The cone of silence descends for gay advocacy in schools

The cone of silence descends for gay advocacy in schools

A Massachusetts school is one of many participating in a homosexual agenda indoctrination day called “Day of Silence.” Westford Academy, which appears to be a public school, is sponsoring the day to “recognize students facing discrimination for their sexual orientation.” Unless you can point to incidents of kids being harassed for being straight, let’s just call it what it is: a day to promote homosexuality by claiming that gay kids are inordinately targeted for harassment. Of course, after parents complained about the blatant pushing of the gay agenda, the school expanded it to be a day to recognize anyone who is discriminated against. Still, everyone knows what it’s really about.

In WA’s “Day of Silence” some students and instructors choose not to speak for the entire school day and communicate only through writing. The day is held nationally in middle and high schools that choose to participate.

... Westford Academy Assistant Principal Jim Antonelli said if teachers choose to participate in the day, they will utilize the same methods of instruction used during a normal school day, including handouts, projectors and white boards.

“The educational process goes on,” Antonelli said.

So teachers can continue to teach as well as they have by not speaking to their classes. Oh yeah, I can imagine how well those classes normally are. Maybe keeping the teachers from talking to their students will be an improvement. Yet another reason why Melanie and I will homeschool.

Technorati Tags: , ,

  • Parents do have the option of keeping their childen home on this Day of Silence, since apparently there will be little education actually taking place in school anyway.

    And they wonder why home schooled children come out not only better educated but also more mature…!

  • Back ten plus years ago, the SADD (Students against drunk Driving) did this. The students wore black and white make-up. It never made an impression on me, it was just a day to be excused from paying attention in classes. Seen one too many publicity stunts, that I’ve become immune.

  • No one can ever tell the truth of such – especially to our children.

    Of course no one should speak of that to children. Describing the act of homosexual sex to children in graphic terms would be a form of child abuse.

    Whatever the case, I don’t want it on my web site. There isn’t a single adult in the US who doesn’t know what homosexual acts are. You’re not being clever by repeating it in scatalogical detail.

  • James, you bring up a good point.  I think the kids do know far more than we think they know.  Once the schools introduce homosexuality to them, searching out the details on the web is a natural outlet to curiosity.  We can’t protect their innocence when the schools don’t cooperate with us.

    At the same time I sympathize with Dom’s desire to keep this blog above that level.

    I have the same problem with my own blog.  Since I research the occult and sometimes blog my findings, I’m constantly agonizing over how much to write.  There really is no good answer to this.

  • Dom,
    I am in favor of keeping the blog as clean as possible.  However, I have to agree with James that the truth is critical in our ability to fight this evil.  Whether or not you homeschool your kids, or I send them to Catholic schools, we have a huge problem.  Your kids will hang out with kids who are being taught about evil, depraved conduct and gossiping about it with each other.

    Adults need to know what it is so we can argue against it in the public square with proper information and reasoned arguments.  I am certain that most American adults HAVE NO IDEA what sick depraved sexual behavior exists in the homosexual community.  I did not until recently delving into it.  James’ description is understating the situation and not covering the panoply of perversions.

    There is a bill pending in the Massachusetts Legislature’s Judiciary committee to teach “health” issues, including proper use of language regarding homesexuality in classrooms from kindergarten to high school.  It is going to make mandatory information for graduation.  Instead of encouraging behaviors that increase risk of aids, depression, alcoholism, suicide, etc., a true health bill, if indeed it is concerned about health, would instruct our children on the high risk “lifestyle” chosen by homosexuals and the associated health risks. 

    There is another bill in Mass. seeking to legalize beastiality. 

    There is a conditioning that is being forced upon us through the mass media and on our children through the educational system.  Homeschooling will only limit its impact but not prevent it.  My 3 year old had the book who’s in a family read to her in a private (non-catholic) pre-school by a director who claims to be Catholic and attends church.  I asked her if 3 year olds have a diversity problem.  She answered no.  I asked her if she would teach that diverse families also have mental illness, drug addiction, drug dealers, gang members, and alcoholics.  The director said she would not because those activities have adverse consequences.

    People need to find a couth way of disseminating the truth (the adverse consequences) so that all adults are fully aware of where society is headed and then hopefully they can help redirect it or suffer the consequences.

  • James,

    I take your point…I even agree with some of what you say.

    Just a quick request: every time you or I post, everybody in the thread gets a email alert.

    Your last two posts, uploaded just a few minutes apart, could’ve been put into one. If you would try to get your points into one post, rather than two or more consecutive posts, that would be great.



    Unless you can point to incidents of kids being harassed for being straight, let’s just call it what it is: a day to promote homosexuality by claiming that gay kids are inordinately targeted for harassment. Of course, after parents complained about the blatant pushing of the gay agenda, the school expanded it to be a day to recognize anyone who is discriminated against. Still, everyone knows what it’s really about.


    The same tactic is now used on “Gay Pride Day” in Boston, except now it’s cutely known as “Pride Day.” On the Common, folks are urged to “out” their “pride” in themselves. A couple of token people will announce their “pride” in their kids, or in their roller-skating skills.

    Still, everybody knows what it’s really about.


    I understand your dilemma. In discussions like this, I discourage the word “sodomite” on my blog, urging instead “homosexual man or woman.”


    I understand your reticence, too.

    But I can’t help but think that James has a point, rather well amplified by WIN.

  • I have two young children. We can positively talk about sexuality in terms of babies in the womb (conception and fetal development), that everyone has a mommy and daddy, and about the age of 9 or so there are Catholic programs based within natural family planning to teach women about their fertility. A local group has such a class at does a wonderful positive job.

  • Look, this isn’t a debate about whether you should teach kids the mechanics of homosexual acts.

    I’m saying don’t describe it on my blog. Anyone who does so from this point on will get banned.

    Everyone here knows what’s involved. If you want to preach to the world what happens between gays or lesbians, then get your own blog.

    Plus I didn’t tell you not to use the word sodomite. Keep the commenters straight. That was Kelly.

  • Call me liberal, but I do have some sympathy for this subject. I remember when I was in high school (er, 30 years ago!), there was a fair amount of mockery aimed at kids believed to be homosexual, especially at boys. I know I was guilty of taking part in it.

    Before someone goes off on me, I am not advocating “gay rights,” or giving approval to homosexual behavior, etc., etc. But I think there has to be a happy medium.

    Here’s a reason why I especially think this is important. Like it or not, some number of high school kids are going to be wrestling with same-sex desires; it’s important the subject is dealt with in a sensitive way so that these kids feel safe in approaching the right people for help being chaste, and perhaps not starting down the wrong path. Be very sure, folks who see nothing wrong with homosexual behavior will be affirming and welcoming.

    Of course, who trusts the government schools to get this right? I don’t! But let’s be clear: we’re not against the schools discouraging hazing and harassment, right? It’s the “gay agenda” baggage we oppose.

  • I would like to note, that my best friend became a lesbian at the age of 18. I knew her for five years prior. Sleep overs and all. To put it politely, she had low self esteem, physically unfit, and not very attractive. She was my friend though, she wasn’t gay.

    I really wasn’t interested in hearing her talk about sex, for the record I don’t like hearing about hetero sex either. Her entire realtionship with her girlfriend, was political/social not romantic. The same issues she had with men, didn’t change because she was a woman. She claimed that her ex girlfirend was abusive when it broke off. 

    We all know our parents did “it”, but we really don’t have to put those images in our head? Some of us are a bit geeky as teenagers, but we later bloom. I really do have issues of homosexuality at the high school and middle school level where our bodies aren’t truly developed. Sure we already went through puberty, but everyone can tell a 14 year old boy from a 19 year old. Self esteem is shaky, and just because you are not physically buff or have yet to get your feminine curves (I speak modestly here) I’ve seen people influenced.

  • I think Faher has a point though. My best friend was teased for being nerdy, just as a boy could be picked on for being weak. Instead of maturing, she just played into the stereotype.

  • James, I said WE oppose the gay agenda baggage.

    You assume my “we” means “we priests.” Did I say that? No, Sir, I did not.

    If you had asked me what I meant by “we,” I meant we CATHOLICS, we having this conversation here, we who are against homosexual behavior.

    Before you tell me, and others, what I mean by my words, why don’t you ask first?

  • James said:  Parents are really alone today against the sexual morass of evil aimed at their kids.  The Church is greatly infected with the same evil.  No one knows what priest to trust with anything.

    Absolutely James.

    I like this blog just fine.  These seem to be relevant issues here. Faith, Family, Politics, etc.

  • James—you are way out of line with your aggressive, insulting manner. If you find priests don’t give you the time of day, it’s easy to see why.

  • I am unclear on what James has said that is thoughtless or aggressive?  He appears to be rightfully upset at the current situation in our church and society.  He seems, in fact, thoughtful to me.  I look forward to seeing more of what he has to say.  What is wrong with having an opinion?  He appears to hold an honest, reasoned opinion.  While the bickering between bloggers does get old, their thoughtful comments is what its all about.

  • WIN:

    First, James misquotes me (he changes my statement from “we oppose” to “they oppose” and proceeds to attribute a meaning I did not intend or imply in any way) in pursuit of attacking priests (therefore, me included).

    Second, when I challenge him on that, he makes a second, snide comment about priests—in effect, that priests don’t oppose homosexual behavior.

    Third, James accuses me of being unwilling “to hear the truth.” No, I am unwilling to be the punching-bag for his unhappiness. I’m sorry for that unhappiness, but I am not the cause of it.

  • I don’t think he is unhappy.  How could you know?  Maybe he needs to consider being more precise.

  • James
    You should have gone to the Men’s Conference in Boston.  Fr. Corapi was as clear as can be.  But we had to bring him into Massachusetts, and he left as fast as he could.  He literally said he was not happy to be asked to come to Boston because he did not want to get that close to the front lines of the spiritual battle going on here.

  • James:

    I am tired of jousting with you. You chose to be aggressive with me, to take my words and use them to attack priests, and I don’t care for it.

    When I challenge you on it, you are disingenuous, rather than simply owning up to it. The fact is, you attributed a meaning to my words that was not there. Period. That wouldn’t matter all that much, except that you then proceeded to launch an attack on priests, of which I am one. Why should it surprise you that I don’t care to be used so you can attack me?

    And, when I challenge you on your boorish behavior, you say you were simply speaking the truth. No, you were being obnoxious. Most people know how to present the truth politely. You might want to learn.

    But you’ve lost all credibility with me, sorry.
    And that’s my last comment to you.

  • I have never heard a priest talk about homosexuality.  Have you actually talked about it during a homily, Fr. Fox?

    I haven’t heard a priest talk about adultery or fornication or pornography, either.  Not since Vatican II, anyway.  I tend to get the impression the priests I’m familiar with would be too embarrassed to talk about these subjects.

    Once a visiting priest at my church talked about birth control.  You could have heard a pin drop.  I looked around and most of the women had their heads bowed and were staring at their hands. Even some of the Eucharistic Ministers were doing this.

    Since we don’t have cable, I haven’t heard a priest on EWTN talk about these subjects.

    I think James is right that today kids are surrounded with sexual perversion and sexual sin.  There really isn’t a nice way to talk about these subjects.  Sin just isn’t nice, and it’s not politically correct to say that any of these sins are wrong.  Particularly not homosexual sins.

  • James – thanks for your blatant honesty about a serious subject that is widely ignored from the pulpit. I am not offended by your comments. In fact, I agree whole heartedly with you.

    My daughter attends a public high school which will host speakers from PLFAG for “Acceptance Week” this month. They will also have the “Day of Silence” Am I absolutely astounded ? I wish I were, but sadly this is what I have come to expect. MY battle is to fight the evil culture with the truth, and try not to alienate my children in the meantime.

  • See, James, you (and others) describe the horror and sinfulness of homosexuality without describing the actual mechanics of it. That’s all I’m asking.

    And I would point out that Fr. Fox didn’t disagree with any of this. What he did disagree with what the mischaracterization of what he said and the sweeping generalizations against all priests.

    Want to hear a Catholic priest in Massachusetts talk about the hard stuff? Come to my parish, Immaculate Conception in Salem. But also realize that at many (if not most) Masses there are young children present and it would be wrong to be too explicit in front of them. It’s a very fine line to walk.

    So what do you all do to encourage your priests to be bold? Maybe it’s not that they’re cowards or indifferent or heretics. Maybe they feel like they have no allies in the pews and they’re worn down and lonely. Priests are human too.

  • James,

    When I teach basic writing to college students, I try to hammer the message that a good writer knows his audience and understands the context for which he is writing and shapes his text accordingly, choosing the appropriate vocabulary, the proper format, for both that specific audience and that specific context. That’s all Dom is asking you to do: consider the context in which you are writing and the audience which you are addressing.

    You use different language in talking to a two year old, a six year old, a ten year old, a teenager, and an adult. You use different language in an academic setting than you do in a business setting. Your thank you note to your grandmother does not sound like a biology textbook. Why? Because the message is different depending on content, context, and audience.

    When you write on Dom’s blog, I think you can assume Dom and most readers know what homosexuality is and don’t need it described. Plus Dom doesn’t want a specific kind of language used. Why is it so hard for you to understand that modifying your vocabulary does not necessarily mean watering down the truth or changing your message? Just recognize that different language can be just as effective in different contexts.

  • As I said before, I am in favor of keeping the blog clean.  But that may not be as simple as it sounds. 

    Even Dom used the word sodomite which another person finds offensive.  Obviously, graphic details of specific acts are better summarized in a polite manner, but depending on the word used, certain readers will be offended.  I don’t think anyone here has attempted to be graphic simply just for its shock value.

  • Marc said:

    “Father Fox,

    James, WIN, and others are correct in their assessments. Please reconsider your positions, for they are wrong. I, and my family, will pray for you and your parish.”

    What “positions” are you referring to?

    The verbal conflict between James and me came at his instigation, not mine. He chose to use my words, with a meaning he attributed to them, in order to launch an general attack against all priests, without exception—which, logically, necessarily, includes me.

    Then, when I challenged him on it, he responded with another snide comment giving priests another slap.

    Further along, you can find that he continued to twist my words. I will quote exactly, putting key words in bold(please feel free to scroll up and note I did so). I said, quote: “No, I am unwilling to be the punching-bag for his unhappiness.”

    His response again twisted my words, subtly suggesting I’d said something other than what I actually did say:

    “Finally, I never suggested you were the cause of my unhappiness.”

    This whole fracas hasn’t been about the issue of homosexuality, or even about what priests do, or don’t, say about it, but about what I consider unnecessary, rude and aggressive behavior, and James simple unwillingness to back up, even a step, and say, simply—maybe I got a little carried away, sorry.

    I consider this behavior toward anyone unacceptable. James chose to take a very aggressive stance toward me—for what reason, I know not, he doesn’t know me, so he has no standing to fault me on anything!

    By the way, if James, or anyone, wants to say I’ve failed to address this issue as a priest, let him say so. Let him describe how he’s been at Mass with me, or how he’s been at RCIA, or on other occasions, when the subject might properly come up, and “never” heard me address this.

    Can he say that? Nope. He doesn’t know me from Adam. So, my question is, why start by treating me as hostile?

    To take the attitude that someone, anyone, priest or not, is on the wrong side, until he proves himself on the right side, is rude and unacceptable. Every one of us is entitled to a favorable presumption, until such time as our words or actions call that into question. Then it’s appropriate to raise a challenge.

    It’s poor form and poor strategy. Many have expressed a sense of embattlement and great concern about the state of society, the moral climate. (I agree!) OK—then you need all the allies you can get.

    Early in an a conversation, to adopt an aggressive stance, assuming and explicitly saying the other person (in this case, me! And, yes that is exactly what James said, when he took several swipes at all priests) is part of the problem, is a lousy way to gain an ally, but a great way to lose one.

  • My point was no one is doing it to be disgusting.  You seem to want knowledge know about the perversion.  I agree with your desire to have people become knowledgeable and honest. 

    I also believe we are not talking about one act; that Louis E. thinks even heterosexuals can perform.  It is much more depraved than that.  Yes, heterosexuals can perform some the same acts of depraviity, making the actual acts no less perverse.

    There is a guy in Massachusetts right now being sued (July, 10th trial date) for exposing the teaching of these depraved acts to high school students.

    Finally, to fully understand that this is not a mistake (it being politically incorrect to speak of the truth about homosexuality), but rather a well planned agenda, go to:

    Here is a brief excerpt from “The Overhauling of Straight America”:
    To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

  • Carrie asked a question:

    “I have never heard a priest talk about homosexuality.  Have you actually talked about it during a homily, Fr. Fox?”

    I have, more than once, although I can’t tell you how many. I have talked about pornography, adultery, and sex outside of marriage. I’ve also addressed, more than once, the quality of marriage being between a man and a woman.

    I don’t believe I’ve ever devoted an entire homily to homosexual acts. All I can say, from recollection, is that sometimes it comes up in a briefer mention, other times, with greater attention.

    I can tell you that it is rather difficult to cover everything one wants to. Approaching each Sunday homily, there are so many needs:

    * to help folks understand the Scriptures, which sometimes are unclear, or susceptible to misunderstanding;

    * to present church teaching (in so many areas), a need to reinforce what’s been said before—saying something one time and not returning to it may be gratifying for some in the pew, but isn’t very effective, in my judgment, longterm—so, for example, I try to reiterate, Sunday after Sunday, certain ideas about the real presence, about the supernatural reality of the Church, the reality of Jesus Christ, his divinity, the Trinity, etc. During Easter Season, I will attempt to reiterate the reality of the resurrection.

    * to explain what the Mass is, what is happening;

    * to connect with the season (Lent, Easter, etc.);

    * and to do all this in language and imagery familiar to all, and which all can receive; this means some for grownups, some for kids, etc.

    Now, this latter point means one has to be prudent in how one presents a message. Like it or not, I believe it is more effective, when dealing with certain issues with a general audience, to use care about explicitness.

    Not so much for the children, but for the adults! Some may see value in making them squirm; I think it’s more effective to make sure its the truth itself that occasions the confrontation, than to have the choice of expression give rise to a confrontation. I.e., when I’ve talked about abortion, contraception, homosexuality, divorce, I am not “in your face” about it; I try to present the matter clearly, but with delicacy.

    Now, others may feel differently, and that’s their prerogative. And, I would say, before anyone criticizes my method, from how I’ve described it, wouldn’t it be better to make a judgment from what I actually say, rather than my general description of the same? (Anyone who clicks on my name, below, goes to my website; feel free to browse for homilies, and offer any comments you wish. There’s only what I’ve done for the last 8-9 months, however.)

    In any case, I have to make a judgment about how I will present the Faith, in all its depth and breadth, not just one time, but over time. I take that seriously, but there’s a lot that goes into that decision, week-to-week, and just to be clear, I do not accept the premise that I have to justify that decision-making to all comers. I.e., someone who thinks I should describe sex acts in vivid detail is entitled to his judgment, and I to mine, when I choose otherwise.

  • Fr. Martin said he talks:  “about the real presence, about the supernatural reality of the Church, the reality of Jesus Christ, his divinity, the Trinity, etc. During Easter Season, I will attempt to reiterate the reality of the resurrection”


  • Marc:

    As to “best tactic” . . . I dunno; different tactics, different modes, different settings.

    Who said, “present the truth in love”? Good motto for everyone; but with this proviso…

    Do some self-examination: which part do I tend to emphasize, the truth or the love? Depending on the answer, then try to emphasize the other part.

    But also; remember that while it may come down to a single conversation, more often it is over time that we have our influence; so gracious words help keep the conversation going…

    And, finally, remember St. Francis of Assisi’s wise advice, (often over-emphasized, admittedly): preach always, with words if necessary. (The point being it’s not just, or even mainly, our words that are effective.)

    Obviously there’s much more to be said. I wouldn’t presume, for example, to advise anyone on how to approach ones children, or their friends, etc.

  • Therese, thank you for sharing your experience.

    If you ever read the gay personal ads, you’ll notice a person asking for someone much older or younger. You’ll never see a 30 year old seeking companionship of a 25-35, but either a 18-25 ot 40+. These people are seriously hurt, they need our help. Thsese acts that homosexuals perform, as just as wrong when to heterosexuals perform them. The act of submission and humilation is these acts speaks volumes.

    If we love, and show healthy examples of heterosexuality they will internalize what darkness and sin they have been living in. There is nothing wrong with talking about mortal sin. I have to admit confession is actualy my favorite sacrament. My attitude completely changed when I embraced it as a positive thing, not one of misery. First we need to reach out with love and compassion, and by example they can see how their life’s path lead them astray.

    Molly’s dad,
    “Until the laity is given a more meaningful voice
    in the goverance of the Church the bishops will
    contiue to ruin the Catholic Faith.”

    It won’t change anything. Priests and bishops do sin. Even if they sin, it is still their obligation to lead. That is how Christ set up the Church. It’s an imperfect world. I’m a parent, I mess up sometimes. Even sin. Just because I mess up, doesn’t mean I give my children contol. That’s not the answer. It would make it worst.

  • I often wonder if there’s a difference in presentation between diocesan priests and priests in religious orders. Or, specifically, if there’s a difference in attitude between priests who lead parishes and priests who celebrate Mass at non-parish churches.

    I go to my parish church on Sundays, where the discussion of homosexual, pre-marital, and/or contraceptive sex is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

    During the week, I go to a religious order-run chapel, where these same subjects are preached on often.

    This is in Boston, Massachusetts, by the way.

  • Wendy,

    I don’t think anyone is going hold it against for being defensive at this point. You make a very interesting comment about “my church”. There isn’t my church or your church, when we talk of Christianity. Jesus creating one Church, that’s the Catholic Church for everyone. The Church isn’t immune from evil acts wthin by persons, but the teachings are always about God’s love.

    Because of your lifestyle at this point in time, we understand your stuggle in reading this conversation. I didn’t read anything about gay bashing anywhere in this thread. There is an intersting post in modestly yours regarding the Pope’s first enclyclical titled, “God is Love” and the Church’s view on sex.

    Homosexual acts, even if the intention of that is to love the other person, is wrong. Just as a married heterosexual couple using contraception and interfering with the unitive act of sexual intercourse wrong. It is definitely hard to over come these mentalities, because we have to look at ourselves and say I been doing it wrong for a long time. The good news is, I believe there is an attempted to do things right.

    The physical truth of our bodies, clearly represent that a woman and a man compliment each other in the act of love i.e. sexual intercourse. No homosexual relationship can express that love physically, and fully bond in the unitive way heterosexuals can. This is how our bodies were designed by God.

    We as Catholics, didn’t make this up. Simply we are following and understanding natural law. Whether it be the emotional ties sex brings man and woman together, or the scientific understanding of the physicology of our bodies for effective natural family planning. 

    Peace in your journey,


  • Since Wendy has stated her beliefs, I think I will take the opportunity to state mine, which are born from the experience of 36 years of monogamous heterosexual marriage that has included parenthood.

    I believe that sex was created by God for the purpose of making human beings. I do not believe that it is entertainment, or social interaction, or that it is a toy we can play with.  I do not believe that anyone has a right to sex or that everyone should have access to some form of it.

    I believe that the unitive aspect of sex was incorporated into the act for the purpose of cementing the relationship of a husband to his wife for the purpose of maintaining a stable family relationship in which they can raise their children. 

    I believe it is these stable family relationships in which persons are committed to the welfare of each other that form a firm foundation on which a society can be built that serves the needs of all of its members; and that without these stable family relationships, a society degenerates into an ego-centered collection of people who are interested only in their own welfare.

    Sex, in other words, is not intended to be a source of personal gratification.  It is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end which is not sexual.

    I have come to these conclusions based upon the lived experience of marriage and parenthood which is both challenging and rewarding.  The fact that my Church also believes this is an added incentive for me to be Catholic.

  • Wendy,

    Most of the time my thinking and experience matches what the Church teaches.  There are a few instances, however, when my own lived experience does not match what the Church teaches.  I attribute that to the fact that we live in a fallen world and that I am subject to the effects of that fall.

    Since I believe in absolute truth, and I believe that the Church is the best source of absolute truth, when my belief conflicts with the teachings of the Church, I assume that I just need to continue to struggle with it because I still don’t have the whole picture.

    I believe that asking the Church to change Her teachings to conform to my interpretation of the issue over which I struggle is the equivalent of making a god of myself.  I’m too aware of my own faults and failings to fall prey to that delusion.

    I’d rather trust a God who loves me enough to tell me that I’m wrong than to place my trust in a “yes” God who caters to my imperfections.

    To put it simply, I believe in sin; and I believe that I’m a sinner.

  • If the issue rests entirely on whose teachings are “correct” we will never reach any agreement. However, if we can reconcile ourselves to the idea that there are many ways to worship the same God, is it possible to truly extend to each other respect for our different positions?

    Or if we look at things absolutely, not relatively, we’d consider whether God has one Truth that He’s offering to us and we would try to figure out what the Truth is. Ditto to worship. Perhaps we need to consider how God wants us to worship Him, not how we want to do it.

  • Wendy, when I see your name at the bottom of a post, what do you want me to think about you?

    Do you want me to think of you in terms of your sexual preferences which I can never agree with?

    Do you want me to think of you in terms of your faith in Jesus Christ which I do agree with?

    Do you want me to think of you in terms of your kindness in not being angry with me that I do not share some of your beliefs?

    Would you like me to know that you have a sense of humor, for instance, or that you sing well, or that you earn your living doing some particular activity? 

    The point is, you have many qualities that define you, not just this sexual quality only.

    Since, as you have recognized, my beliefs about sex are different from yours, I don’t think that we can come to a common ground on the subject of sex unless one of us changes.

    We can come to common ground on other subjects; however, and we can agree not to get in each others face on the subject of our disagreement.  Do you think such a truce is possible?

    You say that you want my respect.  There are areas where I can give you my respect, although the sexual area is not one of them.  I also recognize that you cannot respect my position since you believe that I am wrong.  Ultimately, though, what I think doesn’t matter.  What does matter is what God thinks, and what relationship you have with Him.  He, not I, will be your judge as He will be mine.

  • As to the idea of a single truth: It seems amazing to me that with the history of the world so checkered with tragedy perpetrated by people proclaiming to know and act on behalf of “The Truth” that we might not consider there to be some differences in the way we understand God’s teachings.

    To claim that there are differences in the way we understand God’s teaching is one thing. But first you have to admit that God is teaching something. And if God is indeed teaching something, he’s not teaching different things, contradictory to one another.

    So if God is indeed teaching something, since he is God after all, wouldn’t it be logical that he would ensure—as in creating an infallible mechanism—that someone out there is getting it right and transmitting it to others?

    That’s what Catholics believe: God wants us to know the Truth so he sent Jesus Christ to give it to us. And to ensure that the Truth is never diluted or changed, he gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us, and more specifically, the successors of the apostles to whom the Truth was first entrusted.

    The fact is that in the beginning there was one Church, but everyone who thought he knew better split himself off to start his own little church, which happened again and again, until today we have tens of thousands of Christian churches. But the reality is that Christ founded one Church which remains today.

    Now you can pretend to ignore it and her history, but let me ask you this: What other Church can trace its origins back to the First Century? Certainly not one that promotes homosexual behavior as anything but immoral for every one of those 2,000 years.

  • That’s the amazing thing, isn’t it? After 2,000 years, with all the unsavory characters and political shenanigans, not one Church teaching on a matter of faith or morals has changed. You’d think those nasty medieval popes fathering children left and right and knocking off their rivals would have thought to change the teaching to make their sins just peachy. But they didn’t. That’s the Holy Spirit working.

    As for your question, it’s a little complicated to deal with in a combox, but if you’re really interested in an answer, I’d email it to Jimmy Akin at He specializes in those sorts of questions.

    If you want to understand what Catholics mean by infallibity (hint: it’s not “impeccability” and it’s not universal infallibility), you should check out some books by Scott Hahn or Karl Keating or Patrick Madrid or Michael Dubruiel. Or the Catholic Catechism.