Rembert Weakland and the Lavender Mafia

Rembert Weakland

There are much musings in Catholic circles currently about the existence of a “Lavender Mafia” and that perhaps the resignation of the Pope is tied in with a report to the Pope by three cardinals of blackmail and corruption of homosexual clergy high in Vatican circles.  Who can tell if this is true, since the Vatican has issued non-denial denials denouncing the story while carefully not dealing with the substance of it.

However, that there is a Lavender Mafia within the Church, homosexual clerics who promote and protect each other, none should question.  Exhibit A for the Lavender Mafia is Rembert Weakland.

Former Archbishop of Milwaukee, he was heterodox and orthodox Catholics often wondered how he had risen so far in the hierarchy.  It came out after he had resigned that he used 450,000 of Church money to pay off his male lover who revealed the story to the press anyway years later.

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020607_Archbishop_Weaklands_Legacy.html

Needless to say, Weakland has never paid back a dime of the hush money.  This thief sits today on the board of directors of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.  He is living evidence of the truth that there is clearly a “lavender Mafia” at work within the Church that promotes its members and protects them.  The next Pope will have his work cut out for him if he decides to attack this evil head on.

38 Responses to Rembert Weakland and the Lavender Mafia

  • Wolf in shepherd’s clothing. Pope John Paul II effectively dealt with homosexual behavior in his writing: THEOLOGY OF THE BODY, and LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY. Pope John Paul II also dealt with child abuse by instructing the bishops whom he had called to Rome that one crime and the priest is OUT, not only because the priest excommunicates himself, but because the Church laicizes him.

    In the 1960’s, with Love-ins and communes, priests were misled by the heretics teaching in Catholic Universities, not much has changed. Before Richard McBrien, there was Charles Curran. This could be laid in his lap. Priests were telling penitents in the confessional that whatever they did to one another in bed was permitted by the Sacrament of Matrimony. Sodomy OK Condoms OK Coitus Interruptus OK.

    I often wonder, if Bathsheba had said “NO” to King David, in the manner of Susanah, Judith and Queen Esther, if David would have had her put to death or exiled. Make no mistake, the child conceived in adultery died before he was a year old. King Solomon was David and Bathsheba’s second child. The first born belonged to God, a child of an adulteress and a murderer.

    The biggest lie is that this lifestyle has no effect on our soul. This is the biggest lie the devil can tell, that death is life. I was told by a woman that her husband uses contraception, not she. The whole concept of two becoming one was destroyed even before being gay became fashionable.

    It would seem that men committed to God would remain celibate and virgin even as Jesus Christ, Himself, was celibate and virgin. These people live a lie, destroy themselves and scandalize others to destroy themselves. With the likes of this coming, Our Lord gives us His Divine Mercy Chaplet.

  • Mary said: “The whole concept of two becoming one was destroyed even before being gay became fashionable.”

    ^This. The real root of the “marriage crisis” is that “traditional marriage” ceased to be traditional over half a century ago. If marriage is just about two people who love each other, then on what grounds can people opposed to same-sex marriage really make a compelling case?

  • “If marriage is just about two people who love each other,”

    For the same reason that people can argue against calling something football when it is played with a basketball. Words mean things even if all the fools think otherwise. Easy divorce is a scandal and a disaster. Calling “marriage” couples joined in a same sex peversion is a catastrophe since it destroys any meaning of the word.

  • “For the same reason that people can argue against calling something football when it is played with a basketball.”

    ^This.

    A dog still has only 4 legs, even if someone decides to call its tail a “leg”.

  • The word’s meaning has been diluted considerably over the past several decades. Marriage is a covenant, even if our society views it as a contract. But the fact that society DOES, in fact, consider marriage to be a contract based on mutual “love” that can be terminated when the requisite feeling dissipates, has and does have a profoundly negative effect on the resonance of arguments for traditional marriage. What’s happening isn’t some aberration, it’s the product of a historical development. Obviously calling the coupling of two members of the same sex a “marriage” is horrendously flawed, but we were put on this path long ago. Once clearing the “covenant” hurdle, the “1 man, 1 woman” bar doesn’t seem so high an obstacle to surmount.

  • The situation seems different here. They seem to think the behavior is OK because it doesn’t involved infidelity to a spouse. Some are under the impression that it dosn’t constitute fornication since it’s with the same sex. This has been the problem for years despite clear teaching on the matter. It’s a hierarchical problem.

  • JL, the real problem comes in the definition. Marriage is, and from what I can tell has always been, the union of two people. This is the name we give that unique relationship that is similar to friendship, but on the deepest level possible. No problem so far, right? But being totally united involves more than intellect, spirit, and emotion. It involves a real and true physical uniting that, unfortunately, is precluded in same-sex ‘sex’ and can only be found in actual sexual intercourse. No theology or philosophy needed here. Just basic biology. Sure some people will try to say that it is the same, but c’mon … we need to approach things realistically. Living in fantasy worlds doesn’t help anyone to solve real world problems.

  • I think we need to reiterate that homosexuality really is sinful. It’s really against the whole thrust of scripture. Then, we need to talk about the medical complications which arise from homosexual activity, and no one is discussing that right now on our side of the debate. Finally, we need to remind the church and the world, because humanity forgets God and his ways, that we’re heterosexually designed. As obvious as that last point seems, people forget it.

  • Out of the above-mentioned points, I think the one relating ot medical complications is most important. It’s something no one is discussing, yet it’s the one point that people have to listen to. We’re in the modern west and we’re suppose to be enlightened, right? That means listening to sciene and medicine and learning how to improve, right? Isn’t that what progress is all about? Well then, we need to bring medical research into the debate. We need to start quoting doctors and medical reports. After all, if science or medicine says something, we’re not supposed to argue it as good enlightened citizens for progress, right?

  • Yes Mark, I agree, the problem is with the definition. Namely, as I’ve iterated already, that marriage became considered a “contract between a man and a woman” instead of a “covenant between a man, a woman, and God.” That’s the first and most fundamental shift in the definition of traditional marriage, and it’s been all downhill from there. As Dreher would say, we have nothing left to conserve. The idea of marriage as a covenant long ago exited mainstream American thought. So with the decline of the prevailing belief that marriage had something to do with a divinely instituted sacrament and the complimentary natures (not just bodies, but natures) of the sexes, you know, the theological and philosophical stuff you dismiss out of hand, marriage became a simple issue of biology and consent. Disconnected from more holistic understandings of human nature, our society considers biology to be arbitrary and unconsented to and, therefore, an insufficient reason to deny someone equal access to certain legal rights and statuses. So yah Mark, it is a problem of definition.

    Your fixation with biology and only biology is to your detriment. That’s because biology is a system of how the world is, not how it ought to be. Devoid of philosophy or theology, it can’t tell us anything about how to live our lives. If you want the case and point example of that, look up Sam Dawkins and his literally pathetic, amateur attempts at deriving a comprehensive system of morality from biology. Your decision to give up the philosophical high-ground and rely solely on biology is doomed to failure, as the vaccum you leave is quickly filled up with a philosophy of extreme equality, which now serves as the chief normative informant of how we interpret the findings of biology.

    Look around Mark. No one who isn’t already opposed to SSM is buying your argument, and I mean no one. That’s because it’s a bad one. Simply repeating “1 man, 1 women” ad naseum will never accomplish anything if you can’t articulate WHY it ought to be “1 man, 1 women.” Who cares about definitions. Definitions can change, do change, and have been changed. So the new definition of “marriage” won’t be the same as the old one, but can you articulate why that’s actually a bad thing? Here’s a hint: you’ll need philosophy, not a paper napkin ala Santorum. Get yourself a copy of “Why Marriage?”

  • Sam Harris* …. big difference, Harris is far more of an idiot.

  • “Who cares about definitions.”

    Only people who can think rather than emote apparently. The buzz word “Marriage Equality” of the proponents of changing the definition of marriage gives the game away. Let us take something that has never been called marriage in history, sexual attachments between same sex individuals, and call that “marriage”. Next we’ll call polygamy “marriage” and that movement is already gaining steam. Then what about incestuous relationships? Why not call anything “marriage” if that is what the participants in the relationship call it? We have already had sad oddballs attempting to “marry” themselves. This whole battle has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with nomalizing the late twentieth century concept that morality has no place in sex and the institution that stands in the way is marriage. This is all an attempt to destroy the very concept of marriage and some of the more honest proponents of homosexual “marriage” actually admit as such.

    Pope Benedict got to the heart of all of this in his address to the Roman Curia last year:

    “The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.”

    http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=649535&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=thottupuramfr

  • Simple logic: “Go multiply and fill the earth” “May your children be as olive plants around your table”. Two women or two men cannot fulfill those commands. There would be no us, nor any world right now if God would have wanted that lifestyle for His people. The more we condone this behavior the less people we will have. Hmm, 55 mil killed in womb, God knows how many living in homosexual lifestyles. To think that we have had for so long this kind of leadership within our Holy Mother Church(even if we have known about it) leads me to believe we are in for many more years of unbearble pain caused by devils who have been allowed to plant their evil to destroy Her. I go to Church for the Sacraments. I no longer participate in any of the hundreds upon hundreds of extra “ministries”. Can you imagine had we educated in the truths of faith we may have had enough conscience enlightement to not have killed all those unborn, children growing up knowing what the Bible teaches about the 6th commandment, and why the real Church is being persecuted in such an unrelenting manner. If you’re leaders don’t believe these teachings and are so busy covering up all their nasty little habits it’s impossible to form a conscience for the common person. Thus the mess we’re in.

  • Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). “On becoming a person” a religious book featured in Catholic School was the work of Carl Rogers and later repudiated by him, simply because the human being, as a sovereign person is created by God. Rogers misrepresented and misidentified the developing personality as the sovereign personhood endowed into the newly created human being’s soul.
    The Declaration on Human Rights of the United Nation carries this heresy further by stating that human rights are endowed by the community, by the state. Atheism imposed on the human soul on a global stage.
    The human being is composed of human body and immortal, rational soul. The informed consent of the free will is an act of the human being’s immortal soul.
    Friendship is a gift from God. Love is from God. Marriage is a covenant that is witnessed by the free will and sovereign personhood of the human being’s immortal soul to Love one another. If the one partner does not love the other partner enough to want more of each other, then it is not love, it is exploitation.
    Homosexual behavior is physical assault and battery and spiritual exploitation. It is this physical assault and battery in sodomy and in lesbianism that is a concern of the secular authorities. No crime can be legalized or tolerated. In a culture based on innocence and virginity, homosexual behavior and the half truth of love by practicing homosexuals is physical and spiritual domination by evil forces that can be and must be exorcized.

  • “Only people who can think rather than emote apparently.”

    Exactly, so not most of the population or the people that will decide the legality of this issue. More effort needs to go into describing WHY marriage is and should be defined and legally enshrined as “1 man, 1 woman,” because “that’s the way it’s always been” carries no currency anymore.

  • ..”Carries no currency anymore.”
    Just when you think you’ve heard it all.

    Romans 1:24 is where I do my banking JL.
    “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.”

    Once a person or a Nation is hooked on sin our/ it’s values are turned upside down. “Evil becomes our most urgent good, our deepest longing; “good” stands as an evil because it threatens to keep us/society from satisfying our illicit desires.” Dr. S Hahn The Lambs Supper.

    You, JL, may take your counterfeit currencies and cash them in at your local LGBT bank.
    As for my family, our house is built on Rock.
    Our long term investment strategy is JC the King.
    Good Luck jl.

  • I apologize to you JL.
    This idea that Marriage needs a new definition to normalize, accept or honor the members of society that foster attractions that are unnatural do not sit well with me.
    Marriage is sacramental.
    To pretend that God has changed and endorses sinful behavior because its popular in culture is absurd. His word is Life.
    We wish all to have Life and more abundantly. This is only truly possible by putting on His yoke and trusting in His Word.
    To change the definition of one of His Sacred and beautiful gifts is playing God.
    St. Michael asks; “Who is like unto God?”
    When we say Change! Change for I am like God then prepare for the consequences.
    Peace JL.

  • It must be remembered and acknowledged that if, or when, the Supreme Court redefines marriage as between same sex individuals, it will have sanctioned perjury as free speech. When perjury becomes lawful, the Supreme Court will have made itself obsolete. Fake husbands, fake wives, fake justices, fake money…fake

  • With The Pope Against Homoheresy by F Dariusz OKO, Phd. Either on LifeNews or LifeSite News.

  • JL,

    Thank you for your response. However, if we want to discuss such topics such as marriage or land ownership or whatever, we do need to have some definitions that we can work from. So I put forth a very simple definition of marriage (A union of two human beings – with the understanding of the full meaning of ‘union’). Would you please give us a definition that you would like to work from? Please remember that it must describe a unique relationship between humans.

  • Phillip,

    I have no idea what you’re talking about or what your response has to do with anything I have written. I acquiesce to all of the Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality, etc. I am against gay marriage.

    I’m also against the promotion of losing arguments that don’t work. My point is that the simplistic obsession with clinging to “the definition” of marriage as the centerpiece of a campaign against gay marriage will fail within the current socio-political context of America. You can throw all the Bible verses you want at people, all the poor analogies using napkins, they will amount to nothing in a pluralistic, secular society that runs on liberalism. (as is evidenced by the fact that every single constitutional amendment to enshrine “1 man, 1 woman” as the legal standard for marriage failed in every state where it was on the ballot).

    The mindset of modern Americans is that marriage involves two things: love and consent. Not an openness to life, not a covenant with God, etc. Yes, until recently marriage was exclusive to 1 man and 1 woman, but as other intrinsic qualities of traditional marriage have been discarded to leave nothing but love/consent left as the only standards, many people consider it “unfair” to not open marriage up to homosexuals. The biological requirements of the institution are thought to be nothing more than historical prejudices that are no longer relevant. Homosexuals are capable of being in relationships that are characterized by romance and consent, and, therefore, many would argue, why shouldn’t they get married?

    You can continue to scream at the top of your voice “BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT 1 MAN, 1 WOMAN,” but unless you can explain WHY that distinction matters, no one will listen. An articulation of what traditional marriage is, why it is good, and why the government should be involved with it in the first place is the approach that has only hope of working (and it probably won’t in the long haul). Start here for that: http://www.heritage.org/events/2013/01/what-is-marriage

  • Mark,

    See the Heritage video above for my definition. You say marriage is “A union of two human beings – with the understanding of the full meaning of ‘union’” What is this proper understanding of union and why is it important and why should anyone care about it? Not trying to be a jerk, I just want you to articulate these important qualifiers.

  • JL

    I think you mean philip and not Phillip. We’re two different people.

  • Plato, “Opinion is not truth.”

    Who is advancing a social agenda? The gay privileges mafia is pushing (“homo” as in same/homogeneous) homo- marriage,

    The end-game is to procure state approval, recognition and police/coercive enforcement; enventually outlawing the religious (faith and morals) beliefs of millions.

    We owe fallen persons charity because as long as they live they may come to a better “mindset.” Charity requires us to help them to come to that better “mind-set.”

    In a free state, we wouldn’t be forced to alter our religious beliefs.

    3 . . .2 . . . 1 – You can’t use the word “homo.” “We own the rules and vocabulary of the debate.”

  • JL,

    “What is this proper understanding of union and why is it important and why should anyone care about it?”

    Great question. If marriage is a union, what type of union is it? Is it the fullest, most complete union of two humans beings that is possible? Or is it just another partial union. Please understand me, partial unions are wonderful. They fill our lives with great relationships. Every relationship that humans enter into has some level of union involved, be it intellectual, or emotional, or spiritual, or physical. Most have relationships involve two or more of these aspects of our personhood. But only one relationship will be able to include all four aspects of our life (oh see, now you’re getting me all philosophical!)

    A ‘hooking up’ relationship may certainly include a true physical union but if there is no commitment to exclusivity or permanence, than its not the fullest union possible. A same-sex relationship may certainly include exclusivity and permanence, but since it cannot include true physical union, it is not the fullest union possible. That’s why the definition is so important and why it is so important that we examine the meanings of the words. Marriage is only one specific type of relationship. If we call a same-sex relationship ‘marriage’ then what are we to call the total union of a woman and a man since it is so obviously different?

    Now watch out, I’m going to get theological now. Specifically, Theology of the Body theo-logic.

    Desire union is one of those things that define us as human. We are made in the image and likeness of a Triune God, after all. Union is part of our pedigree. So if we desire to have the fullest union possible, and we speak a language with our bodies that seems to suggest this union (i.e. ‘sex’), but then we actually withhold from our partner that deepest possible union, what are we truly doing? In the words of John Paull II, we are using them, turning them into an object. In other words, we de-humanize them. We objectify them. We deny their human dignity.

    That is what is at stake in this conversation And It’s something that not many people are talking about. But we need to talk about it.

  • “…historic prejudice that are no longer revenant.”

    Bologna JL.

    It is pure Bologna to assume that their lifestyle choice can alter Truth.
    If you or any doubter of Truth wish for an example of cultural significance relating to societal change that “seems fair” look no further than 1973 and R v W.

    What is not can not be no matter how eloquently you present it.

    Marriage is not up for redefinition.

    Commonsense is.
    Thank you for making my last point.

  • JL,

    By the way, thanks for the link to the talk. I don’t have time right now, but I’m looking forward to watching it. It looks excellent!

  • T. Shaw
    Plato, “Opinion is not truth.” Opinion may be truth, but two witnesses establish a judicial fact, therefore, opinion cannot be taken as truth until it is tested. The Da Vinci Code was predicated on the opinion of Da Vinci’s Last Supper, an opinion unsubstantiated by another person’s testimony.
    When “two become one” is more than biblical, it is biological. It is the newly begotten sovereign person who testifies as a second testimony to the Marriage of his parents. The new child is evidence of a consummated marriage and is so recognized in a court of law. God is love and the new child gives witness to God as love. Imperfect man cannot bring forth perfection. God brings forth perfection in another human being, virgin and innocent.
    The Supreme Court is not authorized to redefine the human being as having no soul as it has done in prayer ban and is about to do in homosexual “marriage”, because this violates The Declaration of Independence and our Creator endowed unalienable rights. The Court cannot redefine matrimony as anything other than “two becoming one in another human person to evidence to the consummated marriage”. Even the Catholic Church grants annulments to marriages that have not been consummated, consummation being the criterion for the definition of Marriage. Evidence needs to have two witnesses before it can be submitted and allowed into the Court. Homosexual “marriage” can never have the evidence of another human being as testimony to consummation.
    The Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution as written unless 2/3 of the states amend the Constitution giving the Supreme Court the authentic authority to redefine the human being as having no Creator, no immortal soul, no sovereign personhood, no unalienable rights, and now, homosexual unions as capable of bringing forth evidence of consummation.
    The atheist repudiates our Creator and then demands endowed unalienable rights. The militant homosexual repudiates our Creator and then demands endowed unalienable rights. The Supreme Court repudiates our founding principles and under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, redefines our Creator, the citizens, and their role in delivering Justice. It is the duty of the government to protect and secure virginity and innocence.
    I apologize for the length of this.
    Mary De Voe

  • Jeanne Rohl:
    Thank you for the link. I did read it. Our Lady at Fatima told the children that the devil will be given free reign in the last half of the century but that the devil will be conquered and chained by TRUTH.
    I am grieved that Our Lady’s Son’s church must suffer so to indicate where the sickness is and how to cure it. God gave man the power to name creation and with this power all evil may be driven out. Pope Benedict XVI advised exorcism to clean the filth from Holy Mother Church. It is time to exorcise the great liar, murderer from hell.

  • Mary De Voe-
    Well said.
    JL asked me; “what am I talking about..”
    Truth is the core. It resides there. It is the second person of the Holy Trinity.
    You have done a beautiful job in this thread,
    and I am learning.
    Thank you.

  • Dear lower-case “P” phillip,

    What you have clearly demonstrated throughout this thread is that you are unable to comprehend what I am saying and/or incapable of articulating a response that actually engages my argument.

    You continue to mischaracterize me as some sort of gay marriage advocate. Stop.

    What I have simply sought to do is to highlight how marriage is currently perceived in our culture and how, with this knowledge in mind, we might go about effectively arguing for traditional marriage. You seem genuinely incapable of understanding this, and think anyone who bothers to try to understand where other people are coming from must endorse those views.

    You appear to be more concerned with being self-righteously correct than with actually effectively addressing this issue in a way that will have any resonance in society. Perhaps you wish gay marriage to become widely acceptable, so as to increase your own sense of self-worth and superiority.

  • JL-
    Thank you.
    I just finished reviewing the link you provided.
    Taking notes.
    Thanks. I’m understanding your point that we must become educated in proposing solid reasons why any change in definition of marriage will have negative impacts on society.

    I was not digesting your arguments as I should of, but quick to “Yell” and for that another apology.
    Now that I’m at home I have the availability to take time and listen to your points, and what your trying to accomplish.
    The panel has helped me to understand THE definition of marriage in a larger context.
    There’s still hope for me.
    Peace.

  • phillip,

    No worries. I could’ve done better to make those distinctions.

  • JL-
    The exchange rate
    on my currency just
    increased. :)

  • “philip”
    Jesus said: “I and the Father are one.” “I testify to myself and my Father testifies to me.” Two witnesses to the TRUTH, Who is Jesus Christ, in The Triune God, in witness to the TRUTH.

    In the other perspective, looking at homosexual behavior as “marriage” from the point of crime and punishment:
    When a woman is penetrated against her will and without her consent, it is assault and battery. Only when the male seed is imposed upon the woman without her welcome, is it rape. There is no rape unless the male seed has been imposed against the consent of the woman, a violation of the marital act, a violation of the human race. In homosexual behavior, the marital act is violated by every homosexual act. Rape is not possible. Only assault and battery, there not being a woman for the man and a man for the woman, only assault and battery exists in the homosexual act. A crime cannot be legalized. Assault and battery cannot be legalized even when consent is given, since a person must be uninformed to consent to crime. From the laws, even the stones cry out.

  • When Paul wrote to the Romans he understood his listeners had a sense of ‘nature’ created by God. Absent revelation, I’m not sure humanity understands ‘nature’ and what’s therefore natural, which is why I’ve always considered natural law undependable. Absent a biological argument, we really don’t have a leg to stand on. Neither do they. Any argument we present against homosexuality is framed, as Christians, within creation. It’s a matter of creation for us. Normative sexuality can involve procreation but need not. What it must involve at the very least is one man plus one woman for life.

  • Thank you Mary.
    TAC is a great aid to help defend our Church and Family. (Family – neighbors)
    I am humbled at the table of thought, and tonight feel that you and many other participants can help me understand the perspectives and rational of important challenges facing us today.
    To you long time participants of this site, please realize that your input and years of study are helping “neophyte’s” like me.
    Todays lesson for me is to slow down, not jump in to discussion while on break at work, and most importantly respect others.
    God bless all of you & please God protect thy Holy Church.

  • Philip: Do not hesitate to jump into discussion while on break at work. I find that rereading my writing after others have read it and critiqued it is very helpful to complete my understanding, very much like Lectio Divina, meditating on the concept and letting it grow of its own accord. “…and most importantly respect others.” Respect God, others and yourself in this order. It makes for joy.
    Thank you, Philip for your wishes. May God’s blessings return a hundredfold, packed down spilling over, on you and yours.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .