Next Up on Wheel of Heresy…the Jesuit Superior General!

I swear, some of the Jesuits are just bucking to have a heresy named after them. “The Jesuitical Heresy” or “Jesuiticism” maybe? It’ll be hard to pin down exactly what defines it, though, since they have chosen sooooo many to embrace. The “Kitchen Sink Heresy” perhaps?  I’m sure the readers will come up with some doozies.

Vatican City, Aug 21, 2019 / 01:44 pm (CNA).- The superior general of the Society of Jesus said Aug. 21 that the devil is a symbol, but not a person.

The devil, “exists as the personification of evil in different structures, but not in persons, because is not a person, is a way of acting evil. He is not a person like a human person. It is a way of evil to be present in human life,” Fr. Arturo Sosa, SJ, said Wednesday in an interview with Italian magazine Tempi.

He’s bending truth again. True, the devil is not a person. The devil is a fallen angelic being.  But he’s very real, despite the fact that many Jesuits have been trying to dispel this reality forever.

We’ve been told time and again by many holy people that one of the devil’s main tactics is to try to get us to believe he does not exist.  The Superior General is using that tactic himself. What does that tell you about him?

From the Catechism regarding the fall:


391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”272

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”275


Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279”


A hard battle. . .

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.



413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

Fr. Sosa goes on…

“Good and evil are in a permanent war in the human conscience and we have ways to point them out. We recognize God as good, fully good. Symbols are part of reality, and the devil exists as a symbolic reality, not as a personal reality,” he added.

Sosa’s remarks came after he participated in a panel discussion at a Catholic gathering in Rimini, Italy, organized by the Communion and Liberation ecclesial movement.

Sorry, Fr. Sosa. The devil is a real being, not a state of the mind.

The Catechism of the Catholic teaches that “Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: ‘The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.’”

Angels, the Catechism says, are “spiritual, non-corporeal beings.”

“They are personal and immortal creatures,” it adds, who “have intelligence and will.”

Tsk..tsk…tsk..Father Sosa! It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that non-corporeal beings are fantasy or merely symbolic. There is really one of three things going on here: (1) you are stupid enough to think this; (2) Satanists in Ottawa that just held a black mass have more of belief in the devil, the Real Presence and Christ than you; or (3) you know darn well the devil is way more than merely symbolic and you are doing his will in promoting that he does not exist. Which is it?

Sosa, 70, was elected the Jesuits’ superior general in 2016. A Venezuelan, he has a pontifical licentiate in philosophy and a doctorate in political science. He served as a Jesuit provincial superior in Venezuela from 1996 to 2004, and in 2014 began an administrative role at the general curia of the Jesuits in Rome.

OK, I guess I left one off: (4) he’s 70 and dementia is kicking in? Look, I’m not saying many Jesuits don’t believe EXACTLY as Fr. Sosa, but at least they’re cunning enough not to spell it out.  I’m guessing he’ll be getting a pink slip soon.

Sosa has offered controversial comments about Satan in the past. In 2017, he told El Mundo that “we have formed symbolic figures such as the Devil to express evil.”

After his 2017 remark generated controversy, a spokesman said that “like all Catholics, Father Sosa professes and teaches what the Church professes and teaches. He does not hold a set of beliefs separate from what is contained in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

Oh, all’s good then. Not.



Red Hat Fight!

 This duel between Cardinals Kasper and Müller is super interesting to me. First of all, Cardinal Müller mentions the pope, oh, zero times in his “Manifesto of Faith.” If I were Cardinal Kasper, I’d be thinking that it was aimed at himself. Of course, Cardinal Kasper probably believes he and the title “the pope” are synonymous, but that’s just my guess.

Cardinal Kasper says Mueller’s manifesto spreads ‘confusion and division’

Munich, Germany, Feb 10, 2019 / 01:32 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Walter Kasper has released a criticism of Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s “Manifesto of Faith,” accusing it of containing half-truths and blanket statements that could lead to division and confusion in the Church.

Well, if anyone knows about how to lead division and confusion in the Church it would be Cardinal Kasper! Would you care to point out these blanket statements and half-truths which lead to confusion and division, Cardinal Kasper? Seriously, talk about a blanket statement with no teeth. I think the laity is getting really weary of “It is so because I say so!” For those who haven’t seen that tactic before, it should be painfully obvious since one group of German bishops have no arguments but that. They got no game.

In a statement on, Kasper said that while the manifesto “contains many statements of faith that every upright Catholic can wholeheartedly affirm,” some of the truths in it “are pointed out so pointedly that it fades out the other half.”

This is unbelievable. He’s not saying that Cardinal Müller is twisting a truth. He’s saying that he’s making many statements of truth, but some are “louder” than others? As if somehow one truth is cancelling out another truth? As if not stating all of the truths of the Faith is somehow making Cardinal Müller a liar? Cardinal Müller is simply focusing on the truths that are in question. It was never supposed to be a compendium of Catholic truths. Can you say “Huge misdirection?” This is one of the lamest things every written. I’m totally hoping it’s poor CNA writing rather than Cardinal Kasper’s attempt at catechesis.

On Feb. 8, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Vatican’s doctrinal office, published a “Manifesto of Faith,” which he described as a response to Catholics who have requested that he issue a “public testimony about the truth of revelation” in response to “growing confusion about the doctrine of the Faith.”

Can we not say there’s a growing confusion of Faith?! I would think that’s a gimme. Heck, here in the United States we’ve got several prime examples of confused Catholics. We’ve got Andrew Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Fr. James Martin, LGBTSJ, America Magazine, etc., etc., etc. I can cite hundreds of confused Catholics in this country alone. That said, the confusion per capita is off the charts in Germany. Somebody had to make some clarifications to the confused. I’m not sure when that turned into a schismatic move.

The manifesto addresses five areas of Catholic doctrine: Christology, ecclesiology, sacraments, morality, and eschatology, the branch of theology that addresses death, judgment, heaven, and hell. Each section draws heavily from references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Each section heavily quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Unlike Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Müller isn’t writing his own interpretation of Faith. He’s quoting the Catechism, for heaven’s sake.

In his document, Müller quotes the catechism, noting that “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.” He adds that “from the internal logic of the sacrament,” that norm applies to “divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church.” He also reiterated that the Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood and affirmed Church teaching on the existence of heaven and hell.

Uh, so Cardinal Müller states Catholic teaching. There’s a shocker. Yes, that’s sarcastic. What’s really shocking is that Cardinal Kasper doesn’t even make the attempt to quote it.

Kasper, who has been an outspoken advocate of the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Holy Communion, accused Müller of making “unacceptable blanket statements,” such as the assertion that “the conscience of the faithful is not sufficiently formed.”

 Tsk, tsk, tsk, Cardinal Kasper. Red card for quoting out of context. Here’s the actual statement from the manifesto:

The task of the Magisterium of the Church is to “preserve God’s people from deviations and defections” in order to “guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (890). This is especially true with regard to all seven sacraments. The Holy Eucharist is “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). The Eucharistic Sacrifice, in which Christ includes us in His Sacrifice of the Cross, is aimed at the most intimate union with Him (CCC 1382). Therefore, the Holy Scripture admonishes with regard to the reception of the Holy Communion: “Whoever eats unworthily of the bread and drinks from the Lord’s cup makes himself guilty of profaning the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion” (CCC 1385). From the internal logic of the sacrament, it is understood that divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church, just as all those who are not disposed to receive the Holy Eucharist fruitfully (CCC 1457), because it does not bring them to salvation. To point this out corresponds to the spiritual works of mercy.

The confession of sins in Holy Confession at least once a year is one of the Church’s commandments (CCC 2042). When the believers no longer confess their sins and no longer experience the absolution of their sins, salvation becomes impossible; after all, Jesus Christ became Man to redeem us from our sins. The power of forgiveness that the Risen Lord has given to the Apostles and their successors in the ministry of bishops and priests applies also for mortal and venial sins which we commit after Baptism. The current popular practice of confession makes it clear that the conscience of the faithful is not sufficiently formed. God’s mercy is given to us, that we might fulfil His Commandments to become one with His Holy Will, and not so as to avoid the call to repentance (CCC 1458).

The only thing I’m confused about here is the phrase “current popular practice of confession” because what we have is a current popular non-practice of confession. I’m reasonably sure this is a world-wide problem. Nobody thinks they are sinning at all, much less committing a serious sin, because they have listened to the Cardinal Kaspers of the world who have confused “primacy of conscience” so much that all one has to do to remain sin free is to not think something is really a sin. Uh, hello! Thus, the point of the manifesto.

“It is undoubtedly true that the confession of the Triune God constitutes a fundamental difference in belief in God and the image of man from other religions. But are there not similarities, especially with the Jews and the Muslims, in the belief in the one God? And are not these similarities today fundamental to peace in the world and in society? Half the truth is not the Catholic truth!” Kasper charged.

Again, this is sophomoric. Did Cardinal Müller say there weren’t some similarities here and there? Geez. No. But let’s look at your own comment, Cardinal Kasper: “Half the truth is not the Catholic truth!” You are the one who might want to remember that, Cardinal Kasper. Again, the reason for the manifesto. You are the king of half-truths, which is why you have a HUGE problem when someone spells out truth at all. Do you actually believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, Cardinal Kasper? That’s where we should be trying to lead people. Can you use a smidge of truth that might be found in some other religion to lead them to the Catholic Church? Sure. Archbishop Fulton Sheen pointed that out in “Mary and the Moslems”. But to say that God does not desire every person to be Catholic would be, well, a lie.

He also said that he was “totally horrified” to read Müller’s statement that failing to teach the truths of the Catholic faith “it is the fraud of Antichrist.”

Really? Horrified? Wow! Didn’t know you could actually be horrified by anything, Cardinal Kasper, because you seem to miss things that should most horrify you on a regular basis. You know? Sacrilegious reception of the Holy Eucharist, mortal sin, hell, etc.

Kasper suggested that Müller was following the path of Martin Luther: “One who rightly advocates reforms in the Church, but wants to pursue these behind the Pope’s back and enforce them in opposition to him? I would find that hard to believe. For that could only lead to confusion and division. That could unhinge the Catholic Church.”

Well, that was a scurrilous (and completely dramatic) accusation if I ever saw one. And to that I say, PROVE IT! And while you’re at it, prove that any part of Cardinal Müller’s manifesto contradicts ANY Church teaching in any way. You’ve completely failed thus far. And for an extra challenge to you, Cardinal Kasper, why don’t you quote church teaching to prove it. Never mind. I already know why that won’t happen.

I find it completely idiotic to think that a guy who said this just a few months back  could be seen as gunning at Pope Francis vs. half his fellow German bishops and cardinals who he’s never quite agreed with on doctrinal issues. Let’s face it, Cardinal Kasper just has his feelings hurt and will always finger someone else for dissent again the Holy Father if it draws attention from him being a horrific shepherd.

What You Need is a Little Truth for Once

Denver Student Responds To Archbishop: “I Am Catholic, And I Am Gay… I Do Not Need To Be ‘Healed'”


Johnny Hultzapple

posted on

January 30, 2019

OK, a couple of things hit me right off the bat here. First, it’s a mighty pompous title. We’re all fallen creatures, so we ALL need healing. And second? If this kid’s intent is on living the “gay lifestyle” he will almost certainly need some sort of physical as well as emotional and spiritual healing in the future. The stats are not with you, my young friend. You have fallen for the sales pitch and have completely forgotten to see if the “gay lifestyle” might possibly have any negatives.

 It is with a very enraged and dismal heart that I write this post today.

This past Saturday, the Archdiocese of Denver sponsored an anti-LGBTQ event at the John Paul II Center led by an anti-LGBTQ activist and proponent of conversion therapy named Andrew Comiskey.

Since this young man failed to actually elaborate on what the event was, I did some digging and think it’s this:

There was a highly false and insulting banner hung on the fence of the John Paul II Center. It is important to note that a representative from the Archdiocese said that the Archdiocese themselves did not hang the banner although they sponsored this event. The banner is a quote from the leader of the event, Andrew Comiskey, and reads, “There is no such thing as a ‘gay’ person…. That is a popular myth.” “Satan delights in homosexual perversion.”

Last time I checked, God created them male and female. “Gay” is an inclination. We are not our inclinations. We are God’s children made in his image and likeness. And, yes, “Satan delights in homosexual perversion,” emphasis on perversion. Is this even up for debate? I mean, Satan certainly isn’t cheering for any of us to live chaste lives, straight or otherwise. I’m not entirely sure why this young man, a Catholic, has a problem with the teachings of the Church. And, yes, everything in that quote is in line with Church teaching. “Gay” isn’t even in the Catholic lexicon. As happens in most social constructs, it’s a made-up term.

As a young, gay male, I was infuriated when I read this sign and an article [in the Colorado Times Recorder]. Not only is the sign overtly offensive, it is so, so, so very wrong.

What’s Shapiro always say? Facts don’t care about your feelings. Please remember, this was a Catholic group, putting on a Catholic conference, for Catholics. It’s completely optional. Young Johnny Hultzapple was in no way required to attend. If it just doesn’t agree with your feelings, accept it and move on, Johnny. Some, on the other hand, actually wanted to attend the conference and did so. If the message wasn’t wanted, don’t you think the ministry would go bye-bye? Ironically, somebody just referred me to Andrew Comiskey yesterday.

I AM a gay person. I AM a homosexual; and there is absolutely nothing perverted about me. In Genesis 1:26, God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Based on Christian belief, humans are made in the likeness of God. I believe this includes STRAIGHT, GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, or QUEER individuals. LGBTQ people are made in the image and likeness of God.

Let’s just cut to the chase, Johnny. Do you believe there’s anything perverted about gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer sexual practices? And, just to add a little clarity to your nice list, how about straight sex out-of-wedlock, porn, masturbation, etc.? Again, we are not our inclinations. God didn’t make us drug addicts, alcoholics, porn addicts, rapists, etc., etc., etc. You are confusing inclinations with the part where our body and soul mirror each other as we mirror God.

For 11 years of my life, I attended Catholic school right down the road from the JP II center. In fact, I used to run around the JP II center for cross country practice. My fond memories of catholic school are unfortunately tainted with dark and hurtful moments of bigotry–bigotry that will stay with me the rest of my life.

And here comes the newest member of the martyr brigade.

This bigotry is often promoted in the Catholic religion, although it is not promoted by all. The ironic part of this bigotry is that Catholicism is a religion centered on love: God’s love for his son, Jesus’ love for his people, and people’s love for Jesus shown by loving others.

And love sometimes means saying “No!” and that’s not to people just with your disordered inclinations but also to people who share my disordered inclinations. You want so desperately to see yourself as a martyr that you can’t see that the Church actually treats us all the same when it comes to our disordered inclinations.

Events like [the conference with Comiskey], which spread hatred and lies about the LGBTQ community, are not events that I believe are truly rooted in Catholic teaching. In John 15:12, Jesus exclaims, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”

Dude! Did you even go to the conference, so how would you know there was hatred spread? Andrew lived the life you’re in now, so you might want to realize that not everyone is you. I know that’s super hard in this narcissistic world, and at 17 you tend to be myopic anyway, but the reality is that the “gay lifestyle” hasn’t made everyone happy. In fact, just the opposite. That’s what happens when we accept our brokenness as our being instead of letting God’s mercy into our lives.

I am only 17-years old, but I can see that events like Andrew Comiskey’s do not spread the type of love that Jesus loves his people with. Jesus’ love was never judgmental, it was never exclusive, and it definitely was never hateful. The God I know loves everyone, and everyone means anyone who lives and breathes, regardless of sexuality, gender, or any other identity.

Again, did you go to the conference? Did you see what Andrew had to say? Have you even bothered to watch a video of Andrew’s. If you are familiar with him, I’m pretty sure it would be hard to say he isn’t loving.  He may say things that don’t please you but “hateful and bigoted?” Put the facts down in your article. Quote him a bit. Link to his videos and show him spewing hate. Oh, wait, you can’t? Maybe it’s because he tries very hard to show what love actually is rather than the pile of manure you’ve been sold. You’re probably still at the stage in life where you think love is a “feeling”, which is a load of hooey. Love is a choice you make to will the best for another. Period. And, yes, this sometimes means we have to suffer greatly for those we love by making the hard choices in their regard. I seem to remember something about a Cross and a guy who suffered greatly because He loved us, but yeah, love is about feeling happy, right? Blech. How in the world do people miss this? It’s all, “Me, me, me, me” and we can’t figure out why the world is a mess. What if we lived in a world where everyone willed the best (AKA everlasting life with God) for everyone instead of their own self-gratification? Well, sadly, Original Sin will never allow that, but you can imagine a world without loneliness even if everyone’s physical self-gratifications weren’t met. Self-gratification is what it is. It doesn’t will the good of another. It’s always looking inward, not willing the best for others. Self-gratification and love are just about as polar opposite as you can get. Sadly, Johnny hasn’t been told that. He has been told “You, you and only you” which will make his life incredibly lonely.

At the event, Andrew Comiskey stated, “The enemy is intent on sowing seeds of deception in really bright and really colorful and really fragile people, and that what the whole LGBT juggernaut is.”

Wait! Did you actually go? Where’s the lie in that statement? Do you believe in satan? And seriously, yes, the fragile people are the ones who give in to their inclinations. They aren’t, as much as they’d like to think, the Christ who was inclined not to suffer but who still died on the Cross for us. THAT is love. Dying to oneself and one’s inclinations.

Now, I’m sure you’re now going to start whining about how this is just all aimed against people suffering from same-sex attraction. Please. Yeah, the rest of the world don’t have to die to themselves and their inclinations. Just you. Really?!?! I’m sure my husband would rather sleep in and then sit on a mountain top, but he gets up every morning, day after day, year after year, and goes to a job to materially support his wife and brood. To top it off, he also gets up on one of his precious days off from that grind to worship God. Other days, he gives up sleeping in to help his kids, Church, the unborn, etc., etc., etc. THAT is love. He wills the best for others despite his inclination against it. That’s carrying the Cross he’s been given.

“But, but, but…the Church approves him having sex!” young Johnny thinks to himself. And you can too, Johnny, in the same and equal context as my husband and me: with a person of the opposite sex that he has joined with in Holy Matrimony. “But, but, but…I love men!” To which I’d again have to remind you that sex is not love. Love is a choice you make to will the best for another. When that is your focus, you can choose to ignore your inclinations and make that choice. This is what Andrew Comiskey is trying to say. Is it an easy choice? Of course not. Neither is the choice my husband has made to come home to the same family day in and day out when we sometimes forget how awesome it is that he does that. He’s got his Cross, I’ve got mine, and you’ve got yours. Accepting it will truly bring you happiness and integrity.

While I whole-heartedly agree that the LGBTQ community and I are really bright and really colorful, I know that we are not fragile. We are a STRONG community. I am a strong person. The LGBTQ community fights to overcome bigotry every. single. day. With each day that passes, we are becoming a hell of a lot stronger. We will overcome, just as we have in the past.

I’m going to guess you’re all for living the lifestyle. I notice that while secular LGTB-whatevers are just fine to admit it, Catholic self-professed LGBT-whatevers never quite mention that little aspect. Let me be a little more honest than they will be. We’re talking sodomy and masturbation. Now that we got that out of the way, yes, Johnny, you are fragile. The thought of living the chaste and celibate lifestyle is just too hard. Never mind that millions do it every day. It’s just too hard for you. You are called to the exact same life of chastity and abstinence that we are all called to, yet somehow that’s bigoted. We are all called to resist our disordered inclinations no matter what they are, but you? It’s just too hard. We should cut you some slack. This isn’t exactly the definition of strong, Johnny. It’s the definition of weak and fragile.

Individuals who attended the event told the crowd that Comiskey’s events and organization lead them to ‘convert’ from homosexuality to heterosexuality. As the article describes, “conversion therapy programs like Comiskey’s have been widely discredited, and are opposed by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association…. and many other medical organizations.” In fact, conversion therapy programs were just outlawed in the city of Denver. In addition, with a passing of a bill in the state legislature, conversion therapy will hopefully be outlawed in all of Colorado this year.

So, people wish not to live the “gay lifestyle”, but you insist they must? Please. I’m sorry the AMA and APA don’t like “conversion therapy.” If they want to title Andrew’s program as such, they can go ahead, but that doesn’t change the fact that Catholics can Catholic. You might want to give Article 6 in the Catholic Catechism a little read, Johnny, and tell me where Andrew differs from it. I think you might have been cheated out of, well, the Faith:

(For those who don’t like following links)

2331 “God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . .. God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.”115

“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;116 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;117 “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.”118

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2334 “In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.”119 “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God.”120

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”121 All human generations proceed from this union.122

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.124

The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.


2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

The integrity of the person

2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 “Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”127

What? The Church has our happiness in mind??? Mind blown yet, Johnny? Have you EVER even heard this before???

“2340 Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of an ascesis adapted to the situations that confront him, obedience to God’s commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer. “Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity.”128

2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

2342 Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life.129 The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.”

Amen! We all need to struggle together in this.

“2343 Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin. “Man . . . day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth.”130

2344 Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is “an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society.”131 Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.”


The #MeToo and “LGTBSJ” movements have totally missed this.

2345 Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort.132 The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.133

The integrality of the gift of self

2346 Charity is the form of all the virtues. Under its influence, chastity appears as a school of the gift of the person. Self-mastery is ordered to the gift of self. Chastity leads him who practices it to become a witness to his neighbor of God’s fidelity and loving kindness.

See? Denying one’s inclinations isn’t mean, it’s kind, or so says YOUR Church, Johnny.

2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends,134 who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality.

Immortality. Epic! Johnny doesn’t even realize he’s tossing away immortality with God for 80ish years here on earth. He’s almost ¼ of the way toward eternal life or death, and again, as stats show, probably even further if he continues on with the “gay lifestyle.” He doesn’t get that the Catholic Church, nor Andrew Comiskey, nor I for that matter, want this for him.

Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.

The various forms of chastity

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,”135 the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 “People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.”136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.137

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

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.

2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Note that the offenses against chastity are committed by almost all of us. While the “homosexuality” section is set off, it’s just different and something that needed to be addressed as an emerging problem at the time of the last edition. People constantly suggest that people suffering with same-sex attraction are singled out. Psh. Read the entire section.

Unfortunately, the Archdiocese of Denver is continuing to promote these events.

What? A Catholic diocese being Catholic again? The shock and horror of it all. Sigh.

I am Catholic, and I am gay. I am not ‘deceived’; Satan does not ‘delight in my sexuality’; I do not need to be ‘converted’ to heterosexuality; I do not need to be ‘healed’. I am far from perfect, but this is not because of my sexual orientation.

God made me gay, and I know that God wants me to use my voice to spread love and acceptance to not only the LGBTQ community, but to ALL people, regardless of identity. I will work my hardest to ensure that this hatred is not continued in my community. I will work hard to ensure that other kids in Catholic school will not have to suffer the bigotry I had to.

Sorry, Johnny. Saying it doesn’t make it so. Your body and your soul were carefully created by God in harmony. They are one. They are not in conflict. What’s at conflict are your inclinations and proclivities, and it’s not bigoted to say so any more than it is to say that some have the inclination and proclivity to cheat on their spouse, abuse alcohol, engage in porn, etc., etc., etc. You want to be treated differently than the rest of us and yet we are somehow bigoted. We’re the ones willing to accept that we do indeed need to allow God’s mercy to fix us in whatever our disordered tendency. You refuse to even accept that you have a disordered tendency.

My big, Catholic family loves and accepts me for who I am; they know that God made me gay and loves me just the same. I am lucky and grateful to have this system of support around me, but others are not so lucky.

Well, since we were all raised in same confused and lied-to era of the Catholic Church, I really can see why the big Catholic family would encourage the lifestyle. If they were taught to accept the “gay lifestyle”, then they were never truly taught how to love, either. We’ve all been cheated for far too long. That said, we need to seek out the truth and the bishops need to show it to us, which is exactly what Archbishop Aquila is doing there with Andrew Comiskey’s conferences. Bravo to him for being a true father who truly loves us and wills the best for us. He certainly has picked his Cross.

So, if you have continued reading thus far, I ask you to please share my post (gay or straight, religious or not) to share the articles with your community, to let people know that this is happening. Have a discussion at your dinner table, have a discussion in your class, have a discussion with your friends.

Well, I have kids and I work with youth, so you betcha we’ll have discussions. Sadly, yours is a cautionary tale and not the story of a martyr that you wish. It’s all too easy for us all to fall into the same trap you have. I’m sorry the Church has failed you in so many ways. I’m sorry the Fr. Martins of the world don’t care about your mental, physical, and especially your spiritual health, but I do, as do many others.

And, most of all, I ask you to please give love to all of your LGBTQ friends and family members, especially ones that are in communities full of hatred.

In the end, it is love that will unite us all, despite our differences.

Johnny Hultzapple is a student at South High School in Denver.

Isn’t it always the same. “Accept my lifestyle no matter how harmful it may be for me, or you hate me.” It’s beautifully framed to tug at the heartstrings, but when my children are headed the wrong way, I don’t give them the thumbs up. I don’t tell people to follow their disordered tendency. I will the best for them as I hope they do for me, and I make that choice every day, no matter how a big of a Cross it might be.

If you’re not quite understanding why people just don’t rubber-stamp the gay lifestyle, here’s a few things you should read. You might at least try to understand the mind of those you consider the “enemy.” This is not an exhaustive list but are some of my favorites. Despite what you may think, we don’t live in a bubble. Most of us have friends, family and coworkers who suffer from SSA and we love them.!



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.




Can I Be Blunt?

The title was rhetorical.  So, yeah, I’m going to be blunt and I’m going to do it to help protect the children.  If you’re easily offended, you might not like me reiterating the crud found in this one.  Look at the link and don’t read because this one’s going to fall under the category of “You should be mad as hell and not take it anymore!”

No!  No!  No! And no

Let me be clear, I don’t just want the parents to be able to opt their kids out of this class, I want it to be completely abolished, as in wiped off the face of Catholicism.  If parents throw up their hands and say, “Well, what are we to do?”, you are partly to blame.  I expect parents to attend every single meeting on this one, and I, quite frankly, wouldn’t mind seeing you parents from the Diocese of Nashville also out there picketing the schools, the chancery office, etc., until Bishop Choby gets the message about what’s going on under his nose. Millstones should also be passed out to all employees involved with this debacle.

Parents, I don’t want to hear any whining.  I don’t want to hear about how your kids will be ostracized.  I don’t want to hear how you will be removed from the position of such and such for your local church.  I don’t want to hear you don’t have time.  If that rolled off your tongue, just grab your own millstone and head for the nearest body of water.  I want to hear battle cries on behalf of your children and grandchildren.  This is the immortal soul of your children, for goodness sake!  If you aren’t standing shoulder to shoulder with the parents who brought this to our attention, you are part of the problem.!  Sadly your children and grandchildren are going to pay for your weakness.

U.S. diocese backs Catholic school: won’t let parents opt kids out of ‘salacious’ sex-ed

 Catholic , David Choby , Nashville Diocese , Parental Rights , Sex Education

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, August 31, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Diocese of Nashville is backing the administration of a private Catholic school in refusing to allow parents to opt their children out of an explicit sexual education program that parents say will corrupt their children by providing them with erotic and even salacious detail. Parents opposing the course say their hearts are broken since they feel betrayed by those in whom they had placed the trust of educating their children.

Their hearts are more than broken.  If Bishop Choby allows this to stand, their parental rights are being trod upon.  It might be nice if those involved with this mess actually gave the Church documents at least a passing glance.  Why don’t we start with Gravissimum Educationis:

3. The Authors of Education

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators.(11) This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered. Hence the family is the first school of the social virtues that every society needs. It is particularly in the Christian family, enriched by the grace and office of the sacrament of matrimony, that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship Him, and to love their neighbor. Here, too, they find their first experience of a wholesome human society and of the Church. Finally, it is through the family that they are gradually led to a companionship with their fellowmen and with the people of God. Let parents, then, recognize the inestimable importance a truly Christian family has for the life and progress of God’s own people.(12)

The family which has the primary duty of imparting education needs help of the whole community. In addition, therefore, to the rights of parents and others to whom the parents entrust a share in the work of education, certain rights and duties belong indeed to civil society, whose role is to direct what is required for the common temporal good. Its function is to promote the education of youth in many ways, namely: to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavors of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and, moreover, as the common good demands, to build schools and institutions.(13)

Finally, in a special way, the duty of educating belongs to the Church, not merely because she must be recognized as a human society capable of educating, but especially because she has the responsibility of announcing the way of salvation to all men, of communicating the life of Christ to those who believe, and, in her unfailing solicitude, of assisting men to be able to come to the fullness of this life.(14) The Church is bound as a mother to give to these children of hers an education by which their whole life can be imbued with the spirit of Christ and at the same time do all she can to promote for all peoples the complete perfection of the human person, the good of earthly society and the building of a world that is more human.(15) 

Gaudium et Spes has more:

52. The family is a kind of school of deeper humanity. But if it is to achieve the full flowering of its life and mission, it needs the kindly communion of minds and the joint deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking cooperation of parents in the education of their children. The active presence of the father is highly beneficial to their formation. The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account. Children should be so educated that as adults they can follow their vocation, including a religious one, with a mature sense of responsibility and can choose their state of life; if they marry, they can thereby establish their family in favorable moral, social and economic conditions. Parents or guardians should by prudent advice provide guidance to their young with respect to founding a family, and the young ought to listen gladly. At the same time no pressure, direct or indirect, should be put on the young to make them enter marriage or choose a specific partner. Thus the family, in which the various generations come together and help one another grow wiser and harmonize personal rights with the other requirements of social life, is the foundation of society. All those, therefore, who exercise influence over communities and social groups should work efficiently for the welfare of marriage and the family. Public authority should regard it as a sacred duty to recognize, protect and promote their authentic nature, to shield public morality and to favor the prosperity of home life. The right of parents to beget and educate their children in the bosom of the family must be safeguarded. Children, too, who unhappily lack the blessing of a family should be protected by prudent legislation and various undertakings and assisted by the help they need. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

227. Parents receive in the sacrament of Matrimony “the grace and the ministry of the Christian education of their children,” to whom they transmit and bear witness to human and religious values. This educational activity which is both human and religious is “a true ministry,” through which the Gospel is transmitted and radiated so that family life is transformed into a journey of faith and the school of Christian life. As the children grow, exchange of faith becomes mutual and “in a catechetical dialogue of this sort, each individual both receives and gives.” It is for this reason that the Christian community must give very special attention to parents. By means of personal contact, meetings, courses and also adult catechesis directed toward parents, the Christian community must help them assume their responsibility-which is particularly delicate today-of educating their children in the faith. This is especially pressing in those areas where civil legislation does not permit or makes difficult freedom of education in the faith. In this case “the domestic Church” is virtually the only environment in which children and young people can receive authentic catechesis.  

255. Parents are the primary educators in the faith. Together with them, especially in certain cultures, all members of the family play an active part in the education of the younger members. It is thus necessary to determine more concretely the sense in which the Christian family community is a locus of catechesis. The family is defined as a “domestic Church,” that is, in every Christian family the different aspects and functions of the life of the entire Church may be reflected: mission; catechesis; witness; prayer etc. Indeed in the same way as the Church, the family “is a place in which the Gospel is transmitted and from which it extends.” The family as a locus of catechesis has an unique privilege: transmitting the Gospel by rooting it in the context of profound human values. On this human base, Christian initiation is more profound: the awakening of the sense of God; the first steps in prayer; education of the moral conscience; formation in the Christian sense of human love, understood as a reflection of the love of God the Father, the Creator. It is, indeed, a Christian education more witnessed to than taught, more occasional than systematic, more on-going and daily than structured into periods. In this family catechesis, the role of grandparents is of growing importance. Their wisdom and sense of the religious is often times decisive in creating a true Christian climate. 

Familiaris Consortio:

36. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it. The right and duty of parents to give education is essential …

And a little more from the Catechism


  1. The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

  2. In our own time, in a world often alien and even hostile to faith, believing families are of primary importance as centers of living, radiant faith. For this reason the Second Vatican Council, using an ancient expression, calls the family the Ecclesia domestica. It is in the bosom of the family that parents are “by word and example …the first heralds of the faith with regard to their children.”

  3. The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. “The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.” The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

  4. Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. 

So get it right, Diocese of Nashville.  You are tramping all over the rights of the parents given by God.  Please, do us all a favor and go crawl back into your liberal holes and retire.  I hope whoever started this offense against Catholic morality and the family comes to a quick reckoning.

“We don’t want the Catholic school to corrupt our kids,” said Susan Skinner whose child attends Father Ryan High School in Nashville, TN and who represents a group of concerned parents. “Why can’t Catholic schools simply be Catholic?” she added.

THANK YOU, SUSAN SKINNER!  I hope and I pray that more parents take their jobs as seriously as you.  I’m sure you are bearing a big cross right now, but your reward will be great in Heaven!

School administration told parents earlier this year that students cannot be opted out from the course, suggesting that when parents send their children to school they hand over their right and duty as primary educator. 

The @#!@#$!@$# they do!  Would you mind pointing that out in Church documents, school administration?!?!?!?!

When LifeSiteNews contacted the diocese for comment on the matter, Director of Communications Rick Musacchio backed the school, stating that the course was “appropriate and necessary” and that “it is our policy that all students participate fully in all required classes.”

Appropriate and necessary in what way?!?!?!  In the kind of way that encourages STDs to all and supplies Planned Parenthood with more fetal body parts to sell?!?!?!?!  Explain yourself, Mr. Musacchio!

LifeSiteNews then reached out directly to Nashville Bishop David Choby, who is considered to be a traditional-minded bishop, to ask if Musacchio accurately represented his position. The bishop’s secretary Elizabeth Clay said the bishop was on vacation and assured LifeSiteNews that Musacchio represented the bishop and that it “is his position” that parents are not allowed to opt their children out of the sex-ed course. 

I pray this is not true and that someone just pulled a fast one on Bishop Choby.  Quite frankly, I wouldn’t put it past a liberal to do so, and it’s not like I haven’t seen it done to many good bishops before.  I certainly hope that the bishop will haul in the behinds of all responsible and give them a good Catholic education.

Well-known Catholic apologist, author, and commentator Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., told LifeSiteNews that Catholic parents do not surrender their rights over their children when they send them to school.

“Parents never relinquish their rights over their children anywhere, not even in a state school where parents are able to withdraw their kids from a course or a presentation if they don’t like it,” he said.

The Catholic Church holds that it is the parents’ primary right and duty to educate their children while schools play only a subsidiary role. Pope Pius XI emphasized this point in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge in which he urged parents living under the Nazi regime in Germany to never surrender their moral duty to instruct their children.

Not only do they not surrender their rights, but they do not surrender their duty and responsibility to their children.  For those that do, good luck with that.

I’d like to stop and say right here that I do not think sex education is a bad thing when done in the context of the home.  Human reproduction is a beautiful thing, but when you do it in the off-handed way they’re doing it here, it reduces it to simple bodily function.  And, my goodness, this really is nothing but a guide in how to arouse someone or what birth control works best.  Yep, top-notch sexual education there, boy howdy.  Both my husband and I can do this in a way that is less vulgar and more beautiful than this piece of slop.

 “Parents…have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral,” the pope wrote.

Pope Saint John Paul II affirmed parental rights in the 1995 document “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality” put out by the Pontifical Council for the Family, stating that schools are “bound” to respect parents when it comes to sex-ed in school. 

Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents,” the pope stated. 

Darn it, I missed these quotes.  Oh, well, cut me some slack. The “educators” in the Diocese of Nashville missed every last one.

Commenting on the above passage, canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray told LifeSiteNews that “any sex education program that is not in accord with the convictions of a child’s parents cannot be made mandatory without violating ‘the right and duty’ of the parents to control what their children are taught in this delicate and sensitive matter.”

“The school must cooperate with the parents. When the school encounters parents who object to the chosen program, the school must offer an alternative which would include releasing the student from attending that program so that the parents can provide an alternative that respects their convictions,” he said. 

Sorry, father.  This whole program should be shot and put out of its misery but the bare minimum should be an alternative..  There’s a bunch of other solidly Catholic programs out there.  This one is garbage.  How about the diocese invest in those and give one to each family?  Some of us have managed to scare them up ourselves.

Even local public schools allow parents to opt their kids out of objectionable course material. Tennessee state law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1301 et seq.) requires public schools to notify parents in advance of sex-ed programs and to obtain written consent for a student to participate in or opt-out of the program. 

This is how it is even in California!!!  Does the Diocese of Nashville realize it’s now WORSE than the California public education system with regards to parental rights?  Uh, hello!!!  Who in the heck wants that distinction?

In 1931, the Holy Office following the lead of Pope Pius XI decreed that Catholic institutions must reject classroom sex education, stating that “no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method [of sex-ed] even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.” In 1951, Pope Pius XII reiterated this teaching, warning that the “problems” of sexual education must not be “pushed aside.”

Look, we all don’t live on farms anymore, so everyday examples in nature are not as common. I get it.  I appreciate a good sex education program.  I do not mind my children learning age appropriate material (and that’s different for each child).  I also like supportive programs such as great chastity and virtue talks that are just fine for a school/group setting.  What I don’t want is anyone teaching sex and love to my children but me (or, for my boys, my husband).  Is it my favorite thing to do?  Nope, but parents need to put their big kid pants on and deal with it like the mature guides they’re supposed to be.  Parenting is not nor has it ever been about being comfortable .  Why would we ever think a teacher could do this better than we could? 

Father Ryan High School’s ‘Human Sexuality’ course

The “Human Sexuality” course taught as part of the Father Ryan High School’s Theology I and II course offers graphic images and erotic sexual details concerning male and female body parts. Some of the problems in the course include [WARNING: Explicit content.]:

Students are taught that the male and female “mature genitalia will react to sexual stimulus in a similar way.”

They are shown a picture of a spread-eagle vagina with names for every part. The picture is shown again in a test question where children have to label all the parts.

Oh yeah, this is should be done in a school setting with teens (even co-ed) and by a teacher rather than a parent who raised them.  Even better?  Yeah, let’s test them on it, too.  Please.  (Sarcasm mode off)  I don’t know how I ever made it through life without being tested. I mean, how did I ever get these kids, much less have a healthy relationship with my husband?  Miracles never cease.  (OK, sarcasm mode wasn’t completely off.)

At one point the sex-ed states: “Like the scrotum, the outer lips swell slightly with stimulation; in their stimulated state they pull back and expose the Inner Lips.”

Students are taught the pleasure points of both the male and female reproductive organs, learning about “erotic nerve endings” that react to “sexual stimulus.”

They learn about an “aroused” clitoris and average penis lengths during erection.

Because, well, you know, if you don’t know all of this in high school, how will you ever get along in life?  Yes, let’s have the teens study and contemplate this.  Ought to help at the prom.  Sigh.

At one point, the sex-ed states that the word “testes” is derived from the practice of two men swearing an oath while holding each other’s testicles.

Oh, come on.  I’m all for etymology, but doesn’t it seem like a 12-year-old boy wrote this? I mean, did they go over the etymology for all of the body parts, or just the ones that bring to mind homosexual behavior?

Students learn 10 different forms of contraception, including withdrawal, the condom, the diaphragm, spermicides, the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, birth control implant, depo-provera, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. A test question asks children to name and compare all the different methods as to how they function.

To be fair, the link given by Lifesite News skips some pages. That said, based on   statements provided in the part we saw like, “The pill can increase a woman’s chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD)”, I seriously doubt that the program went over the horrors of the more than 30 STDs that can be contracted and their horrible outcomes (most occurring to women and their children) resulting from contracting these.  I will also say that the descriptions of the forms of birth control and their possible hazards were very lacking and inaccurate.  By the way, how, exactly, do you think teens are going to use the information provided?  Hmmm?  Did the faculty ever stop to think that maybe they might use it to pick the most effective one against pregnancy?  Pregnancy, however, is not a disease.

At no point in the entire sex-ed supplement does the word “sin” appear, nor are there condemnations of the grave sexual sins of masturbation, fornication, and other sins against the virtues of chastity and modesty. Abstinence is given a passing glance and children are directed to external resources for more information on the practice.

Students are not taught how willed sexual sins cut off the life of God’s grace in the soul and jeopardizes one’s eternal salvation.

So, in other words, not only is it lacking in portraying the physical dangers of sex outside of marriage, it also skips the spiritual and moral risks.  Bravo, Diocese of Nashville.  Bravo.  Like I said, some people have engraved millstones waiting for them.

Former Texas abortion clinic owner Carol Everett has gone on record to state that the push for detailed sex-ed has its roots in the abortion business more than forty years ago where a “market for abortions” was created by getting kids interested and hooked on sex through explicit sex-education. Explicit sex-ed continues to be developed and pushed on teens by abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 

Exactly! I have researched many of the programs put into the public schools.  This one rivals those devastating programs.

Fr. Stravinskas reviewed some of the more graphic details of the curriculum, calling it “salacious.” He wondered why such details were included in a class devoted to theology. 

To those liberals reading right now and whining about the Church not liking science or sex, grow up.  You’ve just never bothered to read things like “Theology of the Body”, nor have you engaged in a natural family planning course.  The Church, as it’s always been, is on the cutting edge of science.

As part of the course, students are also given the book Growing toward Intimacy by Bob Bartlett. The book is published by Good Ground Press run by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet in St. Paul, MN, a liberal religious order that has links on its website to pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organizations, such as Equality Now and the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Bartlett’s book quotes often from Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest and theologian who is deeply involved in the New Age, whose retreats involve men getting naked and leaping over fires, and who openly dissents from Church teaching on contraception, the ordination of women, and homosexuality.

A chapter of Bartlett’s book titled “Learning to Touch in America” quotes the pro-homosexual priest Rohr who states: “We seem to like or even need to be touched, to be reminded that we are alive or that we matter to one another.” Pro-family advocates have warned parents that breaking down a young person’s natural inhibition to being touched by strangers is a common grooming technique employed by sexual predators.

In Growing toward Intimacy, students also read about a counseling session for a married couple where they read that the average couple engages in 2-3 hours of sex a week. They are taught to debunk “sexual myths” involving erection, lovemaking, sexual activity, pregnancy, orgasm, climax, and masturbation. At one point students read a story about teens joking about “orgasm” and not knowing what it means. When in the story one friend admits that he does not know what the word means, another friend tells him, “Go look it up,” suggesting to the students that they can go online to look up sexual words that they are curious about. In other places, students read stories about men visiting prostitutes and teens engaging in sexual activity. The book also contains pictures of teens kissing.

Wow!  Sounds just like what I want my kids reading. Grrr…! I can’t find anything on this book. No ratings anywhere.  I did find the chapter titles so here they are for you to peruse.  They were obnoxious enough:


 1 Sex Is Not Just a Biological Need

 2 The Sexual Revolution: Who Won?

 3 An Intimate Faith, an Intimate God

 4 Two Myths About Sexuality

 5 Intimacy With Our Bodies and Ourselves

 6 The Wonder and Power of Touch

 7 Bonding

 8 Learning to Touch in America

 9 Intimacy

10 Unhealthy Patterns of Intimacy

11 Using People Hurts

12 Integrated Intimacy

13 Aphrodisiacs, Drugs, and Sex

14 But If We Really Love Each Other

15 People Who Care

My first thought is that it sounds like a “how to” book. (Actually, that’s my thought on the whole program!)   I usually avoid books published by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (I actually know some of them), and I really avoid anything by Richard Rohr.  HUGE red flags!  I know, Wikipedia.  That said, the footnotes are from many solid publications.  Just the quickest thing I could find with a litany of his stupidity.

Honestly, I can’t understand it.  There are so many good programs to choose from and they settle on this rubbish.

LifeSiteNews emailed Bishop Choby’s spokesperson Rick Musacchio the above details of the sex-ed that parents find problematic, asking him if the diocese still stands behind its original statement about refusing to allow parents to opt out of the sex-ed. Musacchio doubled-down on the original comment, calling the above presentation “inaccurate in subtle but important ways,” adding that the curriculum is “taught in a manner that reflects the beauty and dignity of the human person, the role of man and woman in God’s plan for married life, and the proper role of natural family planning, all in full conformity with Church teaching.”

One has to wonder if Rick saw what we saw.  The dignity of the human person is more than “Here are the parts of the body.  Here is how they are stimulated.  Here’s what happens when they are stimulated.  This protects from some STDs and these don’t.  And here is a list of birth control.”  Talk about separating the procreative and the unitive.  And, again, why would I want you to explain this to my children?!?!

‘Fighting a Goliath’

Concerned parents say they are dumbfounded at the resistance they have encountered at all levels in the exercise of their rights and duties as primary educator.

Skinner told LifeSiteNews that when parents first addressed their concerns to school administration, they were told that the school is “proud” of its curriculum and that the administration did not share the concerns raised. Parents were told that the sex-ed was “necessary” for students. They were told on various occasions that opting their children out was not an option. When parents approached Bishop Choby, a 1965 graduate of the school, with their concerns, they were unable to secure a meeting with him. 

Yeah, this is no bueno all the way around.  I don’t think we can really hang this on Bishop Choby at this point, and, hopefully, this LifesiteNews article will be the first spotlight on the people who I suspect are probably worried about attention on this.  If I were them, I’d also be worried about their jobs, because you do not want to tangle with the moms.  What were they calling us a few years back?  Grizzly moms?  I’m sorry, you just don’t get to tell some of us what your plans for our child when we disagree, and you certainly don’t tell us our rights as Catholic parents are usurped by your authority.  You shouldn’t say that anywhere, but I’m also just going to go ahead and say that you REALLY don’t do that in the south.

“We feel that we are fighting a Goliath. Everywhere we go, we’ve been roadblocked. Nobody is taking our concerns for our children’s spiritual well-being seriously. And the competent authorities seem to have no problem in overriding our rights and duties as parents,” Skinner said.

My money is on the Skinners and their friends.  Like I said, the worst thing you can do is to tick off a faithful, Catholic mother.

Parents at first asked the school to simply delete the problematic content. When the school went on to revise the curriculum (for instance, deleting the price list for contraception and changing a few of the pictures) but kept the objectionable content in, parents felt betrayed by the trust they had placed in the school. LifeSiteNews contacted school president James McIntyre and school principal Paul Davis by phone and email for comment, but did not receive a response by press time. 

Wow!  Really don’t want to see the pictures they swapped out.  Full color, maybe?  Oh, and if I were a teen, taking out the price of the contraception would really make me think twice about using it.  Yeah, that would make it all better.  Not!  Scrap it.  You take out the questionable content and you’ve pretty much done that.

“We feel like the sex-ed curriculum basically amounts to a ‘wink and a nod’ to student sexual activity, especially when the curriculum gives them an exhaustive contraception list and tests the students to make sure they know how all of them function,” Skinner said.

Yes, it does amount to that. She nailed it.  For heaven’s sake, people!  When in the heck are you going to stop the “We know you’re going to do it, so here’s how to not get caught!” Guess what?  The second they cross over that line, there will be consequences.  Spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences will occur the second they go there, no matter what you teach them.  Heck, you can even teach them that, and they might still blow it.  That said, you teach them anything to the contrary, and you are teaching them that they might just be able to get away with sin having no consequences.  Good luck with that.  If there are parents who are backing this program, you’re just complete jerks who probably haven’t taken responsibility for your own sins, or you’re just complete wimps and are more worried about what people think rather than the salvation of your own children.

“The culture at Father Ryan’s shouldn’t be the same as the anti-culture outside its doors. You can’t make saints unless you set the bar high, but when it comes to sexual morality, suddenly there is no bar,” she added. 

I like this lady. She should start a blog!

Parents are now asking that the entire sex-ed course be scrapped. They say they would prefer a program that teaches chastity, self-mastery, and abstinence — all from an authentically Catholic perspective — such as the program YOU: Life, Love, and the Theology of the Body developed by best-selling Catholic authors Jason and Crystalina Evert.

Psh.  That’s just a little too logical.  Teach self-mastery, chastity, and abstinence?!  In a Catholic school?  Who would think of that?  (Yes, heavy dose of snark toward whoever started this ridiculous plan.)

“There are so many aspects of the school that we love, but they shouldn’t teach this to our kids. It’s the parents’ right to teach their kids about such sensitive matters. We don’t want our kids seeing images of penises and vaginas. This will only corrupt them. We want the program gone,” states the group of parents.

Susan Skinner’s husband Jason agrees that the situation is regrettable.

“I have no doubt that the school is trying to do what they think is best for the students, and expect they would say the same of me for my children. I’d like to think our views of theology are similar if not identical. But when it comes to sex education, it appears we have irreconcilable differences of opinion,” he told LifeSiteNews. 

Call me jaded, but you don’t institute this crud if you’re thinking about what is best for the kids.  Sounds like someone has an agenda a mile long.  Again, I have no problem with high schoolers learning about their bodies or how they function, but I don’t agree with teaching them and encouraging them to have sex, which, sorry, is what this program is all about.  I missed the self-mastery part.  Was that in the “The Wonder Power of Touch” or “Touching in America” chapters of Bartlett’s book?

People! Did you have this education when you were in high school?  Think about it. If you did, did it help you to lead a chaste life and love the beauty of sexuality?  I was taught how to put a condom on a banana in my Catholic high school.  Yeah, that was oh so helpful for me in self-mastery, chastity, and abstinence, not to mention intimacy in marriage.  I always felt sorry my parents spent such a pretty penny for that message.  Sigh.

Now, if you parents taught you zip, don’t you think that maybe it would be a tad bit healthier to answer all the questions you had in the context of morality with your children?  Do you really think that should be left up to someone who would likely not be willing to give your kid a kidney if they needed it?  No way!  You can do this way better!

“The minimum request made of the school was to opt our children out of this material just as public schools in most states are legally required to permit. Regrettably, this minor accommodation was deemed unacceptable. I just don’t understand why the only options available are to violate our conscience or leave the school completely.  What sense does this make for either party? How is this right and just?” he said. 

I’d go as far as to say it’s a violation of Canon Law!  Seriously, you are not at the beck and call of the teachers.  They are at the parents’ beck and call and are to assist them.  They’re not there to rule the roost.

Can. 793 §1. Parents and those who take their place are bound by the obligation and possess the right of educating their offspring. Catholic parents also have the duty and right of choosing those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of their children, according to local circumstances.

Can. 796 §1. Among the means to foster education, the Christian faithful are to hold schools in esteem; schools are the principal assistance to parents in fulfilling the function of education.

  • 2. Parents must cooperate closely with the teachers of the schools to which they entrust their children to be educated; moreover, teachers in fulfilling their duty are to collaborate very closely with parents, who are to be heard willingly and for whom associations or meetings are to be established and highly esteemed.

I’m pretty sure that the Skinners weren’t heard willingly.  They definitely don’t want your means of educating their children.

Please do the action items below.  If you aren’t heard and do not receive a favorable response, get out of your comfort zone and make your voice heard.  I don’t care if you have to paint some signs, get it done for the kids!

Action item: View the petition asking the Catholic Diocese of Nashville to support parental rights here.


Most Reverend David Choby

Bishop of Nashville

Ph: (615) 783-0761


Father Ryan High School

President James McIntyre 

Ph: (615) 383-4200


Principal Paul Davis

Full response from Diocese of Nashville’s Director of Communications Rick Musacchio to LifeSiteNews’ questions:

LSN: Why does Father Ryan insist on teaching graphic sex ed class when a number of parents object to the material?

Diocese of Nashville: Human sexuality is so fundamentally important to an individual’s identity and relationship with God that it must be taught in light of sound theological foundations. It is not sufficient to present it solely as a biological process. Presenting the material in the context of a moral theology class is most appropriate and necessary.

You should be teaching the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act.  I must have missed the labeling of body parts in Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or Amoris Laetitia.  I mean, if it’s good enough for the kids…  Heck, I don’t even remember getting that list in marriage preparation, and that would have been in the context of marriage!  Then there was our NFP class.  Funny, I don’t remember it there either, and there was a boatload of information about how the human body works!

Think about it.  We are giving our high school students information we don’t even pass along to our engaged couples.  Doesn’t that seem a tad bit off to you?  Maybe I’m naïve.  Maybe I’m a prude, but despite my lack of not receiving quite as thorough an indoctrination as is being proposed for the teens of the Diocese of Nashville, I had a lot of fun learning about some of the marital embrace with my husband!  Imagine that.  Two naïve kids figured some things out all on their own and were none the worse for it.  Sarcasm aside, I’m reasonably sure that’s the case with many in my generation.  Why is it that we think we must give these kids way too much information when they shouldn’t be acting on it?

Saint John Paul II has given the Church a great gift, stressing the importance of its teachings on the sanctity of life and insisting that young adults be formed in light of these teachings. Those same imperatives are reflected in Pope Francis’ recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Presenting a clear, accurate explanation of human sexuality in the context of theology class not only helps students understand the nature of their own human identity, but also serves as the basis for an understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage and of natural family planning.

Oh, how I’d love to use something a little stronger than hogwash, but it’ll have to do!  I have children of varying ages, and we didn’t use this lesson plan nor did we farm it out to teachers to teach our kids about sex.  You don’t get a family that values the sanctity of life more than ours, who all pretty much work year round in various aspects of the pro-life movement.  Sorry, there’s a difference between accuracy and an overly graphic (some would suggest pornographic) explanation of human sexuality.  I mean, a little common sense please.  Let’s remember the etymology of testicles.  “Yeah, peeps! It was common for men to hold each other’s’ family jewels.”  Oh, and let’s get those rulers out so we can measure…. Yeah, you get it.  

I’m reasonably sure this isn’t what either pope had in mind! What’s the tip-off? I just went through the materials for all six  units of the Pontificum Consiium pro Familia’s program “The Meeting Point” and there’s nothing even close.  It’s not a “how to” program. Guess what?  For all the flaws it may have (not debating any of that in this post), it actually mentions sin.  The only “sex” lesson I could find in it was the beautiful biology video “The Odyssey of Life” which is a digital animation of sperm reaching egg and fetal development. I’d already seen that one.  Maybe I missed it but missing were the lessons on sexual stimulation.  You’d think if that’s what they wanted to portray, they would have done it, Rick.

It is always good to regularly review materials used in our schools. Father Ryan High School reviewed its materials in light of suggestions that were brought forth by a few parents and made a number of changes in the presentation based on their suggestions.

Not enough, my diocesan spokesperson friend.  Not enough!

LSN: Why will the school not allow the parents to opt their students out the class?

Diocese of Nashville: The full curriculum taught in our schools is developed in keeping with guidelines of the USCCB, under the supervision of our local bishop, and designed to meet recognized academic standards in all subject areas. It is our policy that all students participate fully in all required classes and in any elective classes in which they choose to enroll. Theology classes are an essential element of the curriculum. 

So, you’re not usurping parental authority and making sex ed part of the required curriculum?!?  Again, way to outdo California, Diocese of Nashville.

LSN: Does the school actually hold that parents hand over their right as primary educator when they attend your school?

Diocese of Nashville: Quite to the contrary. Our schools actively engage parents as partners in the education of their children. The schools are always open to address parents questions related to any area of the curriculum and to provide materials to assist families so that they may participate fully in the education and formation of young people. We want parents to understand that the entire curriculum has been developed in conformity with Church teaching and presented by faculty committed to presenting all subject matter in keeping with those standards.

Uh, you most certainly do require parents hand over their rights if you are making sex ed required.  Asking their input and then telling them to take a flying leap is quite contrary to letting them decide what they want to teach their children in the sphere of morality.

When LifeSiteNews presented the diocese with a list of concerning material in the sex-ed course, asking if the diocese still stood by its comment, Director of Communications Rick Musacchio responded:

Diocese of Nashville: Your presentation is inaccurate in subtle but important ways. On the whole, it presents a view of the material covered in the class that is lacking in completeness and accuracy. After careful review of the materials covered in the Theology course at Father Ryan High School, the Human Sexuality curriculum is taught in a manner that reflects the beauty and dignity of the human person, the role of man and woman in God’s plan for married life, and the proper role of natural family planning, all in full conformity with Church teaching.

There’s more?! Please, no!  Can I make a suggestion?  Put your materials completely on-line for all to see.  Let’s do! Then we can ALL judge whether it teaches the subject “in full conformity with Church teaching” and the “dignity and beauty of the human person”, or if it’s just another “You’re going to fail so here’s how not to get caught”, or worse, a “how to” program.


*Parents – If you are looking for good “sex ed” material, go to one of the many Catholic homeschool curriculum sites or Catholic Answers for good resource suggestions.