In the ever continuing process of "gaying the Church," various Catholics with a dog in the fight are proposing that there are "gays" — their term — in Heaven.
Father James Martin, for example — we know, shock; and who, by the way, Milo Yiannopoulos says should come screaming out of the closet — Martin has publicly tweeted on numerous occasions that there are "gays in Heaven" and that some of the saints are "gay."
Picking up on this theme, noted Catholic author and pundit, the "conservative" gay Andrew Sullivan, recently wrote a 20-page tome for the New York Magazine entitled "The Gay Church."
In his flawed analysis trying to rationalize the sin of sodomy — again, he has a dog in this fight — he points to a handful of male saints who names as gay because of their deep feelings for another man.
So there are two points here, related. First of all, what do these two men mean by the word "gay." Secondly, the question of one man "loving" another man.
So first, the word "gay." Martin and Sullivan throw the term around pretty freely with great frequency, and when they use it, it always implies not just a same-sex attraction — which is not sinful, although it is disordered — but actually acting out on that same-sex attraction, which is sinful.
So in the absence of any satisfactory explanation and given the fact that what society — meaning their audience — understands by the word gay is, acting on the inclination in a sexual way.
To our knowledge, neither had made the distinction, or at least not often or clearly. And the distinction is at the heart of the matter because it is the difference between salvation and damnation. Martin seems to deliberately conflate the two aspects of same-sex attraction, on purpose.
The more he tosses around the word "gay," the more he sounds very much like the world. It's a distinction he doesn't want to make because it's quite evident that he doesn't believe such a distinction should matter.
The crafty water boy for all things gay in the Church will neither come right out and say if he is sexually attracted to other men, although various Jesuit seminarians have told us he does admit that in private on retreats. Likewise, he will not publically make the distinction between attraction and action. He wants the confusion and line blurred because it helps him promote his agenda.
And, of course, if you challenge him on it — say, hey Father, what exactly do you mean — you will get a hail of "hater" and "homophobe" charges lobbed at you. But until he clarifies precisely what he means, it is to at least assume, Martin is just another homosexual Jesuit priest who is using the influence of his collar to get people in the Church to accept sodomy.
If he wants to come on Church Militant and refute that, we still have a year-old invitation extended to him anytime he wants. The concept of "gay" is a political ideology. The word has no place in the Church at all, under any circumstances at all, ever.
A practicing Catholic cannot be both gay and authentically Catholic, as that word is commonly understood, any more than a man can be cheating on his wife — an adulterer — and be at the same time authentically Catholic — or pro-abortion or a bank robber or a serial killer or a drug pusher or a pimp.
Being authentically Catholic — not just baptized Catholic — means fundamentally striving for holiness and that cannot happen in a gay (meaning sexually active) relationship — period. Now, onto the topic of the homosexual propaganda claiming that there are saints in heaven who are "gay" — no there aren't. We could just stop right there and wrap it up, but we won't because this is a teachable moment.
First, we have to consider, again, that the term "gay" is a political term referencing acceptance and participation in the gay agenda which can be summarized as: You must condone and accept my disordered sexuality.
Are there saints in Heaven who had same-sex attraction? Who knows? Maybe, probably, but it is because they cooperated with grace in overcoming their tendency to sin that they are in Heaven, not because they accepted it and acted on it and pronounced it a gift from God.
There are no gay saints in Heaven, just as there are no child abuser saints in Heaven or mafia kingpin saints in Heaven. There may very well be saints in Heaven who did these things and others, that's kind of the point of the Faith, but again, it's because they struggled, carried their cross and overcame them.
To Sullivan's absurd point that some male saints had deep relationships with other men is to reveal one of the core misperceptions of the modern world, that men can feel intensely about each other and not be sexual or even ever want to be sexual about it.
In fact, expressing their love and bond for each other never has anything to do with a genital expression of it. It never enters their minds — not on the radar.
But in the hyper-sexualized culture of the day, the thought of two men who care deeply for each other automatically gets labeled as "gay" when in fact it has nothing to do with it.
Men today, in fact, are deprived of the sort of close relationships with each other that previous centuries understood as perfectly normal. One of the many things wrong in the gay world is the desire to label anyone as gay if given the slightest chance; sometimes it happens even without the opportunity.
It all goes back to a victim-persecuted mentality that draws energy from a "strength in numbers" notion. That's why, for example, the gay world was always bandying about the absurd number of 10 percent of the population is gay. It made them feel not as "out of the ordinary."
Virtually every legitimate scientific study put the percentage somewhere between one and three percent — and even that depends on some definitions.
For Sullivan to imply that, for example, King David, who loved Jonathon very much, was somehow automatically gay and probably acting on it as well, it's preposterous. Yet he does the same with St. Augustine and even says St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier were "intimate" with each other and the Jesuits were born from their gay love for each other.
This stuff is twisted, but it goes to the point that nothing is secure and safe from the big gay machine that has seized control in the Church. No untruth, no distortion, no re-writing of history is too great if it can be used to push the evil notion that homosexuality acted out is a good thing — and even a gift from God.
There is, of course, the continual "hinting" that even Our Blessed Lord and St. John had a "thing" going on, arrived at by reference to the Scripture passage that says St. John rested his head on Our Blessed Lord's chest. So what? Our Blessed Lord must have had a very attractive quality about him — a quality that drew in people of good faith.
Saint Peter was so distressed, ripped apart, destroyed at his own betrayal that he went out and wept bitterly. That would only happen if Peter had intense emotions for Our Lord. Does that mean that he was gay and in love with Jesus as well?
These absurdities that men cannot love each other and feel deeply for each other unless they are also having sex; that active homosexuals who died in that state are now saints in Heaven; all of this pure diabolical.
It's meant to introduce into the Catholic stream of consciousness that "gay is OK" — again meaning being physically sexually involved in an ongoing way with a member of the same sex.
Such is the psychological pain of the gay world, which is true pain, and there must be deep compassion for, but not to the point of overriding the truth and raising "gayness" to the level of holiness. That's perverted.
And for curiosity, why aren't multiple bishops talking like this?