, innocent, ado0lescent males; only criticism of the putative failures in the rhetorical styles of those righteously angry at the grave evil he committed and walked away from.

    He belongs in a prison until the end of his natural life, but, like other Perverted Prelates who preyed upon innocent adolescent males, he skated ,while the very innocent victims of his direct actions have lost their Faith or developed severe mental illnesses because of the grave, preventable, evil visited upon them by this monster of a man and others like him.

    If you do not think that homosexual Prelates and Priests prey/preyed upon children at a rate higher than other cohorts of identifiable individuals then I think you had better make an effort to inform your ignorance for that is precisely the case.

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/101126

    I am aware that popularly some have advocated scapegoating gay priests for the sexual abuse crisis

    Dear Fr. Jim The VAST majority of the sexual crimes committed against adolescent males were crimes committed by homosexual clerics who never should have been admitted to Seminaries in the first place and those homosexual sex crimes – committed by perverted predatory priests -represented over 80% of the sexual abuse crimes you referred to and their crimes have cost the Faith of countless numbers of adolescent males; those homosexual sex crimes cost us our reputation; those homosexual sex crimes have already cost us Three Billion dollars – and we are still counting.

    I find it super interesting that the victims of these homosexual crimes, the innocent adolescent males, are so infrequently left unidentified and mourned by the very same individuals who warn others not to engage in witch hunts and scapegoating.

  77. Supertradmum says:

    tonyballioni,

    As an unmarried heterosexual, if I engaged in any activity which would be sexual, it would be a mortal sin. There is no difference for the homosexual. Fornication is sex outside of marriage, and sexual actions, including masturbation, leading up to such actions, are mortal sin. The above quotation does not exclude those things at all.

    The fact that an active homosexual relationship involves manipulation of a person’s soul and mind, is also seriously sinful. Sinful actions for the heterosexual would include such manipulation as well. Going into a homosexual bar can be a mortal sin, as one is flirting with sin, and putting one’s self and others into the potential of grave, mortal sin. Sins are both in omission and in commission. Omission is not guarding one’s chastity, not having custody of the eyes, etc.

    Bornacatholic,

    I cannot agree with you more. I know many people who were abused in seminaries and in orphanages and in schools who have never and will never report the crimes, as they decided not to do so. In every case of the seminarians who were abused, and seven were my good friends in college, all were abused by homosexual priests. They were in the minor seminary at the time, and the abuse continued when they were in the major seminary. None, thankfully, became priests that I know of…

    There is a connection between these actions and we shall understand this more in the future, than perhaps we do now, but every militant homosexual I have met are not only for same-sex relationships, but for lowering the age of consent to 12.

  78. benedetta says:

    I just don’t see what is hoped to be accomplished by picketing and accusing church-goers? What of the folks who do not attend any Sunday service or belong to any religion or denomination and also do not support a change in the marriage law?

    And yet any mother will tell you, it is not the young people who attend Mass every week with family and who have been specifically taught, “Do unto others” who typically are involved in the most intolerant, bigoted slurs, whether through cyberspace or in the lunchroom.

  79. catholicmidwest says:

    tonybalioni,
    I said very clearly “Homosexual genital activity” and you know it. And in every single possible case, homosexual genital activity and living in a state of grace are 100% in contradiction. They do not ever exist together at the same time. Homosexual genital activity is a mortal sin. Every single time.

  80. catholicmidwest says:

    “What of the folks who do not attend any Sunday service or belong to any religion or denomination and also do not support a change in the marriage law?

    They apparently don’t have a dog in this fight which is about specifically about catholic churches being picketed. What’s it to them?

    PS Your comment doesn’t seem to have a point to it.

  81. Kerry says:

    This kind of thing can be brought to a screeching halt by taking a page from Andrew Breitbart, who single-handedly disrupted demonstrators with their ‘stop the hate’ signs. He simply went up to individuals and asked them “Who is hating?”. In this case I suggest a video camera and a mike and ask that question, as well as very specific questions about their sexual practices. (I will not specifiy any, but note that such questions can hardly be said to be out of bounds for people who believe themselves to be whom they ‘do things with’. Furthermore, a great question from The Ruth Institute, “Please define marriage”. They will go blank, having never given it any thought.) I would also go after that sign, reminding them of Jesus’ proscriptions about those who hate us, and asking them to define ‘not being nice’, and are they thereby refuting Jesus. Lastly I can imagine profound sounding yet actually preposterous signs along the line of, “We hate those who hate us for hating them”, a version perhaps of the, “No one is free when someone is oppressed” bumper sticker. These people are petulant, narcissistic children whose positions ought to be easily toppled. I think they are moral relativists, and do not even know it. If they assault the building or sanctuary itself, there are other tactics. (I do not mean opening fire, such is a next to last resort.)

  82. Animadversor says:

    tonyballioni, could you expand on your remark

    That implies that every homosexual action is a mortal sin. It is not. It is certainly GRAVE, and the Church is duty bound to proclaim it as such, but not necessarily mortal.

    just a bit? What you have said, that “every homosexual action is [not] a mortal sin,” could very easily and not unreasonably be understood to propose a non-Catholic belief about such actions, which it seems would be far from your intent.

  83. benedetta says:

    catholicmidwest, The point is that the attempt to equate being Catholic itself with bigotry is itself a lie and, in the real world, unfounded. Like “the fetus” and abortion, it is apparently the preferred media-age tactic to just dismiss all Catholics as nothing more than bigots than to discuss the Church’s actual teachings. In the real world, the Church’s teachings uphold the dignity of every person and by and large it’s the kids who attend Mass every week actually live that out in their daily peer interactions. This is an attempt to make it “OK” to harass Catholics and that is just wrong. It doesn’t seem calculated to accomplish anything else.

  84. catholicmidwest says:

    The only bigotry that’s going on in this situation is the bigotry the homosexuals are engaging in when they show up in front of the church yelling with signs. That’s it. Notice, we’re not chasing them down and standing out in front of their establishments; they’re standing in front of ours.

    And it’s not true that you can validly make a generalization like you have about people who are raised in the faith, ie go to catholic schools and all that. I used to teach in a Catholic high school and believe me, cradle catholic communities are as full of people acting like pagans as anyplace else you find catholics.

    And your point is still not very clear.

  85. Kerry says:

    Notice that Breitbart does not answer their questions, but continually asks them to defend their signs. Heh.

  86. catholicmidwest says:

    Kerry,
    Are you even looking at the same event the rest of us are? I think not.

  87. benedetta says:

    catholicmidwest, I didn’t say cradle Catholic communities but, church-going. Big difference. And I’m also a teacher. Children who are raised to respect others, even when they disagree on how that might translates into our laws, are really not the ones who are engaged in the most hateful and bigoted behavior. I don’t doubt that many “cradle Catholics” as you call them are not attending Mass regularly nor teaching their children to refrain from unjust attacks on fellow human beings. But I did say, church-goers, as this was the venue that this group chose as ideal for their picketing. It doesn’t add up and it is a persecution.

  88. catholicmidwest says:

    It does add up, Benedetta. If you were in their shoes, it would make perfect sense to you too. It’s a sort of transference to make themselves feel legitimatized. It’s all part of the phenomenon of homosexuality. That’s 1/2 the problem.

    The other half is that we are compromised ourselves, and can’t figure out what to do about what’s happening. It’s not a pretty picture.

  89. Animadversor says:

    All of Kerry‘s points are excellent. As he (or she?) suggests, most of these protesters have given very little serious, methodical thought to the matter, and would probably be offended by the notion that they should. Their protests seem mostly to be undisciplined, irrational public emoting. Indeed, they have probably for so long left behind rational thought about morality (and much else) that for them to attempt it is so mentally strenuous as to be at once painful. To try, then, immediately to engage them in rational discussion may well be fruitless. They will have to be approached in some other way, at least initially. We have to come to people where they are, to the extent that our Faith permits, if we wish them to come over to where we are.
    Zachæe, festinans descende: quia hodie in domo tua oportet me manere.
    “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down: for this day I must abide in thy house.”

  90. tonyballioni says:

    Animadversor

    Gladly, I have not intent to say that homosexual actions are not grave, they clearly are, and when all the conditions for mortal sin exist, it is most certainly a mortal sin. I, however, find it hard to believe that every time homosexual sex has taken place in the history of the planet all the conditions have been met. Many times? Sure. Most of the time? Ok. 90% of the time? Maybe. All of the time? Unlikely.

    As Cardinal Ratzinger clearly points out in his letter to the bishops, a given set of circumstances could mitigate the actions. He also points out that certain circumstances the culpability.. could be increased.

    In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.

    Is homosexual sex disordered? Yes. Is it a grave matter? Yes. Is the graveness of the matter enough to make it a mortal sin 100% of the time? No, there are individual circumstances to each and every sin that determine if it is mortal. Only God knows for certain if a sin is mortal. The rest of us are not omniscient and thus cannot read the minds and hearts of others. We are duty bound to proclaim homosexual sex/activity/genital activity (use whichever phrase floats your boat) as gravely sinful. We cannot however play God and say definitively that individuals are in a state of mortal sin. The most we can possibly say is that given the correct conditions, homosexual activity is a mortal sin. The given the correct conditions is a necessary part of the statement.

    Back to my point to catholicmidwes, if someone is not in a state of mortal sin or original sin, they are in a state of grace, no matter how grave their individual venial sins may be. Because of this, we cannot say that one who has had homosexual sex is not in a state of grace, and this damned to hell for all eternity. That is not our place. We can say it is unlikely they are in a state of grace. We can say that they not receive the Blessed Sacrament because the gravity of their sins makes desecration of the Blessed Sacrament likely, but, we cannot say someone is in a state of mortal sin definitively. This has never been done in the entirety of the Church’s history. I ask you to provide me with one magisterial document saying definitively that an individual is in Hell.

    I will not condone homosexuality. It is wrong. This is the authoritative teaching of the Church. I however, will give credence to the letter of Cardinal Ratzinger, which allows for the possibility of culpability being mitigated. I doubt the man who was known as “God’s Rottweiler” and is now our beloved Holy Father (for whom I ask everyone reading this now to say a prayer) would make such a comment on an issue that is so explosive on a whim. There is a possibility, however slim, that someone who is living a homosexual lifestyle could not have committed mortal sin.

    I ask everyone, regardless of how you feel about what I just wrote, to pray for those who are homosexual. As Cardinal Ratzinger noted, they need God’s grace tremendously.

  91. Animadversor says:

    Thanks for the link to Breitbart confronting the demonstrators, Kerry. What fun! I enjoyed it more than is seemly.

    catholicmidwest, you’re right that the video to which Kerry linked is not of the demonstration at Holy Name Cathedral. I believe it was intended simply to give an example of how to deal effectively with demonstrations based on irrational emotionality.

    Digressing a bit, if someone other than the reverend blog-owner is allowed to do so, I see that people are apprehensive about such things as Rahm Emanuel’s election as mayor of Chicago, because they see in those things the coming to power of people who are more hostile, and more openly so, to the things in which we believe. But this cloud may have a silver lining, in that the very intensity and openness of their opposition to us may finally stir more of us to action, whereas in the past, so much that is antithetical to our convictions just slipped on by.

  92. tonyballioni says:

    Also, supertradmom, I agree with the vast majority of what you have written. ALL sexual activity outside the sacrament of marriage is indeed a grave sin.

    The graveness alone, however, does not satisfy all the conditions of mortal sin. They can very easily be mortal, and I will give you that most of the time they are, but I am unwilling to say that any individual–other than myself when I am in the state of mortal sin– is definitively in that state. I will comment on the graveness of it, but the damning one’s immortal soul part, that is up to God and God alone.

  93. Animadversor says:

    tonyballioni, I think that it is unhelpful to base one’s practical approach to persons doing things that are materially gravely sinful upon the notion that they may not be incurring the guilt of a mortal sin, especially since you admit that most, and perhaps more than nine-tenths, probably are. If I see someone lying on the sidewalk, dressed in dirty rags, apparently in a stupor, I am going to assume that he needs help, not that his appearance is illusory. In any case, even if such a person, as we may hope, is doing the materially mortally sinful thing in such circumstances that he has incurred no guilt, the thing he is doing is still causing him harm. Indeed, even if it were causing him no harm of any kind, it is still in itself a very wicked thing, and it ought not to be done.

  94. tonyballioni says:

    Animadversor I agree with you that it is wrong, grave, and should not be done. But mortal sin is a very strong term. I would never say to anyone, “Have gay sex, we don’t know for sure if it is mortal!”

    I am simply pointing out that in a online forum viewable to the entire world, it might not be the best idea to say that definitively beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyone who has homosexual sex is in a state of mortal sin. The necessary conclusion of that is that every homosexual who is not celibate is damned for all eternity. If we say this, we are no better than the Westboro Baptist Churchers.

    We must act with charity in truth. Proclaim the gravity of the sin. Explain our logic behind it. Point to how the Church’s teaching directs us to a more human sexuality. However, we should not say “100% of people who have gay sex are going to go to Hell.” We cannot know that, and it just makes us come off as jerks. As Fr. Z has noted before, we can have masses said for anyone who has died, there is no requirement they be Catholic or living a good life. What would the point of having masses said for them be if we knew that they were in Hell 100%?

  95. Animadversor says:

    tonyballioni, you write

    I am simply pointing out that in a online forum viewable to the entire world, it might not be the best idea to say that definitively beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyone who has homosexual sex is in a state of mortal sin.

    Who’s done that here? I’ll admit that commenters on this blog can be very, very blunt, and sometimes apparently even uncharitable, but when would anyone ever confuse us with “Westboro Baptist Churchers?” I do think that you brought in something of a straw man here.

    Please forgive me if I don’t respond any more. I think it possible that Father Z may have begun to believe that we have, albeit unintentionally, started to hijack this thread. Also, my fingers are tired.

  96. tonyballioni says:

    Ah yes, Fr. Z, forgive us for our hijacking of this. I will not reply further on this topic.

  97. Time to make your final and pertinent observations. I will close this combox soon.

  98. Jenny bag of donuts says:

    Hi tony, thanks for your posts. I find it irritating too when homosexuals are demonized. I’m proud as a Catholic that our Church doesn’t aim to change people’s sexual orientations like some evangelical groups do. There are good Catholics with same sex attraction trying to live (or indeed living) a celibate life, Catholics who attend daily Mass, etc. Just like the many devout heterosexual singles living celibately.

    Still, as other people have mentioned, I personally think one should always view any sexual sin as serious and most likely mortal. Is a person’s culpulbility sp? lessened for one reason or another? Well, that’s for our Lord to decide naturally. It’s important to get serious about sexual sin and root it out of one’s life no matter what so I think it’s a good and loving idea to not make comments to one’s friends that might leave the door open a bit.

    I don’t think many people are saying that all gay people are going to Hell. In fact, I think the Catholic Church is very welcoming and loving toward gays. Think of support groups like Courage. It’s true, however, that among some conservatives one can sense that they are demonizing homosexuals. But this is somewhat understandable considering the nasty attitude of a few outspoken homosexuals who want to take other people’s rights away, I mean people who disagree with them.

  99. tonyballioni says:

    Jenny, we are in complete agreement. I, however, do not like using the term “mortal sin” saying that people who commit certain actions are definitively in this state, and that there are no exceptions, which is what my reading of some other posts here were. I by no means wish to say diminish the gravity of the sin. I am only noting that as Cardinal Ratzinger notes, our theology does not make generalizations on the individual basis, but says that every sin must be judged case by case.

    Thank you Father Z, for allowing final comments. I hope what I said was charitable, and apologize for hijacking this thread, it was not my intent.

  100. Jenny bag of donuts says:

    Yeah thanks Father Z!

  101. cheekypinkgirl says:

    I sooo want Supertradmum to start her own blog.

  102. I will close with this. I wrote this at the top of this entry.

    It is very creepy to disrupt legitimate worship services.