THE PRIEST IN A NEW AGE--WHEN SIN IS CALLED VIRTUE

The Priest in a New Age

http://catholic-skyview-tremblay.blogspot.com/2011/10/excerpts-priest-and-new-age.html

Below is an excerpt from The Doctrinal Mission and Apostolate of St. Therese of Lisieux by Benedict Williamson. Published in 1932.

"Before very long we priests of the older generation must give place to those of the new, to the young priests who are raised to the altar in these days to fill the place in the battle-line which we leave vacant...

The world which they must encounter differs in the most fundamental manner from that which we have faced: we have seen the beginning of the revolt, they must face it in all its fury. Hitherto when men sinned they recognized it as sin, and never for a moment pretended it was virtue. 

There have been great sinners in the past but they never posed as great saints. A man highly placed and powerful sinned desperately, defied God and his Church, violated every law human and divine, sinned to the last extremity and gloried in it and in his contempt for every virtue, but he never pretended it was anything but sin. At times such a one after a life of indescribable wickedness would repent as thoroughly as he had sinned, and embrace a life of penitential austerity not less frightening than his sin. 

But the neo-Pagan of today indulges lust and sensual passion to the full and calls it virtue. The whole difference between the old and the new lies here."

'HOMOPHOBIA' BILL PASSED IN ITALY- LET US HOPE THE POPE RESPONDS WITH MARTYRDOM CONVICTIONS

Pro-family Italians ask Pope Francis for aid against ‘homophobia’ bill

ROME, October 16, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A citizens’ group has issued a public letter to Pope Francis begging his intercession to stop the government’s proposed “anti-homophobia” bill that was passed in the Chamber of Deputies last month.

The letter states that the bill “threatens to severely restrict freedom of expression and association, especially of Catholics, and if approved, would become the springboard for further legislation detrimental to natural law, such as the legalization of so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ and adoptions by homosexual couples.”

The letter says the group appeals to Pope Francis, “moved by our trust that we will receive a response on a matter of utmost importance” and “encouraged by the fact that his Holiness has often shown himself to be attentive to the demands of more ‘small’ church members.”

The bill would punish with imprisonment up to one year and 6 months or a fine of up to €6,000 anyone guilty of “instigating to commit or who commits acts of discrimination for reasons ... based on homophobia or transphobia.”

It proposes imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years for anyone who “instigates to commit or who commits acts of violence or provocation to violence for reasons ... based on homophobia or transphobia” and with imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years for anyone who “provides assistance to organizations, associations, movements or groups whose purposes is incitement to discrimination or violence on grounds based on homophobia or transphobia.” The penalty for those who promote or direct such groups is imprisonment from 1 to 6 years.

The group called the bill “extremely dangerous” and warned that “once approved it would give birth to a ‘liberticidal’ law, rightly defined by many a ‘gag law’.”

They note that nowhere does the bill give a definition of “homophobia” or “transphobia,” terms that would appear nowhere else in Italian law that, they said, are “anything but neutral in the cultural and anthropological realm.” “Which definition of homophobia and transphobia will judges apply in specific cases? This indeterminacy of criminal cases already represents a serious glitch, contradicting the legal requirement, constitutionally, of the binding nature of the criminal law.”

“We fear the penalty (up to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment!) for advocating in public what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on homosexuality,” the letter continued. This includes the Catholic doctrine that “Sacred Scripture… presents homosexual relationships as a serious depravity” and that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances may they be approved.”

The law could also restrict the rights of groups and individuals dedicated to helping homosexuals to “come out of the [homosexual] state,” a state they said that “is not only morally, but also psychologically negative.” Members of such groups could face prison terms up to 6 years, they noted.

The group quotes one of the bill’s promoters, Deputy Ivan Scalfarotto, who said in an interview on August 26^th that the debate on homophobia “does not dismiss that on gay marriages,” but indeed, “precedes it.” “Because they are two different things. And one is logically prior to the other,” he said. They point out that on March 15, 2013 two bills were presented for consideration, one against “homophobia” to the Deputies, and another to the Senate proposing “provisions on equality in access to marriage on the part of couples formed by persons of the same sex.”

“For all these reasons we humbly ask you, indeed, we beg you to take a strong public position against this Bill, proportionate to the seriousness and the public nature of the problem,” the letter concludes.

“The faithful have already been hearing from different parts of the Church their voice of protest but they need the voice of their Shepherd. Only you, Holy Father, can shake the conscience of the faithful, Catholic politicians and public opinion in general, to stop this law which threatens to trample the most basic freedoms and will be used to bring changes increasingly harmful to the natural order in our beloved homeland.”

CAUTION: SOCIAL HYPOCRISY CAN BE THE SAME THING AS DENYING CHRIST

http://abyssum.org/2013/10/17/caution-social-hypocrisy-can-be-the-same-thing-as-denying-christ/

October 17, 2013

Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well

Marriage Matters

by R. R. Reno

FIRST THINGS, November, 2013

A friend confides to me that he’s having an adulterous affair. I sigh inwardly over our sin-saturated condition as I remind him that the Ten Commandments are pretty clear about adultery. I counsel, but perhaps too sympathetically. I exhort, though often too gently. And even though he responds with self-justifying sophistries, it doesn’t affect our friendship very much. We go on as before, though maybe with a little more distance between us.

I have to a certain extent soft-pedaled moral truth because I’m weak and want to get along. Swimming against the current is exhausting and can be lonely. I reassure myself that at least I haven’t really condoned his transgression, haven’t affirmed as right that which is wrong. It’s an easy, thin, cowardly consolation, yes, but it’s also a crucial line of defense against the debilitating interior corruption of willingly and self-consciously betraying the truth.

Most of us who dissent from the sexual revolution do something similar, not just with friends but with society as a whole. We go to work, socialize, and share public space with many people who reject the moral law’s authority over their lives, people who regard abortion as a fundamental right or who think sexual liberation an imperative. We do so in large part with civility and an appreciation for their good qualities. We accommodate ourselves to the moral realities of our time but don’t condone them. We do this because we can look away, not fixing on what is wrong because we are not forced to do so.

We can’t so easily accommodate when circumstances force the issue. If my married friend were to insist on bringing his mistress to a dinner party, I’d be under tremendous social pressure to smile, shake her hand, and make her welcome, all of which would erode my defense against betraying the moral truth. I’ve done just that, or something similar. They are painful occasions. I feel myself bearing false witness, all but affirming out loud what I know to be wrong. As I struggle for moral survival, I try to reserve some moral space, deep within the privacy of my consciousness, where I’m saying “no” even as I’m socially saying “yes.”

In this and moments like it, I find myself wishing I prized politeness less and had the interior freedom to kick out my friend and his mistress—or in some way to give the moral truth that has been jammed into a far corner of my conscience some purchase on reality, some public expression. For a purely internal commitment, a moral conviction that never emerges out in the open when confronted by its negation, can easily, perhaps inevitably, become spectral, inconsequential, and eventually lifeless.

Same-sex marriage forces the issue, which is why it has been and will continue to be a point of conflict in our culture wars. Marriage is a fundamental social institution that by its nature seeks to be visible and demands public acknowledgment. We invite guests, register with the state, and wear gold wedding bands that announce to the world our married status. It’s this public reality, this claim to social recognition—not some desire to “impose our morals” on others or “homophobic” bigotry—that makes the redefinition of marriage so indigestible for anyone committed to the moral truth of the matter.

The pews are full of sinners, and as a hospital for souls the Church is set up to minister to us, even in our tedious, enduring vices, even in our twisted impenitence. A priest can say contraception is wrong while communing parishioners who use contraception and do so without contradicting himself or betraying the Church’s moral witness. He can do so because they’re not making a public statement. On this moral issue, along with many others, he may well know that some transgress—it has always been so—but for the most part, transgression remains fugitive and not public. It doesn’t openly contradict his message. Thus has the Church navigated the sexual revolution.

As an institution, marriage is ordered toward public recognition, which makes its redefinition something different and more threatening than the general attitude of license. As gay-rights advocates have recognized, same-sex marriage is a very large placard, a clear, frank public statement that broadcasts their cause: What we do in the bedroom must be affirmed, not condemned. This public character is why a priest can’t say that God intends marriage to be between a man and a woman and welcome the married gay couple onto the parish school board. Their marriage announces, in a very public way, the exact opposite of what he teaches.

Until now, the sexual revolution achieved its political goals by way of a supposed right to privacy, a legal artifice that says, in effect, that we are free to do as we please behind closed doors—use contraception, engage in sodomy, and so forth. The imperative of “marriage equality” is very different, because marriage is the very opposite of private. It will require us to affirm same-sex couples as couples, pairs that rightfully and without any shame or legal disability do what married couples do: have sex, form households, have and raise children.

Thus the difficulty of tactical retreat and accommodation on the question of marriage. The public reality of same-sex marriage disrupts our usual modes of getting along in a society where what we know to be wrong is widely practiced. When Jim introduces me to his husband, I can entertain no palliating illusions. My moral convictions are exposed; the issue is forced. Will I respond in the usual ways of polite social relations, knowing that doing so is one form of affirming? To give ground in these circumstances—to act as though everything is normal and fine—bears a false witness, and over time becomes equivalent to denying the moral truth of the matter.

Is Schism Inevitable in Germany?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/is-schism-inevitable-in-germany

The crisis in the Catholic Church in Germany declared itself 45 years ago with the “Königsteiner Erklärung,” a declaration of the bishops regarding Humanae Vitae in 1968. Therein they toned down the Church’s teaching, leaving it up to the conscience of individuals to decide whether to use contraception or not. The Austrian bishops did the same in the “Mariatroster Erklärung.” In 2008 therefore, Cardinal Schönborn, the head of the Austrian bishops’ conference, spoke about this as the “sin of the European episcopate.” These declarations have set the tone for the decades to come, and the faithful have in consequence become increasingly Protestant and heterodox in spirit.

A few days ago, a document from the archdiocese of Freiburg was leaked. The scandal was even greater than it should have been, since it first sounded like an official pronouncement. However, what came to light is bad enough. Zollitsch, who is head of the German bishops’ conference and archbishop of this diocese, which is the second-largest in Germany, explained that this paper had been issued without his permission, and was an unfinished working-paper for the diocesan pastoral conference, meant to discuss the improvement of the pastoral care for the divorced-remarried. The paper allows Catholics who are divorced and remarried to have access to the sacraments without repentance involving a change of life-style. All they need to do is have a few pastoral conversations, i.e. speak with a priest about the faith and the reasons their marriage broke down, in order to be allowed to receive communion again. The sacraments which are open to them in the list are communion, confession, confirmation, and the sacrament of the sick. Furthermore, they are allowed to be elected into a parish-council, an office from which they had been barred so far. Finally, they are offered a benediction for their second marriage, if they so wish. In order to distinguish it from their first marriage, which is still considered valid in the eyes of the Church, it is given less prominence; the ceremony is therefore not to be held the day of their civil wedding (in Germany, because of the separation of Church and State, the civil wedding has to precede the religious wedding anyway).

Zollitsch tried to smooth the troubled waters by sending out a letter to his fellow-bishops in Germany by explaining that this paper was leaked, but then stated that it nonetheless gives “provisional impulses” and is a “good contribution” to the discussion; he is thereby enforcing an already present nationalizing trend of the Church in Germany diverging from Rome.

One may well wonder how an archbishop of such prominence can propose ways of action (which are also going to be suggested at the episcopal conference) which can in no way be reconciled with the doctrine of the Church. This reveals what German Catholics have known for many years, namely that from the top down there has been a trend moving away from some of the “harder” truths of the faith in order to surrender to the Zeitgeist.

That the divorced remarried are in dire need of better pastoral care is clear. Pope Francis has called for this, and this concern will be addressed during the synod for the pastoral care of the family in Rome in October 2014. This needs to start with a better marriage-preparation, helping the faithful understand the nature of the sacrament and the seriousness of the step which they are undertaking. But how much spiritual help do the divorced and remarried actually get? How many dioceses offer support groups for the divorced to help them live their celibate life following Christ (thus helping them avoid the temptation of a remarriage)? How many offer to speak about their broken marriage and help (reconciliation, or an annulment, if there is a chance of it not having been a valid sacramental marriage, for example)? How many make known John Paul II’s wonderful invitation in Familiaris Consortio: “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life.” How often is it made clear to them that they are very welcome to come to mass, even if they cannot receive communion (and why they cannot receive the Eucharist)? (As a response to the events in Freiburg, the auxiliary bishop of Salzburg, Andreas Laun, clarified the position of the Church, showing why it is no way lacking in mercy.) Are they encouraged to keep that longing for the Eucharist alive which might hopefully give them the strength one day to set things right—be it by leaving their second (invalid) union or by living chastely together while they are raising their children? Some may want to turn back to the church once their spouse has died; but if the relationship with the Church hasn’t been kept alive, then they are less motivated to return.

Why does one hardly ever hear about a celibate life as a real option for the divorced? This is a hard road to tread and a difficult cross to bear; in the eyes of the world it seems impossible. Hence the witness of those who are on this journey is so important. Good pastoral care should include the stories of people who have walked this path, even though it was painful. The strength for this can only be gathered through a life of prayer. Fortunately, there are groups like this in the United States and in France, for example. The continuous plea to God for help out of a situation where one foresees much suffering for oneself and others if one leaves a second marriage will not go unheard. The prayer which acknowledges one’s own brokenness touches God’s heart most; it is the way par excellence of St Thérèse of Lisieux. The man in the temple who says “have mercy on me, a poor sinner” prays from his heart, while the Pharisee who thanks God that he is not a sinner is not praying at all. Of course, God wants us to follow His commandments; without this, we cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. But we can only do so by the grace of God. Hence the help one offers to the divorced and remarried needs to be a spiritual one, expressing itself as well through genuine human warmth and support; simply reiterating the teachings of the Church is not enough, and this is what Pope Francis meant in his statements in his interview with Spadaro, if I understand him correctly. (MY NOTE--POPE IS CONFUSING ALL THE TIME) 

Similarly, the prolife movement grasped many years ago that it was not enough to say that abortion was wrong; women in crisis pregnancy situations needed to be offered concrete help, and thus various elaborate forms of assistance were developed. Similarly, those who are divorced need concrete help, rather than a simple reminder about the teachings of the Church.

It is true that if one looks at the website of the diocese of Freiburg, one can find evidence, here, here, and here, that conferences are offered for those going through a separation or a divorce, or on how to build up a good marriage in the first place. I don’t know what people are told during these conferences or during private counseling in the diocese, but the working-paper does not bode well. Why not offer people a heroic choice? Christ did the same. He did not tell the Samaritan woman to leave her “husband”; instead, he confronted her with the truth which was that she had gone through a string of relationships which had broken down. But he only did so in the context of offering her the spring of life, namely Himself (John 4).  Only He can make us bear the loneliness this entails. Only He can give us the grace to make these heroic choices which feel like death, but ultimately give life. My guess is that each one of us is confronted with a heroic choice at some point in our lives. Most of us don’t have to shed blood for our faith, but many have to give up something they would have wanted tremendously, or at least a fake consolation to make up for its absence. Those who’d like to be married, but don’t find a spouse are called to celibacy, as are those in religious life, or those with same-sex-attractions; this is a daily cross they must embrace if they wish to follow Christ. Those married might meet somebody whom they find tremendously attractive, but they cannot give in to that attraction if they want to remain true to their marriage-vows and Christ.  Or this heroic choice might be situated in another domain, like refusing to make an unethical choice and therefore never getting the promotion they would have desired; or refusing to try IVF, though this means remaining childless.

Having been raised in Germany, I have heard for years priests in various parishes preach that “the official Church in Rome says this” (“die Amtskirche”), while they say the contrary on matters such as premarital sex, contraception, divorce (and sometimes not even making the distinction between doctrine and their own heterodox beliefs). When John Paul II did not want ecclesial institutions to be involved in the abortion-business (in Germany, every woman wanting an abortion has to have a counseling-session, for which she gets a certificate; this certificate becomes her ticket to an abortion, and the counselors thus become material cooperators, de facto signing the death-warrant for the child), it was a long tug of war between the German bishops and Rome before they agreed. Some members of official voice of the Catholic laity (Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken) founded a counter-group, Donum Vitae, which is still involved in the counseling forbidden by Rome, and the Zentralkomitee has generally adopted an agenda contrary to Catholic teaching concerning women’s ordination, divorce and remarriage, and contraception.

Will there be a new schism in the German Church? Some say it has de facto already happened a long time ago without having been openly declared. That it won’t take much to occur is certain, for the German Church is to a great extent already Protestant in doctrine and spirit. Benedict XVI was keenly aware of the direction the German Church was taking, and Pope Francis, we can assume, knows the situation well from his studies there. Let us pray that the worst can be avoided.

Author’s note: To be precise, Zollitsch (pictured above) is since mid-September apostolic administrator of the diocese until a replacement can be found, since he is now officially retired as archbishop of Freiburg.

Tagged as: Archbishop Zollitsch, Cardinal Schonborn, Catholic Church (Germany), divorce, Humane Vitae, Schism

The End of America—as America

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-end-of-americaas-america

October 15, 2013 (pop.org) – Editor’s Note:  G.K. Chesterton once wrote that “Tolerance is the last virtue of a man without principle.”  The godless secularists demand that people of faith tolerate all manner of evil, and in return they give us nothing except what Blessed John Paul called “a thinly disguised totalitarianism.”   

America remains the home of the brave—if you doubt that, google the name Michael Monsoor—but is it still the land of the free?  This question is ever more on the minds of religious Americans, who are very much on the defensive these days.

The first line of the First Amendment is dedicated to the protection of religious freedom, and religious freedom was widely understood at the time of the Founding to be one of the very pillars of the American project.  But times have changed.  The culture is now openly hostile towards religion and religious people.  The First Amendment has been turned on its head, being widely misunderstood now as protecting the public square from unwanted religious influences.

In the contemporary mind, religious freedom is nothing more than the freedom of private worship. This line of thinking holds that as long as you are not dragged off to jail in handcuffs for going to Sunday Mass, your religious freedom has been respected.  However, the freedom to live one’s faith in daily life as a full participant in society—in other words, the freedom to exercise one’s religion (see the First Amendment)—has gone the way of the rotary phone.

Catholic adoption agencies in Boston, Washington DC, and Illinois have been shut down by the government for insisting on placing kids in families with a married mother and father.  Catholic business owners nationwide are now required to provide their employees with health plans that cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.  Across the country, Christian florists, bakers, and photographers have been investigated and even fined by government agencies for declining to serve same-sex weddings on the basis of their religious beliefs.

If Americans are no longer free to operate a private business without being forced by the government to provide services that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, the question is not whether America respects religious freedom anymore. The question is whether America is America anymore.  After all, this was the first nation on earth to be founded not upon an ethnicity but upon a set of ideas.  If those ideas are now defunct, then this is, in some fundamental sense, another country.

While First Amendment rights long held to be sacrosanct are trumped by novelties like same-sex marriage and free birth control, Americans are still free to obtain late-term abortions, which are only legal in three other countries in the world: North Korea, China, and Canada.  Unlike religious freedom, this right is apparently inviolable.

Twenty-three years ago, Pope John Paul II wrote, “A democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”  What was at the time dismissed by many as alarmism now has the ring of prophecy.

Republished from Population Research Institute with permission.

Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution-of-christians-the-latest-evidence

After six years and hundreds of celebratory confections, it wasn’t the economy, the stiff competition, financing, or any of the other usual road bumps of building a new business that caused Sweet Cakes by Melissa—a husband-and-wife bakery in Portland, Oregon area—to close its doors at the end of the summer.

Instead, it was the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage.

In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. Protests, boycotts, and a storm of media attention—much of it negative—ensued. The couple received death threats. Then, activists broadened the boycott: any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes would be targeted.

The final nail in the coffin came in August when the slighted lesbian couple filed an anti-discrimination suit with the state. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics,” Klein said. His wife added: “I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”

Christian Wedding Vendors Under Attack
In 2006, a noted advocate for traditional marriage, Maggie Gallagher, warned that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to constraints on religious freedom. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Gallagher saw the end of adoptions services by Boston Catholic Charities as a foreshadowing of things to come. (To retain its license, Gallagher explained, the agency would have to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which had been extended to married same-sex couples.) She couched her warning in the form of a question:

This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage. So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?

Seven years later, we have the answer: as of this writing, there have been at least 11 instances of wedding vendors and venues facing some form of recrimination—threats, boycotts, protests, and the intervention of state or judicial authorities—because they denied services for gay nuptials because of their faith. Besides Sweet Cakes by Melissa, they are:

■ Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

■ Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot” and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

■ Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)

■ Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

■ All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycotthas now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)

■ Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner  of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

■ Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,” the New York Times reported. (Sources: The New York Times here andhere, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)

■ Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agencyand the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)

■ Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)

■ Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)

These cases represent a new battlefield in the clash between the freedoms of Christians and the “radical homosexual agenda,” said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of The Thomas Moore Law Center. “Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary,” Thompson said in an e-mail interview. “As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.”

Such fundamental clashes are linked to the spreading legalization of same-sex marriage. Of the 11 total cases cited above, three occurred within two years of their state legalizing same-sex marriage. A fourth came four years afterwards. Four others were in states that did not have same-sex marriage but had granted some legal recognition to same-sex unions, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. “When you start recognizing same-sex marriage, these cases are going to start coming up,” said Jim Campbell, an Alliance for Defense attorney involved in the New Mexico case.

The legalization of same-sex marriage has created new opportunities for Christian business owners to run afoul of longstanding anti-discrimination laws, according to Campbell. But same-sex marriage is not only creating the opportunity—it’s also affecting how those laws are interpreted, Campbell said.

Such laws ban discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” an ambiguous term that could refer either to the sexual attraction and self-identification of individuals or their behavior, according to Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. Christian conservatives, he says, draw a distinction between an individual and his behavior. “To disapprove of homosexual relationships … is something quite different from discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation,” he said.

The line between the dignity of a person and their behavior, however, is being blurred by the Left, according to Sprigg, enabling it to wield anti-discrimination laws against Christian conservatives who are, in fact, not discriminating against individuals. As Denver baker Jack Phillips to his local CBS affiliate, “If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever.”

Sexual Liberty Before Religious Liberty
In refusing to participate in gay weddings, Christian business owners have invoked their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. As the Iowa wedding venue owner asked, “Can I have my beliefs without being ostracized for that?”

Across the country, judges are answering in the negative. In ruling against the Methodist-owned Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a state judge declared that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” In other words, religious liberty has been shoved aside to serve a higher priority—sexual liberty, Sprigg says.

For the Founding Fathers, however, it was religious freedom that took precedent over societal goals, Thompson says. “Man’s duty of honoring God is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation to the claims of civil society,” James Madison, the Framer of the Constitution, wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment). Likewise, Thomas Jefferson declared: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

“Without a narrow exemption allowed for faithful Catholics and other Christians, there is not the concern but the reality that the state is forcing Catholics and Christians to violate their faith,” said Thompson, a Catholic convert. “Society is attempting to force Catholics to violate their God–given, constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion and conscience. The very institution of the Church is being challenged and the laws that are supposed to protect our religious freedom are now being crafted to weaken and destroy that freedom.”

“The Price of Citizenship”
It’s not just the hierarchy of rights that is being inverted. It’s also the scope of the various rights that are in conflict with each other: as the right to sexual liberty has expanded, the scope of religious liberty has correspondingly narrowed.

In challenging the Colorado baker, the national ACLU said in a statement that his business was an inappropriate forum to air his religious beliefs: “[T]heir business is not a house of worship. Colorado law allows members of the clergy to decide whom they will join in a marriage or civil union—and that’s consistent with the principles of religious liberty our nation was founded on. While bakery owners are free to practice their faith and to personally oppose same-sex marriage, they cannot use those beliefs as an excuse to disrespect and discriminate against customers.”

New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson agreed. In his ominously worded concurring opinion against the wedding photographers he described limitations on religious freedom as a necessary compromise in a pluralistic democracy—in his words “the price of citizenship”:

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.
In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

Campbell called the opinion a “wake-up call” to Christians around the country. “If you want to be a citizen and you want to be a business owner, don’t bring your beliefs,” he said.

In other words: Christians are free to exercise their religion only within the confines of their home or church, but as soon as they leave, they must subordinate those beliefs to the dictates of the anti-discrimination laws, according to Sprigg. “I call it the ‘four-walled’ freedom,” he said.

But religious freedom is not a narrow concept, Thompson says. “It is the ability to live out one’s faith in all aspects of life—which includes earning a livelihood. A wedding vendor should not be forced to check his Christianity at the door, and act in violation of his faith while trying to earn his livelihood,” Thompson said.

Tolerance Before Freedom of Speech
It’s not just religious freedom that is threatened, it’s also freedom of speech, Campbell said.

Before the state Supreme Court, the defense attorneys had argued that “photography is an expressive art form and that photography can fall within the constitutional protections of free speech,” according to the court’s summary. “Elane Photography also states that in the course of its business, it creates and edits photographs for its clients so as to tell a positive story about each wedding it photographs, and the company and its owners would prefer not to send a positive message about same-sex weddings or same-sex marriage.”

Requiring them to photograph such weddings, is “forced speech,” Campbell said. That should concern everyone, according to Campbell. Today, it might be a photographer asked to document a gay or lesbian wedding. Tomorrow, it could be a lesbian or gay photographer asked to shoot a traditional marriage rally against their convictions, he said.

“That’s the antithesis of what the Founders created in the Constitution,” Campbell said.

It’s also the antithesis of what modern liberals supposedly believe. “Tolerance is permitting opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. It is an act of intolerance to force individuals to do something against their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs. It is no more or less complicated than this,” Thompson

What the Future Holds It’s unclear if the wedding photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon will go the way of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon. One option is to stop doing weddings. There is also the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—which Thompson estimates would have a better than the usual one to two-percent chance of getting accepted.

So far, no judge has yet to rule in favor of a vendor who denied services to a same-sex couple on the basis of their faith. That leaves Christian business owners with no easy choices. “Currently Christian vendors are being forced to either 1) violate their religious views or 2) choose a different profession,” Thompson wrote. The upshot of it all, he said, is that faithful Christians eventually could be forced out of the wedding business.

The bigger question is what this all means, more broadly, for faith in public life. If other Christians in the United States are wondering what the future holds, they have to look no further than Europe. In Ireland, a Christian printer’s refusal to publish a gay magazine has landed him in court. In Scotland, a Presbyterian church group was turned away from a hotel because of its views on same-sex marriage. And, in France, a mayor is facing five years in prison because he wouldn’t perform a gay wedding.

If Europe is to be any guide, religious freedom may not even be safe within the ‘four walls’ of a church: in August, a gay couple announced they were mounting a legal challenge against a state law that allows British churches to opt out of holding gay weddings.

As Christians in the United State wonder on what these cases might mean for them, they would do well to reflect on a letter that a bishop recently issued to his diocese, after losing that state’s battle over marriage. The letter is addressed by Bishop Thomas Tobin to Rhode Island Catholics, but his words speak to Christians across the country: “Without a doubt this is a time of challenge, even disappointment for many of us, but it is also an opportunity to be steadfast and courageous, and to renew our commitment to Christ and His Church. As our Lord Jesus Christ told us, ‘In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world’ (Jn 16:33).”

Tagged as: ACLU, Gay Lobby, gay marriage, persecution of Christians, religious liberty

Homosexuality, Abortion, Alcoholism-- addictions and healing in Christ.

Homosexuality: A New Approach is Needed

If we are going to save our culture, it is important that Christians change their approach toward homosexuality. Fighting the GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) agenda in the legislatures and courts will not succeed as long as the GLBTQ activists define the debate. We must treat same-sex attraction and sexual identity disorders (the so-called transgendered and queer) as what they are—preventable and treatable problems.

Such a change in attitude has happened before with alcoholism and abortion and needs to happen again.

In the 19th century alcoholism was considered an untreatable and deadly condition that destroyed lives and families. Many people came to believe that prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages was the only solution. The 18th amendment passed, but failed to achieve its goal. After repeal, alcoholics were treated as a joke in films or even heroes, but a quietly growing movement—Alcoholics Anonymous, a 12 step program based on spiritual insights—provided the answer. There are still alcoholics and drunk drivers, but now there is hope and help. Millions of men and women are living full lives in recovery.

Before Roe v. Wade, pregnant unmarried women were treated as pariahs, hidden away in shame until they delivered and surrendered their babies for adoption. Such treatment drove some to seek illegal abortions. After the Supreme Court’s decision, the pro-life movement was formed. At first many pro-lifers categorized the women having abortions as selfish and heedless, but soon the movement’s attitude changed. The pro-lifers realized that the mothers were the second victims of abortion—driven by fear, pressured by others. They needed help. A network of pregnancy help centers sprang up across the country. Sidewalk counselors stand outside abortion clinics to be sure that every woman contemplating abortion knows that real, practical help is available. Post-abortion counseling groups minister to women traumatized by their abortions. Those involved in the abortion industry, those who saw the carnage and emotional damage first hand and repented of their involvement, are speaking out against it. The pro-life movement now presents a message of mercy and love, not condemnation and shame.

A similar change of attitude is needed as regards same-sex attraction (SSA) and sexual identity disorders. Before GLBTQ activists began to demand full legal and social acceptance for their agenda, including the redefinition of marriage, persons with SSA or sexual identity disorders were either ignored or treated as comic relief—stereotyped as limp-wristed fairies. Society saw the problem but didn’t ask and those with SSA were not supposed to tell. The Church told them very clearly that what they were doing was wrong, but didn’t offer a path out of their problem. This in spite of the fact that a small group of therapists were working on understanding the causes of same-sex attraction and using various types of therapy to help those experiencing these problems to change their behavior and in some cases their sexual orientation.

Had these efforts received the kind of attention they deserved a great deal of suffering could have been avoided, however instead the GLBTQ movement grew and now besides demanding the redefinition of marriage, they are pushing for legislation to prevent treatment.

However, in spite of the lack of support, progress in the understanding of SSA has been made. While there is no single cause for SSA or sexual identity disorders, there is no evidence that people are born that way and can’t change. Case histories reveal similar patterns of early attachment disorders, failure to identify with same-sex parent or peers, traumas, and deficits, and a high rate of childhood sexual abuse. There is nothing compassionate about an attitude which just leaves such persons alone to act out, while their underlying problems go unaddressed. Those with SSA and sexual identity are far more likely to suffer from other psychological disorders, suicidal ideation, depression, substance abuse problems, relationship instability, victimization, and for the men sexually transmitted diseases. Although one hears about it less frequently and in spite of advances in treatment, the AIDS epidemic continues unabated among men who have sex with men. ‘Transgendered’ males, that is men who want to be or think they are women, are at the highest risk.

Therapy is not about pushing down same-sex desires and trying to stir up other sex attraction, rather therapists help their clients discover the roots of the problem. According to Joseph Nicolosi, a leader in the field and author of Shame and Attachment Loss: The practical work of reparative therapy:

We do not accept the fatalism of the “born that way” concept. Instead we propose an alternative model—addressing and resolving the underlying conflicts that have, in our view, laid the foundation for the symptoms of same-sex attraction (p. 17).

Just as there are AA groups in every community, pregnancy help centers in every city, and sidewalk counselors in front of every abortion clinic, there need to be support groups and therapists in every part of the country dedicated to helping men and women with SSA and sexual identity disorders find their way to freedom.

Pope Francis sought to address the problem of how to deal with a priest with SSA. He said that he couldn’t judge. If a priest or indeed anyone is living chastely in thought and deed, even if tormented by temptation, then we should not condemn him for his temptations, particularly when these spring from childhood traumas and deficits, but the problems faced by persons with SSA are not restricted to disordered patterns of sexual attraction. A man who is sexually attracted to other men will often have problems with authority. If he has not forgiven his father, he may have problems understanding what it means to be a father to all. He may be prone to non-sexual self-comforting behaviors. His attitudes to the Church’s teachings on sexual sin may be distorted.

While persons with SSA didn’t choose their temptations, there is nothing merciful about leaving them to struggle with such temptations alone, or pretending that resisting them is easy. Such men need specific help. If the Church has failed in the past to provide such help, we need to repent and remedy the situation. We should be praying for those struggling with this problem. They are not our enemies, but our friends, relations, and co-workers.

We can do so with assurance and if we do our part the grace will be given. In the 6th chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul lists the various sexual sins including, but by no means limited to those promoted by GLBTQ activists. To those who committed such sins, he offers a sure hope:

And so were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (I Cor. 6:11).

Tagged as: Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), crisis pregnancy centers,homosexuality, Joseph Nicolosi Ph.D., Reparative Therapy

Gay porn actor left it all for Jesus after ‘possession,’ terrifying near-death experience

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-porn-actor-left-it-all-for-jesus-after-near-death-experience?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=00e9260220-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Full_Text_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-00e9260220-397587125

Gay porn actor left it all for Jesus after ‘possession,’ terrifying near-death experience

Note: An extensive interview with Joseph Sciambra is included below the story.

NAPA, California, October 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Joseph Sciambra, 44, will be the first to tell you of his large-hearted and abiding love for gays. He will also be the first to tell you that despite its feel-good name, genuine happiness cannot be found in the “gay” lifestyle.

The former gay porn actor has described his own journey into the darkest core of the gay underworld in the Castro District of San Francisco in the early 90’s as like being “Swallowed by Satan” – the title of his new book, in which he recounts his experiences. 

Joseph, who left the gay scene thirteen years ago after a dramatic reconversion to the Catholic faith, says his quest for love and acceptance through sex began with pornography. At the age of eight, he one day naively flipped through a porn magazine left out by an older brother. This was followed by more graphic porn magazines. Then came masturbation and the urge to act out with others what he saw in the magazines. 

Joseph says that what he craved to experience was a deep and satisfying sexual nirvana. He grasped for this by expanding his sexual escapades. New sexual experiences with new partners was the only stimuli that seemed to offer him the excitement, what he called the “happy-place,” that he was so desperately seeking. Brothels and prostitutes became part of his sexual routine. 

Becoming bored with female porn, Joseph moved onto gay porn. Then he realized that he must be with gay men if he was to gratify his ever-increasing sexual desires. 

Older gay men initiated 19-year-old Joseph through gay sex into the Castro gay scene. He began visiting bathhouses and adult video arcades for anonymous gay sex. In his quest for love and companionship Joseph immersed himself deeper into the gay scene. What he sought after so desperately constantly eluded him. 

So-called “glory-hole booths” (a place for anonymous oral sex) offered the next form of excitement. It was at one such place that Joseph says he delivered himself sexually over to Satan, who presented himself in the form of a gaping mouth with a foot-long forked tongue. From that point forward Joseph began hearing voices inside his head. 

Seeking new stimulant, Joseph became an amateur porn actor and escort. 

Joseph finally found himself traveling down into the darkened dungeons of sadomasochism. Here he inflicted and received sexualized pain and torture. This included horrendous practices too graphic to describe here. Most of this was filmed for the gay porn industry. Sexual nirvana for Joseph could now only be obtained along with violence, subjugation, and aggression.

Now in his late twenties, Joseph says that all he experienced inside himself was hate: hate for other men, hate for his life, and hate for the world. By now he had experienced sex with as many as 1000 men. He embraced everything that was sexually gruesome and hideous. 

One diabolical orgy was so violent that it put Joseph into the hospital. There he had an experience of death and of his soul descending into an open and salivating mouth, which he says he knew was hell. 

But Joseph’s Catholic mother was at his bedside, praying earnestly. Fear seized Joseph’s heart. He did not want to enter the eternal mouth that had opened up to receive him because of his life of choosing sin. He says he begged for God’s help and deliverance. At that moment he felt himself being brought back into his body. 

Joseph went on to rediscover his Catholic faith that he had forsaken in his childhood. He experienced forgiveness from God for his years of sexual sin in the sacrament of confession. Demons were cast from him in an exorcism performed by a Catholic priest. He says he found strength to continue his faith journey by frequently receiving the Eucharist at Mass, and found help and consolation from Mary, the mother of God.

Joseph admits that he still struggles with attraction to other men and with temptations to masturbate, but he says he has come to know that the love, acceptance, and peace he so ardently sought in sex with other men, Jesus now gives to him in abundance through a spiritual life. 

For Joseph, same-sex attraction is a cross that God has asked certain people to bear for the redemption of the world. Now running a Catholic religious shop in Napa, California, Joseph says that there is genuine joy in carrying the cross. By uniting his sufferings with those of the suffering Jesus, Joseph believes he is helping to save his gay friends from a devilish fate he barely escaped. 

According to Joseph, many gay men have come to him, telling him of their unhappiness and their own similar experiences in the gay lifestyle. Joseph says he will speak first of his love for them. Then he will speak of how his encounter with and acceptance of God’s love saved him from being “swallowed by Satan.” He will tell them that gay sexual ecstasy is momentary and delusional, but God’s love is enduring, satisfying, and as real as it gets. 

LifeSiteNews.com interview with Joseph Sciambra

Joseph shared with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) his experience in the gay lifestyle as it relates to today’s hot-button topics on homosexuality.

LSN: In your book “Swallowed by Satan,” Playboy was your gateway to hell; pornography led you to homosexuality. What are your thoughts on the logic behind this progression?

Joseph Sciambra: Children, especially boys, are naturally curious about the opposite sex and sex in general. Before I even saw a pornographic magazine, I had already been introduced to the idea of female sexuality through such popular shows of the time, including “Charlie’s Angels” and “Three’s Company.” When I had the opportunity to see naked women in a Playboy or Penthouse, of course, I took it. After all, many of my friends’ fathers collected Playboys, as did my older brother; so it was seen as a sort of male passage rite; looking at porn somehow made you a man.

After that first introduction to porn, you are hooked. Then begins a desire for more pornography and variant forms of porn; i.e. different female models, more explicit material, then the inability to become excited by soft-core forms of porn. It’s a cycle of addiction that often mirrors drug and alcohol abuse. When this exposure to porn happens in childhood, the entire structure of desire within the mind becomes reliant on a constant flow of visual stimulus. Later on, in adulthood, the idea of being with just one woman often leaves the porn addict feeling underwhelmed. 

LSN: Your experience with homosexuality is absolutely terrifying, especially when you relate the kind of sexual acts that were forced upon you and that you forced upon others. What you related of your experience seems quite alien from anything having to do with the political push for gay “marriage”. From your experience on the gay scene for ten years in the 90’s, what do you think is really behind the push for gay “marriage”?

Sciambra: At its core, I believe the push for gay marriage is a political ruse foisted upon the gay community by the Democrats and some within the elite liberal gay-lobby movement. Back in the early 1990s, when I was an out and proud gay man, I saw this same thing happen with DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy] in the military. It became a political rallying-cry in which the gay community could lock-step behind; even though this policy affected relatively very few gay men or women. 

Now, the concept of gay marriage has been successfully fused with that of homosexual equality. This creates a dynamic in which all gays feel obliged to support gay marriage — even if they have no interest in marriage for themselves — because it has to do with homosexual liberation. And, the point of homosexual liberation is to inevitably create some kind of relief within the gay mind, because every gay person, once they have embraced their homosexuality, comes to that end [of having no peace] after much suffering, persecution, and struggle. Going into the lifestyle is an attempt at peace and wholeness. But, it’s a deception. And the peace they long for never happens.   

LSN: Based on what you relate in your book about homosexual relationships, it seems that mainstream media has presented America with a sanitized version of the gay lifestyle, as can be seen in a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" which glorifies a homosexual relationship between two cowboys. What would you say to awaken people to the reality of what homosexuality is really about? How would you pull the wool away from people’s eyes?

Sciambra: Because the mainstream media is collaborating with those in the gay elite, there has been a very skewed and untrue picture of the homosexual lifestyle painted for the American people. At one time, I bought into that as well, although the imagery was very different when I was a child. At that time, The Village People and The Castro in San Francisco were portrayed as one big party. 

By the time I entered the lifestyle, the mood had changed with the advent of AIDS. I had to watch as beautiful young men from all across the United States, who arrived in San Francisco seeking a safe harbor of acceptance, succumbed to disease. It was heartbreaking. But in the 90’s, things started to return to business as usual: gay pornography became a hot commodity and a new generation of boys were lured to their deaths by promises of pleasure with no risk. 

With my book, my intention was not to simply disgust people or gross them out, but to reveal a very significant side of the gay lifestyle that is rarely investigated. The last serious exploration was probably the much maligned film “Cruising” directed by William Friedkin. But that movie got it right. Because, although, gay men may one day settle down and attempt monogamy, the vast majority, beforehand, had to travel through a wasteland of perversity and promiscuity. Because, every young boy, who just enters the lifestyle, is quickly set upon by a troop of eager older men ready to exploit new recruits. It sets you up for a life of bitterness and disappointment. Some survive and move on, many do not. But, they all reemerge damaged and untrusting. 

You are very keen and astute to realize that the gay lifestyle has been “sanitized” by the media, and that was precisely what I wanted to fight against [by writing my book]; to show just how ugly, and yes dirty, the gay lifestyle is; but also how ultimately sad and tragic it seems to end for almost everyone involved. I especially wanted to reach modern parents who are so willing to offer their sons up to this horror – to explain what awaits their children, and to also give some dignity to those who fell into the life because of no fault of their own. 

LSN: Good Christians speaking out against homosexuality are accused of bigotry and homophobia. Such Christians will respond that they are not speaking against persons who identify themselves as gay per se, but against their actions which are harmful to everyone involved. Many Christians are simply motivated by love of neighbour to speak this way. (But of course, unfortunately, some are not.) As someone who has descended to the very depths of the homosexual lifestyle, what message do you think Christians should give to homosexuals that would help them the most? How should Christians deliver the message so that it’s effective and so that they avoid coming across as bigots?

Sciambra: I have seen many unhappy and searching gay men and women turned off to Christianity because of an over-zealous Christian who showed them condemnation, but no love. As I discovered, when a gay person is contemplating leaving the lifestyle, they often just want a disinterested friend; i.e. someone that doesn’t want or demand something from them. This may be a matter of just listening, not really offering a lot of catechesis or dogma, but simply letting them know that you care. Once a relationship is established, you have to decide when and how the Truth of Jesus Christ’s plan for each one of us is to be delivered. Again, one must always remember that these are deeply wounded and suffering people: they need your sympathy, compassion, and prayers. 

LSN: You encountered the darkness of spiritual evil during your sexual downward spiral. Is there any connection between the homosexual movement and the spiritual forces of evil?

Sciambra: I believe there is a connection between the homosexual movement and the forces of evil because the gay lifestyle is essentially a lie and a tool of deception. Those that advocate for it – promise much, but rarely deliver. 

Now, one of the main recruiting devices is porn. It gives a completely false view of gay relationships and gay sex. In porn, everyone is beautiful, happy and healthy. Its themes, often emphasizing supreme masculinity and sexualized father-son relationships aims at the very woundedness that sits at the center of every gay man’s malformed sense of masculinity. Porn preys upon their desires for healing. What you get, is a quick fix. That, later on, leaves you more damaged than before.

I know heaven wept when I had to see so many young men buried because of disease and suicide. It was a waste. And, that was evil.

LSN: There is a movement to crush those who offer therapy to persons struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction. What are your thoughts as to why there is such opposition to this kind of therapy?

Sciambra: There is opposition to gay-reparative therapy because [born-this-way gay advocates] know deep-down that it works. Very good reparative therapy excavates the root causes which brought forth homosexual desires in the person. For the most part, these incidents are embedded in early-childhood traumas. When a therapist is able to dig down and reveal these traumas, they no longer have the same power over the person that they once did. At that point, relationships can be mended and new healthy friendships can be fostered. 

LSN: Porn led you down a slippery slope. What advice do you have to offer to someone struggling with pornography addiction?

Sciambra: The advice I would give to someone struggling with pornography is that healing is possible, but that it takes time, perseverance, and being stout of heart. Most importantly, this is only possible by the Grace of God and our full cooperation in His Love for us.

The person must spend much time in prayer, taking part in the Sacraments (daily Mass and weekly Confession) in order to understand why they have this need to view pornography. What empty space is it filling? A great part of this endeavor is having a very good confessor and or spiritual director. And, in this I discourage men from roaming about from confessor to confessor because they are embarrassed that they have become a habitual sinner. When you find a qualified spiritual director, stay with him. You have to start from this place of honesty: with yourself, others, and with God. 

LSN: Anyone would recoil at the thought of seeing someone go through what you experienced of homosexuality as described in your book. What advice do you have to someone struggling with — and tempted to act out on — same-sex attraction?

Sciambra: To those struggling with same-sex attraction, I would encourage developing their prayer life; their relationship with God. They need to spend much time in prayer, going to daily Mass, and making a weekly Confession. 

They also need to have a very good confessor and/or spiritual director. 

Instead of acting out on those desires, whether that involves sexual activity with another person or by viewing pornography, they need to excavate their feelings and memories, in order to discover why they have these homosexual desires. This is a very difficult and painful process, but it must be accomplished. Here, they must completely strip themselves of their false pride and stand completely unashamed before the Lord. Because, without exception, every gay man and woman that I ever knew, reluctantly at times, could trace their homosexuality back to some childhood experience. 

LSN: People who see their loved ones being pulled into the gay lifestyle are often unprepared to say or do anything about it. They become silent. What advice do you have to someone who is concerned about someone they love who is toying with the gay lifestyle?

Sciambra: When someone is concerned about a person that they know, who may be experimenting with homosexuality, they must first remember that God is Love. He is not shock, horror, or anger. Therefore, the way to approach such a person is not with worry or questions, but with reassurances of Love.

Every person who delves into the gay lifestyle is a person who has been hurt. As a result, they can often be guarded, mistrusting, and overly-sensitive. 

This must be considered at all times. 

With that in mind, the best outreach is gentle, patient, and understanding. This does not mean to capitulate, on the contrary, you must have an inner strength grounded in the Truth of Christ, but you must also be guided and open to the workings of the Holy Spirit. You must guard against becoming emotional, because the Truth can only be relayed and accepted when it is offered in kindness and understanding. 

Joseph’s website is available here.