Make it so!

I was right in the middle of a rather long piece delineating the back and forth between Austen Ivereigh and Matthew Schmitz (I probably gave it more attention than I should have) when I ran across an interesting development.  I really came late to the family dinner due to “mom stuff,” so it was pretty much a “What just happened?” moment and it took me a wee bit of time to look up the voluminous back and forth and Al Jazeera TV.  My disappointment in Crux was rivaling Patheos.  Sigh. 

I’d just like to say kudos to John Allen for this.  I must say I did find him to blame for allowing another hit piece by Ivereigh (previous ones dealt with here and here). While we probably don’t agree on everything (I’m positive we don’t), I’ve always found him to come from a charitable, even-tempered position with the best of intentions.  I’m sure he prayed long and hard on this one and I totally respect him for trying to keep to quell the circular firing squad.

I do think Allen comes from a “I’m a uniter, not a divider” kind of slant.  While I’m sure that he has much more patience than I, sometimes I think it’s misplaced and I have to ask what he’s uniting with sometimes.  How’s the saying go? “Unity for the sake of unity…”

I would like to say, while I was happy with a critique of Fr. James Martin’s latest book in Crux (, I would love it if Crux would never, ever post a thought from Fr. Martin again as they did last here  and that John Allen would not do a forward in his books or let him write for Crux as show here until Fr. Martin ditches the moral ambiguity and “The Church is mean!” stance.  I don’t care if the blind squirrel does find a nut on occasion, it lends credence to his, more often than not, “strange notions.”  That little “blind squirrel” has led many others into darkness.

So for now, let’s just give a thumbs up to Crux’s new editorial policy.  Here’s hoping it gets even better!  Make it so, John Allen!  Make it so! (Yes, you could say I’m in the “Next Generation”…)


Yep! It’s Still about the Porn

In keeping with the surreal life I lead, my husband ran across this column in his morning “catch up with the rest of the world” minute.  Oooohhhh!  A crossover moment between my Catholic world and my interest in politics.  Yeah, I know it wasn’t a political piece, but it kind of makes me giddy to see my pseudonym in a mainstream political publication.  So sue me.  That said, it was a rehash of what I already argued against, so it was a tad bit disappointing.   It’s like people see the topic and never bother to read. And, since he didn’t bother to throw me a link, I have no idea which one of my articles he was addressing (If It Quacks Like a Duck, It’s Porn! Or Game of Rationalizations), but if had to guess, I would say it was the first one. Judging by his excuses, he obviously missed the latter.
(note the link to the article)

August 6, 2017, 12:19 am

Why so much Catholic objection to such a popular show?”

Why thanks for asking! Hmmm… I’d first have to go with it’s the fact that it’s the attempt to mainstream porn.  For me, I’d totally expect this from the secular world, but Catholics? Really?!?  That’s where it gets annoying for me.

We’re three weeks into Season Seven of Game of Thrones, and a significant portion of the Catholic blogosphere has made its opinion known: it doesn’t like the show. I mean, these bloggers really don’t like the show. If anyone has used the word “hate,” I’ve missed it. But some of the bloggers I’ve read are undeniably playing footsie with the concept.

Well, to make things clearer for you, I have great contempt for sin (even though I fall for it quite often) and I really hate the fact that I’m reasonably sure this show makes Satan giddy (if Satan could be so).  I’m also reasonably sure that it makes Satan downright gleeful that some Catholics have become apologists for it.  And before anyone throws out this lame accusation, no, I’m not judging anyone or their immortal soul.  I’m judging Game of Thrones and the act of watching it.

The One Mad Mom blogger, in an “I’m-mad’as-hell” piece, insists the show is porn. Plain and simple. And she adds, “I’ve really just become sick of the kitschy Catholics trying to rationalize this one away.” Honestly, I don’t know what a “kitschy Catholic” is, particularly in relation to GoT, but it’s her blog, she gets to say whatever she likes.

Yes, yes, I do.  Little does he know, many of my posts are like that.  As far as “kitschy Catholics” go, hmmm… let’s see.  What’s a great way to illustrate this?  They’re kind of like the characters found in John Hughes movies who are on the edge of the popular group in high school, trying desperately to be social relevant, and who are failing quite miserably and look ridiculous.  That said, I’m now finding these types in my adult world.     

Early on in the show’s run, all the way back in 2013, the author of the Australian blog, Being Catholic, objected to GoT because “its depictions of sexuality and human intimacy do not conform to the truth of human sexuality as an exclusive gift by which spouses make a mutual self-donative gift of love in harmony with the self-giving essence of the Trinity.” A trifle theological, and we can discuss whether one makes one’s viewing choices based on a program’s theological content, but again, his blog, his choice.  

Whoa, buddy!  Let’s not gloss over this one.  In my previous two posts on this (I actually thought I was done on this subject, but it just keeps popping up like a bad penny or Fr. James Martin, SJ – take your pick), I totally and utterly failed to cite the Catechism on this.  Why?  I didn’t remember so pointed a citation on the topic, but in reading a reader’s comments, there it was.  Duh!  Thanks, reader.  Right there in black and white under “Offenses against chastity”, it says (please note it’s the definition put forth by the Catholic Church, not me):

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. (emphasis mine)


Now, I’m sure some are screaming “Lewis! Tolkien!” right about now.  Please notice the word immerse.  We are a LOTR-loving family.  Narnia was a place we visited often in our imagination, but neither of these two authors, nor the other classic authors he’s going to cite further down, used explicit sexual imagery, which has a whole other effect on the brain.  Science!  It’s a beautiful thing.

But wait!  It gets better.  This passage gives a nice little cross-reference to paragraph 2523.  That said, I don’t think that was complete enough context so might I point you to this?


2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

– by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;

– by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;313

– by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;314

– by prayer:

I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.315

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.”

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

How many of you people used the phrase “over the top” or “explicit” and then went on to say it was still a great story with moral values? Too many!  More often than not, some of you preferred to act like these were “no big deal, people simply wrapped up in a sheet, hardly noticed them” sex scenes.    Uh, uh.  Nice try.  For those who are wondering what it’s all about, or maybe you’re a priest who’s been asked by your penitent if they can watch Game of Thrones, these are graphic depictions of rape, sex in public, incest, and sodomy.  This ain’t your 1970s rated “R” movie.  Like he said, short and simple, it’s porn.

On to the rest:

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.”

This one reminds me of some reader who rationalized that, “Times have changed!  There was a period where even ankles weren’t to be seen!”, as if this has anything to do with GoT.  Anyways, some are going to cling to this citation and make the same argument.  Good luck with that.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.”

And this, my friend, is why there’s so much objection to Game of Thrones.  We ALL should object to it.  Make no mistake, the moral permissiveness of Catholics has been one of the biggest downfalls of our culture.

“2527 “The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ.”316

Exactly! Are we trying to renew the life and culture of fallen man or are we just getting down in the gutter with them?   Are we trying to make morality blossom?  I mean, I’m just wondering how someone, say, prays their Rosary with the family and then toddles off to watch Game of Thrones?  I mean, there’s a huge dichotomy between the two activities and it’s weird.  Compartmentalizing Catholicism might be the problem and is likely a topic for another post.  “I’m Catholic over here but I just like a good, sexy story over here.”  Where’s the blossoming, fortifying and restoring?  I think we’re supposed to be looking for a “purification of the social climate” not embracing the crud on HBO

Again, as the Pascal quote given in Game of Rationalizations goes:

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.”

That’s what’s happening here.  If you think you can watch these uber explicit sex simulations (all there but the reality) and not have it seep into your life, your marriage, your relationships, you’d be crazy.  Isn’t that kind of what you’d tell the peeps that frequent porn hub?  Why is the scenario different for you?  “Because it’s only 5 minutes of the show and not in all of the episodes.”  Please.  Wake up. 

And then there’s the kids.  My gosh!  What’s going to be left for them to watch when you don’t balk at seemingly anything anymore.

Meanwhile, this past week, a nun who writes a media blog with the memorable name of Hell Burns, expands the definition of porn to include graphic violence. She deplores “the egregious, graphic desecration of the human body — the sacred image of God — in visual storytelling today.” GoT has some nasty graphic violence — there’s no denying that. But in terms of the acts of violence depicted in the series, I think egregious is the wrong word.

OK, I’m not a GoT watcher.  Thankfully, when I sent out a query, I got about 50 “Don’t watch it!” responses.  Thanks, Facebook!  I’m not exactly sure what Sr. Burns meant.  I don’t have the same problem with explicit violence as explicit sex, because, again, it doesn’t have the same effect on the brain.  Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, a thousand war movies, they don’t bother me.  But I’ve got to wonder how a graphic rape scene isn’t egregious?  I can’t help but think the some might have a problem with that being shown for entertainment – especially the ones who have lived it.  Bravo, HBO!  Bravo!

“Screaming “Porn!” is exactly like screaming “Racist!” It slams the breaks on any discussion. And it is unanswerable, aside from the “Is not!” “Is, too!” debate typical of a second-grade schoolyard. It’s a rhetorical cheap shot.

Really? Exactly??? I think we have a different definition. Sometimes racists are racists, my friend.  And porn is porn.  “Screaming” is a bit of a hyperbole.  It’s a simple statement of fact (definition straight out of the Catechism) and what’s the latest saying on that?  Facts don’t care about your feelings. (I have been so waiting to use that one!)   “You’re mean!” is the rhetorical shot and, quite frankly, a liberal tactic I wouldn’t expect to see out of this publication.  Can we cease with playing the martyr card?  It’s  a TV show for goodness’ sake.  

That said, let me ’fess up: I like Game of Thrones. I mean, I really like Game of Thrones.

Wait, how could I have possibly figured this out?  Sigh.

It is ridiculously well-written (I have never attempted to write dialogue, and now, after watching six and a half seasons of GoT, I’ll never try). The acting is stellar. Love the twists and turns of the plot. Okay, the scenes of Arya in the temple of the Many-faced God were dull, surpassed only by her brother Bran’s transformation into the Three-Eyed Raven — when those scenes pop up, I head to the kitchen to make a sandwich; I do not hit the Pause button on the remote. Character development is strong, although we could talk about this season’s inexplicable makeover of Sansa from pathetic perpetual victim to decisive, politically savvy virago. How did that happen?

And this is pretty much how I know that he didn’t read blog post #2 on GoT.  Porn is still porn no matter how artistically it’s done, how short the porn scenes are, how good the story line is, etc., etc., etc., and etc.  If it “consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense.  It is pornography.  And besides the fact that “civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials,” Catholics shouldn’t be watching it while waiting for them to do so!  This is the point!     

GoT is said to be the most popular program worldwide. HBO broadcasts it in 173 countries. Yet, in spite of such easy accessibility, for the past five years GoT has stood at the top of the charts as the most pirated show ever.

Which led GQ to ask, “Is Game of Thrones More Popular Than Porn?” The answer is, “Yes!” According to GQ, Pornhub, which I am led to believe is a popular adult entertainment site, saw it’s viewership drop by 4.5 percent during the premiere a few weeks back of Episode 1 of Season Seven. It was worse last year when the finale of Season Six aired — Pornhub’s traffic plummeted by 5.2 percent. I expect for some of our blogging friends that statistic is an “Ah ha! I told you so!” moment. I have no stats to back this up, but my hunch is people who watch porn probably watch other things as well. Maybe I’m being Jesuitical, but if GoT lures them away from Pornhub for an hour, isn’t that a step in the right direction?

Let’s see, they leave 60 minutes of porn for 5 minutes of it and a story line.  Great step.  I would have gone with spending time with friends or walking the dog as a good first step.  That’s just me.  Sigh.  LOVE the term Jesuitical though!

Actually, it was just more confirmation of what we already knew to be true.  People like watching porn.  If it’s got a good story line to go with it, all the better. Seriously, if I was a porn fiend, I’d be a lot happier to see it mainstreamed.  I wouldn’t feel like a creeper if my friends watched it too.  Wish apparently granted for some.

Is there nudity in GoT? Yes, but not much. Is there violence? Oh, hell yeah. Is there sex? Yup — ranging from praiseworthy down to cringeworthy. So, truly, I do understand why some Catholic bloggers are offended by GoT. But I think it is a mistake to view the series through a Catholic lens.

My husband read me this comment as I was driving one of my kids around.  I thought I misunderstood.  Uh, we’re Catholic.  Shouldn’t we be viewing EVERYTHING through a Catholic lens?  Or are we just supposed to put aside the Catholic lens when it comes to pornography?  Look again at my Pascal quote.  Art need not be God oriented, but should it cause us to sin?  I think this is the part where people who haven’t read much of the commentary on GoT are going to start bringing up DaVinci, Michaelangelo, classic authors, etc.

The society in GoT is not Catholic. It is a pagan world — granted, it’s an imaginary pagan world, but it is most decidedly a pagan one. Nonetheless, the script does not hold up the most cruel, the most depraved characters as the ones to admire. Even in pagan Westeros — as there were in pagan Greece and Rome — there are some characters who are noble, or complicated, or at the very least works-in-progress.

Oh, yeah, that’s what all of our complaints are about. GoT is not a Catholic world and the characters have issues.   Really, look at all the ink I’ve spilled on the flawed heroes.  Oh, wait, I haven’t.  Nice try at the smoke and mirrors, though.  Are we to make the assume that you are making the argument that it’s OK to watch porn as long as it’s in a mythic, non-Catholic, pagan world?  Because that’s what the GoT dissenters have been talking about- porn.  Not sure what conversation you’ve been having.

Speaking of ancient Greece, Greek mythology is as gruesome as any episode of GoT. Slaughter on an epic scale. Fathers devouring their children. Children mudering their parents. Incestuous gods. Adulterous royals. Randy centaurs. You name it.

Annnnndddddd????  Here it comes, right?!  The argument made by GoT apologists, an argument shredded already by many a blogger is coming your way.  

This observation is unlikely to win me friends in certain circles, but nudity and graphic violence have been known to appear in religious art. Covering the entire wall above the high altar of the Sistine Chapel is Michelangelo’s huge fresco of the Last Judgment. All the figures in the painting are nude with one exception — the Blessed Virgin Mary is fully clothed. Then there’s St. Sebastian, always depicted as nearly naked and shot through with arrows. And paintings of the mutilation of St. Agatha or of St. Bartholomew being flayed alive I find disturbing. Finally, for inventive sadism, it’s hard to surpass medieval depictions of tormented souls in Hell.

Bam!  There it is.  The lamest argument ever which has been used by GoT apologist after GoT apologist.  None of us are shredding our clothes over  Michelangelo’s David.  It would be soooooo nice if people stopped trying to paint Catholics who think that GoT contains pornography as some prudish Pollyannas who can’t even stand the thought of a naked body.  Geez.  Get over it.

The Song of Bernadette and The Bells of St. Mary’s and The Keys of the Kingdom are uplifting, well-written well-acted, and well-produced. I love watching them, but not all the time.

And?  Who does? Again, we love TV and we love going to the movies (although good ones are getting harder and harder to find).  We do not live in a bunker or blush when we see an elbow.  This line of argument is getting kind of, how should I say, cultish. 

My problem with the critiques of GoT from some of my fellow Catholics comes down to this: once we start measuring a book, a painting, a screenplay by the standards of a specific moral theology — any faith’s moral theology — we’re not sliding down a slippery slope, we’ve walked off the edge of a cliff.

Uh, not so much.  I’m not going to answer for any other standard than the Catholic Faith, which is Truth.  Not measuring things by that is diving head long off the cliff.  Does everything we read have to agree with the Catholic faith?  Of course not.  Know thy enemy and all.  That said, it should be measured by the Church’s standards and when something so obviously fulfills the definition of pornography given in the Catechism, one might just want to skip it.

Kiss an awful lot of Shakespeare good-bye. Expunge “The Miller’s Tale” from the complete works of Chaucer. Toss Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina into the dumpster. And brace yourself, because Psycho and Jaws are in serious trouble. Which is why in his preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde — Catholicism’s most famous last-minute, deathbed, better-late-than-never convert — said, “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.” I think Wilde’s principle applies whether we’re talking about books or an HBO series.

You are having trouble with the definition of pornography set forth in the Catechism. How about giving it just one last read? Does that apply to Shakespeare, Chaucer, Madam Bovary, Anna Karenina, Jaws, Psycho, or the Picture of Dorian Gray? I must have missed it.  We grow weary from the apples and oranges comparisons.  No more fruit salad, please.   Let me help.  Game of Thrones isn’t The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Oh, well, it’s his article, his choice.




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.

Catholic Homophobia: Patheos or Pathetic?

Patheos!  What in the name of all that is good have you been smoking?  This might be the most laughable article I’ve read on the subject, and I’ve seen many.  I mean, don’t you people read the articles before you approve them?  Some of your people are great but then there’s some horrible and awful ones.  Let me tear this one to shreds in 5 minutes or less.  Seriously!  It’s so bad, that’s all it will take.  It’s like I’m Tom Servo reading an article worthy of the MST3K treatment.  (Oh yes, I did just reveal how cool I am! If you don’t know MST3K, Google.  I can’t help you.)

Father Longenecker’s most recent post talks about the release of two different Catholic books on homosexuality (Fr. James Martin and Dan Mattson both put out titles this month). Longenecker basically lays out a very familiar approach to dealing with the problems raised by LGBTQ people with regard to the Church’s teaching on sexuality:

a) The Church’s teaching is simple and clear.

b) The Church’s teaching applies equally to everyone and is difficult for almost everybody.

c) There are plenty of straight people who can’t get married and they are expected to be celibate also.

Wait, before you talk about what it’s missing, where in the heck did it go wrong? Let’s not gloss over this one. It doesn’t really matter what’s missing or what’s not missing. What’s wrong about it?  It seems like you’ve got the Martin talking points about “unjust discrimination” down pat, as shown here:

This straightforward approach misses one really important aspect of the problem: straight people and their sexual sins are not treated the same way as gay people and their sexual sins. It doesn’t matter how often Catholics state and restate the fact that the Catechism is pretty much equal-opportunity in its condemnation of most people’s sexual behavior, because the actual Church on the ground is not equal-opportunity in terms of tolerating the fact that almost nobody really accepts the teaching in practice.

So, what you’re saying is that Canon 915 should be applied to ALL public obstinate sinners? I agree. Oh, that’s not what you’re saying?  Of course not. What you are suggesting is exactly what Fr. Martin has been suggesting: We all sin, so why don’t we just drop the whole sin thing?

Is it just me or does everyone run around their parishes telling everyone every intimate detail of what they do in the bedroom?  “I put on this piece of latex. I use this spermicide.  I’ve chemically altered my fertility for years!”  Give me a break.  I’ve attended Mass with a whole lot of people, and I really don’t ask and they really don’t tell.  Who in the H-E-double hockey sticks wants to know what everyone does when they are participating in the marital embrace?  No, thank you.

Also, let’s stop and think about something as we end this “Pride Week.”  We have “Pride Week.”  Do we have “Marital Infidelity Week?”  How about “Artificial Birth Control Week?”  “Pornography Week,” maybe?  If we do, please don’t tell me.  I’m happy in the sanity bubble.  So, is it really the Catholic Church that is treating those embracing the “gay lifestyle” differently, or is the reality that those “embracing the gay lifestyle” are really demanding to be treated differently than any other sinner?

I recently wrote specifically about the problem of homophobic firings within Catholic and Christian institutions. I also wrote about the fact that the Catholic media-sphere tends to get way more up-in-arms about portrayals of homosexuality than about unmarried heterosexual behaviour. I could add the fact that except in a very small minority of hyper-Catholic communities you can be twice married, sterilized and/or living with your opposite-sex partner and nobody will bat an eye. Nobody will say anything. Nobody will make uncomfortable comments in your presence. Nobody will question whether you should be involved in ministry to the youth. And you probably won’t hear anything about it from the pulpit.

OK, because you didn’t link, it’s going to take me longer than 10 minutes to put this one to bed.  Nevermind.  I’m just going to assume some teachers were found out to be in a same-sex marriage and got themselves fired because they a) didn’t repent, and then b) fell into public obstinate sin providing scandal to the faithful.  Or was it maybe the math teacher that came out as transgendered?  Wait, I don’t think she got fired, so probably not.  Regardless, MANIFEST sinner.  You need to learn the difference between “manifest sinners” and those who don’t shove their sins in other peoples’ faces.

Seriously, most of us don’t run around telling each other things we’re doing that are considered mortal sins.  My plan of action is usually to run to the nearest confessional line.  I’ve got this crazy fear of not getting to Heaven.  Silly me.

In the many years that I’ve worked as a Catholic writer, I’ve met a number of married people who work for the Church or teach in Catholic schools who haven’t felt the slightest need to conceal their use of contraception. In some cases these are folks who I’ve met exactly once…yet I know that they don’t follow the teaching of Humanae Vitae. That’s how not worried they are that if anyone ever finds out they will lose their jobs. Why? Because everybody knows that if the Church suddenly fired everyone who uses contraception we would face a Catholic schoolteacher crisis, a finance officer crisis, a music-director crisis, a children’s liturgist crisis, and a parish secretary crisis to go along with the oft-lamented vocations crisis.

Umm, can we go over the “why” they don’t worry about getting fired again?  They don’t give it a second thought about concealing their contraception because A) they’re tacky and B) because they don’t have a fear of getting fired by the liberal powers that be.  Duh.  If their boss was an educated and/or faithful Catholic, they might possibly think twice about 1) sinning and 2) getting their butts fired!  Take a look around, Melinda.  Is the list of institutions who care about souls of sinners and protecting the laity from scandal small or large in our country?  There’s no wholesale fear that they are going to get fired because their sin is of the same-sex attraction kind.  There’s no fear because the bulk of these institutions aren’t going to fire any manifest sinners – SSA, heterosexual, or otherwise.  The only places this is going to happen is where the bishop is a true shepherd of souls.  I mean, seriously, the Cupiches and McElroys of the world are basically fine with telling people to have at it and going on a lovely vacation with their friends.

Thankfully, there are still places that dismiss teachers who cause public scandal for their students.  While you’re going to insist that this only happens on the same-sex highway, you’d be wrong.  Here’s just a few for you:
This one’s from Germany but the Church is universal, so:

And there are MANY other similar stories out there.  What makes these people different from all of the people who didn’t get fired?!  They had shepherds who cared for their flock enough to get serious with the issue. There was no repentance, and so THEIR SIN BECAME MANIFEST!

LGBTQ employees of Catholic institutions, on the other hand, do know that they have to stay in the closet or risk losing their jobs, because LGBTQ people do routinely get laid off because of their sexual choices – or in some cases, just because of their sexual orientation.

Can we at least qualify that with “authentically Catholic institutions?”   Or do you really believe this to be true for all “Catholic” institutions?  Personally, I think it should be true, but sadly it’s rare.  Case in point…  Please.  You know for every transgender, homosexual, or openly birth-controlling teacher who gets fired, there are a whole bunch that do not.  Tell me you honestly think Cardinal Cupich, Bishop McElroy, Bishop Joseph Tobin, etc., are going to pull that trigger. Sorry.  Ain’t going to happen.  I live in California. Do you know how many SSA teachers I’ve had/seen over the years?  Nobody was quaking in fear, because they worked for people who were just fine with it in the first place.

Now, it’s true that the Church’s teaching is consistent.

How nice of you to notice!

So far as I can make out that’s pretty much how it’s always been done, at least going back as far as the formal institution of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Folks who have sufficient sexual self-control to actually put the teaching into practice are about as common as folks who perfectly exercise justice towards the poor, folks who never covet their neighbour’s goods, and folks who literally pray without ceasing. We all know we’re commanded to do these things, and mostly we all know that we stand more in need of mercy than of plaudits.

Joel Robinson:  Anyone think she missed something in Catholicism for Dummies?
Tom Servo: It wasn’t the dummy part!

Patheos peeps have a really, really big problem with writing about things they know nothing about (and she should know about Catholicism, because she claims Catholic).  First of all, God is the “insanely demanding” one.  Would you like to tell Christ, who was crucified on the cross after being scourged, that celibacy/chastity is insanely demanding?  They must have missed that whole CROSS thing.  I mean, Melinda mentions a cross, but it’s right up there with talking about “gay pride.”  They have no clue as to what that truly means.  It’s just a nice little Catholic colloquialism.  That whole “take up your cross” thing just means skipping meat on Fridays during Lent, right? Get. A. Clue.

Which is why pretty much everyone deals with the demands of Catholic sexual morality by either ignoring it, or being unaware of it, or using the “frequent recourse to the Confessional” method of fidelity to the teaching.

Really?  Everyone?  Yep, not one of us struggles with the sins of the flesh.  I am soooooo sad for you and anyone who buys this load of hooey. No, seriously, I’m so sorry that somehow you missed the beauty of our struggle with the Cross and the reward for doing so.  It’s simply all about sex with you.  Her claim is that she “speaks directly to every Christian who has experienced same-sex attraction.”  That might be so, but she doesn’t necessarily speak for them.   You do not speak for Thomas here (The Catholic Church Thinks We Deserve Better), and you don’t speak for the rest of us who do not fear people who suffer from SSA but who fear for them.  Our goal is to struggle on with them to Heaven. 

And, can I just say, from the heterosexual point of view of struggle, ours is every bit as real.  Have you ever known a heterosexual couple who has lost a child?  You think that celibacy is “the more onerous cross?” Wow!  I’m not sure the person who buries their child will ever agree with you.  Be they right or be they wrong, comparing crosses is a losing battle. It’s how you carry the cross that matters.  And, more importantly, it’s how we help others to carry the cross that matters.

So far as I can make out that’s pretty much how it’s always been done, at least going back as far as the formal institution of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Folks who have sufficient sexual self-control to actually put the teaching into practice are about as common as folks who perfectly exercise justice towards the poor, folks who never covet their neighbour’s goods, and folks who literally pray without ceasing. We all know we’re commanded to do these things, and mostly we all know that we stand more in need of mercy than of plaudits.

There’s a little part about “firmly resolving to sin not more and to avoid the near occasion of sin” that she missed somewhere in her catechesis.  I’m sure it’s not her fault.  She was probably taught by the likes of Fr. Martin.

But when it comes to homosexuality, suddenly that’s no longer okay. If you’re gay you can expect to subjected to an inquisition by random internet trolls with handles like SuperApologeticsMan or CatholicusMaximus or SledgehammerOfGod. You may be called upon at any time to publicly endorse the most harshly worded phrases from random Vatican documents concerning your sexuality. You might be literally asked to sign a document confirming your acceptance of the Church’s teaching before you can rent space in the parish hall.

What a great idea!  That might have prevented the little debacle in the Los Angeles Archdiocese where a pro-abort organization rented their property. I’m all for signing a statement of faith.  I’m all for diocesan speakers bureaus which vet the Catholicity of the speaker.  I’m all for teachers’ handbooks.  I think you can see how well that went over. People don’t want to be called out on the carpet, which really isn’t the intent at all.  It’s to protect souls, dummy!

Can I also point out her “harshly worded phrases” comment? Hello! It’s just the Catechism of the Catholic Church you’re talking about.  You say “harshly worded” but a lot of us say “reality.” 

If you’re gay, the usual ways that Catholics deal with sexual desire are no longer sufficient: you must be constantly on guard against every vestige of homosexuality, and your sole purpose in life must be the crucifixion of same-sex Eros. Anything less and you’re a heretic who is probably being paid by George Soros to advance the gay agenda.

What are you talking about?!  You’re supposed to be constantly on guard for near occasions of sin.  Sorry it’s inconvenient to you but that IS how it works for ALL of us.  My temptations may be different from yours. And?  The temptations can be different between any two people you meet on the street.  You’re so incredibly focused on your sin that you cannot see the forest through the trees.

I’m not saying that this is how Longenecker sees things (he mentions that most people struggle, and points out that Confession is an option.) Rather, I’m saying that the simple fact that LGBTQ people do consistently meet with this kind of toxic double-standard in Catholic culture has to be taken into account. It’s not enough to say that this is a “one-size fits all” teaching when the truth is that the teaching being given out to straight folks is made out of super-stretchy material and nobody says anything when it really doesn’t fit, while the one being given out to gay people is a hairshirt adorned with spikes and chains.

Honey, I’m sure if you talk to the nearest person who is extolling their cozy sin of abortion, birth control, in vitro fertilization, infidelity, pornography, sodomy, etc., you will find the same martyr complex.   Nobody wants to feel uncomfortable.  They want everyone to bow down to their sin like it’s something special. It ain’t.  It is what it is: sin.  Some are more egregious TO GOD than others, but they all lead to sickness and death of the soul (and sometimes body) if we don’t struggle against them.  Get over yourself and move on with us in the struggle.

Rather than adopt the liberal “let’s call the whole sin with guilt thing off” attitude, how about we get a dose of reality before we get hit by the proverbial bus?  Stop whining about the martyrdom of this group or that group and get thyself right with God and jump into the confessional with the firm resolution to sin no more.

The Catholic Church Thinks We Deserve Better!

When I started writing in the blogosphere, it was simply a way for me to say what many others were thinking – a way to vent and give my family a little break from my ranting.  I never really thought anyone would read it, but I’m very thankful it’s turned out the way it did.  I’ve “met” some amazing people around the world and I’d like to talk about one guy in particular.  He’s a FAR better writer than I will ever be, and his incredible patience and charity in the face of adversity amazes me.  He’s one of the main reasons I give Fr. James Martin, SJ, any attention.  Honestly, Fr. Martin doesn’t affect my family much, if at all, but his actions do affect my friends and many I meet.  He has injured so many people, body and soul, that the mom in me just can’t stand for it.  He and his cronies are predators of souls and I will continue to repeat that as long as it is so.  I hope my little voice over here annoys him like a thousand flea bites.

So, on to my amazing friend, “Thomas from Michigan.”  I have asked his permission to reblog a comment he made.  Why?  Because he nails it.  He’s got “street cred” and should carry far more weight than I can in the arena of same-sex attraction (SSA).  Go ahead, liberals, try and tell him he doesn’t have a clue.  By the way clergy, if you’d like some advice from him on ministering to people suffering from SSA, I’ll gladly put you in touch.  (FYI, I made that last comment without consultation.  Thomas is probably cringing as I throw him under the bus!  Sorry, Thomas, I’ve just got this idea that people like you are going to save the Church.)

Let me set the stage for you…

I have a long time dissenting reader.  I have to say, though, I really do love her.  I suspect that annoys the heck out of her, but I realize she’s a product of her lack of Catholic education.  I’m a little tweaked that she was robbed.  Anyways, here’s one of her comments on my last post, Open Rebellion Coming to a Church Near You:

OMM, I genuinely want to know why you and the others here are afraid of gays and their lifestyle being accepted by some in the church. How does it affect you? Do you think your children will catch it? Do you speak out as loudly against murderers, adulterers (Trump), thieves, etc. Maybe you do, I just don’t see it in your blog.

(She completely points out she’s missed quite a few of my posts but, whatever.)

Here’s the super-important part of “Thomas from Michigan’s” reply (emphasis mine – please go to link for full exchange, although there wasn’t a reply to Thomas from our liberal friend, because there was NOTHING she could say about it.):

The Holy Mother Church loves all of her children–even me. For nearly a decade, I was out and proud. (Nearly a decade has passed since that chapter of my life closed.) I was quite hostile to any religion that didn’t approve of my behavior. I was the president of a social group for gay men over the age of forty. I can’t even remember all of the sexual partners I had–and I was considered a bit of a prude. I especially enjoyed hooking up with men who were in what they themselves described as “committed relationships.” I regularly made fun of those who attended Dignity’s Mass. I also got three different STDs (sexually-transmitted diseases), kind of like getting three prizes in one box of Cracker Jacks.

This is the lifestyle you appear to think the Church should accept: sodomy, fellatio, promiscuity, sexually-transmitted diseases, and significantly shortened lifespans. The Catholic Church thinks we deserve better.

Biggest mic drop EVER!  THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THINKS WE DESERVE BETTER!  It’s so simple, people.  Fr. Martin can spin it all he wants, but this should be the central message from our Church to combat his stupidity.  How about something like:

We don’t want your  death – spiritual and/or physical. The Catholic Church wants better for you!

Of course, the same message applies to all of us.  The Church wants to help us conquer sin because She wants better for us!  Duh!

Thomas continues:

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” includes homosexual behavior in its discussion of the Sixth Commandment–the one that says adultery is wrong. The fact that many in our culture–and Church–seem to think other forms of adultery are acceptable doesn’t mean they are. All baptized persons are commanded to be chaste. The fact that some priests want to give some people an exemption doesn’t change that.

That segues nicely into this! For those of you who don’t follow my Facebook page, I shared this video from Jason Jones, which perfectly explains to my liberal friend where we faithful Catholics are coming from (can you believe I’ve finally figured out how to embed these?!).  While I’m not sure Fr. Martin is a “New Donatist”, this sums up the feeling the faithful Catholics have about Fr. Martin.:


We are all in this together and we’re supposed to help each other struggle on!

Onto Fr. Martin’s lapse of sanity this week.  He’s LIVID with Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield.  If Martin is livid with you, I’m sure you deserve a hearty “Kudos!”, Bishop Paprocki!  I’m reasonably sure it was not your intent, but you know you must have done something right.  Fr. Martin is TERRIFIED that other bishops will follow suit and really drive home the deadliness of sin. He can’t have that!


As you can see, Fr. Martin is going to use the whole kitchen sink approach in the hopes you will get lost and the pile-on will make Bishop Paprocki look really mean ol’ guy.  Sorry, Fr. Martin.  Bishop Paprocki follows Canon Law, unlike some people I know.

Let’s look at it, shall we?

Can.  1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.

  • 2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
  • 3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.

Can.  1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

  • 2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

So, as we see, Fr. Martin’s nice little list is ridiculous.  Does he have a clue what the distinction of “manifest” means?  You bet he does! He’s just trying to use a bit of smoke and mirrors to make you miss that one.  If you’ll notice, Bishop Paprocki said that signs of repentance negated exclusion.  Nice try, Fr. Martin.  So, yeah, the person who announces to the world “I use birth control even though the Church says it’s a mortal sin! Look at me!” probably shouldn’t be getting the funeral in the Catholic Church.  Why?  Because they are manifest sinners who are causing public scandal.  Duh.  Mary and Joe Anonymous are birth controlling Mass attendees but don’t go around shoving their sin in everyone’s face?  Do you really think they are going to be denied?

Fr. Martin knows all of this.  He’s not uneducated in the matter.  He’s just hoping to confuse all of those who might not be.  Like I’ve said before, he’s a predator.

So, Father Martin, tell me exactly how Bishop Paprocki’s guidelines go against Canon Law.  Oh, that’s right.  They don’t.  And, by the way, BISHOP PAPROCKI IS A CANON LAWYER and you are not, Father.  I just Googled, and Ed Peters, of course, has already destroyed you and your ilk here.  Please, good people, share this one:

Let’s look at your other insinuation, Fr. Martin.  “Unjust discrimination” my foot. I missed the part in Catholic teaching where every social ill must be addressed by the local bishop on the same day.  The reasons these directions have to be issued these days is because of people, especially priests like you, who are making clear teachings murky.  I think what you fail to understand is that threat of exclusion from the Sacraments is a remedy for the sick soul. Actually, I’m pretty sure you do understand. The problem is, Fr. Martin, you are encouraging the illness.  It is supposed to urge them to repent before it’s too late, but with people like you running around telling them they are being persecuted instead of loved, they’re dying without repentance.

I’m just going to hit on one last thing that hit last night before this “went to press.”  The Gaffigans.  Not really sure what the heck they were thinking with this:


I’m so proud of my gay kids. Happy #pride2017 #pridenyc

How could a family who seems to have a grasp of the Church’s teachings on Natural and Moral Law in the area of being open to children be so wrong on this one is beyond me.  And how about just a little science?  Are Jim and Jeannie really cheering on the dramatically increased diseases found in the “gay lifestyle” they are cheering? Are they fine with encouraging behavior that brings early death to so many?  Let’s just take a look at a few of these beauties:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Viral hepatitis types B & C
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies
“Gay Bowel” syndrome
Hepatitis A
Giardia lamblia
Entamoeba histolytica
Epstein-Barr virus
Neisseria meningitides
incompetence of the anal sphincter
Kaposi’s sarcoma
Bacterial vaginosis
Mental illness
(and many others)

But love is love, right? Hello!  Typhoid and Giardia are now falling under sexually transmitted diseases.  What the what, Jim and Jeannie????  Care enough to talk reality?

If anyone is going to try and make yourselves feel better  by bringing up the fact that there is a presence of some of these diseases/problems in the heterosexual community, save it.  DO THE RESEARCH!  Having one or any combo of these is the NORM in the “gay lifestyle.” Some are most certainly found in promiscuous heterosexuals, too, which is one reason why the Church is against that, too.

How about we stop calling it “pride” and start calling it “dangerous”?  That’s the reality.  We haven’t even gotten to the spiritual aspect of the “gay lifestyle.”  I was just called a hater last night by our resident liberal friend.  Really?  Look at the above list!  Do you want this for your friends??? I look at people like my friend Thomas and I get very mad at the Fr. Martins of the world who encourage the disease, moral decay, and spiritual death under the guise of “love.”  Peddle your rusty, rotted bridge somewhere else, Fr. Martin.

If you are a person suffering from same-sex attractions, Catholic or not, please look further into the reality of the Church’s love for you.  Fr. Martin – I can’t say this any more clearly – is trying to aid in stealing your soul.  The Bishop Paprockis of the world are the ones who truly love and care for you.  As Jason Jones points out, we should all be struggling together.  Don’t fall for the pandering of Father Martin and company.  They have an agenda and their main aim is NOT your physical or mental well-being or for you to live an eternal life with Our Lord.  THE CHURCH THINKS YOU DESERVE BETTER!

Pray for Fr. Martin.  The Church wants better for him too.  Hopefully he’ll see that and struggle along with the rest of us.