The next homosexualist goal: elimination of “age of consent”, license for pedophiles

I have been writing for a long time now that the next step in the homosexualist agenda is to eliminate the “age of consent” limit.   They approach their goals through creeping (and creepy) incrementalism.  They will eventually rehabilitate even pedophilia, with the consent and aid of the mainstream media and liberals everywhere, even within the Church.

From LifeSite (I’ll cut some bits out, but read the whole thing over there):

The homosexual Left’s new crusade: Normalizing adult-child sex

by Matt Barber

Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:53 EST
October 11, 2013 (WND) – So much for the left’s “consenting adults” rhetoric on sex. Forever the consummate conservationists, our self-described “progressive” friends at the ACLU, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting” – a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.

Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.


Here’s the answer: There is no question. There is categorically a movement to normalize pedophilia. I’ve witnessed it firsthand and, despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, the “pedophile rights” movement is inexorably linked to the so-called “gay rights” movement.

Two years ago I – along with the venerable child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman – attended a Maryland conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance, including a number of admitted pedophiles (or “minor-attracted persons,” as they euphemistically prefer).

Also present were a few self-described “gay activists” and several supportive mental-health professionals. World renowned “sexologist” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Here are some highlights from the conference:

Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”“
Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.” [NB: Not “normal” but “normative”.]
“These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incremental strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: [Did I mention “creeping incrementalism”?] The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
[… some ugly stuff here…]
You may think that such abject evil simply represents the fringe of today’s sexual “progressivism.” It doesn’t. It represents the honest.

Consider, for instance, that during Obama’s first term, the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services linked to “parenting tips” that referenced children as “sexual beings” and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.  [From the First Gay President!]

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.


Again, read the rest there.

Mark my words, dear readers.  Do you think this isn’t going on?  You are deluding yourselves.

For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry.

At first, because of the rise of AIDS, active homosexuals were constantly portrayed as innocent, though perhaps quirky, victims. Once the notion of homosexuality was shifted from its moorings and a new status was created in the minds of the public, another shift took place in the media. Now, TV shows and movies are saturated with homosexuals who are far more sophisticated, with it, intelligent, good looking than their more dysfunctional heterosexual counterparts. Victim time is over. It is cool to be “gay”.

For years an artificial sub-culture has been carefully crafted.  It is busting out into a “new normal”.

The are more goals down the line.

You can see where this is going.

I also direct your attention to an article in First Things back in 2009.  Already this trend was being noticed by others.  HERE  One point in the article is that even through pedophila lost its “cool” aspect among elitists along the way, it is regaining it.  It was being rehabilitated in some circles.  That was in 2009.

Keep your eyes on this, friends.  It is going to get a lot worse.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. JonPatrick says:

    Ugh. After reading this, I felt the need to get a second shower this morning. You would think that at some point people would say “enough” but then I thought that would happen with “Gay Marriage”.

  2. rtjl says:

    This is so frustrating because it is so obvious to anyone “with eyes to see”. I remember 20 to 25 years ago warning people that acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage was going to go mainstream and being rebuffed with “oh no – that will never happen. That’s only popular with people on the fringes. The average person will never accept that.” Well, here we are. And now when I tell people that acceptance of pedophilia, polyamory, incest and, indeed, that the very end of marriage itself are just around the corner I get the same response; “oh no – that will never happen…”

    Can you use the words “ostrich”, “head” and “sand” in the same sentence?

  3. Ed the Roman says:

    There was a gay manifesto issued in the early 70s. One of the items was eliminating ages of consent.

  4. nbtrap says:

    Normative?! This is an example of people using big words in order to look intelligent, when in fact they don’t know what the words actually mean.

  5. vetusta ecclesia says:

    Much of the anti-catholic hooha about errant priests was made by the very people who belong to this lobby.

  6. John Fannon says:

    This doesn’t surprise me. The homosexualists have a rolling agenda.

    Maria Miller the UK Equalities Minister has already indicated that this Autumn the government will be holding a consultation on the ‘next steps’ for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Writing exclusively for PinkNews, Mrs Miller spoke of the pride she took in the same-sex marriage legislation, but added, ‘[T]here are still other barriers which LGB&T people can face that need to be broken down.’

    As my memory serves, I recall that in the 1970’s the Guardian Newspaper stated that children who had sex with adults were generally pleased because they usually got presents afterwards. The BBC in the same era gave a very sympathetic programme on the problems faced by child molesters. One point made was that young children are very open with their sexuality, which seemed to excuse the child molesters for responding to childish sexual overtures.

    This week the Catholic Herald has a full page article inviting our sympathy for homosexual activists in Russia as the authorities have responded brutally. While I cannot condone brutality, we have seen what has happened in the West when homosexuals are accorded “their rights” which has turned out to be a rolling agenda.

  7. RidersOnTheStorm says:

    “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”


  8. mrshopey says:

    What this stands to do if they are successful is take away parents rights. If a man is preying on their teenage son, they will no longer enjoy being able to prevent it by law.

    Pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. They will not wait for any laws and their victims will be numerous. If this is passed they may use this to help defend themselves.

  9. mrshopey says:

    What this stands to do if they are successful is take away parents rights. If a man is preying on their teenage son, they will no longer enjoy being able to prevent it by law.

    Pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. They will not wait for any laws and their victims will be numerous. If this is passed they may use this to help defend themselves.

  10. Gail F says:

    I used to watch “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (don’t scoff — it was a great show for the first 5 years). One of the main characters, originally straight, became a lesbian. Yeah, I know how often THAT happens… Anyway, it was inadvertently a rather interesting storyline, because the two characters were also supposed to be witches, one a “good” witch and the other drawn to black magic (sort of an allegory for drug addiction). To me, as a Christian, the storyline just underlined that no matter how sympathetic the characters, their attraction was literally unnatural and that no good outcome from it was possible.
    Anyway… Joss Weedon (of “Avengers” fame) eventually left the show except on an advisory basis and it went rapidly downhill. The symbolic nature of the stories vanished and they were just unbelievable, dumb stories. In the last year, the “good” witch character had died and the other character took up with an underaged girl. REALLY. I could not believe it was on television. If it had been any of the adult male characters constantly making out with an underaged girl, there would have been a huge outcry (in fact, in one of the early seasons there was a really funny story arc about that — a young but adult guy and a girl student had a forbidden crush on each other and finally kissed during a crisis, only to immediately let go and make a face at each other and never mention it again). But it was okay because it was a young woman and an old teen girl?
    Television shows are frequently where these things turn up now. There is a very active gay advocacy organization that “suggests” storylines to television shows.

  11. Supertradmum says:

    In the EU, there is also a great push for lowering the age of consent to 12 owing to the pressures from both the Muslim communities and the gay lobbies.

    Of course, in many countries, parents have no rights and these normal parental protections have been replaced by governments. When our Justice Kagan stated that she did not hold with a natural law philosophy, but that law was merely what a government decided it was, I knew the States would completely depart from the Judeo-Romano-Christian basis of law, that is, natural law.

    For a long time, I have been encouraging Catholics to form strong sub-communities, which people seem not to want to do. These types of support groups on a daily basis will be the only way families will be able to sustain the horrible reality of a completely godless society.

    Wake up time is long gone…we are in the fourth stage of persecution as Catholics, and will be entering into the fifth soon, which means out and out physical persecution.

    Raise your children to be saints and martyrs, now.

  12. DisturbedMary says:

    The pedophile priest thing has run its course…even though it never got called what it really was: pederasty and homosexuality. The hyenas are done with that carcass. Now they want little boys. Consider the experience in Massachusetts. Mass Resistance tells the story from the beginning. It ain’t pretty.

  13. jacobi says:

    You do right Father to highlight this insidious campaign. Catholics, and indeed all Christians, should be up in arms against it. The fact that they are not, and often simply look away, shows the extent to which the laity – and much worse – our bishops, have become Secularised in the last four decades.
    This “campaign” sadly, also exists, or at least has its sympathisers, within the hierarchy. The recent article by Fr Dariusz Oko “ With the Pope against Homoheresy ” , is now a must read for anyone concerned with this problem. It deals mainly with the problem within the Church but sheds much light on the “homoideology” mentality.

  14. inexcels says:

    It’s hard to describe in mere words just how much fury this fills me with. All the more frustrating because it’s difficult to take meaningful action against these kinds of movements.

    I agree with Supertradmum: Catholics should be forming subcommunities to insulate themselves from the revolting larger culture. But there’s too many people with their heads in the sand.

  15. Sonshine135 says:

    This is what happens when moral relativism is allowed, and even promoted. The redefinition of marriage movement was most vociferously promoted by some of my “Catholic” friends. These are people who have no problem at all receiving the Eucharist weekly at Mass. That this comes as a surprise or shock to anyone is hilarious. When Sodom and Gomorrah are invited to take up residency in your church….yes, your church, is it really any surprise? This is the final revolt against Christianity and it is allowed from within, and it will get much worse. At the local Catholic High School that my son attends, the girls dress up for the football games like sluts- short shorts and tank tops are allowed at the stadium. The PTA Vice President for the Catholic Middle School wore a skirt the other night that left little to the imagination. My wife and I were shocked. Immodesty is the rule of the day- even in our own Catholic Schools and homes. I have mentioned this to several Catholic parents and have heard the all-to-common response: It’s the fashion of the day.

    Homosexuality will be followed by the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality. Make no mistake. Before we go blaming the homosexual movement though, we need to look at ourselves and the immorality that we Hetrosexual Catholics not only allow-we condone.

  16. Sissy says:

    but….but…..but…….I was told pedophilia had NOTHING to do with homosexuality!

  17. LarryW2LJ says:

    On a semi-related note, I am very sad and disheartened to say that my state, New Jersey, has become the 14th State of the Union to legalize homosexual “marriage”. I put the word in quotes because that, of course, is what it is. Nothing more than a sham, a perverse parody of the real thing. Also sadly, our Roman Catholic governor is doing nothing to stop it – “While I personally disagree ………..”

    People look at me like I have three heads, when I forward the idea that very soon, Roman Catholic priests will be jailed and the Church sued and persecuted for not following this new “law”. I am told by my pro-gay marriage supporting myopic friends that “That will never happen.”

    My answer is “Hah!”

  18. GypsyMom says:

    Satan’s ultimate goal is to destroy innocence in children. If he can get them young, very few of these victims will ever make their way back to God and a normal and healthy life–let alone achieving salvation. I have known quite well several people who were victims of childhood sexual abuse, and they are all terribly wounded. A few of them, with great amounts of prayer, counseling, and much time in front of Our Lord at Adoration, have managed to put their lives back together, but they and their families daily live with the scars that won’t be completely healed until Jesus wipes away every tear in Heaven. The vast majority of the victims’ lives are shattered. The tragedies include drug and alcohol addiction, involvement in crime, broken families of their own, prison, and premature death. And, of course, they have all abandoned any kind of faith and have embraced agnosticism and atheism. Satan won. He wants to destroy every child he can, because the evil effects in the lives of victims spread to others like ripples in a pond, as many of these victims become predators themselves. With one victim, many can eventually be obtained by the evil one. This cancer spreads throughout all of society and can eventually bring it down. We would all do well to remember God’s response to Sodom and Gomorrha. This sin so angers God that He stops it by hurling fiery meteors from the heavens to completely burn everything and everyone. And we’re looking at enshrining in law this abomination on a world-wide scale? Chastisement, anyone?

  19. mlmc says:

    the left hates the Church more than it loves pederasts & pedophiles- so they used the sex abuse scandal to attack the Church. Now that the damage is done they will pivot back to their more important agenda of “advancing sexual liberty”. The traditional family & the Church are two of the Left’s main opponents-hence the drive to educate small children about sexuality at school & not include the parents or require divulging material or consent of the parents ( or ) . The left knows the Church will always oppose their real agenda, even if some left wing Catholics think they can work together- Robespierre & Lenin weren’t fools they understood the Churches theology better than Nancy Pelosi et al. But remember: it is for the children. Mary Eberstadt wrote two articles in The Weekly Standard (1996 & 2001) about the pedophilia agenda that are worth reading- Pedophilia Chic & Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered. I am glad my children are adults now.

  20. tonyfernandez says:

    The link between homosexuality and mental illness has always fascinated me. If it really is a mental disease, then the devil has struck a major blow to society. Not only has he encouraged more people into mortal sin, but he has also deprived help to those who were already in mortal sin. More and more people are probably going to hell because of this, yet it is becoming more and more normal in our culture. I only wish that the truth rather than sensitivity was more important to our collective sensibilities.

  21. Priam1184 says:

    I just read an article in Le Monde about the first gay adoption in France. It does amaze me that the Western world has now largely accepted a situation where two adult men in a homosexual relationship can now ‘adopt’ a twelve year old boy. This seems to me like a return to darkest paganism. The foundations of the Catholic world were slowly worn away over then centuries and now it is our fate to see this rapid and complete (not really complete, just a great illusion that will take many souls with it, because Our Lord and his Church will win out in the end) descent into Hell in our lifetimes. Marana tha! Veni Domine Iesu! Our Lord come…

  22. Johnno says:

    The Homosexuals advance the child-sex agenda because they understand the underlying philosophy required to boost their own position must logically also uphold that of pedophilia.

    It is based on feelings and consent. Get that and anything becomes possible.

    Also in their bid to treat their sexual deviency as some kind of ethnic group mandates that they must push for a kind of ‘racial’ tolerance in the classroom. But unlike actual ethnicities and cultures, homosexuals are only defined by how they have sex with. In order for children to be good citizens and otlerate them, children must be taught about sex, explicitly. If children are also encouraged to engage in it (safely of course), and avoid pregnancy (why not with someone of the same sex as you?), and experience it with someone knowledgable adn responsible (an adult), then they will become more accomodating of diversity.

    Of course parents must be out of the picture, and Planned Parenthood must be there to help them be safe and find solutions to ‘unwanted problems.’ It’s all about privacy of course, privacy from their parents!

    Pedophilia is coming, and it’s legitimacy begins in your school classrooms! Catholic Schools in canada are already rolling out the red carpet for them with gay clubs and sex ed programs. The University of Toronto invited an openly pro-pedophile speaker to their kids education program to speak. Home schooling is being attacked by liberal politicians.

  23. Peter Damian says:

    Despite their talk of “consent” rather than “consenting adults”, there is no way that a young person can give consent to an adult, especially because predators carefully groom their victims to break down their resistance until they can be taken advantage of.

    Grooming behavior is a cancerous affliction of the human psyche. I had the misfortune of living with a number of predators (including several superiors) during my time in religious life, and those men were masters of manipulation. They not only broke down the psyche of their victims, but corrupted the minds of the people around them so that they would not/could not question their suspicious behavior. Even when I raised objections, community members were so manipulated they refused to acknowledge the truth.

    Do not believe for one minute that these relationships are healthy. They are purely predatory.

  24. Supertradmum says:

    Even in the pagan world, sex with boys was not enshrined in law. Our current cultures are becoming worse than the pagan world, as we are post-Christian, which means people have heard the Gospel and rejected Christ.

    We have been warned of this for a long time and those Catholics who still think they can play footsy with the left, including some bishops and cardinals, will be held accountable for not stopping the rise of the post-Christian tyrannical empires.

    Obama’s Core Curriculum is already accepted by half the diocesan schools in America. This is unbelievable, as, of course, sex ed is part of that curriculum.

    If any Catholic parent is sending their children to any of these false Catholic schools, or government schools, they will be held accountable by God.

  25. ChrisRawlings says:

    A lot of the comments here, and, to a great extent, a lot if what Fr. Z writes, is really gloomy. As it happens, I even tend to agree that it looks like things are “going to get a lot worse.” But I rarely hear anyone talk about how practically to prepare for that.

    My wife and I are a young couple expecting our first child in about a month. She is a public school teacher and I am involved in public policy and writing. We are at the forefront of what Fr. Z calls The Coming Storm. But bunkering down isn’t an option. Most of us are called to radical cultural engagement, and the Pope makes this point a lot. But, then, what do you do when you must be at the front lines if this battle while seeing that it may get much worse before it gets better? What does it mean to be the Maquis? How do you fix your eyes on Christ when you are walking through so much darkness and discouragement?

    In other words, practically, how do you stay engaged with our burying your head in the sand about what us coming–and how do you prepare a young family for it?

  26. Pingback: The B&R Monday Skim | Black & Right

  27. wmeyer says:

    Anyone who thinks this is the next step of the gay agenda is deluded. This is the secularist/hedonist agenda, and they will not stop until all issues of morality are removed from law. Personal choice, no constraints, and no judges. Complete amorality.

  28. Archer.2013 says:

    So once again, the nasty underbelly of traditional Catholicism reveals itself on this blog. Be assured that I along with the majority if homosexuals am not a pedophile nor am I suffering from a mental illness. I feel bashed by the new Holy Father for being a traditional Catholic, and I feel equally bashed by traditional Catholics for being gay. I can tell you now though that I feel that I may have been sorely mistaken in thinking I had found a home within the Catholic Church. Under Pope Francis you are being quickly marginalized and while at first I was aghast at this, after reading once again the twisted logic of the “faithful Catholics” on this site, I am coming to believe that this cannot be an entirely bad thing. While I abhor the lack of clarity from the Pope, I abhor equally having to read these bloody quotes that seem all to keen to proclaim pedophilia a sickness limited to the gay community. The sexualization of children is something pushed by wider pop-culture, one need only watch the antics of Lady Gaga, Madonna, Jennifer Lopez for this to be affirmed. There is a whole industry out there feeding of the sexualization of younger generations. As you build your little fortress and drive out all who fall short of your own perfection, I have one question, after you’ve swept it clean what devils do you think will move in to take the place of those you have pushed out the door? I wonder what kind of reception you would have given many of our great saints before they fully embraced the Faith, such as Francis or Augustine, Mary of Egypt or Callixtus. I won’t post again on this blog, I will not read this blog and I will not recommend this blog to friends. [Blessings for your journey.]

  29. jacobi says:

    Catholics of homosexual inclination who seek to observe the Church’s teachings are heroes, given the pressure from Secularist society in general and certain specialist groups within it to dissolve any concept of moral constraint.

    The Catholic Church is their particular target since if it falls, they have won. Perhaps that explains some of the outrage, and fear?, felt by many Catholics.
    Remember that all Catholics, outside of a valid marriage between a man and a women are called to chastity. That includes the as yet unmarried, the religious, separated, and so on, and so on. You are not alone.

    You do, however, have a particular opportunity for heroism, in Christ. Remember that!

  30. inexcels says:

    On the off-chance you stop by to see the reaction to your tirade, Archer, let me just say: Simply saying “Hey guys, sexualization of children isn’t limited to the homosexual lobby, it’s being pushed by the culture at large” probably would have been a far more effective way to make your point than throwing a childish temper tantrum laced with irrational hyperbole. Drawing a connection between being angered by a push to legalize child molestation and having such a self-righteous attitude that one would reject historical saints? Who’s the one who is really demonstrating egotistical sanctimony here?

    Setting aside the tone, I’ll concede that Archer makes a good point: a large proportion of the culture seems more than happy to be complicit in mainstreaming sexual exploitation of children. It is true, as much damage as homosexual lobbying as wrought on our culture, it would all come to naught if not for the cooperation of the majority heterosexual population.

  31. Siculum says:

    Would the kind Mr. Archer.2013 condemn what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah?

    The hypocrites on the “left” will never “normalize” the priests accused of pedophilia, though. Never.

  32. midwestmom says:

    Amen, jacobi!

    Archer, I encourage you to look up “Courage Apostolate” on Facebook.

  33. philstudent13 says:

    Just another step in the erosion of sexual morality. While it has been gradual, its also shocking how fast things have moved. It wasn’t really that long ago that there was a broad acceptance of the Christian position on things, that sex is between a married man and woman and must at least allow for the possibility of procreation. Of course the procreation part was thrown out first, in Christian circles by the Anglicans in 1930 and this became widely accepted by the culture, which ultimately led to abortion. Then the Sexual Revolution came along and everyone decided that the whole ‘marriage’ element wasn’t necessary anymore (though they did keep the notion of consent implicit in this understanding), of course resulting in the massive breakdown of the family structure as well as the proliferation of things such as pornography. And nowadays, of course, the next domino of “man and woman” has basically been toppled, and all that is left now is ‘consent.’ Wonder how long that’ll last?
    Of course, consent will not be brought down all at once. That would be too shocking for people to support. Instead, they will gradually begin to expand the boundaries of who is allowed to consent. First it will be adolescents, then children, then probably animals, at which point, the notion of consent will be so weakened that the attack can begin in earnest, and we’ll begin to hear that the notion of consent only prevents one from fulfilling one’s ‘natural’ sexual desires? And that, if one was ‘born’ in such a way as to want to have sex with a particular person, who are they to prevent you from doing so? That would just be bigoted right?
    And while the term ‘slippery slope’ can be problematic logically speaking, this whole process seems to be a perfect textbook example of it. And what is scary is how so many people, even people who are most likely well-meaning, are simply ignorant of how this is working. I would imagine if you ask most people today who support homosexual activities and “marriage,” they would not support pedophilia. Which is all well and good, except that they don’t seem to realize that 25 years ago, that was the same way people felt about homosexuality, and that it is only the result of activism and cultural manipulation through the media that people have come to change their minds on this. Since people don’t recognize that this process is what shaped their own beliefs, they don’t understand that the same thing is going to happen, so that decades from now, if nothing changes, pedophilia will be the accepted norm.
    People just seem to think, “OK, things have changed, now that we have gotten rid of the moral rules against X we won’t go any further than that,” while ignoring the history behind things. For instance, look at the Anglican Lambeth Council of 1930, which started allowing birth control under certain circumstances, but also declared that induced abortion was “abhorrent,” failing to see that one relaxation of morality would simply lead to others. Or today, the massive politically correct/feminist emphasis on rape (I do NOT of course, intend to diminish how horrible rape is, only to point out the short-shortsightedness of some of those who so actively speak against it today). It is, in a way, logical, that since rape is really the only sexual act left that everyone can broadly agree is morally reprehensible, that people would focus on it so much. However, the feminist crowd, having gone along with every other element of the amoralization of sex (even pornography is rarely seen as objectifying to women, but is rather presented as “empowering,” whatever that means), just can’t make the connection that if rape is the only wrong thing left in the dwindling pool of immoral sexual actions, if consent is the only rule of sexual morality left, that this also makes it the next target for elimination.

  34. OrthodoxChick says:

    “If any Catholic parent is sending their children to any of these false Catholic schools, or government schools, they will be held accountable by God.”

    Um, that’s a little harsh, don’t you think? Hard-identity Catholic parents, especially those with several children, are pressed for options right now. Homeschooling simply isn’t an option for every family, as much as I wish that it could be. The reality is that there are families in which both parents must work due to financial necessity. There are also, unfortunately, too many single-parent families in which one parent is deceased, or the custodial parent was left against their choice by their spouse. What about intact families with one parent away for upwards of a year on active duty military deployment for a hardship tour? Such single parent households may be every bit as devout as any traditional nuclear family, but that doesn’t make it terribly easy to homeschool.

    Also, if you happen to live in as liberal an area of the U.S. as I do, the “standard” diocesan schools vary in their adhereance to liberal agendas. In most cases, the public schools are the worst, but my oldest son attends one. And (gasp!) it is state-run. It’s a technical vocational school and there is NO Catholic school anywhere around here that offers a tech curriculum. In my son’s case, I do the only thing that I can do. I watch him like a hawk. This year, his history class is Civics and the test book is not as biased as I had been bracing myself for. But last year, the so-called history class was “Global Studies”. To my surprise, they actually covered a unit on world religions and he actually had to study for a test on Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. I can assure you that his mama was his study buddy for that one and it presented a great oppotunity to set him straight on some things. As for social interactions at school…this Friday is Homecoming and he volunteered to sell tickets and refreshments at the dance. His long-past-cool mom volunteered to chaperone so he’s all set for a date to the dance! As far as sex-ed at the state school, I was given the option to withdraw him from the sex-ed portion of the health curriculum by signing a form that the school sent home, which of course, I did.

    My other children all attend one of the few remaining Diocesan schools and I chose the least liberal that I could find. Yes, they must implement the Diocesan-accepted ObamaCommonCore, but so far, they appear to have accepted it in name only. The teaching staff is mostly old-school and so are their teaching methods. At least their school uses TOB instead of a secular sex-ed class. Not perfect, but it could be worse. They are taught about abortion in grade 7 in our Diocese and the pro-life position is supported. There is more prayer scattered throughout their school day than I received when I attended Catholic Diocesan elementary school in the late 70’s/early 80’s. I put in an awful lot of time volunteering at the Catholic school as well so that I can stay on top of things.

    It isn’t ideal. I would much prefer to have a traditional classical latin Catholic school in my area. I would be the first in line to register my kids. If I knew of any other hard-identity homeschooling parents in the area, I would suggest we start our own homeschool co-op, but I’m already the elephant in the pew at every N.O. parish in my area once I open my mouth and make my positions known during parking lot chit-chat.

    I’m well aware that I will be held accountable by God, but hopefully He’ll judge me to have done the best that I could under the circumstances. For other parents who find themselves in a similar situation, my best advice is don’t be afraid to be that helicopter mom who is constantly hovering over her kids. They’ll have the rest of their adult lives to be independent – once you’ve safely guided them through the battlefield that is secular culture.

  35. Fr_Sotelo says:


    As a Catholic priest who has pastored nine parishes over a 20 year time span, I cannot agree with you more on two points–1) There is no inherent link between homosexuality and child molestation and 2) Homosexuals should not be considered any more “mentally ill” than any other group of the population.

    I have spent countless hours dealing, in confession and in counseling, with people who were 1) molested as children and teens and 2) who struggle with mental illness. My experience is that the vast majority of those who have been molested have been fondled and raped by heterosexuals and often by people who were close to them. Also, my experience with mental illness among both devout Catholics, less active Catholics, and the population at large give me total certainty that heterosexuals have their own cornucopia of craziness to deal with.

    And yes, as traditional Catholics, we must come to grips with the fact that homosexuals are not “out there” like an invading force from outer space. They are found in Latin Mass communities, traditional Novus Ordo communities, and found as well in the ranks of traditional priests and Sisters. Those homosexuals in the midst of the traditional Catholic community do often, and without any justification, feel themselves thrown into the same melting pot with every radical and anti-Catholic strand of the gay, bi, lesbian, and transgendered community.

    And this, in spite of the fact that they are among the Church’s most loyal sons and daughters–all the while fighting the fight of the Faith without any of the joys and strengths that accompany the vocation of having a spouse and children. No, it is not right that they hear themselves described as “sodomites” and “molesters” when it would not occur to them to live out either sin. No, it is not fair. Yes, traditional Catholics need to come to grips with the reality that their love for the Church is shared by many closed but yet very faithful homosexuals who are just hanging on with very little support and much suspicion in the traditional Catholic community.

    Please carry on, Archer.2013. You are needed and wanted and no less a member of the One, True Faith than anyone else. And as a friend of Fr. Z, I can assure you that it would never be in his mind or heart to attack or even discourage any loyal son of the Church.

  36. Fr_Sotelo says:

    “Closed” in my second to the last paragraph should read “closeted.”

  37. Siculum says:

    Another article worth reading: Hide the young ones, though it’s not that bad (I believe it appeared in First Things as well)

    Also, the “B” of LGBT is going to need to be addressed, or as Bill Donahue of the Catholic League refers to them, “Tom, Dick, and Harry.”

    Before we all lose our appetites over this discussion, let’s just move from here to Father Z’s post with the pictures of pasta and bruschetta.

    @Mrs. OrthodoxChick, by chance is your child in the NYS Regents Global Studies program? If I recall correctly — and I could be wrong — in past years the world religions portion has been (surprisingly) not too bad. Fairly educational, even, despite its origins in secularist Albany. Especially if taught by a decent, fair teacher. So your older child might just squeak through. But if they’ve hurried up and quickly applied ObamaCore standards, and the sample test questions and new textbooks are radical departures from the old, then….yikes.

    Everyone, there is fruit to be found. Look at John Paul the Great Catholic High School down in Dumfries, VA. They’re run and staffed by excellent Dominican sisters and very qualified Catholic lay faculty, and have the only high school bioethics curriculum in the country, last I knew. I believe they’ll make it onto the forthcoming Newman Guide to Catholic High Schools (or equivalent). Brick by brick!

  38. OrthodoxChick says:


    Nope, not NY, but right next door in CT. As best as I can tell, I think that implementation of the common core hasn’t really kicked in yet (in my son’s school, at least) because many teachers are still grappling with how to do it. Even the teachers at our local public elementary school were dreading the implementation of it back in June when the last school year ended. It’s certainly something to keep an eye on though.

  39. Kathleen10 says:

    I need a moment to gather my thoughts. But in the interim, I’d like to thank Archer for a text book response to a supposedly grownup discussion on a blog, by a person who has self-identified as a member of the homosexual community, and the typical, knee-jerk response of others, to that overly emotional response.
    1. Discussion held
    2. Over the top emotional response to that discussion
    3. Back-pedaling, reassurances of inclusion, and of course, resultant emotional fear from participants that they have been ______. (fill in the blank, bigoted, uncharitable, unfair, cruel, etc. You know the drill.)
    4. This is why it all works sooo well.

  40. Fr_Sotelo says:


    I don’t believe Archer’s response was either textbook or merely emotional rant. He responded to the article above by stating what are valid concerns:
    …while there are gays who may wish to lower the age of consent, not all homosexuals should be branded with the scarlet P (pedophile);
    …while it is true that SSA is a departure from nature and therefore is disordered, that does not make homosexuals “mentally ill” across the board;
    …while homosexualists–as opposed to homosexuals–have driven an agenda which sexualizes young people, heterosexuals in entertainment and in the culture at large have been just as guilty of spreading the effects of the sexual revolution.
    It seems to me that along with emotional reaction, Archer did attempt to respond to themes of the discussion with points that are quite debatable among adults who wish to debate.
    And even if Archer’s level of emotion can be debated, I would certainly expect anyone who is unjustly thrown under the stereotype of “child molester” to react and to defend their honor. I can assure you, Catholic priests feel no less emotional when they hear and read comments which stereotype them in the same way merely because they are Catholic priests.
    If you wish to speak of drills, Archer might just as easily look at your post, and the online attempt at clinical diagnosis, as an example of: “wishes to divert away from my talking points so they put on the white coat and play psychotherapist.”

  41. Kathleen10 says:

    There is alot to be said. It comes down to this. Really, it is this simple.
    Are we, more concerned about “feelings” and “emotional reactions” by individuals with homosexual inclinations, than we are with the safety and security of children and our young people. Which one is it. You cannot have both. You must decide which one you are more concerned with, and act accordingly. As was perfectly demonstrated right here, in front of our eyes, we see how it is, and how it always is.

    The John Jay Study, the people charged with investigating the sexual abuse in our own church, determined the following FACTS.
    81% of the victims of homosexual priests were post-adolescent boys (approximate ages 10 to 16 or so)
    We know ALL the perpetrators were male.
    Simple logic applies.
    Male on young male sexual assaults are epidemic. Should we end this discussion, because someone from the homosexual community has taken the usual umbrage to the truth? Yes, it’s controversial to defend children today! That is why I said, choose one. You cannot protect children and keep everyone “feeling good”. You must choose!

    This is exactly where the S hits the F, and you, and I, and everyone, must decide which it’s going to be. For my part, I will do my level best to follow Jesus Christ, until my last. While I am on this planet, I will therefore do my level best to protect and defend the vulnerable, most definitely, the elderly, children, and young people. The latter two are under attack by a movement so insidious, so sinister, so manipulative, so evil, (and so diabolically effective) that it has effectively muddled the heads of many good people, many, who should be able to identify sin and evil much more easily than the rest of us, but who have themselves gotten so confused they have lost track of who the real and true victims in this battle are, children and young people.
    The disturbing facts are there. I hate those facts. I don’t want to know them. They are not pleasant. They do not add to my happiness in life, quite the opposite, but life is not about “feeling good” all the time. I cannot in good conscience act as if they don’t exist, or I am part of the problem.
    Children, yours, or your grandchildren, are the next and natural targets of the homosexual community. Men are adopting children they turn around and sexually molest. Think not? It happened in Connecticut. It is happening, and it will happen more, because that is what the powers that be are forcing upon our society. I have heard of infants…I can’t say it, but those children deserve to be protected from this entity that not only wants society to enable them, but help them to “feel good while they do it”. !!
    What can we do? Is it impossible to address? Well, we’ve seen what happens when you try to even talk about the problem. It becomes personal. It can’t be about children, because it’s about them. Distraction effort – accomplished. Everybody be quiet now because “feelings were hurt”. Oh BS!
    Fr_Sotelo. With all due respect. I disagree with your two main points. All your points but specifically these two.
    1. “no inherent link between homosexuality and child molestation”.
    What is your definition of “child”? The data from reliable sources are surely there. There is a definite link between male homosexuals sexually abusing/coercing/pursuing/ young males, with the most “desirable” target range of 10-15 or so years. Are you SERIOUSLY going to deny this? If it is the word “child” we are disagreeing on, for my part, a 15 year old is most definitely a “child”.
    On what basis are you claiming there is NO inherent link?

    2. “Homosexuals should not be considered any more ‘mentally ill’ than any other group”.
    Are you saying that because the APA took homosexuality out of the “DSM” manual of mental disorders due to constant lobbying by the homosexual community, only a few years ago? That surely doesn’t prove anything except that the APA can be bullied.
    There is much data on the facts that domestic abuse is rampant in gay relationships for both males and females. Jealousy, fits of temper, promiscuity, and other pathologies are also the conclusion of many studies. Child abuse and neglect have been found to be much higher in “families” where one person is not related by blood to the child in the home. Are these indicators of mental stability and health? Silly statements like these are not going to protect children OR young people. They have done nothing but hurt the effort to defend natural law or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

    Hey, we can throw numbers and studies at each other all day. The bottom line is children are being targeted, and are going to be increasingly targeted. They are vulnerable, and need our protection. You either get involved and be watchful, ready to speak on children’s behalf, or you don’t, preferring to save the “feelings” and “self-esteem” of grownups.

    In each state, when we see the issue come up, often insidiously, we must be there to defend the rights of children. Watch out for consent issues. They will come. This is the defining line, the age of consent. If you care about children, speak up for them. You don’t have to attack anyone, but they will try to make you feel that are you, as Archer just pulled off nicely. Don’t fall for it. Stick to the facts that children need to be protected. Look for some reliable studies and keep them handy.
    And of course, prayer. It is easy to see why we are where we are today. Jesus, have mercy on us.

  42. Archer.2013 says:

    Here is one more fact for you Kathleen10…this Sunday I will be returning to service at my old Church of England parish. I will not darken the doors of a Catholic Church ever again. I will continue to be celibate, I will continue to pray and I will continue to do so in a Christian community that recognizes what a hotch potch the human family can be. The last thing I would ever want to do is put your children in danger or make you feel threatened by my mental illness and propensity to violence. I really wish I hadn’t looked back out of curiosity to see what the reaction had been to my comment. I am quite literally horrified. Thank you for your kind words Fr Sotelo they were much appreciated, but I’m afraid your level headedness is not something I have often come across in my life as a Catholic. Kathleen10 however is more representative of my experience. It is rants like yours Kathleen10 that simply switch people off Catholicism. You are a scarecrow that is every bit as damaging to the Church as the Spirit of Vatican II has been. I bid you all farewell. [Lumen gentium 14]

  43. MaryL says:

    God is in charge Archer not individuals in the Catholic church. You need to get a grip. There are grossly bad people around who are homosexual and preying on children. Not all homosexuals are, and those remaining faithful to God are true heroes. The Catholic church has always taught this.

    When you are a parent and 10 or 12 year old Johnny comes home from school one day and tells you that he is going to live with Homosexual Harry or Sodomite Sam down the road because there is nothing wrong with this and this is what he wants. It is not going to matter that Harry has been deviantly setting this up behind your back for months if not years.

    This article is in Spanish, but worth looking at all the same if you can translate it. This is the warped thinking that is going on by people in very high places. Creeping and creepy.

  44. Giuseppe says:

    I appreciate Father Z’s efforts to show the connection between homosexuality and age of consent laws. An 18 yo female high-school senior is prosecuted for multiple sexual episodes with a 14 yo female high-school freshman. She was charged with 2 felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery with the 14 yo, who cannot legally consent to such activities in Florida until she is 16.

    I was unaware that the national gay establishment/elites were championing a change in age-of-consent laws. I disagree with this, and I do not think America will go for this. As long as we are jailing 18 yo boys for having sex with 14 yo girls, we should jail 18 yo women for having sex with 14 yo girls. Age of consent should be 16 nationally. It is, by far, the national consensus.

    I do not understand why high school seniors would date freshmen or sophomores. This was considered bad form when I was a student back in the 80s. My how times have changed…

  45. Kathleen10 says:

    Sticks and stones. Neither Fr_Sotero’s snarky comment about my putting on a white coat nor your scarecrow comments bother me one iota, and you will be discouraged to find I have not a molecule of remorse for what I have said. I agree with every word I said and everyone else’s besides. I will agree with your words in that they are your personal opinion! That’s the difference. I believe you have a right to your personal opinion. You do not believe I have a right to my personal opinion, as it disagrees with yours. Anyway, I will sleep soundly tonight knowing that I put children’s welfare far, far before I put any supposed grownup’s emotional outbursts and “feelings”. You may want to toughen up though. Example, as a person of Irish extraction, I’ve heard the million jokes about alcoholism, drunks, ales, Paddy, and so on. I don’t drink. But when someone mentions alcohol and the Irish I somehow refrain from falling into despair and becoming hysterical. It’s that person’s opinion and, like everything in life it’s got it’s basis in fact and also some exaggeration. I’d be a nut to say “How dare you connect the Irish with alcohol! you’ve insulted me and you’re a hateful bigot”. Even were I trying to silence others because I had reason to believe my temper tantrum would do that, that would be a manipulative over-reaction, even if it worked.
    One is forever explaining what one never said in this arena, and it’s been a very useful tool for the gay rights movement. Get your “opponent” to start explaining what they did NOT say, but that somehow you HEARD. Get emotional, get them up against the ropes, and dancing around trying to explain how they didn’t MEAN this or MEAN that, and…and….”I love homosexuals!” they say, as they back out of the room, determined not to talk about this AGAIN.
    Very effective, but, not this time. I did not say “all homosexuals are dangerous predators who want to sexually molest children or young boys”, but what I could and would say is “too many homosexuals are dangerous predators who want to sexually molest young boys”. Note the difference. Maybe yours and Fr_Sotero’s points would be much more convincing if there were many more open homosexuals who pointed to man/boy love “associations” such as NAMBLA, and openly criticized such “behaviors”. But, what? The silence is deafening! They DON’T. I don’t wonder why. I know why. There are sick predators who are openly saying they are trying to change consent laws so they can have free access to children for sexual activity. In that case, please excuse my determined effort that they SHALL not have them without a fight, on this issue, to the bitter end. I’m delighted you are not part of that evil effort. I believe you! Hurrah! Hurrah for you!
    I am not going to be cowed into apologizing for the truth, discussing this very real threat to children’s wellbeing and safety, and I am not going to be cowed into couching words in such a way as to pander to your sensitivities and emotionality. Hey you’ve got the whole world doing that.
    Your decision to stay in the Catholic church or leave and be a Buddhist is between you and God alone. We all have to walk that walk Archer. Make your decision, man up, and do it, one way or the other, like we all have to. I wouldn’t use that to intimidate others into silence on this particular topic. It will work sometimes, but not always.

  46. Giuseppe says:

    Kathleen10, glad you mentioned alcohol so no one else has to bring it up….Just kidding.

    I hear what you are saying. Roman Catholic teaching could not be clearer. Those who engage in and persist in same-sex sexual activity have no place in the Roman Catholic Church, except as sinners vowing to change their behavior. There are other churches which will welcome them, but, engaging in their behavior, they will NEVER find a home in Orthodox Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Evangelical Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism.

    What has become clearer is that those who accept and tolerate same-sex sexual activity (including same-sex marriage) are also no longer welcome into the above churches. I appreciate the clarity that several of our leaders have offered on this matter, that support of same-sex marriages is a full-scale promotion of sodomy. Smaller, purer churches? Sounds like it.

  47. bookworm says:

    Not all women embrace the political and social priorities of the “women’s movement,” particularly when it comes to abortion, sexuality or the importance (or unimportance) of marriage and family. So why should we assume that all homosexuals embrace the goals of the LGBT “movement”? I would no more assume that all or even most homosexuals want to legalize pedophila or lower the age of consent any more than I would assume all women are man-hating feminazis who think abortion on demand is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

  48. Fr_Sotelo says:


    “You either get involved and be watchful, ready to speak on children’s behalf, or you don’t, preferring to save the “feelings” and “self-esteem” of grownups.”

    False dilemma, false dichotomy, or false choice–call it want you want. How about if we try to be both watchful and ready to speak on children’s behalf and respectful, kind, and fair to the feelings and self-esteem of grownups?? I was not aware that as a Catholic there was some command that I choose between the two. But allow me to address your two questions:

    1. Yes, I do deny that there is any inherent link between being a male homosexual and being a predator of either a child (up to pubescent years) or an adolescent (post pubescent minors). I am aware of the studies that show that priest molesters targeted male adolescents for the most part, and that among the laity, a certain minority of homosexual men are ephebophiles.

    But there is no study whatsoever that shows that a male homosexual will be a predator simply for being homosexual, just as there is no study that shows that a heterosexual male will want to molest girls and adolescent ladies simply because they are a heterosexual male. Please read this article out of UC Davis titled “Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation:

    Apart from my studies, however, I worked in county social services during seminary vacation doing data entry as office work. Almost all the entries for molestation of children and adolescents took place at the hands of heterosexuals. I was told by Child Protection Services officers that this was typical data across the board.

    2. The reason I said that homosexuals are not more mentally ill than the population at large was because, although, as the Catholic Church teaches, the homosexual inclination goes against nature and is disordered (which is why such sexual proclivity was in the Diagnostic Manual to begin with), we must keep in mind that for a homosexual, their sexual inclinations are only one part of their person.

    And this gets to the point of why a homosexual might become “emotional” in these discussions to begin with. A person as a son or daughter of God should not be defined by the problems that rage below the belt. No one should be pigeonholed or reduced to their private parts and what they desire sexually. Even if homosexuals have higher incidences of depression or domestic violence, we must recall that mental health problems are far more varied than just depression or anger management.

    In short, every Catholic is called to be a child advocate. But painting, with a broad brush, the homosexual demographic with simplistic stereotypes or generalized suspicion of being a cabal of predators is neither helpful nor worthy of the Catholic apostolate of safe environment outreach.

  49. Kathleen10 says:

    Ahh…I’m going to be annoyed with myself. I promised myself “no more responses”, yet I checked. And as you see, I have found it impossible not to answer. You shall have the last word Father.
    False dichotomy? I don’t think so. As we can see, to say “no” to the homosexual activist is forbidden. Not only can you not say no but you cannot think what you think. That is also forbidden. I admit, I have zero patience for immature hissy fits when life presents obstacles to someone’s dreams and desires when those dreams and desires conflict with everyone else’s dreams and desires, not to mention our entire human history. You find the fit compelling. I do not. I find the protection of children compelling, in all circumstances, to the bitter end. They cry and feel badly too Father.

    “How about if we both are concerned with the welfare of children?”. Oh I’m all for that. Do you think you can get the gay rights movement involved? That would be super. See if you can obtain what nobody else has been able to obtain, a clear, concise, open, and direct refutation of sexual activity between adults and minors. If you can obtain that, our worries are over and the lion can lay down with the lamb. I’ll gladly say you were right and I was wrong and I worried about nothing.
    But you won’t get that, and you know it. That contradicts a large part of what the homosexual movement entails, the “freedom” to have sex with minors. Not necessarily children, per se, but minors. That interesting, 10-17 year old cohort, that has been vastly and predominantly male, but recently, we see women are getting in on the sickness too, in an appalling new twist to the disorder. If you want to deny that reality, then do so. I cannot possibly convince anyone who is determined to see the elephant in the living room as a flea.

    I certainly do not deny there are sick, predator heterosexuals who prey upon innocent children, or there are not scores of people who profit from the sexualization of children. That is obvious. But when a child is molested by a same-sex predator, it is categorically different, because it IS disordered and sinful, and even a child intuits that much. It damages a child for life. It alters their own perception of themselves, and facilitates a sexual confusion that is very hard to shake. You should know all this. And sadly, very disturbingly, there are homosexuals who have openly stated the intention to sexually molest children for just that reason. Do you mean you have not heard of such statements? Has not this one mentioned conference that includes a Johns Hopkins paid professor stated as much?? That adults are coming out from under slimy rocks to state why “pedophiles are being mistreated” and that “sex does a child good” is absolutely CLEAR. Why do you deny what clearly and obviously exists, and is growing?? Because of the undeniable damage they can cause to children, they must be stopped. But as we see even to identify the threat becomes a hysterical battle of semantics and emotions. And if that doesn’t work it becomes anger and threats. And if that doesn’t work, tyranny and brutality. I’m sorry Father, but you are incorrect, we all have to pick a dog in this fight, that is positively true, and in my mind there is not even a battle, children get my sympathy, 100%. Sad to say, it is all too clear that for some people, even clergy, their sympathies lie elsewhere. Once upon a time, that was shocking.

  50. Kathleen10 says:

    And I recant my saying children per se were not targeted. That’s the point, of course they are, and openly.
    I must add, it is necessary to be very concerned with today’s self-identified gay or “bi” youth. That they are very vulnerable is an understatement, and they are being preyed upon by gay predators. We see “Gay and Bi Clubs” where they are virtual recruitment stations for these vulnerable young people, and the very people who are “charged” with guiding them, are in fact taking advantage of them sexually and emotionally.
    What happens to these young people who have been so badly misused. The suicide rate for gay teens is reportedly high. We ought to be very concerned for them, especially now that gay activists and their enablers have made it all but impossible to counsel them properly, and help them. No, they must be indoctrinated properly.
    In Massachusetts, the state has recently determined that couples, families of faith are “unfit” to raise sexually confused teens who are of course languishing in the foster care system. They must be encouraged toward experimentation and “supported” as the state puts it. It would be funny if not so sad. So it will not fit your narrative, but these self-identified “gay and bi” children and young people also get 100% of my sympathy and protection. They are so very vulnerable.

  51. benedetta says:

    It’s not about “homosexuals” it’s about the homosexualist agenda. This agenda does target children through the horrible, ineffective, unhealthy sex education in the public schools, and through its obsession with expanding abortion. It is also harmful to homosexuals by propagating confusion and holding them hostage to political demands. This agenda is narrow and has goals that are self serving, as opposed to serving the wider community. The homosexualist agenda does intend to sexualize children and there is a lot of available evidence to show this. Homosexuals on the other hand do not seem any more or less inclined to victimize children sexually than the rest of the heterosexual population. However. There is much evidence to show that the pornification of children at earlier and earlier ages leads them towards homosexual or deviant behavior at younger and younger ages, including acting out sexually and preying on younger children, because porn with its addictive properties compels immature minds to seek out weirder and weirder images and it breaks down normal judgment about whether something is appropriately acted upon or not. So while homosexuals as individuals are not in any greater numbers committing these crimes than heterosexuals, the gay porn industry is in fact driving towards this horrible result in our world where children will be increasingly victimized and it will be rationalized in the same way that the homosexualist agenda rationalizes so many other things in the name of its desired freedom. If it were not true, why don’t the organized gay lobbies stand up against the porn industry? So far, in the U.S. and the U.K., only women’s groups and family advocates are brave enough to face the facts. The U.K., it should be noted, is realizing that this is a crisis. Because of porn in Japan, I read this week, young people have pretty much, zero healthy interest in sex. The homosexualist agenda is ferocious and uninterested in the greater good. Whereas there are many philanthropic and community minded homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are well positioned, if they have some courage, to take a stand to prevent sexualization of children through this agenda.

  52. benedetta says:

    Kind of like this, I might add…I’m a woman, and I’m all for the dignity of women. However, women’s rights which hinge on the right to kill an innocent baby in the womb as styled by Nancy Pelosi and friends are not helpful or healthy towards women, their economic equality or their inherent dignity, and, of course, slaughters innocents and harms the whole society. So, while I am a woman, I do not support the abortion obsessed agenda of the friends of Obama. Similarly, a gay Catholic ought to oppose those aspects of the homosexualist lobby which is harmful to society.

  53. Fr_Sotelo says:


    “It’s not about “homosexuals” it’s about the homosexualist agenda.”

    Thank you. This is what I have been trying to explain to Kathleen. Archer did not get upset because the homosexualist agenda was being exposed. What he was angry at, reasonably I believe, is the attempt to lump all homosexual men and women into the “gay rights movement” or any homosexualist agenda which wishes to prey on children.

    Kathleen, you have once again taken my words as some kind of apologetic for the gay rights movement: “Do you think you can get the gay rights movement involved? That would be super.” You do know, don’t you, that I’m on your side, right? I wouldn’t attempt to speak for, apologize for, defend, the homosexualist agenda. And Archer’s so-called “hissy fit” was not a defense of them either, but rather an appeal for traditional Catholics to not turn every homosexual into an enemy or boogeyman out to prey on children. Because as benedetta reminds us so succinctly, this fight is against an agenda by homosexualists. Not homosexuals in general.

  54. bookworm says:

    On a somewhat related note…

    There was a big (one of the largest I’ve ever seen from my office window) pro-gay marriage rally at the Illinois Capitol today. Here’s how our bishop responded (story from the Chicago Sun-Times):

    SPRINGFIELD-The head of Springfield’s Roman Catholic diocese moved Tuesday to scuttle a silent protest by same-sex marriage advocates planned at the capital city’s largest Catholic church, calling their plans to pray the rosary for marriage equality “blasphemous.”
    Advocates for the Senate Bill 10 plan to attend a 5:15 p.m. Tuesday Mass at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception as part of what organizers describe as a “loud Catholic Presence for marriage equality” that will wrap up a daylong rally in support of the stalled legislation.
    But Bishop Thomas Paprocki, head of the Springfield Catholic diocese, said anyone wearing rainbow sashes won’t be permitted inside the church.
    “It is blasphemy to show disrespect or irreverence to God or to something holy,” Paprocki said in a statement released late Tuesday morning. “Since Jesus clearly taught that marriage as created by God is a sacred institution between a man and a woman (see Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9), praying for same-sex marriage should be seen as blasphemous and as such will not be permitted in the cathedral.
    “People wearing a rainbow sash or who otherwise identify themselves as affiliated with the Rainbow Sash Movement will not be admitted into the cathedral and anyone who gets up to pray for same-sex marriage in the cathedral will be asked to leave,” Paprocki said.
    “Of course, our cathedral and parish churches are always open to everyone who wishes to repent their sins and ask for God’s forgiveness,” he said.

    No word yet on how that went….

  55. Kathleen10 says:

    This would of course mean you would have had no problem with Hitler, only Hitler’s agenda. You wouldn’t hold him responsible. It’s just his agenda that was the problem. [Wow. I think that’s a little over the top. And you run into Godwin’s Law face on.]

    This is all to me, a red herring.

  56. Kathleen10 says:

    Many (including me) think of Hitler as the ultimate, so he was my first thought. I could just as well as mentioned the Japanese and Pearl Harbor. My point was I don’t think we can separate the clearly stated goal from the person’s involved.
    Innocent children and their protection is my concern. If members of the heterosexual/homosexual/any sexual movement do not want bruised feelings, they ought to leave children out of their stated plans.

  57. benedetta says:

    I just want to say that I know that there are gay Catholics who do not support the homosexualist agenda.

    There is a court case going on right now concerning a minor and a lesbian adult. The adult is being tried for sexual abuse of a minor, and her supporters are campaigning that it is unfair to brand her a pedophile or convict her of a sex crime because they assert the minor consented. So, their logic goes, the solution is to lower the age of consent.

    Generally, one does not hear routinely that a heterosexual adult argues in his/her defense that the age of consent ought to be lowered when they are accused of sexual abuse of a minor criminally. And, I might add, judging from the news, heterosexual abuse of minors is epidemic among female public school teachers preying upon adolescent males. In these cases, one does not find heterosexual lobbying groups rallying to the teacher’s defense to state that the victim consented and therefore the age of consent must be lowered and that statutes must be changed.

  58. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Hitler and the Axis Japanese. LOL. I believe the Academy Award for drama was given out already, Kathleen. The homosexuals in my parish are neither genocidal nor do they worship Hirohito.

  59. Kathleen10 says:

    I wish to return to my comparison of homosexuality with Nazism, and not hedge from it. There are times a comparison to Nazi’s can be made, must be made, if it is accurate. In my opinion they are not far off at all from each other. Each one lies, each one is brought about by the father of lies, and each one brings ultimate deception and destruction, leaving helpless victims in it’s path. I am not speaking of those who have homosexual orientation who live celibate lives. Those efforts are of course heroic, but no more heroic than the struggles of anyone else.
    Homosexualism has been, is, the most dangerous and unholy threat we face, along with Islamism. The family as it has been defined all through human history, is now being changed, on our watch, right before our eyes. And now, we see, as soon as it is more or less “settled”, the next move is upon us, children. Children are now the direct target. This is not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to history or the movement. If you haven’t, this may seem exaggeration, but it is not. It is common sense.
    They have their apologists. They have their defenders. And in the same way homosexual “marriage” no longer ruffles as many feathers, in the same creeping manner of increments, the move to gain sexual access to children is being openly sought, by so called “professionals” and participants. They have stated it openly in conferences and the media. If a salaried professor at Johns Hopkins can stand up at a conference and state openly he is concerned that pedophiles are being treated unfairly, and it can be said that people who are “minor attracted” are normal people, who deserve fair treatment and sympathy for the cause, then, we are in serious trouble. How long will God endure such a population! That, along with the safety of children, needs to be our primary concern, not “feelings” and most certainly not fear of being called a “bigot”.
    I stand by my original comparison. This movement is every bit as dangerous, if not more insidiously so, than even Nazism. It is just as deadly to a culture and an individual. We have lost a great deal of the battle already. My point only is, stay awake and be prepared to defend children, because they are the next and natural target of SOME homosexuals.
    If that is not so, then as I said, let us hear the refutation from the homosexual community or individuals that this is not the case, that sexual activity between adults and children is immoral and wrong in all instances. I have never heard this stated.
    I have no wish to continue this discussion Father Sotelo. Only let me say I feel your responses have been beneath the dignity of your office, and to me, very sad.

Comments are closed.