Jesuit-run homosexualist Amerika’s latest pro-sodomy blasphemy

Jesuits.  What more is to be said?

The Jesuits who run Amerika Magazine have a homosexualist agenda, that is, the promotion and normalization of sodomy.

Look past the homosexualist fanaticism of Jesuit Fr. James Martin, and you find also the editors of Amerika.

The latest example is found in a self-centered blurb by a “gay” priest who is, I guess, so much happier now that he has outed himself and shared his burden with just about everyone.   The priest’s essay is sloppy with sentiments and he is a bit of a mess.  That’s not the problem.  We all have flaws, principle faults, sinful inclinations, weaknesses, etc.  That’s a problem, but that’s not the problem here.

Here’s the problem.  Look how the homsexualists of Amerika framed the priest’s essay.

The homosexualists of Amerika subtly promote their pro-sodomy agenda, to normalize sodomy.  Even to sacralize it.  First, they associate it with priests.  Then, in the headline, they associate “gay” (I hate that word) with the Annunciation, the moment the the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.  In the essay you read:

“While on a retreat, I shared the truth about my sexuality for the first time with the Jesuit priest assigned as my spiritual director. I prayed that he would help me get back on track. I wanted to learn how to repress these impure thoughts. Instead, Father Paul explained that my sexual orientation is part of who God created me to be. I was and am wholly loved by God.”

God “made” him this way, you see, and this is celebrated on the day, with blatant iconography, of the moment when the Word was made flesh.

This is both blasphemous and sacrilegious.

Blasphemy involves words or gestures, also thoughts, which show contempt for God or dishonor God regardless of whether the person intends that contempt or dishonor or not.  Blasphemy is against the virtue of religion and a mortal sin.  Blasphemy is direct when it is aimed at God.  It is indirect when aimed at Holy Church or the saints or any sacred thing or person or place.

The graphic in the Amerika article, which juxtaposes a beautiful painting of the Annunciation with the “gay (I hate that word) flag is blasphemous.

Sacrilege, also a sin against the virtue of religion, is the improper or irreverent treatment of something sacred (persons, places, things, etc.).  Sacrilege can take various forms including acts of violence, or vandalism, or purposeful harm, such as using something sacred for a sinful purpose or monetary gain.

The graphic and the Amerika article itself is an irreverent treatment of something sacred, and they have done it to promote an unholy agenda and to make money.

Concerning the priest himself, I believe that he has done himself and the whole priesthood a grave disservice.   He has also allowed himself to be a tool.   On the other hand, I take him at his word and respect him for this.  He wrote: “Although I never acted on any of my desires, I needed to consciously recommit myself to this way of life in order to live as a priest with integrity.”  I choose to believe him.

Furthermore, if he can live with “integrity” after this, then it could very well be that he will have a far higher place in heaven than I ever will.   He has been offered a great cross to carry.  The graces that come with that great cross will be magnificent.

But for that Jesuit retreat director and the Jesuit homosexualists of Amerika… you have caused great harm and scandal.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Pò sì jiù, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. JustaSinner says:

    Where is St. Ignatius when you need him?

  2. aquinasadmirer says:

    I’m reminded of something Fr. Richard Simon (of Relevant Radio) said about the term: gay.

    “Gay? He’s not in a good mood.”

    I agree with you Fr. Z. I despise that word.

  3. frjimt says:

    … dominus flevit… just an intro to what the german mitre’s will be offering next…. st john chrysostom: the road to hell is paved with priest’s skulls

  4. Unwilling says:

    Having “impure thoughts” and “desires is “part of who God created me to be”.
    We must change the wording of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation.

  5. GHP says:

    Sooooooo …. Were John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer to have attended the retreat, do you suppose the Jesuit confessor, Father Paul, would have given them the same comfort? Then they could have written:

    “While on a retreat, I shared the truth about my predelictions for murder (and special dietary habit) for the first time with the Jesuit priest assigned as my spiritual director. I prayed that he would help me get back on track. I wanted to learn how to repress these impure thoughts. Instead, Father Paul explained that my sexual perversion and murderous appetite (pun!) are part of who God created me to be. I was and am wholly loved by God.”

    They could justify their sins and continue to be “honest” pervert-murderers because that is “part of who God created me to be.”

    There! Now all is right with the world.

    Bloody Hell!


  6. Lurker 59 says:

    Ah, but see the priest HAS acted upon his desires IF he has internalized and made them a part of his constitutive being, by formulating his sexuality as “homosexual” and God-given, replacing his natural God-given sexuality with that of a lie.

    Advice: If you are even with a spiritual advisor who suggests that inclinations towards sins, or sins themselves, are a part of who you are as a person — anything other than crosses that the Lord is pleased for you to bear for your own salvation — you need to immediately get up and leave. Find a new spiritual advisor.

    You are not your sins, you are not your inclinations to sin. Believing such does major psychological and spiritual damage.

  7. rwj says:

    I am wondering:
    Is it because the priest and publishers are so far gone from sacred things that they they think of themselves in various ways when hearing Annunciation, rather than the Incarnation?
    Are these priests and publishers so far gone, they chose to mock the Feast celebrating the Word becoming flesh precisely because our Lord’s Incarnation forever, undoubtedly, irrefutably reveals all things contrary to the natural law as disordered?

    I’m sorry you are disordered, and I pray you repent of celebrating it and leading others to this sin. Your body is not your plaything- it is the matter to your rational soul, and both will be in Heaven or Hell forever.
    Blessed Mother, pray for us all that we may become worthy of the promises of Christ.

  8. THREEHEARTS says:

    does not the Catholic Church, as opposed to the catholic church, teach that you cannot have the virtue of charity without the virtue of religion and vice versa. This was taught in
    moral Theology. I have often wondered if not to have one or the other should be confessed in the confessional and be followed by a prayer called the Act of Charity???
    mike hurcum

  9. JustaSinner says:

    Yes the homosexuals wrecked that word AND stole the rainbow!

  10. OrdinaryCatholic says:

    I have a serious question. Why or what is it about the Jesuits that makes them so contrarian to the Catholic Faith? When did this start? Why did it start? I’m serious here, I don’t know what all this Jesuit crap is all about and I’m Catholic!!

  11. Ave Maria says:

    Jesuit priest as a ‘spiritual director’? What could go wrong?

  12. Marine Mom says:

    For to carry burdens without complaint and without letting the whole world know about them, to face personal problems without casting them on to others backs; this is to be responsible for one’s own actions and decisions without sliding out of one’s obligations with excuses and self-justification. If these point to anything, they indicate a lack of real character. It is always better to remain silent on what ought not to be spoken It is pride or at least a blind vanity, which gives us the impulse to say what would be better kept quiet.
    “Joseph of Nazareth”, Federico Suarez

  13. Jerome Charles says:

    “Furthermore, if he can live with “integrity” after this, then it could very well be that he will have a far higher place in heaven than I ever will. He has been offered a great cross to carry. The graces that come with that great cross will be magnificent.”

    Whether you are a heterosexual priest or a homosexual priest, if you live your vocation with “integrity,” then you have a great cross to carry regarding sexual attraction. Straight priests have it tough resisting temptation, too.

  14. Kathleen10 says:

    These men are emptying the church and with this type of unloading, locking the door too.
    People have their own crosses and burdens in life, there is so much misery out here, the last thing we need are priests “unburdening themselves” to us. If priests do not forget themselves when they become priests, and instead focus inwardly on their own problems, they are useless to the sheep. A shepherd who sees the wolf and climbs a tree cannot help the sheep on the ground.
    None of us need “noble” priests who trumpet their sinful inclinations and expect what, hurrahs? Sorry, we’ve got our own issues.
    We need faithful, pious, priests, nothing else. We don’t need another sinner, another tempted, another victim, we need men who love Jesus Christ, Our Blessed Mother, the Church, and act like they do. We need real Catholicism practiced in HIS life, and taught to US, so we have something to pass down and encourage others to find. Darn these inwardly focused narcissists, these people who don’t want Catholicism, but really want to be Episcopalians. Why do they just not go and be Episcopalians, why must they work to wreck Catholicism with their promotion of what cannot be accepted? Satan is never satisfied.

  15. Kerry says:

    “…part of who God created me to be”. The Image of God part, or the Likeness of God part?

  16. tho says:

    What a filthy way to express yourself. Doesn’t anyone recognize the scourge of AIDS and that sodomy is the best way to spread it. He also is a living contradiction to biblical prohibitions against such a practice, and he is abetted by his spiritual director. With apologies to Cool Hand Luke, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

  17. Clinton R. says:

    Ugh, with all the debachery festering within the Church, and with the daily madness of Pope Francis’ pontificate, it makes one wonder if the end is near. Yet, if it is, we would do well if we heeded Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s exhortation to GO TO CONFESSION!

  18. LexCredendi says:


  19. TonyO says:

    Fr. Z piously hopes that this priest will consciously commit himself to the “true sacrifice of celibacy.”

    Would that it were so. Unfortunately, nothing in what he wrote gives us reason to think that this is what he meant by the words.

    Little by little, with the help of some counseling and spiritual direction, I began to accept myself and, eventually, love myself as a gay man. I finally understood the true sacrifice of celibacy. Although I never acted on any of my desires, I needed to consciously recommit myself to this way of life in order to live as a priest with integrity.

    So, what he intends to convey is that (a) God designs and positively wills that (1) some have sexual desires towards those of the opposite sex, and that God designs and positively wills (rather than allows as a defect) that (2) some have sexual desires toward those of the same sex. (b) That those who have been designed and intended by God under (2) cannot be whole and complete, and cannot “accept” themselves nor to love properly, except when they learn to love even their very sexual orientation toward those of the same sex: to love that very aspect of themselves that the Church has rightly declared is “disordered”. (c) Once a priest who has same-sex attraction learns to love himself in virtue of his disorder rather than in spite of it (and not in terms of accepting a cross God wills to allow), he can then “properly” come to grips with the sacrifice of celibacy being the sacrifice (for him) of so-called “normal and healthy” same-sex sexual relationships. The “integrity” he is proclaiming, then, is the integrity of living celibately in terms of willingly giving up same-sex sexual relationships not because they are disordered, but because he is doing something else that supercedes that “perfectly normal good.”

    One can hope and pray that before the end comes, this priest will learn the truth, and embrace it: that he will learn that his condition is not normal nor wholesome, that his inclination is not wholesome nor normal, that God did not design same-sex attraction as one way of being humanly whole, that even if he were not a priest he would have to live without same-sex sexual relationships to be a good Catholic (or a good person) anyway, and that any sexually active same-sex couple is actively damaging each other and themselves in living so – i.e. not acting out love but every disorder opposed to love, and that celibacy properly understood does not treat giving up marriage ordered rightly around life-giving sex the same as same-sex sexual relationships.

    This priest may well be able to live his whole life being continent. In order to have the full virtue of chastity, he needs to be properly ordered in his WILL, even if he is not properly ordered in his body. While he cannot attain the perfection of this due order while holding on to the darkness of thinking and feeling that his disorder is just one way of being ordered – who of us is perfectly ordered in the will with regard to chastity? I know I am not, yet. But I know I will become so, either in this life or in purgatory, before I can enter heaven, and I hope for it. I hope for it for this Fr. Daley also – even if he does not yet desire it.

    Just a note: given the way the homosexual movement has damaged our culture and our language, it is no longer possible to use “gay” to try to convey merely the condition of having same-sex sexual attractions. It is, at this point, also intended to convey an ATTITUDE about that condition, even a philosophy, that such a condition is one wholesome way of being human, and embracing that condition as if it were a good in itself. At this point in time, nobody can innocently call on themselves the mantle of “gay”, i.e. without intending, at least a little bit, the protective coloration of that gay agenda, gay attitude, gay philosophy: that the condition of same-sex attraction is a good thing and is to be treated as a good thing by all others – hence the announcements, giving everyone the opportunity to applaud, at “coming out of the closet”. Those Catholics who have the condition and who have fully and properly embraced the teaching of the Church do not embrace the term “gay” for their situation, and try not to think of “being” gay as if it were an identity rather than a condition to be suffered. Hence they generally do not “come out of the closet” because there is no “identity” that needs to be trumpeted about to everyone. For analogy: I have a chronic illness that my family and my close friends know about, but I do not announce it to the world because the world does not need to know it. As was said above, there are things that need not – indeed OUGHT not – be spoken of in broad public arenas: this is one. Fr. seems to have a ways to go in understanding how to handle his situation well.

  20. richiedel says:

    Even if they can’t effect an official “updating” of Church teaching it this area, they are going to try to get a back-door approach to legitimizing the sin by establishing a gay subculture in the Church to whom the “pastoral” approach would be one of “accompaniment” involving avoidance of even bringing sin up but rather embracing the sin as a part – even a defining factor – of being whom God made one to be. These priests “coming out” are tools in the effort to bring about this subculture.

  21. OrdinaryCatholic says:

    I apologize but I want to ask the same question I asked yesterday and no one answered.It is a sincere question. Thank you.

    I have a serious question. Why or what is it about the Jesuits that makes them so contrarian to the Catholic Faith? When did this start? Why did it start? I’m serious here, I don’t know what all this Jesuit crap is all about and I’m Catholic!!

  22. Ellen says:

    We all have our weaknesses. I am lazy and prone to putting things off. It’s deeply ingrained in me. But I don’t celebrate being slothful. I try and try to conquer that.

  23. veritas vincit says:

    TonyO: I agree completely with your remarks about this priest’s attitude toward his same-sex attraction, as well as your comments about the use of the word “gay”.
    Related to the latter, like father Z, I detest the appropriate of “gay” as equated to “homosexual”. I’m just old enough to remember when “gay” meant nothing more than “happy”.
    And there is definitely a confusion as to whether “being gay” means just having same-sex attraction, or actually embracing that attraction, identifying with it and committing the sins that it leads to. I am convince that the confusion is deliberate, that the “LGBT community” wants to equate having SSA with living the “lifestyle”. That this priest wants to “love himself as a ‘gay’ man” is very dangerous and could easily lead him to be tempted to be unchaste.

  24. TonyO says:

    @ OrdinaryCatholic: The downfall of the Jesuit order is too long a tale to tell, and I only remember bits and pieces. You could try the book by Malachi Martin: The Jesuits, he is quite thorough.

    Long story short: they were already well on the way to complete disaster by the 1950s. Most likely, the root of the rot goes at least as far back as the modernist heresy becoming mainstream, say around the time of Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. The (in)famous paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit, and he was thoroughly modernist in his thinking – and he was running around all those circles in that time 1910 to 1940. It can hardly be denied that for some reason the Jesuits decided NOT to go along with what Pius X was saying about modernism, as well as rejecting what Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI said about teaching St. Thomas in the seminaries (and the theology schools). So there was disobedience and rebellion way back in the 1890s through 1930 forming the people who were the teachers in the seminaries of the 1950s and 1960s.

    For some reason, neither Paul VI nor JPII felt comfortable taking a hard line with the Jesuits and demanding reforms. Eventually JPII demanded a slight pro-forma adjustment by installing a different Superior General, but it ended up having little overall effect – perhaps slowing down the degeneracy for about 5 years, but that’s about all. In effect, they thumbed their noses at the popes and got away with it because the popes did not choose to follow up on true reforms. Can’t say why.

    The Jesuits were suppressed once before. They need to be suppressed again, full stop. No visitation, no new chances at reform, no more thumbing their noses at rules that everyone else follows – just close them down whole and entire. But hey: they run dozens of colleges and universities, what about them? Well, the BEST thing to do is close them down too: they aren’t Catholic and haven’t been in decades, it is a shameful idiocy to allow them to pretend that they deliver Catholic education. Shut them down. Someone else will come along to use the facilities – maybe someone who believes in Christ and the Church.

  25. Marine Mom says:

    Anniversary of the Priestly Ordination of St Josemaria Escriva
    “The genuine Christian priesthood has not disappeared from God’s Church. The teaching which we have received from the divine lips of Jesus has not changed. There are many thousands of priests throughout the world who really do respond to their vocation, quietly, up dramatically. They have not fallen into the temptation to throw overboard a treasure of holiness and grace which has existed in the Church from the beginning.”
    “(…) Do please pray for them, so that they will always be faithful, devout, learned, committed and happy priests. Commend them especially to Our Lady. Ask her to take special care of those who will spend their lives serving her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Priest.”
    St Josemaria Escriva, In Love with the Church, no.50

  26. Marine Mom says:

    Typo un-dramatically. Sorry ?

  27. Gab says:

    He specifically chose the Feast of the Annunciation to “announce” he’s a homosexual. That seems quite blasphemous.

  28. OrdinaryCatholic says:

    Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my question. I had thought about googling an answer but with the proliferation of quasi-catholic sites I wasn’t sure if I was going to get the right information. Again thank you. You are a gentlemen and a scholar!

  29. bartlep says:

    What a desecration of the Feast of the Annunciation to announce his coming out.

  30. KateD says:

    The “spiritual advisor” was wrong.

    Our priests are under such attack from all sides and having poor formation don’t know how to defend themselves from the enemy.

    God is magnanimous in His mercy and will answer a sincere prayer for relief from such predilections. In the mean time one in such a predicament would do well to go privately, paying cash, to a trusted and reputable Catholic counselor who specializes in healing those with same sex attraction. Doctor Rick Fitzgibbons has a website that may be useful:

    These “predelictions” are an attack of the enemy directed at priests and they can be overcome.

    When the thought arises, drive it out…As a priest, when in persona Christi, you have authority over demons. Put on your stole and exercise that authority. Instead of letting them torment you, put them on the run. Let them be filled with dred when your feet hit the floor in the morning….that they have to contend with YOU for another day.

    As to “coming out”, so what. It was a mistake. Nothing that can’t be remedied with a good confession and a little humility. Even Peter betrayed Christ…the great difference between his ultimate fate and that of Judas was that Peter was able to humble himself and return to God. It only requires the slightest step towards Him, and God will do the rest. He will cross any distance to bring His lost sheep (and even more so, His shepherds) home again.

    And finally, a priest who has discovered the path out of this darkness, knowing the way, may then lead other’s out of the same desolation…

    It won’t be easy, but Our Lord doesn’t call the faint of heart into His service.

  31. aiello01 says:

    I’m not sure I understand what the priest means when he says that he “needed to consciously recommit myself to this way of life in order to live as a priest with integrity.” Is he speaking of the gay way of life? If he is celibate, he only needs to accept the fact that his attraction may never change.

  32. robtbrown says:

    The Jesuits have never really taught St Thomas, although there have been, now and then, a few Thomists among them. Instead, their intellectual formation was based on the neo scholasticism of Francisco Suarez SJ, who died 1617. His thought probably had more in common with Duns Scotus than with St Thomas.

    Malachi Martin was right that Gustavo Gutierrez was the father of Liberation Theology. He was wrong, however, in saying that Gutierrez is/was a Jesuit. He is/was a Dominican.

    Jesuit spirituality is intrinsically individualistic. Each Jesuit in morning prayer is to look for the will of God his particular apostolate. This individualism was tempered not only by the neo scholastic formation but by fidelity to Rome.

    For various reasons neo scholasticism was jettison by Jesuits in the early 20th century. The Jesuit Joseph Marechal tried to effect a synthesis between St Thomas and Kant. Later, Karl Rahner wanted to produce a synthesis between St Thomas and Heidegger. In fact, it was Heidegger with some Thomistic language.(1) And from what I know of Rahner, it is more Suarez and Heidegger rather than St Thomas and Heidegger

    The problems with the Jesuits, therefore, arose when the Counter Reformation Church began to run out of steam. That meant the end of their version of neo scholasticism. They turned to the German Existentialism of Heidegger.

    One other point: Every religious order or monastery bears some characteristic of the era in which they were founded. I do not think, however, that any of them are equal to the intensity of the relationship between the Jesuits and Modern Era (which began to end c. 1900)

    (1) The Dominicans had their own version of Rahner–the Belgian Edward Schillebeeckx. His influence on his order was neither as wide nor as deep as Rahner’s on the Jesuits.

Comments are closed.