Game of Rationalizations

I didn’t expect that my blog post on porn – sorry, Game of Thrones – would be one of my highest shared posts.  I even dropped it on a Friday which has traditionally been THE worst day to put out a blog post.  For those of you who don’t blog or use WordPress, we can see where our hits are coming from. Occasionally it shows links from forums where I can see the comments on the post.  That’s always fun.  This time, the Game of Thrones article got posted on a few different boards so I got to see pages of commentary.  That was also something of an oddity.  Usually, when someone posts one of my articles, you can maybe see about four comments, not four PAGES of comments.  As expected, there are tons of rationalizations on why the porn in GoT was OK.  Let me just share a few of them with you.

It’s only a few minutes of the show.

News flash:  A few minutes of porn is still porn.

Somebody better tell Michelangelo his work is porn.

Nice red-herring which is the sum of “You’re just afraid to look at a naked human body!”  Someone has a problem telling the difference between art that glorifies God’s creation of the human body and porn.  There is a tad bit of a difference.  Just a little bit.  Again, I’d like to point out that we don’t put blindfolds on when we look at works of art.  Please!  The need to paint us as repressed Catholics is annoying. 

Nudity is not found in all the episodes.

First, note the need to paint the graphic sex scenes in Game of Thrones as simple nudity.  Yeah, sorry.  Not quite.  Porn in only some of the episodes is still porn.  Now, if you have some way of finding out which ones don’t have porn in them and only watch those, kudos to you.  The rest of you? You’re still watching graphic sex scenes.  Admit it already.

In one interesting post, I saw one person who said the scenes were getting over the top (think he/she even said the show was sleazy) but he/she didn’t have a problem with Daenerys having sex with her husband in front of his people because they explained in the book that it was their culture to do so AND that’s happened with cultures throughout history.  Uh, hello!  Sodomy was also part of some cultures, as was group rape, genital mutilation, etc.  So?  Is it still something we should be watching?  Historically accurate and moral are, again, two very different things.

And, of course, people are still pushing the “It’s art” argument.  I’m sure there are many pornographers out there that believe they are creating art, too.  I’m also sure the “50 Shades” author probably thought she had created art.  But what is a CATHOLIC supposed to think about art?  I like this article on the subject:

It has been maintained that art is ordained to the production of beautiful works. In this expression of this beauty, art is in no way to contravene morals, for art can have no right against God. But art in expressing beauty can also have higher, loftier aims. Art can be the means of inspiring, of bringing men closer to God. To the artist belongs the right of ordaining his work to a higher end than that of mere beauty; this in no way would hinder its perfection. Evidence of this is seen in the lovely masterpieces of Fra Angelico, of a Leonardo Da Vinci. Their primary intention was to further the causes of religion and devotion and in so doing they created masterpieces, works which will last and which will fulfill the very purpose of art. An artist in producing a work of art is not directly and immediately obliged to devote his work to the cause of religion or of devotion; this is true, but we assert that ultimately he is so obliged for making it the act of a free agent, an act of the will, one for which a man is responsible and as such it must conform to the requirements of every human activity. It must conform to the moral law. “A human action exempt from ultimate direction to God is an ethical absurdity.”

“All the arts and sciences,” says St. Thomas, “seek a common goal, the perfection of man.” All art should perfect the physical, intellectual and moral perfection of man. “Art is art, not religion, nor morals, nor science, nor politics . . . But art belongs to life; it cannot ignore life, it must obey life. The adage ‘art for art’s sake’ should be amended to read, ‘art for life’s sake,’ or better still, ‘art for the sake of man.'” Thus we see that beauty, the fine arts, and the other goods of life cannot be separated from morality and religion. Whether we consider art subjectively as a product of a created mind or objectively as the right measure of things to be made its final end and purpose is not contained within itself. Even Immanuel Kant with all his wild fancies and ideas never lost sight of the higher and true meaning of art: “beauty is the reflection of the infinite upon the finite; it is a glimpse of the Godhead.”

This quote expresses my thoughts on the “art” of GoT:

Pascal wrote of Montaigne: “His book not intended to lead men to piety, was not obliged to do so; but one is always obliged not to turn men away from the good.”

And, if you read all they down to the bottom under the footnotes, you will find discussion points. This one by applies to GoT to a “t”:

From Gerard M. Greenewald, O.F.M.Cap.:

“Since moral evil tends to debase man, the artist must take into account certain psychological tendencies common to human nature. Incidents of injustice, revenge, murder and falsehood are sometimes used in the interest of propaganda, and then they usually destroy the artistic value of the work. Of course, these evils may never be depicted as justified. But ordinarily, for artistic effect, these evils are comparatively easy to handle artistically, because people do not readily imagine themselves as committing these particular sins in question. However, in presenting the lascivious, the lewd, the indecent, the artist is confronted with a serious danger of jeopardizing the artistic value of his work because of the strong sexual urge that normally prevails in man. (That’s exactly what I pointed out between the graphic violence scenes vs. the graphic sex scenes.)

One must here take into account the nature of a sinful impure thought. To think of sexual matters objectively is no sin. When one, however, imagines himself in some sinful sexual situation and deliberately entertains such a thought, he is actually committing a mortal sin. Now, when an obscene incident is luridly portrayed or enticingly suggested, one may easily imagine himself in that particular situation. Aside from the proximate danger of serious sin, such an incident would certainly be a disturbing influence, if not a serious distraction, from the contemplation of the beautiful and from the concomitant intellectual joy that any creative work, to be true art, must afford. Needless to say, any presentation that would excite depraved emotions in the ordinary normal percipient would frustrate the contemplation of the beautiful.

It is evident then that any form of moral evil may never be sanctioned or justified in any true work of art, and that moral evil may never be depicted for its own sake, for in either case the creative work would be definitely debasing. It is certainly, therefore, within the sphere of the art critic to evaluate the manner in which moral evil is portrayed. In treating of moral evils, particularly the sexual, the critic as well as the artist must exercise fine judgment of such incidents and references in determining the probable reactions on the normal percipient.

Finally, someone made the comment that the NY Times couldn’t show causality between the Porn Hub use tank during the GoT premier, because the use also tanks during the Super Bowl. Really? I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch.  The Super Bowl, after all, is the Super Bowl and we’ve been watching it, as a country, historically, in mass numbers for much longer than porn coming out of the closet and being mainstreamed.  I’m sure even porn fiends are a bit traditional when it comes to the Super Bowl.  After all, there are parties, food and beer. What are you going to say?  “Can’t come to your Super Bowl party because I’ll be home watching porn!” Porn Hub knows that which is why they offer free porn during half-time and tried desperately, like every other company in the world, to get a commercial in the Super Bowl.  Thankfully they have been thus far rejected. That said, is porn hub carrying Super Bowl clips?  Nope.  They are, however, carrying GoT clips. The NY Times, Esquire and Porn Hub have all put two and two together.  Face it, GoT watchers. You’re just aiding and abetting in making porn morally acceptable.  In fact, I’m sure many of you are watching GoT with people who are Porn Hub users.  It would be oh so nice if that creeped you out instead of you becoming an apologist for it.

You know how you can Google and see snippets of what the article is about without opening it?  Trying putting in “Game of Thrones” and “sex” and see what pops up. Don’t open, just check out the list of hits.  You can see enough to get the gist without giving those sites another hit for the count.  Yes, people.  Those who love porn love GoT exactly for the porn.  In fact, many of the results of that search are going to show you the story line cut out and the sex, sodomy, and rape scenes just cut all together.  At least the porn fiends are being honest. It’s time for the GoT apologists to start being honest, too.




If it Quacks Like a Duck, it’s Porn!

Sometimes porn is just porn.  It’s not some new phenomenal art form.  It just is what it’s always been.

I promised myself that I wasn’t going to write about this because I didn’t want to be internet yelled at by people with whom I’d normally agree.  I’m also, so Fr. Z once observed (Oh yes, I did name drop!), not a normal “mommy blogger.”  I take pride in that and this wanders dangerously close to a “mommy blogger” topic. . That said, I’ve really just become sick of the kitschy Catholics trying to rationalize this one away.  It’s becoming akin to active same-sex attractive people trying to say sodomy isn’t sodomy because they love each other. Or, probably a better comparison, all those people who saw “50 Shades of Whatever” and tried to say it was just how the world was now.  Blech!  It does seem to be reflection of the disease where we all want our sins to be accepted by our buds. I’m not immune, but geez, this just seems to be so obvious.

Let me first put out this disclaimer.  I LOVE, I mean, LOVE TV and movies.  I don’t think anyone who knows me would consider me in the “Amish” realm of Catholicism.  I love to be up on pop culture, etc.  I listen to modern music, I try not to sport mom jeans, and I try to take “living in the world but not being of the world” to heart. So keep all the “You just don’t live in the real world!” comments to yourself.

So let’s look at this little “Please don’t tell me watching Game of Thrones might be morally wrong!” article:

A Defense of Game of Thrones

July 20, 2017 by Rebecca Bratten Weiss

Admitting that I am a fan of the hugest TV hit series of the moment can get me some side-eye in Catholic circles, but it is true: I love Game of Thrones. I love the book series on which it is based, A Song of Ice and Fire, even more: a slightly more morally acceptable confession, because at least no one yells at me for watching porn.

“Game of Thrones is porn” is the mantra I keep hearing from right-wing bloggers and posters of memes. One is tempted to dismiss this charge on the grounds that everyone who repeats it does so while also stating that they haven’t watched it – since anyone wanting to do art analysis should probably start by seeing the thing before making a judgment on it. But, of course, people can decide what they want to see or avoid based on descriptions. And yes, some things we know are porn without having to see them. They are marketed as such, labeled as such. The question is, is there a grey area where a work of art or entertainment veers somewhat into the pornographic? And does Game of Thrones veer this way?

“Want some candy, little girl?” just popped into my head.  Seriously?  “You don’t HAVE to watch it, but don’t you think that you should so you can make a more ‘educated’ judgement about it?”  I really hate the way people try to attack one’s “education” as a way of shutting down debate.  She did begrudgingly admit that one can make the judgment based on the voluminous amount of ink spilled on it, though.  How kind of her.

In order to answer this we need to be a little clearer on what pornography is. The presence of nudity, and even of explicit sex, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a work to be sexually pornographic. The necessary condition is manipulation towards the end of sexual arousal. Towards this end, stories in works of pornography are at best tenuous frameworks designed to get as quickly as possible to the point. Porn viewers do not want to sit through fifty minutes of complex story-telling in order to get a brief flash of nudity. No one who has access to internet porn is going to waste time on Game of Thrones – unless, perhaps, their interest in the story is sufficient to lure them away from a porn addiction. In which case, that is a good thing.

At this point, Rebecca might want to read this article:  Please read the full article, but here’s the short version:  Pornhub’s traffic plummets on GoT’s premier night.  Let’s see.  Why do you think that is?  Is it luring people away from addiction or just fulfilling it?  I mean it’s an addiction.  Suddenly the people that pay for porn have found a laudible sub?  Come on, people!  I somehow don’t see all the porn addicts dropping everything and going to the Vatican art collection on-line to get away from their porn addiction.  The GoT people know that porn is addictive.  What better way to keep the ratings up?  Mainstreaming porn is a total advertising win.  Only a small subset of folks is going to say you’re a porn fiend now.  Your addiction is now acceptable.

This doesn’t mean people won’t be aroused by nudity, but at a certain point the fact of possible arousal becomes negligible, because it is culturally conditioned. There was a time when seeing a woman’s calf would have sent men reeling into helpless lust. This does not mean that showing a woman’s calf is pornographic. In some cultures, it is typical for women to go topless. This is not pornographic, either.

Isn’t this kind of the problem???  We’re not “culturally conditioned.”  We are culturally desensitized.  It ain’t a woman’s calf we’re talking about here, and it’s not the works of the masters, either.  Just because the culture is desensitized doesn’t mean that it’s good.  I would think you might possibly have paused to think a little bit before writing this.

Pornography by its nature dehumanizes the body and reduces it to a sex object for gratification and use. This is different from representations of the human body which elicit heightened awareness of personhood. Such representations are not always necessarily lovely. The crucifixion, a bodily image at the heart of the Catholic imagination, is proof of this. Some Protestant Christians are horrified by our seemingly ghoulish obsession with a depiction of horrific torture, the twisted and bleeding human body which is also the body of God. But it is precisely this juxtaposition of horror and beauty which is the message of grace.

Does ANYONE have a problem with GoT being juxtaposed to the Crucifixion?!?!  She seriously jumped the shark with this one. She talks about porn dehumanizing the person.  What the heck does comparing  The Game of Thrones to the Crucifixion do to Christ’s sacrifice for us?  Something is seriously wrong when you go to such lengths to watch a TV show!

I would suggest that for the most part the representations of sex and violence in Game of Thrones are intended to elicit this heightened awareness of humanity. Yes, much of the sex is exploitative, but this is portrayed as negative, intended to awaken a sense of justice. Again, a juxtaposition of horror and beauty.

Grasping. At. Straws.  If you can’t do this without the porn thrown in, you’re not much of a screenwriter.

The few sex scenes that are tender and intimate are portrayed with a kind of veiling that respects the privacy of human love. Actor Emilia Clarke’s insistence on being clothed for her representation of Daenerys’ “seduction” of her warlord husband had the effect of increasing awareness of the surprising tenderness that bloomed within what should have been a traumatic relationship, a forced marriage for military and political ends. The contrast between truly loving relationships that endure even in the midst of the darkness and violence of a world at war – and the violent sex acts performed in the moral corruption of that world – tends to showcase what it is that is vulnerable and lovable about persons, and personal bodies.

So, as long as porn (soft porn, etc.) are portrayed as loving, it’s OK?  Again, let’s go back to the sodomy and Pornhub examples.  And then there’s the MANY classic movies that have achieved the same goal without “vivid” portrayals of what should be the marital embrace.

“I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards, and broken things,” says Tyrion, my favorite character, and this could be considered the deepest theme of the story. Bear in mind, too, that in the novels, George R. R. Martin makes it clear that “broken” can mean “morally broken.” There are “broken men” who, shattered by war, roam the country like ravening wolves, but we are reminded – by one of the few truly good characters in the story, a holy man – that they are to be pitied. So, yes, most of the people in Game of Thrones do dreadful things, even some of our favorites. That’s what brokenness means. That’s what sin means.”

Again, it’s totally ridiculous to suggest the “artistry” would be gone without this?  Methinks that people just don’t watch the classics anymore. There have been MANY movies with the classic flawed heroes that were beautiful.

This is connected with a sort of via negativa in the religious sense of the story, in which the divine is made present in moments of silence, and among the most disenfranchised – but that is a subject for a different post.

Oh, goody.  Another post.

I will close with two caveats: first, no, it is not a show for everyone. Not everyone finds catharsis in stories of darkness and violence, but some of us do. Some simply find these representations disturbing. And obviously, it is not for children….but, then, neither is wine. And just as wine could be dangerous for some, so could depictions of graphic violence be harmful both for those inclined to perpetrate such acts, and those who have been victims of them. Second, I agree with some critics that the showrunners sometimes go too far. Storytellers have to tread with care on many issues, especially in depictions of sex and violence, and not everyone always gets it right. Especially when money is at stake. Especially when rape culture is so, distrubingly, normative.

The rape culture is normative because of shows like this.  The slippery slope is real people.  Interestingly enough, I haven’t heard one critique which complains of the violence.  I’m sure there are some, but Catholics rarely balk at that.  It doesn’t have the same seductive effect on the brain.  And, as the author rightly pointed out, we have a Faith centered around a tortuous, horrifically violent act.  Mel Gibson, for all his flaws, is the master of screen violence with the purpose to move people toward the beauty of humanity.  The characters in the movies he directs are flawed, yet love and intimacy is portrayed without the pornographic portrayal.  Braveheart, The Passion, Apocolypto, Hacksaw Ridge.  Even in The Patriot, which he didn’t direct but starred in, you knew his deep love for his family and even the wife who’s dead before the movie even gets going.  No graphic sex needed to emote humanity or the flawed hero.

The books, as we always say, are better – in this regard and in others.

But fundamentally, I believe, the story unfolding in Game of Thrones is profoundly moral, and – at a time of global unrest when we look on helpless at the suffering of the most vulnerable – very timely.

Hold up.  Can you say stretching?  To compare Game of Thrones to the reality of the Christians being persecuted in Islamic countries, babies being aborted on a daily basis, the plight of the poor in Africa, etc., is completely RIDICULOUS.  I must have somehow missed the pornography in their plight.  Please.  This is just offensive.  You can’t be moral and righteous and pornographic.  You want to quibble on the porn end, go ahead.  Personally, I think you are grasping at excuses.

Just a little antidote, when this whole Game of Thrones premier hysteria came up, I snagged one of my 20-somethings and asked if they had seen it. (Can’t really police them all that much after they reach a certain age.)  The 20-something in question, who has always loved a good story, especially in the pseudo-Greek mythology of Marvel, said “No-ho-ho-ho!  I’ve heard about the graphic sex scenes and the fact that you might as well not invest time in finding a hero to root for because they will die anyway.”  Thank you for validating my existence my dear child!  Seems like the 20-somethings might be a little more honest with themselves than Ms. Weiss and the other Catholics justifying GoT.

The Martin Chronicles

Should I make this the new name for the blog?  I really never intended on him being a main focus but now that he’s made it to the Vatican, I’m feeling like it’s all Martin all the time.  It’s like he thought the job description was to communicate himself.  I long for the “Who in the heck is Fr. James Martin, SJ?” days to return.

Here is my dose of irony for the day!

Homosexual clergy should ‘come out’ to show how ‘gay people can live chastely’: Vatican consultant

July 7, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican’s hand-picked pro-homosexual communications consultant Fr. James Martin said parish priests who secretly identify as homosexual should publicly “come out” to show their congregations “what a gay person is like and, incidentally, how gay people can live chastely.”

So, the first thought that popped into my head was “You first, Fr. Martin!  You first!”  Relatively sure I’m not alone in that guess.

Next, I’m wondering why a priest has to “come out” in order to tell people how they can live chastely.  I don’t remember anyone saying “I’m straight!  You too can be chaste!”  In fact, I’m missing the many teachings of Fr. Martin on chastity.  Did he write a book on that one?  All I could find in a cursory search was a whole chapter in a book he wrote, “Building a Bridge”.  Here are quotes and main takeaways, courtesy of Catholic Match (kind of disappointed in them on this one, though):

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Fr. Martin gave his reasoning about why he doesn’t mention chastity in his book:

Register: In your book, you stress what the Catechism says about treating “LGBT” Catholics with “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” but not the teaching about living chastely. How long does one employ “respect, compassion and sensitivity” before calling “LGBT” Catholics to chastity?

Martin: The reason I didn’t talk about chastity in my book is because Church teaching is clear on that matter, and it’s well-known in the “LGBT” community. I don’t think there’s any “LGBT” Catholic alive who doesn’t understand that teaching. By the same token, there seem to be few “LGBT” Catholics who have accepted that teaching. Theologically speaking, you could say the teaching has not been “received” by the “LGBT” community, to whom it was directed. So rather than focusing on a topic where the two groups — the institutional church and the “LGBT” community — are miles and miles apart, I preferred to try to build a bridge over areas that could be places of common ground. And as for “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” one can always employ those virtues even when one is in disagreement with the other person. If you’re a bishop who is speaking to an “LGBT” person who disagrees with Church teaching, you can still treat him or her with respect, and the “LGBT” person can do the same with the bishop. As for calling them specifically to chastity, it’s important to remember we are all called to chastity, so that is part of everyone’s call as a Christian and as a Catholic. So that virtue is not something that applies only to the “LGBT” person.

So why then do priests have to “come out” to teach anyone how to live chastely? After all, “Church teaching is clear on that matter”, and there isn’t “any “LGBT” Catholic alive who doesn’t understand that teaching”. Heck, it is so well understood that it’s not included in your oh-so-important book.  Puh-lease!  Make up your mind, Fr. Martin.

That said, I’m not entirely sure that he fully understands the Catholic teaching on chastity that apparently everyone else has got down.  If he did, I’d think he’d use words like “self-mastery”, “sin”, etc. Maybe this will help.

Before we go onto the rest of Martin’s musings, let me tell you a little story.

A long time ago, in a diocese far, far away…Actually, not so far away, but way back when we had a liberally, permissive bishop, he allowed his cronies to have a support day for “gay priests.”  The obvious guys were there, but a couple priests who showed were puzzling.  One of these priests was (and still is) a very faithful, humble priest.  He got up and asked a very poignant question.  He said, “Why do you want to label yourself a ‘gay priest’ instead of a faithful priest?”  BAM!  I think it was his loving way of saying, “What are you dooooiiinnngggg???”  Personally, I don’t need or want to know who my priest is attracted to, unless it is Jesus, Our Lady, and the Saints.  I want him to guide me in leading a life that will lead me to an everlasting life with God.  I mean, is Fr. Martin saying that only priests that “come out” can help same-sex attracted folks live a chaste life?  Sorry, I know same-sex attracted people who were helped to live chaste lives by priests who they will never know to whom they are attracted.  It’s not about the priest.  It’s about the penitent and the wonderful sacraments and teachings the Church has to offer to help them be chaste.  It’s about priests knowing how to encourage people to live virtuous lives no matter what their sin.  For this particular issue, priests can foster Courage and Encourage groups, and quite frankly, they can just foster a family atmosphere where there are people helping people with their daily struggles against sin.

Sadly, I think Fr. Martin just wants to foster an environment that allows him to do whatever the heck he wants to do without guilt, and he’d like to drag a whole bunch of people down with him.  His goal is to foster the “We’re all just sinners, so let’s not worry about that anymore.  You’re nice, I’m nice, and we’re happy in our sins!” environment.  And guess what kind of things happen when people act that way…

Martin’s July 6 interview with CNN ironically comes about a week after news broke of the arrest of a Vatican gay-priest, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, who frequently hosted cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies in a building right next to St. Peter’s Basilica.

BTW, the same clergy who are all too willing to report (or rather, shout out gleefully) when someone like Cardinal Pell is prosecuted are somehow super quiet about this little event.  I mean, it’s like they’re just ignoring the story all together.  Go to America Magazine, Salt and Light Media, or the National catholic Fishwrap.  I just did.  Search Coccopalmerio or Capozzi.  Cricket!  Cricket!  I mean, the silence deafening!

In the interview, the Jesuit priest and editor-at-large of America magazine spoke about his new pro-homosexual book Building a Bridge. He said the Church is beginning to shift its “approach” to homosexuals, thanks to Pope Francis.

There are two reasons for this shift. One is Pope Francis. His saying ‘Who am I to judge?’ about gay people; his public meeting with Yayo Grassi, his former student who is gay, during his papal visit to the United States; his comments in Amoris Laetitia [which have been used to allow practicing homosexuals to receive Communion]. And the bishops who Pope Francis is appointing in the United States are much more LGBT friendly,” he said.

What in the @#$%&!?  Seriously???  He’s still trying to float this crud to the uninformed and pass it off as truth??  Please, people!  Look it up yourself.  There is no different approach in the Holy Father’s comments.  It’s kind of what MY peeps have been saying all along.  If you are repentant, the Lord forgives!  Geez!  Here are the EXACT words from that part of the interview.  I’m not trying to hide it like Fr. Martin is.  I’ll even include the link.  Does Fr. Martin do this when talking about “gay people” and “Who am I to judge?”

Ilze Scamparini:

I would like permission to ask a delicate question: another image that has been going around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his private life. I would like to know, Your Holiness, what you intend to do about this? How are you confronting this issue and how does Your Holiness intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?

Pope Francis:

About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response. But I wish to add something else: I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for “sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying … wait a moment, how does it say it … it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question. Many thanks.

Back to the LifeSiteNews article…

“The second thing is the increased number of LGBT Catholics who are coming out and making LGBT issues much more important for the church as a whole,” he added.

The interviewer asked Fr. Martin about his claim in his new book that there are “thousands” of homosexual clergy who have not “come out,” wanting to know why they keep their sexuality secret.

“Several reasons,” replied Martin. “One, their bishops or religious superiors ask them not to come out. Two, they fear reprisals from parishioners. Three, they fear it would be divisive. Four, they are private people. Five, they are not fully aware of their sexuality. And lastly, people have mistakenly conflated homosexuality and pedophilia, and so priests don’t want to come out because they fear they’ll be labeled a pedophile.”

Again, seriously?  Usually child molesters are called child molesters.  Can we focus a little on #4 for a second?  Yeah, many priests don’t talk about their sexual inclinations, sins, attractions, etc., because it’s simply, well, tacky and their vocation shouldn’t revolve around their sexual preference.  Gag!

Fr. Martin then agreed that it would make a “difference” in the Church if more homosexual clergy “came out.”

“It would help to show Catholics in the pews what a gay person is like and, incidentally, how gay people can live chastely. The great irony is that these men and women are living out exactly what the church asks of LGBT people — chastity and celibacy — and they are not allowed to talk about it. They are doing great work under a strange cloud that should not exist,” he said.

So these “gay people” are already living chaste and celibate lives, yet we need priests to “come out” to teach them how to be chaste and celibate?  Huh?  Which part of the Church has a problem with “gay people” who are faithful practicing Catholics who embrace the teachings of the Church, receive the sacraments, feed the homeless, etc., etc., etc.?  And, not allowed to talk about what?  Their lack of sex lives?  Look, we ALL struggle with sin.  If you feel the need to tell me you struggle with SSA, go ahead!  I’m here for you and maybe I can tell you how I work through my troubles with sin.  If you want to tell me that you engage in the active homosexual lifestyle and you’re still going to stroll up to Communion, we’re probably going to have a discussion about it.

But an additional reason why homosexual priests choose not to “come out” is given by famed Canadian Catholic laicized-priest Gregory Baum.

A peritus or expert at the Second Vatican Council, Baum wrote in his memoirs that he “did not profess my own homosexuality in public because such an act of honesty would have reduced my influence as a critical theologian.” While Baum kept his life of homosexual debauchery private, he managed to exert his influence over Canada’s bishops so that they dissented from the Church’s 1968 teaching in Humanae Vitae against contraception.

The interviewer did not ask Fr. Martin if he was himself homosexual.

Martin’s claim that priests don’t want to “come out” because of fear they will be labeled an abuser is not unfounded.

Research indicates that the abuse scandal within the Catholic Church primarily consisted of the homosexual abuse of males. A 2011 study commissioned by the U.S. Bishops and conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that nearly 80 percent of victims who were abused by priests were post-pubescent and adolescent males. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and expert in handling sexually abusive priests, said at the time that the study revealed that homosexuality was the primary driving force behind the bulk of abuse cases.

The Catholic Church only allows men into the priesthood who have “self-control and a well-integrated sexuality.” Last year, the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy reaffirmed Catholic teaching that “those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'” are not to be admitted to seminaries or be ordained Catholic priests.

So let me get this straight (no pun intended). The Church, run by a guy who says “Who am I to judge?”, is judging the suitability of a man to be a Catholic priest?  YOU BETCHA! That is judging the reality of a situation, not their immortal soul!

There are other examples beyond Capozzi and Baum that suggest that homosexual clergy are more like Judas than John when it comes to serving Christ and the Church he founded.

Honestly, I can’t say whether that’s true or not, because there might be SSA priests we don’t know about who are simply living out their vocations as faithfully as they can.  That said, the John Jay report does show a clear pattern of homosexual abuse, not pedophilia.  81% were male and something like 65-75% were postpubescent males.

For example, in 2015 a Polish priest and monsignor who worked at the Vatican for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith demanded that the Church change her sexual teachings after going public with his homosexuality and sexual relationship with another man.

Using similar language and talking points employed by Fr. Martin, Monsignor Krzystof Charamsa said, among other things, that the Church should end its “language of homophobia … and rejection of LGBT people,” that it should “speak out against … any discrimination against people based on sexual orientation,” and that it should “revise the Catechism,” specifically the language used to speak of homosexual acts as “objectively disordered.”

So, is Msgr. Charasma living that chaste life? Not quite.  Sigh.  Pray for him.

While news of the cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies right next to St. Peter’s is shocking, it is not altogether unexpected.

In 2012, Polish priest Fr. Dariusz Oko released a paper in which he highlighted his discovery of what he called a “huge homosexual underground in the Church.”

“I began my work as a struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then gradually discovered,” he said, that “the enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well.”

Oko said homosexual cliques of clergy, even at the highest levels, are formed by fear of exposure, lust for power, and money.

Clique is the perfect terminology.  They are cliques of predators.

“They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding [one] of a ‘clique’ or even ‘mafia,’ [and] aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money,” he wrote.

“When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds,” he added.

Exactly! They are promoting and advancing the lie that the Church will change her teachings.

Oko said that once homosexual clergy achieve a “dominating position” in the Church’s hierarchy, the become a “backroom elite” with “tremendous power in deciding about important nominations and the whole life of the Church.”

I think he’s completely and utterly correct, and we’re seeing it now.

Among the rumors put forward at the time of Pope Benedict’s decision to resign in 2013 was the revelation of the existence of an entrenched “gay network” that orchestrated “sexual encounters” and shady financial machinations within the Vatican. The Pope reportedly decided to resign the day he received a 300-page dossier compiled by three cardinals detailing the workings and sexual activities of a network of homosexual curial officials.

Well, I don’t deal with conspiracy theories.  From what I understand from people who have personal relationships with him, this is not the case, although I’d hardly blame him if it were.  I think, however, he took the papacy a little more seriously than that.  For whatever reason, we are in the situation we are in.  Sadly, the Martin/Cupich/McElroy/Kasper (and on and on and on) contingent has won some battles.  Time for us to get a little more creative, if you ask me.