Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

German Jesuit Says Catholic Church Should Fight for Homosexuality as a Human Right

Fr. Klaus Mertes

On 25 May 2015, the official website of the German bishops,, reported on an interview given by the notable German Jesuit, Father Klaus Mertes. In his interview, originally given to the German newspaper, taz, Mertes claims that it took the Catholic Church in the West 200 years to get “where we are now” with regard to the question of homosexuality. He continues: “In Africa or South East Asia, people are still at a very different point. The fight for the rights of the homosexuals is a world-wide project for which it is thus worth remaining in the Church.” In order to make the way free to a new assessment of homosexuality, Mertes proposes that the Magisterium “reflect upon sexual morality in light of charity, and not in light of a notion of nature which considers the marital act in an isolated way, without taking into account the different [sic]  contexts.” In his eyes, Catholic sexual morality “is stuck in a fixation.”

This is an argument that was to be found repeatedly, if less explicitly, during the recent discussions surrounding the synods on marriage and the family, namely: to separate the marital act from its procreative aspect. If the marital act is not morally bound to the procreation of new life, homosexuality, so some think, could more easily come to be considered not really sinful. For example, the well-known German theologian Stephan Goertz proposed in 2015:

In biblical times, says the theologian [Goertz], “procreation was the first God-given purpose of sexuality.” At that time, “sexuality had as its first purpose to secure the survival of the people”; however, “that is obviously not any more our situation, and that, since the [Second Vatican]  Council, it has also not been any more our own moral teaching on sexuality.”

Returning to Father Mertes, it is important to note that he also explicitly proposes the idea that the Catholic Church now “truly take seriously the matter of homosexuality in light of the question of human rights.” He continues: “She [the Church]  should make use of her world-wide influence so that the most elementary rights of homosexuals would be secured everywhere….” Mertes is “indignant that the Church is so quiet in this matter [of homosexuality], while she, more fortunately, raises her own voice on other topics that defend certain fundamental human rights.” The German Jesuit also shows sympathy for those homosexuals who leave the Church because she has not changed her attitude toward them fast enough: “I have respect for that, when homosexual persons say that and, therefore, come to leave the Church,” he adds. Mertes is also very happy that in Ireland, finally, “after a decade-long fight” there now takes place (with the legal approval of same-sex “marriages”) “an opening up to the rights of the homosexuals. That is the only way it works [sic]. Processes have to take place from within, only then are they sustainably effective.”

These last words of Father Mertes likewise remind us very much of the Gramscian methods of changing a culture from within, as Catholic journalist Edward Pentin also recently quoted one Church official as saying. I referenced this comparison in April when citing a report from Pentin on the application of Amoris Laetitia:

“It’s very Gramscian,” said one Church philosophy scholar, referring to the 20th-century Italian Marxist who advocated spreading Communist ideology [and “cultural hegemony”]  through cultural infiltration. “The defiance of traditional orthopraxy is also an attack on orthodoxy, for every principled change of practice necessarily entails a change in principles.”

It would appear that comments such as those made by Fr. Mertes (and Stephan Goertz) are increasing in number, with no correction in sight from the Catholic hierarchy.

179 thoughts on “German Jesuit Says Catholic Church Should Fight for Homosexuality as a Human Right”

  1. The same Jesuit who went to the press with information which uncovered years of abuse perpetrated by homosexual Jesuits is now asking us to accept the normilization of homosexuality. And this man expects us to believe that he genuinely cares for the victims of that abuse? What, by becoming a spokesman for the acceptance of the very perversion which ruined so many innocent lives? Words fail me.

    • What better way to destroy the family then to kill the relationship of husband and wife. Hence, one of the mainstays of communism. It is no surprise to learn that Harry Hay, founder of the modern “gay rights” movement, was a member of the Communist Party USA and that the FBI maintained a file on him. Hay was also a vocal supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, known as NAMBLA. But homosexuals constantly tell us there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is one hugh lie!

      And that of course, has been proven to be false. Too much research now reveals a very real connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. We see in Germany the push for adult/ child sex to be legalized. The nincompoop Jesuit above, is only telling us that they as men refuse to grow up and be mature men, hence, they have a right to remain both immature and to dance with demonic forces. Face it, some dude swishing his body part into another dude’s fecal matter is anything but’s downright degrading, disgusting and often deadly.

      To abuse children this way falls right in line with Islime thinking..and we know how Francis plays warm and fuzzy with mad moes. This entire push for homosexuality as well as adult/child sex is monstrous in its implications. Not just for destroying the family and using/abusing children. But when you know the other salient fact, it gets even more disturbing.

      And that is, although homos only comprise at max, 10% of the population, it is a whopping 47% of serial killers who are in fact gay!! That in itself informs me that this push by any clergy, for gayness or kiddie sex, is demonic at core. It also tells me that birth control when necessary appears to be angelic when compared to serial killing, rape of children, sodomy of sadist seeking sickos. There is no way one can even compare marital birth control to serial killing.

      • If you knew a loved one you would be more careful with your assertions. Their is a big difference between pedophilia and Ephebophilia. With homosexuals actually being less than 3 percent of the poulation the amount of males with pedophilia is high in heterosexual men that are married as well. Not all men with same sex attraction are perverts and I think if you looked at the Courage ministry site you were be carful how you judge and lump all of them together. It is a sad disorder. If you had a son that was confused about his sexuality would you like him to be considered automatically that he might be a pedophile because he has same sex attraction? Even the priesthood has a small amount of men in the whole of the population. We have a problem with straight people accepting this disorder and enabling young people to fall into this trap because of their own sexual sinful life as well.
        This Jesuit is an evil man and he probably has the problem of homosexuality himself. But don’t lump all of them together that is wrong. The homosexual activists are not all pedophiles either. David Morrison in his book Beyond Gay was an activists and left that lifestyle because he found the truth. He lived with a grown man. Just remember although some of your assertions might be correct with some homosexuals, just like perversion can be with straight people, you are talking about human beings that need help, not hate. As far as this priest he should be thrown out because he is going to confuse innocent young men with same sex attraction and he knows the truth, but refuses to follow it.

        God help us!

        • “…not all men with same sex attraction are perverts…”

          Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

          Same sex attraction is always perversion. It is a perversion of God’s plan and design.

          • No it is a disorder. Unless they act on it, you can’t call them perverted. Even a man who isn’t Ssa can be oversexed and that would be out of the order that God created for us. You are judging the person, instead of the action. That is not what a Catholic is supposed to do. Thoughts are different than actions. We all can have disorderd thoughts that are not right. Some worse than others. This is a heavy cross that they carry and if they are trying to refrain from action, and are trying a holy life, or a life without practicing, who are you to judge them as perverts? That is wrong and it is sinful.
            God help us!

          • For a man or a woman to want to have sex with another of the same sex is a serious disorder. Are not our thoughts who we are?

          • It is a serous disorder in the sexual area, but we are not all about our sexual desires. So for example if I constantly thought about something then that would affect me more, but people are complex, so their are many facets to the human person. Addictions can produce poor behavior. But would you lump all people with same sex attraction the same? Some are more permiscious than others dependending on thier looks or their situation. Their is not one person the same on the planet, so some disorders will vary in different degrees. Some people may never act out their desires. If I have depressed thoughts is that who I am? Do people mature? When you were younger did you think differently? Can we change?

            God help us!

          • With God all things are possible.
            When I look at a person, a human being, that is what i see; a human being, a child of God. I do not see a homo or heterosexual person.
            To struggle with a sexual perversion is a cross. One should never adapt to what goes against God’s will, but renounce the affliction.

            Some are very lost unfortunately. Their “adaption” to this specific cross of homosexuality lessens their ability to live authentically as Christ calls us to. Yes, disorders of are in various degrees. But the disorder of sexual perversion is a very serious one as it is embedded within the very fabric, the soul, the identity of the human being. A society cannot survive under God’s law, and neither really can a soul, by accepting that there are varying degrees of this perversion; unless it does not believe it is a perversion. You cannot equate disorders and their consequences upon the soul. Some are far worse than others.

          • The Catholic Church defines homosexual behavior as an “intrinsic disorder”. However the Catholic Magisterium differentiates between a homosexual inclination (thought) and a homosexual act – therefore “love the sinner but not the sin”.

          • You are calling the disorder sexual perversion, it is not called that, because that is an action, unless the person acts out of their same sex attraction then their thoughts are confused, but they are not a pervert. That was my point. Go to the courage site and see what the church teaches. Let say some have more control over their temptations, which that is what it is. It is a serious temptation, but you cannot call a person that has this temptation a pervert. That is taking the dignity of this person away. Their are many thoughts a person can have that are considered evil, those are thoughts, not the person and if he doesn’t act out on every thought that could vary in his thinking, some worse than others where I said different degree, then you can’t judge a person’s thoughts, only the action for their behavior and certainly not their soul. Their is help and the is the only true ministry approved by the Catholic church that Cardinal Cooke started. If we start looking at them as lost souls that need help instead of labelling them all perverts then we give them the dignity of being a human being in the likeness and image of God. They are confused, and we have to be careful, not to be their judge, that is God’s job. God help us!

          • I do not label them as perverts. But the thought is a serious perversion and the action is a serious mortal sin.

          • That is correct. The devil tempts them with these perverted thoughts because he has known their weaknesses that brought them to that place since they were little boys. Pray for them. God help us!

  2. “In biblical times, says the theologian [Goertz], “procreation was the first God-given purpose of sexuality.” At that time, “sexuality had as its first purpose to secure the survival of the people”; however, “that is obviously not any more our situation, and that, since the [Second Vatican] Council, it has also not been any more our own moral teaching on sexuality.””


    There are some couples

    O, so nice

    As nice, as nice

    Can be.

    They have their weddings

    Roses, rice

    And plan forever





    No more.

    They know the latest

    Things to do

    That pleasure their skins

    And pore.

    “What need for seeds

    And eggs take space

    We desire to be

    In lust –

    Our lives are erotic

    Never neurotic

    In cholesterol-free

    We trust.”

    Some of these couples

    Are Bob and Rick,

    Some are Michael

    And Sue,

    No matter their genders

    Each has his trick

    Of blending secretions

    Like stew.

    Much money they’ll save

    On themselves these few

    From their vows ’til their graves

    They’ll live well…

    But because their INTENT

    Was a-party-of-two…

    Alone they’ll be seated

    In Hell!

  3. We’re supposed to populate Heaven, but it can’t happen when you practice SODOMY! DUH!

    I guess this Jesuit is pushing The Culture of Death. Well, what will Pope Francis do about this guy? Oh, I forgot he’s too busy with global warming!

      • In fact, the Vatican rewarded one Cardinal Law of Boston for shuffling pedo priests all around New England for decades. As well, the church paid hush money to parents not to sue or expose their network of pedos. I moved to Boston in 1988 and it was then that the fit hit the shan in Boston. I collected every Boston Globe article that came out…100’s of them outlining this vast sacrilegious and heinous crime which the old boy network happened to protect for eons. Why anyone would want to stay with that is beyond me. I thank God for the outstanding crap detector he gave worked fantastic and I didn’t need to have any clergy to tell me that I have a right to a one way conversation with God my father.

        • Sodomy is rampant in the CC and to date no Pope or member of the Hierarchy has confronted these crimes carried out by deviant priests and their enabling Bishops/Cardinals which is the greatest of all scandals. It is no wonder they cannot preach about sin anymore as they are, themselves, up to their eyes in muck.

          One must remember though, that Modernism is everywhere and as a consequence so is sodomy, contraception, abortion, divorced & remarried & cohabiting couples. Other religions and likewise infidels are similarly affected as society at large has turned away from God, Our Creator.

          • The vast vast majority of cases were from the 70’s and early 80’s. The error was in heeding the secular wisdom, such as it is, as well as civil law (or lack thereof) that thought such deviance was capable of being fixed with rehabilitation. This was, in hindsight obviously foolish and also ignored hard learned lessons from a thousand years ago, specifically that which St. Peter Damian brought to the attention of Pope St. Leo IX (at which case discipline became much stricter).

          • Buggery has always been a crime and when it was occurring in such numbers, and principally against children, why were these men not turned over to the police? It was a face-saving exercise that has done untold damage to the CC, shamed us all and squandered billions of dollars in compensation claims. The CC has lost credibility big time.

  4. So, one would assume Fr. Mertes is a homosexual priest being “brave” and speaking for the lot of them. Just what we need — the clerical audacity coupled with the [formerly hidden] lifestyle. I’d always wondered why the Book of Revelation called the “Bride” the Whore of Babylon. Getting clearer. Looks like we’re looking at the fulfillment of it all before our eyes.

  5. In the original German article does Fr. Mertes actually say what precisely he is proposing as opposed to “should now take seriously,” “open up,” “new assessment,” “processes have to take place,” etc.? I mean is it now okay for one man to bonk another or not? Can they do it outside of “gay marriage”? If so, can men and women now bonk each other outside of marriage? I dislike the vagueness and slipperiness of these people.

    • I have just read an article about a Spanish bishop whom so called LGBT groups intend to sue for homophobia, which means the upholding of Church teaching. For them calling sin sin is mental illness and hate crime. I would not be surprised at all, if the highest levels of hierarchy denounced him as a judgemental, anti-unity and anti-inclusion hater. Hasn’t Jorge Bergoglio insisted on including the paragraph about the gifts that homosexuals bring to the Church, after it was rejected by synod Fathers?

      • Political correctness has ruined the world. Time to call a spade a spade and sodomy sodomy. If the LGBT Community don’t like it – tough. God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah for the very reasons being discussed here. Their ruins have been discovered by archaeologists southeast of the Dead Sea and are in keeping with biblical accounts.

        • What do you mean? I thought PC was designed by the most noble minds for betterment of humanity via language. We now have language events instead of synods. How brilliant! When we change, we say: We are not changing! When we sin, we say: We are expressing and celebrating diversity!

          We have become co-creators of the world. Everything is simply called into existence via our PC words. When I am a girl, I am boy! I am gender fluid! I am a-gender!

          I can be anything I want to be! I can do anything! All I need is for the useful idiots or cowards out there to practice progressivism with me. When reluctant, we have activist judges and their powers to fine and jail them, the traditionalists.

          Ana, when I first volunteered in my daughter’s classroom – 20 years ago! – and I heard from teachers, how anyone could be anyone they wanted to be, I expressed concern: This is not true, there are some limits on what we can be, the wise teacher’s task is to help a person become the best they can be within their gifts and limitations.

          Needless to say, I was treated like one without spiritual sophistication but “negative energy” instead, in no time at all.

          When years later I was a student at Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies (little did I know enrolling that it was an advocacy group embedded in a university, a group not interested in pursuing knowledge and truth, but with a well defined agenda from a get-go), and I heard the same said to people without an ability to walk, talk, lift an arm – You can be whatever you want to be! – I knew our civilization was now in fast decline. Being severely disabled was now a reason for celebration. I knew this was madness, and asked: Why do people expecting a child say: I am fine so long as the baby is born healthy – ? Oh, it is discrimination and bias! A few students had the courage later to agree with me, but not in front of the class.

          Whenever I tried to be real, I was shut down. At one point I said: “All of you, you think me morally deficient for daring to register reality” – not one person disagreed.

          We ought to love everyone, but discriminating between what is desirable and what is not, what is healthy and what is not, doesn’t point to moral deficiency. Quite the opposite.

          • We have all come up against this type of discrimination (even by priests) but shouldn’t allow ourselves to be intimidated by it. It is the perpetrators who are morally deluded. What about our “dual papacy”? If this isn’t delusion I don’t know what is! I never thought I’d live in such times – a Pontiff taking part in Commemorations of the Protestant Revolt & to express the gifts of the Reformation; and Pope Emeritus Benedict abandoning his flock but explaining he only half abandoned us as he has “extended” the papacy which means we have two in one papacy. It’s like the saying – “pay for one and get one free”. Hallelujah!

  6. No correction or condemnation of this heresy is possible from the “hierarchy” since they are not Catholic…nor is their “church.” They are damnable apostates and heretics and will burn in the everlasting fire. Modernists view “religion” particularly the new Judeo-Masonic-Marxist religion they institutionalized following their Vatican II “council,” having value only in so far as their effectiveness in contributing to the Satanic agenda for Man, hence this quote from the article, “The fight for the rights of the homosexuals is a world-wide project for which it is thus worth remaining in the Church.” Understand what is being said.

    • A precedent was set in December 2011 by one Feminist freak, Shrillary Clinton.

      Sec. Clinton To UN: ‘Gay Rights Are Human Rights, And Human Rights Are Gay Rights’
      Thus we see she is on the same page with bama and the pope in their quest to push for communism and their vaunted NWO…first destroy the family!

  7. Forgive me, I must ask: Does this Jesuit know, what semen might be for? Farther down this line of questioning – what the purpose of life is? Is it to experience pleasures, no matter how unnatural and nauseating? Maybe it is to seek those lowly pleasures privately while officially pursuing justice via state-enforced wealth redistribution in opposition to Christian charity? These Jesuits are so one-dimensional and materialistic, lacking in spiritual discernment. They are seeking sameness and unnatural equality where God intended none.

  8. It’s pretty clear that these guys don’t actually believe in God. They aren’t even trying to hide their atheism, really. They get a check and free housing with no responsibilities or (known) families to care for. That’s the real reason they won’t just follow their (lack of) beliefs and leave the Church.

    • A good share of clergy I knew over 50 years fits your description…”They get a check and free housing with no responsibilities or (known) families to care for.”
      I recall waiting in the lobby of a rectory for a priest. While waiting, two younger priests were in the hallway hollering at each other…”when Mrs Smith dies, I get her money”..and the other retorting, “Like hell you do, I get her money”. So we see this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, but it surely has much to do with men looking for an easy path via leeching off other men’s earnings!

      • I can muster but little pity for such men; however, I truly pity those priests whom actually believe the lies of Roman Catholicism and have devoted their lives to that abomination.

        • Spot on Gerald….one asks how/why so many priests knowing of other priests doing evil, could remain mum and pretend nothing is wrong. If nothing else, what godly man would not go ape knowing that a child was being so abused…and that could end in the child eventually committing suicide, or ending up a homo and pedo. But then the old boys network is alive and well in many sectors..from doctors to lawyers to bankers, politicians, et al.

  9. Demonic forces continue to disrupt the born again Catholics with guys like this fraud purporting to be a TOLERANT CHRISTIAN. Give us a break The Church is becoming more and more a group of socialist cultural flacks. And this Pope seems bent on making the Church a group of Hollywood cut ups instead of spreaders of the saving Gospel of Jesus.

  10. There will come a time in the very near future when governments force their people to bend knees to this godless, amoral, human-centric gender based sexual ethos, exacting retribution upon those who resist. And when faithful Christians refuse to kneel to Baal, they will be persecuted with increasing severity and hate.

    And they will be alone, so alone, because their visible Church (but not their Mother), their only meaningful friend, will have abandoned them. The Catholic Church will instead be stoking the flames of anger by applying Her moral credibility to “queer theory” metaphysics. Church and State will finally be merged again, in ways unexpected, Cardinal and Congressman, in a fearful alliance against those poor, lonely martyrs of the future who dare resist the onslaught of the Beast.

    Clarity is becoming very difficult, these days, because there are so few; so VERY few, who speak and live Truth.

  11. It would appear that comments such as those made by Fr. Mertes (and Stephan Goertz) are increasing in number, with no correction in sight from the Catholic hierarchy.

    It would be foolish to expect correction from the current hierarchy when they are so mired in this agenda. I have given up on the Pope and all his cronies. I do not expect to hear the good, the true and the beautiful from them. When one sells out to the prince of this world, it becomes harder and harder to follow the teachings of God and that is a simple fact.

  12. I think we should expect much more of this orchestrated “courageous” speaking out until such thinking is normalized. Given the very worldly mentality of most Western Catholics today this process should not take long. God has to be losing his patience.

  13. Another satanic heretic masquerading as a Priest of God….

    The Horizontal, Humanistic, Dogmatic Free, manipulated or Evolved, Presumptuous Church of Man, Dialoguing with The World.

    • Some day [may it be soon] you and others will come to see that it all started while apostle Paul was alive:

      ” Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-32)
      and later:
      “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.” (2 Timothy 1:15)

  14. A society and civilization where the ideas of men like Klaus Mertes are not rebuked or corrected by the Church hierarchy – does such a civilization have a future? And what kind of future does such a Church have? How long will we be a the mercy of mischievous prelates like Bergoglio, Kasper, Marx, and others like them?

  15. Orientation is no less immutable than is the color of eyes, hair, or height and thus discrimination against such is as onerous as that against color, creed, or national origin.

      • Under protections of religious liberty, there’s no question the Church (or any church) enjoys a wide berth in matters of employment and operational policy. And though while the Church is clearly free to define doctrine as she wishes, she (nor any other church) may infringe upon fundamental civil or constitutional protections in the United States.

        • Yawn. Who is disputing the latter? I would point out that those protections are so fundamental that they were discovered only last year and by a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court. They are eminently disputable, okay?

          • That case was based on a so-called anti-miscegenation law. Being such a renowned biologist and all, you know what “miscegenation” is, of course.

            The 1924 Virginia statute overturned by Loving forbade the licensing of marriage for interracial couples precisely because interracial sex of the heterosexual sort is not sterile. Procreation is at least possible in such unions, which is why they fell under the marriage laws of Virginia, which ostensibly had always had great deal to do with childrearing. The invidious racism of such laws does not mean they were illogical. Such cannot be said of the relevance of Loving to a state’s licensing homosexual unions, which are sterile by definition, as “marriages.”

            In Loving, the Court properly applied the constitutional guarantees of equal protection to interracial unions. In Obergefell, on the other hand, the Court did not even attempt to do that.

          • Whew.

            By that logic, thank God the Lovings were still within childbearing age.

            Equal Protection is: Equal. Protection.

          • Wrong. “Equal protection of the law” means equal protection to individuals equally situated. Two men are plainly not equally situated compared with a man and a woman with respect to procreation.

            The bogus “equal protection” for homosexuals of Obergefell follows the Court’s redefinition of the word marriage. It is not a premise but a conclusion derived from non-constitutional, indeed entirely non-legal, premises as to what the word means.

          • Interracial marriage was legal in most states prior to LOVING and had always gone on for centuries. The Catholic Church never even considered “mixed marriages” anything special.

    • “Orientation” does not require acting on it any more than any other state of temptation does. A person allegedly homosexually oriented does not live in a constant state of sexual arousal toward members of his own gender. He is not a salmon swimming suicidally upstream or a deer in rutting season. He is, nearly always, a rational creature—a “rational animal” per St. Thomas—who knows exactly what he is doing when he chooses to engage in homosexual acts; more importantly, he has recourse to the same spiritual resources as any other sinner does in choosing to decline the impulse.

      The comparison of “orientation” to objective, genetically determined phenotypes like hair and eye color and height is particularly obtuse. Orientation is hopelessly vague and is neither a phenotype nor a genotype. It is not objective in the sense that disinterested observers could reliably describe it. Right now, in my opinion, it is no more than a declaration on the part of the one supposedly so oriented.

      • Not really.

        Give this peer-reviewed research a quick read and get back to me:

        AR Sanders “Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation.” Psychological Medicine. May 2015. Volume 45. Issue 7.

        • Sorry. That sort of laughable handwaving doesn’t work. (As if I could just go out right now and lay my hand on the article in question!) “Peer-reviewed research” into homosexuality is a one-way street and has been for more than 40 years now. Surely you understand that much? Still, the weasel phrase “significant linkage” tells me all that I need to know about this so-called research: another country heard from. But do go ahead: cite the relevant passages.

          No genetic basis to homosexual behavior has ever been established. The attempt to shift the ground to something as reliably plastic and meaningless to the interests of theology and church teaching as “orientation,” a sort of cognitive twilight when all cats are gray, is contemptible.

          The Church’s teaching on all subjects is oriented toward the salvation of souls, not pseudo-scholarly polemical woolgathering.

          • And that is about what I expected.

            Make your own arguments, okay? You have fooled precisely one person, yourself, if you imagine that by merely referring to some article or another you have done anything more than take up space on the page.

          • Will you please stop holding everyone in suspense? Make your argument. I would also like you to make known even one “cogent analysis” you have presented here, just one. Where is it? The statement that “Orientation is no less immutable than is the color of eyes, hair, or height” is not an analysis. It is simply an assertion. Referring to another’s work is not an analysis, cogent or otherwise, but mere misdirected bluff and bluster.

          • Thanks for demonstrating that, from the beginning, you have nothing remotely useful to add, otherwise you would have been content to act continually as something more than a ventriloquist’s dummy.

          • He’s eating your arguments for lunch, and the best you have is phoned-in scorn? Come now. We expect our opposition here to at least muster the pretense of intelligent rebuttal.

          • Studies don’t equate to arguments. At best, they represent data points. Data points that can be used, potentially, to substantiate a persuasive argument. But studies are manipulated all the time and often represent inconclusive results as facts.

            You are trying to refute an ontological argument with clear-cut parameters by presenting questionable research data the ideological bias of which has yet to be determined.

            Nothing you have presented changes the fact that sex is biologically ordered to procreation. A man having sex with another man is no more engaged in a natural interaction than a man having sex with a truck.

            (EDIT: earlier version was done on my phone. Had some autocorrect issues at the end, there.)

          • No, studies substantiate points within arguments.

            The self-policing within research falls within the purview of peer-review. Those outside the discipline of research have little appreciation for the term.

            Not one person can cite one study to counter my point. I can likewise delve into the science of anthropology, however that too would lend itself down the well-worn road of futility.

            Yet again we’re stuck in this deliberate, primordial ooze of willful ignorance and bigoted sanctimony.

          • One of my close friends reviews studies like this for a living. He is an ethics director for a major medical organization.

            He complains ALL THE TIME about the pure bias that is inserted in studies, many of which are funded by the very people who have the most to benefit from their reaching a certain conclusion. And of course, funding reigns supreme when it comes to this kind of research. What geneticist is going to risk ever getting another grant to do anything by promoting a line of scientific inquiry by attempting to prove something that is even now being codified into a system of hate laws to even question?

            But fortunately for logic, your point fails before we even reach the level of evidentiary considerations. It’s not about who has the better study, it’s about the well-established parameters of biological processes.

            A man who has Pica has a DSM-IV classified mental disorder. There is no research yet that suggests “baby, you’re born that way”, but it’s safe to assume that if Pica ever came a third-rail in our politically correct society, such a study would be funded. There are, however, studies that indicate a higher per capita prevalence of Pica than, say, homosexuality. Classifications differ, so there’s a range – somewhere between 8% and 65% of the population allegedly suffers from this to some degree.

            But the question of why Pica is a mental disorder can be answered simply: because it is an appetite for non-nutritious substances which, for obvious reasons, can cause serious physical harm.

            Biology dictates that eating is ordered to nutrition. When we eat things that are not food, it is thus a disorder. When we choose to eat more food than we need (or less) to the detriment of our health, it is a disorder.

            Biology dictates that sex is ordered to procreation. Its processes and even the organs involved demonstrate design and purpose to that end. Any child on a farm can tell you that sex, as found in nature, equals babies. Keeping morality out of the equation for the time being, evolutionary biologists argue that the pleasure sensations associated with sex (not entirely different than those associated with eating) have evolved to ensure the continuation of the species. If food didn’t taste good, we might just starve. If sex didn’t feel good, we’d never have children. End of line.

            Just as abusing the nutritive instinct is a mental disorder, so is abusing the sexual instinct. We recognize this easily enough in so-called “sexaholics,” who damage their lives, careers, and relationships in an all-consuming pursuit of sex.

            So why do we pretend not to notice that homosexuality is, without question, a disorder? Why do we not look at the health risks associated with (particularly male) sexual behavior? Gays die younger, on average, than smokers, living a lifestyle that reduces their life expectancy by, in some cases, 20 or more years. The CDC reports that gay men are more likely to contract AIDS by a factor of 50 or 60 times. Members of the gay community are also far more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Homosexual pedophiles are responsible for a disproportionately high number of child sex offenses – with some studies indicating that they molest children 10 times more frequently than do heterosexuals.

            None of this even addresses the physical damage that nobody wants to talk about. The various other diseases from contact with fecal matter and urine, the ravages of rectal prolapse and the necessary reconstructive surgeries that follow (and the incontinence that results when these do not work), etc.

            There is nothing natural about homosexual sex. Nothing. Nature has to do with more than just “things animals sometimes do.” It has to do with “things biological processes are designed to do.” If we defined nature simply by the aberrations that can be found in biological organisms, we’d have to say that cancer is natural, or clubbed feet, or elephantiasis, and on and on, ad nauseam.

            No study, no matter how hard it tries, is going to make homosexual sex into natural sex. It will always be nothing more than a form of masturbation that is inherently unnatural and physically damaging. You’re putting things where they are not designed to go. Just because your hand fits in a blender doesn’t mean it’s a smart place for it.

            Facts are facts, and no matter how many feelings you have to the contrary, you can’t change them.

          • Quite a bit to address here. For the time being, I have only a few moments to address some, not all, of your points. God willing, I’ll return this evening to elaborate further.

            First, thank you for a thoughtful and considerate reply. Too often this subject conjures the very worst of people in their fear, prejudice, and bigotry.

            “Facts are facts, and no matter how many feelings you have to the contrary, you can’t change them.” Indeed facts are facts, and for the most part, have been precisely what I have restricted my commentary to–despite the fierce asperity of some.

            I challenge you (or anyone) to expose the bias in AR Sanders’ research.

            “Biology dictates that sex is ordered to procreation.” Procreation is not the sole element of survival. Survival relies on far more than mere fertility. Anthropological studies parallel the findings within higher vertebrates that homosexual members amplify the survival of the group. RC Kirkpatrick’s “The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior.” Current Anthropology. Volume 41, Number 3, June 2000 is only one such study that meticulously documents the findings of other studies. The research demonstrates the clear and compelling advantage homosexual members convey. Care for the sick, injured, and elderly are but only a few such examples whereby the absence of these members is to the detriment of the group’s survival.

            “Gays die younger, on average, than smokers, living a lifestyle that reduces their life expectancy by, in some cases, 20 or more years…” And while I’d prefer a citation for such data, I’ll dispense with the formalities and add that such epidemiological findings are too often the consequence of social isolation, prejudice, and violence. As marginalized members of society for millennia, the higher rates of disease, depression, addiction, and suicide should not be overly surprising–especially for a trait one had no hand in making.

            I’m not here to argue the mechanics of anyone’s sexual intercourse. I’ll say only that one chooses to engage in sexual activity, in part, to provoke or amplify sexual arousal and gratification. From time immemorial, the Church has set guidelines as to what is (and is not) acceptable sexual behavior. And throughout the world, believe it or not, cultures have various and sundry ways to achieve sexual gratification. Of course, if sexual behavior is to be confined to only that which solely functions to contribute to procreation, humans need only confine their observations to farm animals. Human sexuality is an immensely complex matter, and, one well beyond of ‘what goes where.’

            And as an aside, I find most interesting the Conservative’s acrobatic contortion of the Second Amendment to include modern automatic weapons and cop-killing ammunition yet have great difficulty in the application of Equal Protection. There is little argument as to the specificity of the Eighteenth in comparison to that of the Second. Which begs the question, WGWJH (what gun would Jesus have)?

            Homosexuality is no less of God’s design than is heterosexuality. Further, they possess no less capacity for love and fidelity; and as Americans, are no less entitled to the rights and privileges than that of any other couple. They are every bit as capable (and desirous) of reaching the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th anniversary. Heterosexuals hold no monopoly on virtue and possess no less a capacity for depravity.

            I’m afraid the weight of evidence is on my side.

          • I challenge you (or anyone) to expose the bias in AR Sanders’ research.

            What’s the point? As I said, this is not the central theme of our disagreement. As Murray pointed out in an earlier comment, sure, there is some evidence of heredity in sexual orientation, but again, that has nothing to do with whether that orientation is, in fact, a deviation/aberration/disorder.

            Procreation is not the sole element of survival.

            When you make this statement, it shows me you’ve already lost the thread. The Church predicates her teaching on homosexual acts not just on the moral tradition, but the natural law. The natural law is, not surprisingly, encoded in nature. Therefore biological processes, their ordering, and their natural ends, all matter when evaluating whether or not something is disordered. There’s simply no way to make a case, either from biology or, if you want to get philosophical, from ontology, that homosexual sex is anything but disordered. It simply has no natural end. It’s equivalent to scratching an itch. It might provide relief, but it serves no biological purpose.

            You mention a study that points to anthropological benefits, but I find these specious at the outset. There are simply no demonstrable benefits to a homosexual relationship over a heterosexual one. While I certainly don’t have time to go dig up the study and read it, if such benefits existed, they should be fairly obvious and easy for you to summarize.

            While I’d prefer a citation for such data, I’ll dispense with the formalities and add that such epidemiological findings are too often the consequence of social isolation, prejudice, and violence.

            I could provide links, but it’s boring. The data is out there if you google those stats. In some communities, gay men only live (on average) into their 40s. But really, all you have to do is talk to someone who is connected to a gay community. They’ll tell you how many friends they’ve lost. This isn’t exactly a secret.

            As marginalized members of society for millennia, the higher rates of disease, depression, addiction, and suicide should not be overly surprising–especially for a trait one had no hand in making.

            While I wouldn’t discount the role that marginalization plays, this continues to occur even in communities where homosexuality is completely accepted – for example, in Scandanavian countries, where the taboo has long since ceased to exist.

            I’m not here to argue the mechanics of anyone’s sexual intercourse.

            You should be. Normal heterosexual intercourse is within the parameters of the design of the human body. It is simply not physically damaging in the way that anal sex is. I don’t want to be gross, but the topic demands it: the delicate tissues of the rectum and anal sphincter are often severely damaged by these activities; there is also the increased risk of disease from fecal contact, etc. This isn’t unknown in the medical community, and I wouldn’t believe you if you feigned ignorance. There’s lots of data out there; here’s a couple of quickly Googled examples:



            From time immemorial, the Church has set guidelines as to what is (and is not) acceptable sexual behavior.

            This is the Church’s right and duty. You must realize you’re in an orthodox Catholic forum. You must realize this means that we believe that the Church has the authority to teach on these matters, and that such teaching is binding. That’s not something we’re going to back away from here, and establishing that authority is, of course, an entirely separate matter from the topic at hand.

            Of course, if sexual behavior is to be confined to only that which solely functions to contribute to procreation, humans need only confine their observations to farm animals. Human sexuality is an immensely complex matter and one well beyond of ‘what goes where.’

            But this is what I’m arguing: that licit sexual behavior, if it is to fit within the confines of natural law, must be confined to those acts which are capable, under the correct conditions, of accomplishing procreation. This isn’t new, and I’m not going to waste space on it here. Read Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae if you want to see the arguments that have already been established on this topic.

            I will say that the very complexity of human sexuality deals with its capacity to create life; it is only in the context of life-giving love that human sexuality reaches its fullness, and it is through openness to this dimension that it retains its moral character and liceity.

            Gays are no less entitled to share in the love and fidelity as any other couple.

            Love is not an entitlement. Marriage is not an entitlement. These things are not rights, they are privileges and pleasures that all men and women are able to partake in. But marriage was, is, and always will be a covenantal relationship between one man, one woman, and God. Nothing can ever change that. No law, no movement, no nothing. It’s as futile as protesting gravity.

            Homosexual relationships will similarly always violate the natural order. Like eating rocks and broken glass, they may bring some perverse pleasure to the person who commits these acts, but there is no way to argue that such acts are natural. They are disordered, and thus those who participate in them suffer <from a disorder.

            Of course, we all know that monogamy in the gay community is about as common as bigfoot and unicorns. But you seem to enjoy proposing tiny subsets of tiny subsets of the population as a rule.

            You have, I’m afraid, no evidence on your side. Only the wishful thinking and fervent desire for acceptance of someone who, I suspect, is trapped in the lifestyle. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) And as Catholics have always done, we’ll love you, but not your sins. That means telling you that you need to stop sinning.

            A far better man to do the job than me is Joseph Sciambra, who was himself very active in the homosexual community before his conversion. You can read his thoughts on the matter here:


          • I assure you, I know MANY gay couples who remain in committed relationships; occasionally of greater span than some heterosexual couples. Most have now chosen now enjoy the legal recognition of their relationship. Our Declaration made clear that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all inalienable rights; so thus, Love is indeed an entitlement.

            Heterosexuals hold no monopoly on monogamy.

            Lastly, for some time I have held the challenge to underwrite all costs for any “ex-gay” to submit to clinical phallometry to objectively evidence a “change” in orientation.

            To date: two years; no takers.

          • I assure you, I know MANY gay couples who remain in committed relationships

            But now you’ve fallen back to anecdotal evidence and away from statistics, which tell a different story.

            Lastly, for some time I have held the challenge to underwrite all costs for any “ex-gay” to submit to clinical phallometry to objectively evidence a “change” in orientation.

            That “clinical phallometry” is a real phrase is one of those rare moments of wonder.

            I suspect, however, that that those who leave the homosexual lifestyle aren’t keen to revisit it; one assumes that in order to conduct such a test, the subject would have to be exposed to sexual stimuli (most likely pornography) so that these measurements could be taken. If they are, in fact, a convert, the last thing they’re going to do is voluntarily submit to viewing pornography so that a turgidity measurement can be taken.

            It seems to me that there’s a bit of an analogy here: I’ve discovered, over the past few years, that I’m extremely gluten sensitive. I might even be celiac. In order to find this out, however, I would have to commence eating gluten so that my response to it could be measured, my blood could be drawn, a biopsy could be taken, etc. The thing is, I already know it makes me sick and and mentally impaired every time I eat it. Cramps, headaches, face flushing, digestive distress we won’t discuss, and soul-crushing depression are all common symptoms I’ve experienced.

            The thought of taking a test that only proves what I already know — and making myself feel awful in the process — is not appealing to me in the slightest.

          • Such testing is in the name of Science and certainly nothing a little dispensation and devotion of cause couldn’t fix. It’s otherwise too conveniently a skirt from which to hide behind (no pun intended).

            As one more aside, my cousin has the same allergy. Her parish priest accommodates her with a gluten-free host. Just a thought.

          • certainly nothing a little dispensation and devotion of cause couldn’t fix.

            Situational ethics is the worst. It’s how mankind has managed to go down some very dark roads. There’s a simple maxim Christians (and really, all people) are called to live by: “One may not do evil so that good may come of it.”

            As for the gluten-free thing, the only time I don’t have a problem with it is when I receive Holy Communion. I’ve decided not to be too scientific about it, and have simply accepted it as a situation of “grace overcomes nature.” Something we could apply to this whole conversation, come to think of it.

          • This was a fascinating exchange.

            I am convinced that the conclusions one reaches in life are drawn from one’s metaphysical belief structure. Details like this conversation, or any other, depend on the metaphysical argument first.

            If you believe in God, love God and are His disciple, following Him as your Creator, Redeemer, Friend, then you will imbibe deeply from His natural law and His revealed Truth through His living Bride. Understanding His will in this life will drive your every waking moment.

            If you do not; if you fundamentally believe we are random accidents, laws unto ourselves with no God to whom we are responsible or depend; evolving within an uncaring, empty universe …. Then as you say, sex to such a human being is a mere “itch that needs to be scratched”. To such a person as LWC, it is incomprehensible why “sex” should not take any form open to the human imagination. Truly, if it feels good, do it! “Don’t take my happiness away”!

            To you, sex is divinely ordered to procreation and is a dim type of Beatific Love.

            To him, sex is a method to release dopamine into the brain.

            Pretty hard to reconcile that.

          • I’m quite happy to accept that the Sanders paper is unbiased and may even be entirely correct. The problem is that it doesn’t have any bearing on the morality of same-sex behavior.

            What’s more, this is not a “gay gene”; it is a gene that (in the author’s own words) may influence the development of homosexual orientation, but note what we don’t yet know. For instance, the study is of male sibling pairs in which both are SSA. How many SSA men without an SSA sibling carry these genes? How many non-SSA men carry these genes? If these genes are also found in the non-SSA male population, what environmental factors cause SSA behavior to be manifested in some rather than others? Is this gene found in SSA women and if not, how do we account for them?

            But this is all beside the point. As I pointed out above, we discriminate in countless ways–positively and negatively, on societal, organizational, and individual scales–on the basis of behaviors that have a heritable component. The fact that a behavior is to some degree heritable is merely a brute fact. It tells us nothing about the morality of the behavior itself.

            Now, unless you want to claim–against all the evidence–that homosexuality is the only heritable behavior in existence, and therefore sui generis, you should probably drop the naive scientism, since it doesn’t have any bearing on the argument you wish to make.

          • I do not debate the question of morality, per se. As stated, the Church is free to define her doctrine as she wishes.

            Though in as much as you as you raise the question, I’ll say only that if for centuries the Church could err in matters as fundamental as cosmology (vis-à-vis geocentrism), it’s not too far a stretch to imagine she could err in matters as complicated as genetics.

          • Except that she’s not erring in genetics. As far as I know, the Church has had nothing to say on the nature/nurture interplay in the development of SSA.

          • CCC 2357: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained…”

            CCC 2358: “…[t]his inclination, which is objectively disordered…”

            An though clearly ‘passing the buck,’ CCC 2357 states “…tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts’ are intrinsically disordered.

            The Church clearly asserts a psychological basis for SSA.

            Though by comparison, CCC 2352 declares masturbation to be, “…an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”

            Almost seems the gay relationship is a misdemeanor by comparison to the felony of masturbation.

          • You’re changing the subject. What do these have to do with genetics?

            EDIT: Sorry, let me clarify. What makes you think that psychology is independent of genetics?

          • In fact, I don’t believe they are independent.

            Granted it’s yet another area where our understanding is incomplete, current evidence suggests a compelling association between genetic expression and certain behavioral and psychological dispositions (let alone psychiatric).

          • Right. We know that most or all human behaviors have a heritable (i.e. genetic) component, psychology is the study of human behavior and mind, therefore psychology is (in part) the study of heritable characteristics. On top of this, the fascinating field of behavioral genetics integrates the disciplines of biology and psychology, among others.

            So when the Church writes that the psychological basis for SSA remains largely unexplained, she is merely noting a fact.

          • Please link the actual studies, not commentary.

            Setting that aside, this statement sums it best, “‘…[i]t is unclear why our results are so discrepant from the original study,’ say the scientists in Science. This is strong language for a scientific journal, implying the scientists believe that mistakes were made in the first study.”

            The science of identifying specific genetic loci in 2015 is a tad more precise than it was in 1993, 2000, and 2002 that your articles cite.

            Lastly, the Family Research Council is an organization not overly eager to cite more recent studies.

        • From the abstract (emphasis mine):

          Conclusions: Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.

          This is actually pretty weaksauce. We’ve known for a long time that there’s some heritable component to same-sex attraction, since siblings of homosexuals are somewhat more likely to be homosexual themselves. We also know that it’s not purely genetic, since the identical twin of an SSA person is himself SSA only around 20% of the time.

          But so what? Virtually any human behavior you can name has some heritable component. We discriminate (legally and extralegally) on the basis of manifestations of heritable characteristics all the time: intelligence, future time orientation, predisposition to violence, impulsiveness, mental illness, alcoholism, athleticism, color blindness, height, disease resistance, response to medication, attractiveness and obesity, to name just a few. We also know that adopted children tend to be far more similar to their biological relatives than to their adoptive family. Homosexuality would unique indeed if it were purely environmental.

          For example, I apparently carry the 3R allele of the MAOA gene, which significantly increases the likelihood of exhibiting violent or seriously antisocial behavior given certain environmental conditions, especially during childhood. To paraphrase you, those of us with this allele can no more change it than we can our eye color, hair, or height. The presence of the 3R allele is a morally neutral characteristic. But it would be insane to suggest that we should cease discriminating against violent behavior simply because it has heritable characteristics.

          We have to make moral and ethical judgments about behavior. The fact that most (or all) behavioral characteristics have a heritable component might lead us to act compassionately towards those afflicted with certain behaviors, but we need to deal with the behaviors themselves.

    • That is not only misleading but incredibly unfair. If we turned it around to say that *your* consupience was too great for you to overcome,even with the aid of God’s grace, would that help you or hurt you?

      I personally know at least two men who have struggled with homosexual attraction and one who prevailed – having died living in chastity.

  16. The argument that the condemnation of homosexuality arose in some epoch shrouded in mystery and ignorance, that it can thus be accounted for by the necessity of “the survival of the tribe,” is so ridiculous it can be dismissed outright, sheer tendentious question begging.

    In fairness I must ask, however, when our Jesuit says “biblical times,” is he referring to the era of Australopithecus and Zinjanthropus? Homo habilis, perhaps? Seriously, even in Moses’ day the world was not an arena of animal savagery. It was not a Hobbesian state of nature or anything remotely like it. There had existed culture, science, art, and literature for a very, very, very long time before Moses. The great pyramids were erected two millennia before the Torah was composed. And was St. Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, which claimed 20-million subjects, actually living on a knife’s edge of survival in a wholly benighted hell hole of vice, fear, and ignorance? The thesis is no more than a premise impersonating a conclusion.

    There was a time in the Nineteenth Century when erudite scholars confidently described religion as primitive meteorology, as an artifact of an age when man did not know any better. Many basalt-brained atheists still think that way. The opinions of this appalling Jesuit are no more than a feeble variant on such shallow and ignorant condescension.

    • I’m most impressed with the stupidity of suggesting that modernity is more morally advanced, ostensibly because of science (and better iPhone network signal.)

      The sweetest part is “we know science and…” – But even the most cursory examination of the people that hold this shows that they don’t begin to know even the most basic fundaments of science, beginning even with what it is.

  17. I was nauseated by the lengthy dialogue below, ably started by Joe_NS and depressingly extended by LWC. Nauseated because the language used by Christians and non-Christians is so utterly incompatable; the common language necessary for profitable debate does not exist. We are screaming incomprehensibles at each other. I think it best to ignore LWC until he learns the language of a Christian and participates in good faith. Much better to evangelize those with a desire for and recollection of the language that leads to eternal life.

    And I am nauseated to realize that this same divide exists within the walls of Holy Mother Church; all the way to the top. The coming moral war is within secular society, yes; as personified by LWC. But it is also within our only ally, our best friend, our Mother, our Holy Church; as personified by Fr. Klaus Mertes. He is but the latest example on a mournfully lengthy and growing list of our faithless Hierarchy in desperately immoral times. They do not hear us because they no longer speak our language. There is just a horrifyingly deafening silence in the face of growing sacrilege in our Holy Places and in our Catholc Patrimony.

  18. We must join in prayer, fasting, and sacrifice for Fr Klaus Mertes, Stephan Goertz, and all their ilk, as they are freely choosing the path to eternal hell for their own souls, while at once assisting in the eternal disposition of hell for all who freely choose to follow their inversion of the One True Faith. They bend Reality into their own diabolically disoriented perversion of just what It indeed is. The law of non-contradiction, which holds for time eternal, is usurped by them and reshaped into their own rhetorical construction of despair, as an instrument of eternal damnation.

    They grasp “being” as God Himself Authors it and then they suggest without saying so, that they can somehow transubstantiate that very same “being” and revert it back into “non-being”, into the reality of the “ex-nihilo”, and finally reshape and remold that “non-being” then, into “becoming”, which is the essence of their satanic inversion of God’s Divine movement in His creation. They thus become “gods” themselves, defying utterly and totally the One True God, in His Three Divine Persons. They establish themselves as false gods thus, worshipping themselves in a diabolically disoriented perversion of reality which can only be understood, as in the vernacular of Ann Barnhardt, to be a diabolical narcissism, rooted in a malignant self-love, which covets all that it deems itself to possess, while never self-giving, at once utterly and eternally self-destructive and willfully destructive of any and all human persons within their grasp of influence. May Almighty God, in His Three Divine Persons, have mercy on us. In caritas.

    • Today, June 2nd, Ann Barnhardt has more on Diabolical Narcissism which is pretty much what you have described above. Basically as you say, “reshape and remold that “non-being” then, into “becoming”, which is the essence of their satanic inversion of God’s Divine movement in His creation” Satanic it is indeed.

  19. Human Rights should be protected period. Splintering this message into little groups is confusing to the faithful and makes them think that homosexual preference is being protected. Get with it and peach about Salvation, not confusion. It is still a sin to participate in that activity. Enough already. Cardinal Muller, sic’ ’em….!!!

  20. Why don’t these gay blades just start their own Church? Check that. They’ve already done it. It’s called the New Church of Nice. They even have their own Jesuit playing Pope aka “His Humbleness”

  21. Father Mertes , for the sake of his soul, should read what the Blessed Mother said to Father Stephan Gobbi on June 2, 1987 #354.
    “Precisely here, in this very place ( Seattle’s Catholic Cathedral), the Heart of Jesus has been despised, wounded, and outraged by the welcoming of so many of my poor children, consumed by this terrible vice and by the public encouragement given to them to continue along the road of impure sin against nature. Impure acts against nature are sins which cry for vengeance in the sight of God. These sins draw down upon you and upon your nations the flames of the justice of God. The time has come to proclaim to all, with clarity and with courage, that the sixth commandment given by God to Moses: ‘Do not commit impure acts’, (Ex 20:14) still has its full force and must be observed EVEN BY THIS CORRUPTED AND PERVERTED GENERATION. Every pastor who, in any manner whatsoever, would justify these sins, draws down upon his person and upon his life the fierce fire of divine justice..” And these are the words of the all holy Mother of God….in our time……..There is no falling into the trap that Father Mertes has fallen into that with time we have come to know better about these things. What he is really saying is that with time, we priests have fallen prey to the perverted culture that surrounds us and we no longer have any sense of sin within our souls.

  22. The heirarchy of The Catholic Church has the fiduciary duty to publicly inform those who publicly dissent from The Deposit of Faith, and thus deny that which a Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith, that they are no longer in communion with Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. To fail to do so, is a serious sin of omission, enabling serious sins of commission, and thus formally cooperating with evil. That fact that many bishops and the pope have grave moral reservations about informing the dissenters that they are no longer in communion with The Body of Christ reveals a lack of both Charity and Mercy for those prodigal sons and daughters, and is an affront to God and Holy Mother Church.

    May The Immaculate Heart of Mary and The Sacred Heart of Jesus, protect us during the hour of trial.

  23. Why is this pummel fee even allowed to to exist in the Church as a priest? The only answer is he is being protected from above by his boyfriends.

  24. How many times does the curtain rise to reveal the emperor naked as a jay bird and all anybody does is throw in the towel?
    We have become a joke.
    That this fool can utter this nonsense without shame for his abandonment of the faith, his betrayal of Christian charity, his lack on conscience for the scandal he creates – knowing full well there are no consequences. He keeps his degrees we paid for, he keeps his nicely appointed private life, secure with his salary and public persona .
    Where is the Jesuit Superior General? Where is the local ordinary? Where is the Bishop of Rome? What do they do for a living but butter their own toast?
    This, along with the likes of Tucho Fernandez is enough to make one sick.
    Utter betrayal by priests and bishops.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...