How We Can Get Through Current Crisis of Homosexuality in the Church

The acceptance and even promotion of homosexuality is at the root of the problem in our Church.

By Dan Almeter Published on August 15, 2018

I spent six years in a Catholic seminary in the ’70s. The current scandal of predatory homosexuality came as no surprise to me.

My fellow seminarians laughed at Pope Paul VI when he re-affirmed the Church’s teaching about homosexuality through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Persona Humana. The seminary rector ordered us to lock our bedroom door every night because of predatory behavior. I was “hit on” by priests and fellow seminarians.

Struggling with a certain level of same-sex attraction, I began to believe that maybe I was homosexual. By God’s plan, I chose to leave seminary and enter an ecumenical charismatic community. There I received healing and formation in my masculinity. I’ve been happily married now for 38 years. My wife and I have been blessed with six children. All of them are married, and continue in their Catholic faith as strong disciples of Jesus.

This crisis cannot be resolved until the Church leadership recognizes and admits that both the current acceptance and even promotion of homosexual behavior is at the root of it all.

I now counsel men and teens who struggle with same-sex attraction. Not everyone I counsel is totally healed, but I have seen dozens of men make serious progress in living either a celibate life or successful married life.

Conspiracy of Silence and Intimidation

The acceptance and even promotion of homosexuality is at the root of the problem in our Church. Last year, a cardinal invited me to come to his archdiocese to talk to his priests about homosexuality. Before the talk, an auxiliary bishops told me to “go easy on the priests.” He instructed me to talk about transgenderism and not homosexuality.

Hope — New Wine Skins

Structures that support the sickness of accepted homosexuality within the Church must change. But we will win the war.

The Holy Spirit has been preparing us for these very days by raising up many new ecclesial movements and communities around the world. They are primarily lay-led. They blend families, consecrated singles, and clergy. They can provide “new wineskins” we need as models of renewal, like the Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits for their day.

In a landmark talk in 2006, the head of the Church’s Council for the Laity quoted John Paul II’s call for “living Christian communities.” He declared them “the answer which has been raised up the Holy Spirit in this dramatic challenge at the end of the millennium.”

Bishops around the world must become intimately familiar with these new ecclesial wine skins. They provide a wealth of formation, are deeply orthodox, often ecumenically focused, very evangelistic and clear models of how our church structures and parishes can become disciples in mission.

These new communities and ministries live an accountable lifestyle. They could be a great example of how priests and bishops can be more accountable to one another.

I explained that one can’t begin to talk about transgenderism without talking about homosexuality. It was obvious that the bishop was trying to intimidate me into not talking about the “elephant in the room.”

Just this month a seminarian, soon to be ordained, told me his seminary loses good men because of the homosexual issue. They get pastoral assignments in parishes where the pastor is “pro-gay.” If they say anything bad about the homosexual agenda, the pastor might give them a poor evaluation. It could keep them from ordination. Some of these guys give up.

Pro-gay activist Fr. James Martin, SJ, gets positive coverage and endorsements by priests, bishops and cardinals. A Vatican office invites him to speak at the World meeting of Families. Bishops and priests say mass for the pro-gay activist groups like New Ways Ministries. These clergy arrogantly snub their noses at the laity who protest. They call us homophobic and intolerant.

The Leadership’s Dysfunction

This crisis cannot be resolved until the Church leadership recognizes and admits that both the current acceptance and even promotion of homosexual behavior is at the root of it all.

I am deeply disturbed that some bishops suggest throwing one more band-aid onto a gaping wound in the form of some new policy monitored by the bishops themselves. We do need a board of carefully chosen professional lay people who can help investigate the decades of predatory behavior by cardinals, bishops and priests. Why? Because the hierarchy is acting like a dysfunctional family — unhealthy alliances, co-dependency and more.

For the past few decades most of the hierarchy has been afraid to speak boldly or act decisively. They fear being marginalized and “thrown under the bus” by superiors or peers. As a whole, they will not become accountable without serious help from the laity.

This scandal, as one colleague told me, is like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. To see the Church survive, we must prepare for a protracted period of spiritual warfare. It is going to take everyone to pull together to win this war. The soldiers (the laity) have just as much responsibility now as do the generals (the hierarchy).

Come on faithful bishops! Step up to the plate. Follow the Gospel about how to give correction as described in Matthew 18:15-18. Call your fellow bishops to accountability. The faithful laity will back you up.

Prayer and Fasting

We will all need to pull together to get through this crisis. We will need a full investigation. We will need the laity heavily involved. We will need to stop the huge bleed caused by the pro-homosexual agenda struggling to re-define the human person.

We, laity and clergy alike, must enter into a time of repentance and fasting. “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting” (Mk.9:29b). Ultimately, there is no other way to win the war.

No doubt, the Holy Spirit will inspire new methods and structures to guide us. But always, the ultimate biblical solution is prayer and repentance that gives the Holy Spirit full reign.

 

Dan Almeter is the North American leader of the Catholic Fraternity of Covenant Communities and Fellowships. He is also a licensed professional counselor and spiritual director. He’s part of the “Gathering in the Holy Spirit” dialogue between Catholics and leaders of the New Charismatic Churches.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    “And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
    And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
    Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” -Luke 10:17-19

    The name of Jesus is above every name, and believers have the authority to use that name. Continue in his word and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

    • rei42728

      Go back and read what I have to say rei42728
      Books that explains it all and the soy formula causing homosexuality AND the devil at work!

  • tz1

    It happened 1000 years ago when St. Peter Damien wrote “The Book of Gomorrah”, which I don’t see mentioned. Tradition? Or Modernism we know better?

  • Paul

    Perhaps a pocket sized guillotine would be useful

    • Cody

      I like it.

    • Digging graves for others only leads to you falling in

      • Paul

        I didn’t know castration is fatal

        • Are you that clueless about biology?

          • Paul

            No, that bleed out is easily remedied, it’s done all the time on livestock.

          • And it will be done to you if you do not cease wishing ill on others.

          • Paul

            seeking some form of justice and punishment for vile criminal behavior isn’t simply wishing ill on others.

          • yes it is. All you care about is power and how you feel you can hurt someone else to get it. Ironically, that makes you in league with the sodomites you want to attack.

          • Paul

            And the lack of accountability, justice and punishment in the Catholic church has led to this gigantic mess of decades of sexual abuse of children. Your moral high horse has 4 broken legs and is lying on its side unable to move writhing in pain.

          • Once more, the scandal was sodomites and young men (much of whom late teens or legal age). What children?

          • Paul

            Do you live under a rock?

  • Jacob Miller

    Allowing homosexuals into the church is a “crisis” in the same way that allowing black people in church was a “crisis.”

    • Patmos

      Once again you don’t even respond to the article, and instead opt for a troll post. Get a life, loser.

      • Jacob Miller

        Did you not read the headline?

        And no need for hostility.

        • Patmos

          So you admit you didn’t even read the article, and are just a worthless troll. Thanks for sharing, but we kind of already knew that. No need to reinforce that point.

          • Jim

            laughable at best

      • Jim

        There’s the. christian coming out of you.

        • Indeed, it is necessary to rebuke evil.

          • Jim

            Lol!

    • Chris C.

      The same-sex attracted who define themselves by their disordered propensities are no different than others, such as philanderers or polygamists, who would do the same. All are sinners in need of repentance and God’s forgiveness. That means daily seeking God’s grace to stand apart from one’s sins and/or inclination to sin. It’s part and parcel of “taking up one’s cross”. In short the same-sex attracted are welcome into the Church. Attempts to legitimize a sinful lifestyle are not welcome, any more or less so than advocates of other sinful lifestyles.

      And there was never a ban on “black people” in the Church nor was in problematic for them to belong.

    • Ken Abbott

      If you speak of repentant persons struggling with same-sex attraction determined to be obedient by the power of the Holy Spirit to the biblical mandate to forswear all forms of sexual immorality, then there is indeed no “crisis.”

    • john

      The whole article is nonsense. The writer first introduces us to the reality that he himself is gay but that by marrying a woman and impregnating her six times he somehow thinks he can insist he isn’t. What’s most absurd is that either way, sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual abuse. We don’t refer to female victims of abuse as victims of “predatory heterosexuality.” Some people just can’t pass up the opportunity to try to gay-bash — especially when they think it helps them disprove the reality of their own sexual orientation. Fortunately, everyone sees through this these days, whether they admit to it or not.

      • sodomy is caused by childhood abuse and neglect. There is nothing inborn about sodomy.

        Overcoming ones own disorders and mental illnesses is always a good thing, and should be celebrated. It seems your sneering hatred is because you cannot do just that. Seems like it is self-hatred on your part.

        • Jim

          Ummm no it isn’t. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. Care to post proof?

          • All sodomites have their story of abuse by a man that “groomed” them as a youth. Also they have their stories about being fatherless or estranged with their fathers.

          • Jim

            You just showed your overt ignorance on the subject, LMAO!

        • rei42728

          Wrong! Sodomy is a sin and not caused by family necessarily. Homosexuality is a sin only when acted upon. The soy in formulas has been proven to be the cause of most homosexual behavior Read Dan Rutz article on Soy is Making our Kids Gay. A niece says her daughter had a soy formula and isn’t gay but has many hormonal problems.
          There are groups of homosexual men who are living chaste lives and administered by good priests.
          There is a book that used to be available called OO2 and I can’t find it anymore. I had two and they disappeared!!!! It told of a man raised by an adoptive family, went to Russia, joined a group of men (thousands) sent all over the world to become pseudo priests to undermine the church. Another book called Good Bye Good Men told of the homosexual acts in the seminaries. They sent away good prospects for priests and took in those they could manipulate -probably some of what we are seeing today.
          These facts should be known and MUCH PRAYER is needed to overcome what the devil is doing to the world today. If we would follow the BVM at Fatima and just pray more and fast the problem would be solved by our Lord!
          It’s in our governments too! Look at communism and socialism . The devil has found his people to do what he wants to the world and we must PRAY to God and His Mother to help us. OUR ONLY Answer!
          Put medals around the house (work place- in your pocket) and every time you see one let it prompt you to say Please God Help Us!!!! He will!

          • sodomy is a problem caused by a specific demon, and the way they take hold is childhood abuse/neglect.

            It has nothing to do with having female hormones, as the feminine affectations of sodomites are a put-on to mock women.

          • swordfish

            Wait, “a specific demon”? LOL Where did you get this information from?

          • Every form of sodomy is bondage to a specific demon, exorcists know this as they have to to do their jobs. I will not tell you the names.

          • swordfish

            Your entire ‘worldview’ is stuck in the middle ages. I feel sorry for you and for those who might be encouraged by your infantile fantasy nonsense.

          • If something is true in the Middle Ages, then it is true now as truth is immutable.

          • swordfish

            So do you support the burning of witches?

          • That was never a thing. Should have been though.

          • swordfish

            From Wikipedia:

            “Burning was used by Christians during the witch-hunts of Europe. The penal code known as the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (1532) decreed that sorcery throughout the Holy Roman Empire should be treated as a criminal offence, and if it purported to inflict injury upon any person the witch was to be burnt at the stake.”

            You’ll no doubt be pleased to hear it’s still happening in places like Paraguay.

          • No clue what you are even talking about, though you believing you have no free will and now using wikipedia tells me a lot.

          • swordfish

            “No clue what you are even talking about”

            Try looking it up.

          • I certainly don’t need to deal with more nonsense of third rate historians from a child who thinks he doesn’t have free will.

          • swordfish

            Really? Why don’t you provide some evidence to support your claim that witch burning never happened?

          • Because it was banned in the year 700-800 and was never done by the Church.

            you must be talking about protestants doing things.

          • swordfish

            This isn’t evidence, it’s just another claim. Every source I’ve been able to find agrees that witch burning was an historical fact. Saying it was down to ‘protestants’ is irrelevant; I said Christians in my claim, not ‘The Church’, or ‘Catholics’.

          • A fact of what and who?

            heretics are not Christian

          • swordfish

            “A fact of what and who?”

            A fact as in something that actually happened.

            “heretics are not Christian”

            About 900 million people would disagree with you, but I’ll let you argue amongst yourselves as to who is a True Christian.

          • Considering devil worship is very common, they do care as they normally try to hurt what threatens their evil.

          • swordfish

            Each of your comments makes less sense than the previous one. If witches “try to hurt what threatens their evil”, does that mean they’d be trying to hurt Protestants, as they’re the ones doing the burning, according to you?

          • For a time, the satanists were attacking baptists. This was in the 1980’s. The devil worshipers have no need to do that anymore as the prots are no longer a threat, and are squarely on the devil’s side.

            I’d imagine that the demoniacs did attack the protestants in the 1500’s, but were killed for that. This is the problem when you are trying to use things from 500 years ago to make a statement about today. The prots did kill them 500 years ago, but now the prots are on the same side as the demoniacs.

            Are you honestly asking why the demoniacs aren’t attacking them for things that happened 500 years ago? The “witches” of today are lonely fools who probably got involved in it through harry potter books. There is no connection.

          • swordfish

            I’ve got nothing!

          • Of course you do not. When did you ever?

          • swordfish

            I’ve got nothing, only because I don’t want to encourage your bizzarre fantasies. Good day to you.

          • you stepped in it, and thanks to your capital sin of pride you cannot admit you were wrong.

            Ask your dark master where that got him.

          • swordfish

            “you stepped in it”

            Okay, I’ll bite: where? You claimed originally that witches were never burnt at the stake, but produced no evidence to support your claim. How about you produce some evidence?

          • No, you admitted defeat. Now you are trying to salvage your defeat into a second attack by pretending we were talking about something else.

          • swordfish

            Just to be clear, I didn’t “admit defeat”, I just couldn’t be bothered to continue arguing with someone as delusional as yourself about such a load of old rubbish.

          • I accept your defeat.

          • swordfish

            I accept your defeat on the grounds that you haven’t presented any evidence in support of your delusional claim that witch burning “wasn’t a thing”. Also, how old are you? I’m starting to feel like I’m arguing with a kid.

          • This is childish nonsense.

          • swordfish

            I wholeheartedly agree.

          • swordfish

            I’ve got nothing because I can’t see any difference between your bizarre fantasies and those depicted in the Harry Potter books you mention.

    • So you are a sodomite, or at least a marxists supportter of them?

    • James E..

      Where do you come up with this nonsense? That makes not a lick of sense. For a church to have rules against the open embracing of unrepentant sin is equated by you to be the same thing as racism based on color of skin. You are either supremely naive, or a troll trying to be provocative, as many here think.

  • David Quelle

    “prayer and fasting” is exactly what is need for growth in Holiness. However, requiring men to be celibate in order to serve in the ministery is making unbiblical demands that lead to unrighteous outlets for sexual desires. The first solution is removing those unbiblical demands and restoring marital relations as God designed.

    • Bryan

      I disagree about removing the demands for celibacy as the first solution to the current issue. The reason being that it removes the burden of responsibility from the person with the unhealthy desires. If you feel you are called to the priesthood as a Catholic believer, then you know what you’re getting into, a celibate life of service to the flock. If you choose to not remain celibate, you’re choosing not to trust God with that area of your life and that’s a personal issue. It’s not an issue of the rules. The evangelical church has seen it’s share of adultery among its pastors and clergy without a call for celibacy. So I don’t think the change in the rules is going to fix the problem.
      That said, this could be a time when that particular rule needs to be reevaluated thoughtfully. However, it should be done after addressing the other issues that lead to the sexual sins of those in the priesthood.

      • David Quelle

        Can’t argue with the Protestant churches having their fair share of guilt in sexual sin. However, that does not negate the inevitable consequences of imposing a requirement for service to the church that was never imposed in scripture. There is zero evidence that the church in the New Testament ever required celebacy from it’s leaders. Sure Paul chose a life of celibacy but one qualification for being an Elder or Deacon is “to be the husband of one wife” 1st Timothy chapter 3. Within the context of a sacred and pure marriage, church leaders can be used just as profoundly by the Lord as those that are single.

        • Bryan

          Again, I do agree with you that the restriction is not necessary for someone to serve in the Church. I disagree that removing the restriction is the answer to the problem. The rule isn’t the reason for homosexuality within the ministers of the Church. And removing the rule won’t fix the problem. To me they are separate issues. Though they are related, they are not causal for each other.

    • Albion

      Married priesthood also produces potential problems. What if the married priest is exposed as an adulterer? What if he files for a divorce? What if his obedience to his bishop puts a strain on his relationship with his wife? Why is it that every time there are scandals involving priests, the recommended solution is to abandon the celibate state?

      • David Quelle

        Only because the required celibate state is an extra biblical requirement. Requiring anything that Jesus himself would not/does not should be challenged. There is no biblical evidence for required celibacy.

        • Albion

          Even so, there are good practical reasons for a celibate priesthood, for instance, to avoid conflicting loyalties and demands that might put one’s family in difficulty.

          • rei42728

            RIGHT! I knew a protestant ministers wife who was worried because their daughter was giving problems bringing shame to the family. She was worried that the father would have to give up his service because of the daughters action. And don’t think that some in the congregation wouldn’t think poorly of them either!

    • Priests need to be constantly pure. Really what you want is other people to be brought down to your level.

      • David Quelle

        I’m not trying to bring anyone “down to my level” whatever that means. You are presuming that a life of celibacy is equivalent with Godliness or Holiness and the Bible teaches nothing of the sort. My desire is not to bring them down or myself up. My desire is to be biblical. No where in scripture is this demand placed on leaders. If anything, scripture teaches just the opposite.

        • I means you know that celibacy is a great Holiness and your marriage isn’t at that level. This angers your ego to see someone a pve or above you, and so you want to bring them down.

          Levite (Old Covenant) Priests could marry, but only because they worked 1 month out of the year. Before that month they had to leave their wives and purify themselves, only to return after they were excused. Priests of the New&Eternal Covenant are constantly on call.

          • swordfish

            It’s Christianity’s bizzare attitude to sex which creates these problems in the first place. What’s “impure” about sex?

          • It’s misuse.

            What is bizarre about following natural law? It is just you projecting your own evil out of despair?

          • swordfish

            “What is bizarre about following natural law?”

            There’s more than one reason to have sex, just as there’s more than one reason to walk. Is walking just for pleasure a misuse because we should only be walking to get somewhere? Natural law is outdated nonsense.

            “It is just you projecting your own evil out of despair?”

            I’m not despairing – maybe you are the one projecting here.

          • The foundation that nature is built upon is “outdated?” Why? Because of your shame over sexual sin?

            No, you are projecting, and you do know sex is only for procreation.

          • swordfish

            “The foundation that nature is built upon is “outdated?””

            Nature isn’t built on ‘natural law’, it’s built out of forces and particles.

            “you do know sex is only for procreation”

            I don’t know that because it’s obviously not true. Since you need these things spelling out, it’s also for expressing love, and for fun. Like my analogy pointed out, most things can do more than one thing.

          • No, Natural Law is the foundation of nature.

            Misusing something does not change the purpose of that thing.

          • swordfish

            “Misusing something does not change the purpose of that thing.”

            What is the purpose of a tree? To create shade? To provide wood for making furniture? To provide a home for animals? To suck water out of the ground? To provide something picturesque to look at? To reduce flooding? To suck CO2 out of the air? To produce oxygen? To provide fuel for forest fires? To hang a kid’s swing from?

            Things don’t have just one purpose.

          • None of those are outside of Natural Law. your perversion is.

          • swordfish

            1. Why?
            2. What perversion?

          • you are trying to defend sexual perversion.

          • swordfish

            I forgot that you think that a married couple having sex to express their love for one another is “perverted”. Might I suggest that your idea of what is normal and what is perverted needs some serious rethinking.

          • It is as love has nothing to do with sex, sex is procreation.

            What would need “rethinking” and why?

          • swordfish

            No further comment from me is necessary here. Good day to you.

          • So you have no argument against me?

      • David Quelle

        We all need to be constantly pure. Sex within the right context is a Holy and absolutely pure.

        • No, it doesn’t. It is permitted and encouraged only when rightly ordered for the propagation of humanity, but it is not Holy.

          Holiness is to be “of another world” there is no sexual anything in Heaven as it is totally beyond the material. Nor is there marriage in Heaven.

          To act in the Person of Christ, Priests must live like celibate and continent as they would in Heaven.

    • rei42728

      Many men are celibate. Look at many priests who are. MORALITY is required! and PRAYER!

  • Albion

    The bishops should admit their faults to the public and resign. The problem will be that most of the likely successors are people who have been groomed by those same bishops and will have been tainted by corrupt practices. So where to we go from here?

    • God is in control, not you.

      • swordfish

        Is God in control of this “crisis of homosexuality”?

        • God is in control of everything. Either through His Permissive Will or Divine Will.

          I understand you feel weak and that you must lash out to gain some semblance of control, but maybe there is a reason you feel that way.

          • swordfish

            If God is in control of everything, then it’s his fault. As for your second line, you don’t understand me, I don’t feel weak, and I’m not lashing out.

          • you are both. you are just trying to grab power however you can.

            God is not responsible for sin, especially not your own.

          • swordfish

            1. “God is in control of everything”

            2. “God is not responsible for sin”

            These statements contradict one another.

          • No. sin is division from God, how could God be involved with those who have destroyed themselves out of misuse of their free will?

          • swordfish

            So God isn’t in control of everything? You need to get your story straight. Having said that, free will is impossible as we can’t choose other than what we want the most, but we can’t choose what that is.

          • God is in control. God created free will.

            So you are a determinist. I assume this is how you pretend to hide your sexual sin. As Chesterton said, a determinist cannot even pass the salt.

          • swordfish

            “I assume this is how you pretend to hide your sexual sin. As Chesterton said, a determinist cannot even pass the salt.”

            You seem very interested in my sexual sin. That Chesterton quote doesn’t add up, as responding to a request to pass the salt would be an action determined by an external request.

          • yet you would not be able to do something so simple on your own, which is absurd and easily disproven.

            As for your type of sin, sexual sin is the most common and usually the type that makes people act as you do.

          • swordfish

            Not having free will doesn’t mean we can’t do anything. I assume you don’t think insects have free will, but they still do stuff.

            I’m still wondering how free will can be compatible with God being in control of everything?

          • Free will and reason are both unique to bearers of a rational soul. That means humans and spirits only.

            Once more, pretending you have no free will, will not absolve you of responsibility

          • swordfish

            I’m not “pretending” that I don’t have free will, I’m reasoning that I don’t. The whole idea of free will doesn’t even make sense as it’s defined as not deterministic but not non-deterministic either. There are no other possibilities!

            And I’m still wondering how free will can be compatible with God being in control of everything?

          • Which is an absurd position, and refuted by you writing this message here. you want to say you don’t have free will because you believe that will make you have no responsibility.

            That tells me that you have absolutely no position to stand on here.

          • swordfish

            “Which is an absurd position, and refuted by you writing this message here.”

            Just saying a position is absurd isn’t an argument, and I’m writing this in response to you, so my action is determined by prior events.

            “you want to say you don’t have free will because you believe that will make you have no responsibility.”

            I say what I mean. I don’t believe in free will for the reasons I have explained. To put it a slightly different way, I don’t believe there’s a magical way it’s possible for us to make choices which aren’t determined by prior events but also aren’t just random.

          • Writing a message and thinking (especially thinking poorly as you do) is a refutation of determinism. As I keep saying, you are DESPERATE to try to make your shame leave you so much that you pretend you have no free will.

          • swordfish

            “Writing a message and thinking (especially thinking poorly as you do) is a refutation of determinism.”

            You can’t refute determinism by appealing to the fact that we think or can write messages. Animals can think, and computers can write messages. Neither have free will according to you.

            You say I “think poorly”, but you aren’t even capable of making a valid argument or presenting any evidence to support your crazy claims. Also, why would “thinking poorly” be an “especial” refutation of free will?

            “As I keep saying, you are DESPERATE to try to make your shame leave you so much that you pretend you have no free will.”

            Yes, you keep asserting things which you couldn’t possibly know.

          • beasts have no ability to think either. computers have no ability to think either or do anything that wasn’t specifically programmed.

            you are reading and replying of your own volition and thinking of your own volition. you are also smart enough to try to know what I am getting at and then try to twist that into your sin-denying absurdity.

            A deterministic system would lead to you understanding and accepting what I am saying as it is true. you purposely reject the truth, and that is you misusing your free will.

          • swordfish

            “A deterministic system would lead to you understanding and accepting what I am saying as it is true.”

            A deterministic system would lead to me understanding that my thinking isn’t deterministic?

            “You purposely reject the truth, and that is you misusing your free will.”

            I’m sorry, but you’re just plain wrong. I’ve only very recently and reluctantly accepted the idea that free will is impossible. You really should stop telling me what you think my motivations are, as you’re completely wrong about it every time. I assume that you hold the beliefs you do honestly, so please do me the courtesy of assuming that I am similarly motivated.

          • It would mean you would not be able to use your free will to reject absolute truth.

            The simple reason why you deny free will is as I have said it multiple times here: because you think it will make your shame over sin go away. There is no way to escape your judgement by claiming you are not responsible for your actions.

          • swordfish

            “It would mean you would not be able to use your free will to reject absolute truth.”

            I can’t see any reason why I’d need to have free will to choose one religion over another, or to reject all of them because none seem plausible. Your claim to “absolute truth” is just a claim with nothing to substantiate it.

            “The simple reason why you deny free will is as I have said it multiple times here: […]”

            Why do you keep telling me what you think my motivations are when I’ve already told you you’re wrong?

          • Because your motivations are clear: the absurd delusion that you think you will preclude judgement by an insanity plea.

          • swordfish

            My motivations are not as clear as you seem to think, but your interpretation of them doesn’t make sense anyway. If I really believed in God, there wouldn’t be any point in me pretending not to. The fact is, I don’t believe in God.

            And I’m still wondering how free will can be compatible with God being in control of everything?

          • God created Free Will.

            your motivations are easy to see by your rationalization and rhetoric here.

          • swordfish

            “God created Free Will.”

            So how do we exercise our free will if God is in control of everything?

            “your motivations are easy to see by your rationalization and rhetoric here.”

            Wrong. It’s extremely difficult to understand other people’s motivations. I haven’t got a clue what motivates you to stick with your eccentric beliefs.

          • God has a Permissive Will and a Divine Will. God created free will with His Divine Will as He created everything. God then permits free will because it is Good.

            your misuse of free will is bad, and you have harmed yourself beyond recognition because of it. Yet, free will is good, and your misuse of free will is your fault alone and does not reflect on free will itself.

            I know what you are like by reading your messages and knowing your type from years of experience and hundreds of run-ins with people indistinguishable from you. I am not shocked you have no willingness to read my messages to see where I am coming from.

          • swordfish

            “I am not shocked you have no willingness to read my messages to see where I am coming from.”

            Eh? I’ve read all of your messages, and I often quote most of what you’ve written when I reply. I do find your position difficult to relate to, partly because it’s so extreme, but I understand that your views have been warped by Christianity.

            “God created free will with His Divine Will as He created everything. God then permits free will because it is Good.”

            1. How is free will “good” if it leads to people doing bad things? We could have been made in such a way that we could only do good things – how would that be worse?

            2. If we have free will, how can God be in control of everything?

            “you have harmed yourself beyond recognition”

            Nope. I’ve never been happier, and I’d like to think that I’m a better person than I was when I was a Christian.

          • My view is of Natural Law and Absolute Truth. As for reading my posts, your ego allows you no such thing. This is shown by cherry picking half-sentences.

            Good is anything as God created it to be. Free will is good.

            evil is decay caused by sin. your misuse of free will is evil and caused by a decayed mind due to sin.

            The responsibility for your misuse of free will is on you alone. Because you purposely, maliciously, and knowingly misuse your free will says nothing about free will.

          • swordfish

            “This is shown by cherry picking half-sentences.”

            I quote only enough so you can tell which point I’m replying to. In any case, you don’t ever quote anything I’ve written, so you’re hardly in a position to complain. Talking about cherry picking, you didn’t answer my question: “We could have been made in such a way that we could only do good things – how would that be worse?”

            “Good is anything as God created it to be. Free will is good.”

            Didn’t God also create the ability of the world to fall into evil and sin? Or was he somehow not responsible for that major design oversight? In any case, how does it make sense that the world could turn out differently to how an omnipotent God “created it to be”?

            “The responsibility for your misuse of free will is on you alone.”

            I don’t believe we have free will, and I don’t see any evidence that a god exists, so this point is moot.

          • you were created with free will, because free will is Good and God wanted you to have it.

            Free will is so good that your misuse of it does not change that free will is good. God permits you to misuse your free will however, because free will is more important that the damage you do to yourself by misusing it.

          • swordfish

            “God permits you to misuse your free will however, because free will is more important that the damage you do to yourself by misusing it.”

            1. What is “important” about free will?

            2. Do we have free will in heaven?

          • It is important you have free will because God created you specifically to have free will. Only humans and spirits have rational souls.

            The second question is odd.

          • swordfish

            “The second question is odd.”

            I’m still interested to hear your answer to it.

          • The question is nonsense. That is what I mean by odd.

            The problem is clear that you:
            1) have no clue what free will is
            2) have no clue what Heaven is

            If you had even the faintest idea about either, you would know the answer to the question; because the question answers itself. Yet you don’t.

          • swordfish

            LOL. It seems like you don’t want to answer my question.

          • I just did.

          • swordfish

            Come off it, Teapot! You didn’t get anywhere near answering it. It’s a very simple question with only 7 words: I’ll repeat it for you in case you’ve forgotten:

            Do we have free will in heaven?

          • In Heaven, one is perfected as they have no more sin. The rational soul allows for free will and reason. The only two beings with a rational soul are humans and spirits.

            If you put any thought into what you asked, you would have answered yourself.

          • swordfish

            I could have answered it myself, but I’m trying to encourage you to think outside the box. Follow up question: If we have free will in heaven, can we choose to do evil?

            If yes, then how can heaven be perfect?

            If no, then it’s possible to have free will but be unable to choose do do evil. This completely undermines the usual answer to the Problem Of Evil, i.e., that it’s necessary for us to be able to choose to do evil.

          • The will is created when you understand Good as Good.

            Doing evil is not a valid choice, it is a misuse of free will brought about by the capital sin of pride. It is a sign of the sin destroying you, as evil is the decay caused by sin.

            The feeling that evil is necessary is religious dogma from gnosticism. It is a fallacy based out of weakness and fear. People assume because they are weak to evil, that evil must be powerful; no, evil is just an absence of Good, it is the person that is weak and rotting away.

            Good is anything as God created it to be. Therefore in Heaven there will be no misuse of free will as there will be no sin or decay.

          • swordfish

            “The feeling that evil is necessary is religious dogma from gnosticism.”

            I disagree.

            Free will is proposed as an explanation for evil based on the idea that if we could only choose to do good, then our choices would have no value. My problem with this is, what’s so good about us having the ability to choose evil? Assuming that God exists, he could have created the world in such a way that we wouldn’t be able to choose evil, but we’d still have free will, as you assert is the case in heaven.

            This situation would be objectively better than the world as it is, so why didn’t God create it like that? By creating us with the ability to choose evil, he’s responsible for evil. This isn’t compatible with the idea of God being omnibenevolent.

          • Choosing evil is not free will, it is a rejection of free will as your reprobate life shows.

            Free will is knowingly following things as God created them to be. Without your sin, you would never do evil at all. In that sense, evil acts are not conscious and are a malfunction caused by decay of sin.

            The problem here seems to be your inability to realize just how broken and destroyed you are. It is easy to do, I cannot escape witnessing your evil and sin every time you seek to infuriate me with your presence.

          • swordfish

            “Choosing evil is not free will, it is a rejection of free will as your reprobate life shows.”

            For one, it doesn’t make sense to claim that only ‘good’ choices are free, for another you don’t know anything at all about my life, so stop trying to insult me.

            “The problem here seems to be your inability to realize just how broken and destroyed you are. It is easy to do, I cannot escape witnessing your evil and sin every time you seek to infuriate me with your presence.”

            LOL. The problem here as I see it is that you’re completely incapable of presenting a coherent argument in support of anything you believe in. Your continual ad hominem attacks are symptomatic of this.

            You don’t have to respond to me, and it might be better if you don’t.

          • Good is things as God created them to be.

            evil is decay caused by sin.

            It is gnostic dogma born of fear over evil that implies that evil is a separate thing or a force. No, evil is decay and absence of Good.

            When you do evil acts, it is because you have strayed from how God created you and therefore you begin to degrade and malfunction.

          • swordfish

            I’m still wondering how free will can be compatible with God being in control of everything. Looks like I’ll never get an answer from you. Feel free to continue this argument without me.

          • Because God created free will, and free will is Good because God created it.

          • Ken Abbott

            Who’s doing the wanting and the choosing? Are you saying we are slaves to our desires?

          • swordfish

            “Who’s doing the wanting and the choosing?”

            Good question. I would say it doesn’t matter.

            “Are you saying we are slaves to our desires?”

            I would say we’re slaves to our wants, but those wants could include wanting world peace, or wanting to be a better person, not just basic physical desires.

        • rei42728

          They are saying only God can stop this! PRAY!!! EVERY MINUTE!

  • I trigger libtards

    1) End the celibacy requirement.
    2) Ban any homosexual from entering the clergy.
    3) Problem solved.

    No charge.

  • rei42728

    Read what : popeleoXIII heard in a locution (voices only) This is the devil at work. ONLY prayer will stop this! and lots of it. We don’t need to go to church to pray and I am wondering how many do it at home?!
    I promised a rosary a day (can’t remember the group that asked it) to stop ISIS and look now what is happening – ISIS is almost gone.
    We also need to pray for the conversion of Muslims. It started with Mohammed and my belief is he was the devil himself. All these prayers on their pads 3-4 times a day to “ALLAH” I believe is to the devil. Those people believe they are to kill the Christians! Who else would promote that except the devil!?
    PRAYER is the only answer. Man can try all sorts of things to stop these devil ridden acts but most fail! GOD is our answer and He will only act IF we ASK So please ask!!! Daily, every moment keep saying Please God Help US and He will!

  • Ray

    Yes, tolerance of this is the problem. There should be zero tolerance, but that doesn’t give people a licence to go on witch hunts and target innocent people. Once there is tolerance, then the next step is acceptance, and one there is acceptance, then there is protection of the acceptance, which means anyone saying anything contrary can become a target for oppression, and when that happens, the power and authority goes to the homosexual agenda, and the Bible must take second place. Then there is no more religious liberty, and sin has it’s open door to anything goes, ushering in anything, by force.

  • swordfish

    There isn’t a “crisis of homosexuality” in the church, there’s a crisis of child molestation and an organised cover-up.

    • Yet the scandal is about young men being groomed by sodomites. The only cover up is you trying to scapegoat the Church to cover up what sodomites are.

      • swordfish

        A willfully ignorant comment. Girls were molested as well. Try doing some research before you start typing.

        As for: “The only cover up is you trying to scapegoat the Church to cover up what sodomites are.”, that is a disgraceful and quite blatant lie. Do you even know anything about this entire issue? The fact that Church authorities at all levels have covered up abuse allegations and failed to report them to the police is a thoroughly well-established fact that even the Pope has had to address.

        • The scandal was exclusively sodomites and 99% of the victims were teenage men or men in their early 20’s. I’m sure there were outliers like children and girls, but the exception proves the rule.

          This Pope is primarily concerned with marxist politcal talking points, and is probably as ill informed as you are. I don’t care what he addresses here unless it is to rebuke the media for trying to scapegoat the Church to cover up what sodomites do.

          • swordfish

            “The scandal was exclusively sodomites and 99% of the victims were teenage men or men in their early 20’s.”

            Wrong. From the 2004 John Jay report:

            * Around 81% of these victims were male.

            * Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, shows that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that directed at boys the same age.

            * 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.

            * A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.

          • yet that does not parse with what actually happened or what the problem actually is. sodomites groom; they do not occur naturally so they have to do it to feed their perversion. THIS is what you are covering up in order to attack the Church; or should I say you are attacking the Church to cover it up.

            Firstly, what here is done that you feel these men are acting as priests when performing something that excommunicates you latae sententiae?j

            Also, you ignore from that report that priests are the least likely of all groups to do anything of the sort.

          • swordfish

            “yet that does not parse with what actually happened or what the problem actually is.”

            Says who? I just demonstrated that your claims are falsified by an authoritive report funded by the US Congress of Catholic Bishops. Why should I give any weight to your unsupported opinions?

            “sodomites groom; they do not occur naturally so they have to do it to feed their perversion.”

            Again, says who? From statements like these, it appears that you don’t know anything whatsoever about gay people on any level. (Not to mention the fact that you’re still trying to pretend girls haven’t been abused.) Have you ever even (knowingly) met or spoken to a gay person?

          • Falsified by what? The scandal was sodomites and young men, that is the problem. The fixation you have on falsely making this about children is just to cover up what sodomites at large do everyday.

          • swordfish

            “Falsified by what?”

            Falsified by the John Jay report. You said: “The scandal was exclusively sodomites and 99% of the victims were teenage men or men in their early 20’s.”

            Your “exclusively sodomites” claim is falsified by the John Jay report which states that 81% of victims were male (19% female, if you’re no good at maths).

            Your “99% of the victims were teenage men or men in their early 20’s.” claim is falsified also by the John Jay report which states that 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.

            Even if your claim was right, how would that make anything better?

          • It would make you false. you have spent much time defending sodomites on here, but yet you hate sodomy when it illicitly happens in the Church by communist infiltrators?

            No, you are covering for sodomites by scapegoating the Church.

          • swordfish

            I’ve been defending gay people against false accusations made by bigots such as yourself, but I condemn child abuse whether it happens in the Catholic Church or anywhere else. You seem to think there’s a contradiction here, but I don’t know why. Do you not see that there’s a world of difference between child abuse and consensual sex between adults?

          • you have been scapegoating the Church to cover up what sodomites do to recruit more sodomites.

          • swordfish

            Sorry, but you’re delusional. The Church has itself officially admitted that these problems exist, so it’s absurd for you to claim that I’m scapegoating them.

          • Yet you are scapegoating the Church to cover for sodomites, you admit this in your own words above.

          • swordfish

            Are you suggesting that this hasn’t got anything to do with the Church?

          • It has to do with sodomites and how they groom young men for “power” and to replenish their ranks.

            What is Catholic about any of this?

          • swordfish

            Let’s see now: It’s been carried out by members of the Catholic Church using their positions within it to gain unsupervised access to children, authority over them, and the trust of their parents; it’s been actively covered-up by members of the Catholic Church, using their influence and money; it’s been unreported to the police by members of the Catholic Church; and finally it’s arguably causally linked to the Catholic Church’s unrealistic requirement of celibacy.

          • I assume you mean when Bishops took the word of secular psychologists by saying that sodomy will eventually be grown out of. That is not a cover-up.

            What is unrealistic about celibacy other than you admitting that your reprobate mind originates from sexual sin?

            So that’s why you seek to claim the Church is responsible for “pedophilia” when the scandal is sodomites grooming young men: because you are covering up your own perversions. The ONLY cover-up is you claiming the scandal is what it isn’t, so you can pretend sodomites are absolved by demonic scapegoating of the Church.

            No, the Church is innocent, and you and your sodomites are still guilty alone.

          • swordfish

            “No, the Church is innocent, and you and your sodomites are still guilty alone.”

            Okay, I’m done with this. You can continue your battle against reality and your embarrasingly witless insults on your own. The Catholic Church has a long history of covering up child abuse, and your pathetic attempt to argue otherwise reflects very badly indeed on you.

          • Again, what child abuse? sodomites abuse children to groom them to become sodomites, but what does that have to do with the scandal which did not involve kids?

            Where is your rejection of sodomy?

          • swordfish

            “Again, what child abuse?”

            From the John Jay report: “22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.”

            So, that child abuse.

          • If you claim teens are children, of which the law and psychology (you are trying to use their term pedophile) does not.

          • swordfish

            I used the term “child abuse”. From the John Jay report, yet again: “22.6% were age 10 or younger” And in any case, whether the victims and abusers were the same sex is irrelevant. Abuse is abuse. Stop trying to defend your corrupt Church and try becoming a human being.

          • sodomy is the issue. sodomites must groom the young (though this was young men, not kids), because sodomites do not occur in nature.

            So you openly admit that you are scapegoating the Church to cover up for sodomites.

            Where is your condemnation of sodomites who are the ones reaponsible for sodomy you speak of?

          • swordfish

            There isn’t any point in engaging with you as you just ignore all facts presented to you and rant away like an imbecile.

          • Once more, where is your condemnation of sodomy?

          • swordfish

            I refer you to my previous comment.

          • Of which was a childish dodge.

          • swordfish

            Whatever. My comments are backed up with facts, yours are not. Good day to you.

          • What facts? political rhetoric is not factual.

Inspiration
Jesus, ‘Thou Art Fairer Than the Children of Men’
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us