Yes, Catholics Can Judge!

JaAnna Wahlund

The mainstream media made much hay over Pope Francis’ July 2013 remarks in which he said, in response to a reporter’s question about an alleged “gay lobby” within the Vatican, “Who am I to judge?”

The MSM misinterpreted his comment as blanket approval for homosexual acts, and their headlines reflected their misunderstanding. Even now, whenever there’s a news story about the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality, reporters are quick to mention that Pope Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” about homosexuals.

However, as is often the case, the media didn’t bother to look at the Pope’s words in context.

Pope Francis said, in full,

A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.

A catechized Catholic who reads these words knows that they are perfectly in line with Church teaching. Pope Francis essentially just restated paragraph 2358 of the Catechism, which says,

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.

When Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge him?”, he was referring to paragraph 1861:

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (emphasis mine)

Pope Francis was referring to the judgment of persons with his “Who am I to judge?” comment. He was not saying that a person’s moral acts can’t be judged, because (as he knows) the Catechism says otherwise:

Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil. (CCC 1749)

Scripture is also very clear on the fact that not only can we judge, we are actually called to judge.

“Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:12-13)


“Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

When Jesus said “Judge not, lest you be judged,” he wasn’t condemning all judgment. Rather, He was condemning rash or unjust judgment. He was not telling Christians that they could not evaluate acts and behavior of others according to the moral law – because if that was what He meant, He would have been violating his own dictate. To quote blogger and apologist Jimmy Akin, “If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!”

Many who quote those words from the Sermon on the Mount in order to condemn someone who is judging fail to read the rest of the passage:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Notice that Jesus says that one can take the speck out his brother’s eye! However, he cautions that the person doing the judging has to make sure that their judgments are just, because God will judge hold that person to their own standards.

In the same vein, the Church cautions against rash judgment, a form of unjust judgment, which is defined in the Catechism as “assum[ing] as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.” To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.”

Another Scripture passage that is often brought up in defense of the argument that “judging is wrong” is the woman caught in adultery from John 8:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

Notice that Jesus asks the woman if anyone has condemned her, not if anyone has judged her. There is a distinction between judgment and condemnation, and Jesus clearly differentiates between the two. He does not say that her adultery was right, or justified, or worthy of praise. Nor did Pope Francis, in his comments about homosexual individuals, say that homosexual acts were right, or justified, or worthy of praise. The full context of his remarks shows that he was careful to make a distinction between judging based on a homosexual’s orientation, which is unjust, and judging a homosexual’s acts (or politicizing in order to advocate in favor of those acts), which is just.

As Catholics, we can judge and we are called to judge. We can’t practice the spiritual works of mercy, one of which is admonishing the sinner, without judging. Pope Francis knows this, and those who try to use his words to justify their own support of sin only display their own ignorance of Scripture and Catholic teaching by doing so.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

63 thoughts on “Yes, Catholics Can Judge!”

  1. God talks to individuals, not mobs. We judge ourselves, not others. God told us that if we believe someone is wrong and fail to say something then the sin is upon us. If we do say something and the person continues, then the sin is upon them. You have taken the Popes words and manipulated them, as you accuse the media of doing, to make your point, as invalid as it may be. Homosexuality is biologic, not a matter of choice. It was known and practiced before the time of Christ yet no condemnation of it was mentioned in the New Testament.

    1. Ed, it is you who are mistaken. There is NO biological basis for homosexuality. That idea is from the great deceiver – Satan himself. It is condemned numerous times by St. Paul. Same sex attraction when acted upon remains one of the Sins which cry out to Heaven for Vengeance. I pray this confusion is put to rest in our church.

  2. “As Catholics, we can judge and we are called to judge. We can’t practice the spiritual works of mercy, one of which is admonishing the sinner, without judging.”

    Beautifully summed up!

  3. Curious at an undefined concept,,,yes I know that Francis make his famous statement “Who an I to judge?” in reference to the Vatican “gay lobby.” Can anyone please define for me what this “gay lobby” actually is? I have read many inconsistent interpretations and would like a answer from someone who know for certain. What is the “gay lobby,?”

  4. He said the problem is not with the orientation. Well, that is not what the Catechism says. The Catechism says “this inclination, which is objectively disordered…”
    Then he said the said “the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.” What does that even mean? And isn’t the real problem that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and separate a person from God? Where does Pope Francis say homosexual acts are gravely sinful and must be repented of to avoid hell? Does he even believe that to be the case? Or does he think that as long as someone is “seeking God” and is “of goodwill” then they are ok even if they continue to engage in sodomy? Even if they are Cardinals, bishops or priests (as was the case with the person he was speaking about here) who can’t claim ignorance?

    He could clear all this up in about two declarative sentences. Why doesn’t he? He seems happy to have allowed “Who am I to judge?” to become the sound-bite narrative for his papacy.

    1. Frankly, this is one area where if we do not speak the Truth with Love, we sound like a clashing gong. Where in the above have you related the Church’s condemnation of grave sin to God’s love for all of us, none of which means sacrificing a scintilla of what’s in the Catechism, but seeing it in the context of God’s love, which the Catechism refers to frequently? Something is sinful, not because “it’s a sin because it’s a sin because it’s a sin,” but because all sin is contrary to God, Who IS Love. If we can’t manage that much, we are tacitly agreeing with those who claim that mercy and justice, Love and the Truth, are incompatible, just coming from the other end of the spectrum.

      Benedict XVI once wrote that justice without mercy is a form of cruelty, just as mercy without justice would be meaningless. We call people to repentance, not just so that they “don’t go to Hell,” but so that they will experience God’s love in Heaven (which is ultimately what “not going to Hell” means). Think about the difference between holy fear and servile fear. How exactly does preaching servile fear (as opposed to holy fear) to homosexuals or anyone else invite them to seek and know Christ? How does a servile fear help anyone see what Christ wants to give them? Merely condemning without showing how disapproval of x, y, or z is related to God’s love for us and needing to receive that love plays right into something Fulton Sheen said about sin: the Devil first seeks to convince you that whatever it is is no big deal. Then he tries to convince you, once you commit that sin, that it is unforgivable.

      Then he said the said “the problem is lobbying either for this
      orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.” What does that
      even mean?

      Why not repeatedly take this question to Adoration, then, instead of wringing one’s hands over the same thing on the internet at every opportunity?

  5. It was a sea-change way of dealing with others when the Gospel Message included words to the effect of “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Up to that time, in the pagan world and even in Jewish communities, it was “hate the sin, hate the sinner.” I dearly want God to hate my sins, but to love me.As far as judging, I think once we figure it out, we realize we have brought judgment on ourselves. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  6. The neoCatholic establishment sure are busy these days telling us not to believe our lying eyes when it comes to Pope Francis. Must be tiring.

  7. Pingback: Linus & St. Luke, Say It All About Christmas -

  8. “When Jesus said “Judge not, lest you be judged,” he wasn’t condemning all judgment. Rather, He was condemning rash or unjust judgment. He was not telling Christians that they could not evaluate acts and behavior of others according to the moral law”.

    And you know this how? Church Lady (“well isn’t that precious”), you are a piece of work! Saturday Night Live had your character to a tee. Why don’t you just stop your gay bashing because that is all this is. Pure hatred disguised as righteousness.

    1. Wow, Bill.
      I didn’t get that at al from this nice lady. Where do you see her sporting hatred?
      And I guess you’ve never shown “Pure hatred disguised as righteousness” on other threads, which qualifies you to point it out in others….


      Oh, btw, I know a good lumberjack and a decent ophthalmologist, if you want that log taken out of your eye socket…

      Or maybe Confession would be better, less painful, and more effective, no? 🙂

    2. The hatred comes from quoting the Catechism’s horrendous statements about all things “objective” or “intrinsic” as if the people who wrote it are experts in fields like human sexuality and modern psychology or manners. She thinks she can lay aside common decency and toleration of people different from her because she finds her justification in religion. Just like the CL on SNL. They love to lampoon self-righteous religious zealots.

    3. The teachings of the Catechism are the result of 2,000 years of study, debate, and discussion by hundreds if not thousands of learned scholars, scientists, priests, popes, saints, and other learned individuals, and it is inspired by God, the author of all creation as well as the author of science itself.

    4. Phil,

      Your research has failed to prove anything but how many Catholics, especially youth, have fallen for the lies of the hyper-sexualized culture.

      So, youthink morality is determined by majority opinion?

      That would mean the Klan in post Civil War days was a morally fine movement. Likewise for Nazism.

      Your arguments are sophomoric and are absurd..

    5. Phil – you say you linked to the opinions of experts. Yet you link to a piece that is simply an opinion poll. Opinion polls are notoriously easy to skew. You can get a poll to tell you anything you want, by the skilfull alteration of a few words in the questions. This is true because about half of all the people they poll have no idea about the issue and are not following it. So the tenor of the question governs the answer.

      Furthermore, the head of the Pew organization was speaking to a group of people a couple of years ago. He made a point to say that his organization was there to push people in a certain direction, not merely take polls and report out the results. I had always been somewhat suspicious of Pew because suddenly all the major media outlets began hyping their polls, and ignoring others.

      So my advice is, take polls with a grain of salt. They are not science, either.

    6. Really?
      You know, I watched SNL back when it was funny, right before the Church Lady era. 🙂

      I didn’t see the author use any quotes from that period, nor do I hear anyone but you complaining that the article contains ‘hate’.

      Feel free to quote, if I missed it. . 🙂


      You keep saying that word….I do not think it means what you think it means, Bill. 🙂

      Now, when I did a search on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I found 386 occurrences of the word ‘love,’ aaaaaaaaaaaand,

      ONE (1) occurrence of the word ‘hate’ [“Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” paragraph 1033]

      (Willy Wonka Smile): Tell me how Hate-filled the Catechism is, again? 🙂

    7. Bill, it does not take a scientist or a psychologist to pronounce on the moral worth of certain actions. In fact, a scientist or a psychologist would be the very worst people to talk about morals.

      She wrote a well reasoned article. if you disagree with her, do so on a well reasoned basis, rather than spout hatred and sarcasm.

      The Catechism has no “horrendous” statements. As a matter of fact, if you really read the thing, it is beautiful, balanced and gentle. it respects reality.

    8. I know this because of logic and reason, Bill.

      It is interesting that you accuse me of hatred and then engage in the same against me, so I thank you for putting your hypocrisy on display. Now people will know not to take you seriously.

    9. Logic and reason and subjective states of consciousness…btw I take Bill quite seriously as he is searching constantly for the Truth…searching and accepting pronouncements from the CC as realities for all people….

    10. I wouldn’t call it trolling Trolling I take to be the purposeful starting of useless arguments that have no point, just to get a rise out of people. Bill S is, if I recall, an atheist who merely pushes his viewpoint on Catholic sites. Nothing wrong with that. We should be able to answer every question asked of us.

    11. Again, I have a long history with Bill. His searching is just an act. He throws out insults simply to get a rise out of people, and falls back on his “I’m searching for answers” routine when called on his behavior. That’s trolling.

    12. Not fair, Stacy, but you are the moderator. JoAnna was not censored for saying: “Phil, all human beings have objectively disordered inclinations. That’s what sin is.” So it’s permissible to refer to my spastic quad, non-verbal, non-mobile, brain injured son as having “objectively disordered inclinations.” Is there nothing created by God which is simply pure?

    13. Phil, all human beings have disordered inclinations. All human beings have original sin. Some individuals, such as small children or disabled individuals, may not commit personal sin (and if they are baptized, then they no longer have original sin, either). Since I can’t read your son’s heart and mind I have no idea what the state of his soul is. But making a general statement regarding the nature of sin is not at all an insult to your son or anyone else. Maybe you need to step back and take a break for a while.

  9. JoAnna, I find that this post is quite contradictory and displays an ignorance of the concept of judgement and those failures stem from your excerpts of the CC. Let me explain: Judgement is defined as “the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.” Simplicity, you ascribe to the old meme of “love the person, not the sin.” Yet, you and the CC demonstrate something quite different.

    You quote the CC as saying,”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.” By the simple fact that a religious sect considers a gay or lesbian, etc. to have an inclination which is objectively disordered is a judgement and condemnation of the person, whether he/she acts upon his/her inclination. Sexual identity or orientation is not a choice; reparative therapy is a failure and in some states, illegal. Sexuality is a part of who a person is, sexuality develops in utero, sexual orientation is a function of biological and environmental factors. The RC church certainly has the right to call homosexual behavior a “sin.” and it’s adherents are perfectly fine in judging that “sin” as a moral transgression, the determination, and wrongly so, that a homosexual inclination is “objectively (or in some cases intrinsically) disordered,” is judgement of any homosexual as a disordered primate. In this case neither the sin nor the person who “sins” are exempt from judgement. This is Jesus’ warning about judgement. There is no biological, genetic, psychological, medical or psychiatric evidence that this inclination is “objectively disordered.” There is no cure for this inclination. So if, as you and the CC say, the numbers of homosexuals are not negligible, then you judge a not so negligible portion of God’s creation as “objectively disordered.” Thank God, the vast majority of RC’s according to the latest Pew Research study reject this notion and do not judge. Judgement is based upon wide ranging evidence, not simply the CC.

    Also consider the vast numbers of gay Catholic priests. Why would God and Church call so many to gay men to a sacred vocation if their “inclination is objectively disordered.? Would you not want the bulk of clergy to be celibate heterosexual or a sexual men? The inclination judgement also judges many of your own clergy. See the contradiction? Even if gay priests are perfectly celibate, which they are not, their sexual identity is “objectively disordered.” Make sense? Not to me…Here’s the data, if you disregard the first few paragraphs about the Francis judgement meme:

    1. Phil, all human beings have objectively disordered inclinations. That’s what sin is. So I don’t find it odd that God would call human beings to religious life at all.

      You have a profound misunderstanding of sin. God’s creation is good but the fall of man introduced original sin – disorder – into the world. It was not in God’s plan for us to have disordered inclinations. But we are to struggle against our sins and against our disordered inclinations, just as an alcoholic must overcome his urge to drink (also a disordered inclination).

    2. My son is a spastic quad, non verbal, can’t move a muscle…please explain to me his objectively disordered inclination given that he is a human being. Should this pure child be held responsible for someone’s wrong 6000 years prior? Just what sin should he struggle against? I think he is pure spirit trapped in an odious body, if you say otherwise you are judging him….if you say he has an objectively disordered inclination, you judge him. What makes my son’s “disordered inclination” objective? What is the basis for your objectivity? Is it a universal truth accepted by most primates? You are on thin ice and sinking….

    3. I can’t read your son’s heart and mind so I have no idea what disordered inclinations he has, if any. I do know that his diseases and disorders are the result of a fallen world. God did not intend for his creation to suffer tragedy, illness, and death. Such things are the result of living in our fallen, disordered world.

      Re: your last sentence – I agree with you! PEOPLE are not disordered, and people should never be called disordered. But people suffer from disordered inclinations. To use my earlier example, an alcoholic has the disordered inclination of an addiction to alcohol. But the alcoholic is not a disordered person, he is a person with a disordered inclination. Do you see?

    4. Since my son is considered to be in a minimally conscious state, his mind is not functional and his heart beats….simply a pure being who can have no inclinations, ordered pr disordered….so, my son’s “fried” basal ganglia is a result of a fallen, disordered world? As for death, my family lives daily in a state of impermanence and we accept this. Every living thing dies, it’s a simple biological fact. illness happens because we are imperfect biological creations. God probably did not intend tragedy and illness and death…but He could intervene, He could stop it, He does allow it.

    5. I agree with you I think her point is a high theological one that seeks to explain how evil entered the world, rather than any sort of comment on your son. God bless you and your family. Having gone through something similar, although to a lesser degree, i can sympathize.

    6. I am confused. Why in the world would you think the church or anyone else has determined that your son, who suffers from a physical malady, is “intrinsically disordered”? Perhaps you are taking her comments a little too literally. I doubt that she meant to indicate that all who suffer from physical illnesses are somehow deserving of those illnesses because of their “sin”. That would be ridiculous.

    7. Your language illustrates that you obviously are wading into an area you know nothing about. There are too many instances of incomplete or erroneous conclusions you’ve drawn based on your limited understanding of Church teaching and Scripture, but how to properly understand the concepts you think you comprehend.

      One of the most egregious errors commonly made by supporters of LGBT is the leap you made in your last sentence. The Church DOES NOT teach that PEOPLE are objectively disordered; she teaches that behaviors and our attractions to them are objectively disordered.

      To extend further JoAnna’s correct explanation of objective disorders as sin, please know that bar-hopping to pick up a one-night stand is just as objectively disordered for same-sex attracted people as it is for straight folks. If your adult daughter lives with her boy friend, that sin is also objectively disordered.

      Here’s the point: the attraction to either of the last two examples BEFORE acting upon them is also objectively disordered, just like same sex attraction is objectively is disordered.

      Extend this properly and we will see that robbing a Brinks armored truck is objectively disordered, as is the idea of it which sounds o appealing to some ears.

      You lack a basic grasp of the discussion points, and therefore – and I mean this kindly – you are in so over your head your comment earns a Major Fail.

    8. Let’s look at words and focus on “objective”. 1+1=2 everywhere at every time and every place….this is objective. Sexual abuse of a child is objectively a sin in all places, at all times and in all cutures. Homosexuality is not “objective” anything but a lifestyle and a sexual identity…it is not wrong in all cultures, all places and all times. In fact the VAST majority of Roman Catholics do not find it wrong, a sin or immoral…it may be a subjective perception by a few but not acceptable by all, especially Catholics. Pew Research is the most reputable research group and they released a very recent survey of Roman Catholics, homosexuality and gay marriage:

    9. One of my favorite quotes Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it. -St. Augustine (354-430)

      How many people out there think there is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc. including Catholics? Just because someone doesnt have a problem with something doesnt make it right. If one considers them self Christian then they follow what God says is right not what is popular among others even those who consider themselves Christians

    10. “Sexual abuse of a child is objectively a sin in all places, at all times and in all cutures.”

      Of course we know that it’s always objectively wrong…. But that’s not the point you were trying to make, and your point is negated by the fact that there are disordered cultures and beliefs that are okay with old men having sex with young girls (for example), and there has been acceptable man/boy “love” in several cultures. So, your point does not make sense in light of the rest of what you wrote.

    11. Why would you use your child to bolster your argument? As a parent, you have a duty to your child. One of your duties is to make sure you inform him of the stories about the existence of God and also of your opinion regarding the existence of God. Of course, your child is not you and he is entitled to make his own decisions; whether or not you believe he can. I certainly hope you’ve brought him to Church and let him listen to the music and the word of God. Whether you think he is in touch with the world or not, you have a duty to make sure he has other choices besides those you elect for him since he cannot do but what you choose for him. Broaden his horizons and maybe he’ll broaden yours.

    12. Maize..I find it somewhat disconcerting to have a person tell me how to live my life and how to bring up my children.

      My children do know about the many stories about the existence of God….there are many stories from many sources. They are also clear about my opinion regarding the existence of Source (God),

      I use my child who is a non verbal, brain damaged, spastic quad only to bolster my argument that “Phil, all human beings have objectively disordered inclinations.” as stated by a commentator above. My son is pure and cannot possibly have “objectively disordered inclinations.” In fact he has no inclinations.

      No, I would not take him back to Church:
      1. Father refuses to put in a wheelchair ramp because it would architecturally unpleasant (aesthetics, you know).
      2. There is no pew cut out and since his body is like an ironing board, I would have to place him in the main aisle and people stare.
      3. He has gelastic seizures which are marked by uncontrolled laughter which is not appreciated by the congregants and they give him mean looks.
      4. He is incontinent and there is no changing area in the Church….can’t have him sit in a wet diaper through a service.
      5. His portable suction machine bothers people when I clear his mucous which he can’t process.
      Thank you for the advice about bringing him to Church…no one wants hom there! Well, mostly no one,,,,there have been some kind souls along the journey.

    13. Your post is wrong in so many ways. First, you say “By the simple fact that a religious sect considers a gay or lesbian, etc. to have an inclination which is objectively disordered is a judgement and condemnation of the person, whether he/she acts upon his/her inclination”

      No, it is not condemnation. YOU choose to intepret it that way, and YOU do so because you want to be offended. In fact, many things are considered disordered in Catholic moral theology. You completely miss the fact that gay people are NOT considered :intrinsically disordered” . Gay sex acts are. This is a huge difference and basically undercuts your whole argument. When arguing with the Catholic church, you have to get it right. You can’t argue against a straw man that you set up.

      Gay sex can accurately be described as “intrinsically disordered” just as sex outside of marriage is intrinsically disordered. That is not what sex is for – it is for use within the marital partnership. Anytime it is not, it is disordered, that is not being used for the things it was created for.

      Unfortunately, the terms of art used by the Church are quite different than the use of the word “disordered” that is most used in today’s world. ‘Today, in common use, when the word “disordered” is heard, people think of the therapeutical sense – in other words – messed up.

      Furthermore, there is a big push in the media now to pretend that science has determined that gayness is defined at birth and is immutable. Serious scientists know that this is not the case.

      “There is no biological, genetic, psychological, medical or psychiatric evidence that this inclination is “objectively disordered.”

      That statement is nonsense. The CDC reports that gay men have multiple diseases and difficulties that flow from the gay lifestyle. All sorts of diseases, including anal cancer, are caused by certain practices. Alcoholism is rife in the gay community. We know that many gay men have stupendous numbers of sexual partners, almost always in a near anonymous situation. This leads to the spread of diseases How quickly we forget that massive amounts of anonymous sex lead to the AIDS crisis. It was reported recently that scientists were on the verge of finding a cure for AIDS. The response from many in the gay community? Hooray, we can go back to having as much anonymous sex as we want.
      There are well used apps for the smartphone that allow gay men to find anonymous s partners. Although this type of libertinism occurs on the straight side of things, we know that the rates of such activity are astronomical in the gay community compared to the straight community. We know that those in gay marriages often start out monogamous, but then after a couple of years at least one partner decides that he wants to continue having sexual liaisons outside the marriage, and many gay marriages make agreements for that very situation.

    14. First, I was adamant about nothing.

      But this is to be expected. I point out facts and then I get called “homophobic” Unfortunately, it just reveals the somewhat totalitarian nature of the movement. “If we cannot argue rationally with you, we will try to destroy your reputation” seems to be the main tactic. .

      You link to an article at the CDC hat is not scientific at all, but is political. Because the CDC has to tell the facts about the science of gay men’s health, they have been criticized by gay advocates. So, they had to post this fluff about discrimination as a sop. The stuff I talked about was their scientific findings, not an article put out there to try and calm activists. The CDC, of course has no credibility except to the extent they report on science. When they try to talk about political matters such as the existence or nonexistence of discrimination and what we should do about it, that is politics.

      I notice that you did not deny anything at all about their scientific findings on gay men’s health. The question you have to ask yourself is, “Am I in fact killing gay men by uncritically accepting their lifestyle?”

    15. I do not deny data…but I consciously choose not to impose my beliefs on the lives or lifestyles of consenting adults.

      I believe as Hitch states: “The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.

    16. There is no such term as homophobic in the DSM so stop using it as an insult towards people who disagree with you.

    17. Maize…the Oxford Dictionary defines homophobia as “Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people”…my choice of the word is very appropriate.
      You are right that homophobia is not in the DSM-5, but then again neither is classissm, racism, ableism, sexism. misogyny, etc. Those are cultural, anthropological, sociological classifications of behavior.
      None of those words are insults, merely descriptions of human behavior which anyone can agree or disagree with.

    18. Phil, I am a Judge for the Kentucky circuit court system and a devout Catholic, should I resign because I’m both a Catholic and a judge? Catholics can indeed judge behaviors and actions, but not individuals. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I’ll repeat, hate the sin, love the sinner. End of story.

    19. Just as long as your Catholic beliefs and Catholic assumptions about people and/or their behavior do not conflict or guide the application of civil or criminal law, then you have no reason to question resignation. The legal rights of people are constitutionally protected and your job, despite your religious beliefs, is to enforce the laws despite the fact they maybe contrary to Catholic teaching.

    20. Boy are you a hypocrite! Your judgments are based on nothing but your own prejudice and not on a rational, reasoned basis.
      You assume to judge from your self-imposed superior position of authority which is utterly bereft of fact, science, philosophy and common sense.
      Maybe you see yourself as a primate, I do not. Humans are as obviously different from apes as dogs are from insects.
      Most of your argument has no basis in science; it’s just your opinion.
      Heterosexuality is normal human sexual behavior.
      Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm and is therefore abnormal. That is not a judgment of condemnation, it is a statement of fact. Intrinsically disordered is a different way of saying the same thing.
      The terms homosexual and gay connote quite different ideas just as do the connotation heterosexual and “straight” (a term “gays” labeled normal people with.) Definitions of words actually matter in one is to be clear in expressing his/her ideas.
      Let’s consider that “label” for a moment and the judgment laden connotations foisted on society with it by our “gay” brethren. Straight connotes unbending, stringent, unmoving, strict, rigid, undeterable–very negative and a very deliberate label made to insult their fellow man while pretending, deceitfully, not to.
      Celibacy means celibacy.
      You don’t judge people? That’s a lie. You just did it in your rant.
      One cannot function or choose a friend, discipline a child, vote for a representative unless one makes a determination as to whether or not that person’s conduct is right, wrong, mean, nasty, cruel, inhuman, manipulative, nice, thoughtful, deceitful etc.–so stop with the holier than thou attitude.
      Decriminalizing sodomy did not elevate that consensual sexual conduct to Marriage. It made it on a par with other legal sexual consensual activities like orgies, swinging, adultery, voyeuristically viewing pornography.

      Everyone is free to judge any one based on their conduct. After all, wasn’t that one of the pleas made during the Civil Rights Movement by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.–a Christian Preacher–“I have a dream that one day my children will be JUDGED on the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”

    21. Maize…oh! Merrian-Webster defines a hypocrite as …” a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs.” My behavior is consistent with my beliefs … I reject no one from friendship because of their sexual orientation. I do not condemn the behaviors of other fellow people on this journey who are different from me nor do I label their difference a sin. I believe, as do most Catholics (research bears it out) that homosexuality and gay marriage are not sins but I do not believe that establishment Catholics are sinners because they reject this belief. Also in your lengthy response to something,you very much confuse homosexuality which is not a choice (even the most conservative Catholic doctrine does not define gender orientation as choice but does frown upon acting on that orientation) with transgender or transsexual issues or even transvestite issues. Trans… not the same as homosexual (gay and lesbian).

    1. To finish this thought one must assign hypocrisy as the log which means removing it is ones understanding of a particular sin which relegates the speck to something less significant.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: