From Fr. Longnecker:

An earlier post this week with a similar title evoked the most passionate comments I’ve had on a post for a long time. I suggested that one of the reasons why Catholic kids leave the church is that our catechism and worship styles and preaching for the past fifty years did not prepare them for the rigors and demands of a fully Catholic life. I would like to add to that.

There is another huge contributing factor to the hemorrhage from the Catholic Church. It is indifferentism, and the indifferentism has three aspects. First is the aspect that it doesn’t really matter what church you go to. You wouldn’t believe the number of potential convert clergy who are told by a Catholic priest to stay where they are in the Protestant denomination and “work for church unity.”

The first aspect of indifferentism is the idea that all the Christian denominations–for that matter all the different religions–are pretty much the same. You know the schtick–”We are all following different paths up the same mountain. You choose your path – I choose mine.” The unique claims to Catholic truth have been watered down or denied completely. So if we have been telling our kids for the last fifty years that all the other Christian denominations are pretty much the same we shouldn’t be surprised when they quite happily marry a Methodist or tootle off to the community church or join the Episcopalians?

Faithful parents will protest, “But we never taught our kids that! We sent them to Catholic school.” You don’t get it. They were taught indifferentism in their Catholic school. They picked it up at that CCD class you thought was okay. They were fed it at that Catholic high school you thought was just fine. The bishop thought that was the way forward. They heard it at their confirmation class. The priests learned it at seminary from modernist professors. To say that other Christians were in error was “judgmental” and  ”unloving”, “narrow minded”, “rigid” etc.

Indifferentism also applies in a second way: we became indifferent to the importance of doctrine. Doctrine didn’t matter. Experience was everything. Warm, fuzzy experience. In fact, not only did doctrine not matter, but it was considered divisive. All Christians were coming together, and this wonderful unity would be accelerated as we left all those dull, old arguments about doctrine behind us. As it was expressed by an exasperated Methodist when I, as an Anglican priest, announced my intention to resign my ministry and become a Catholic, “Isn’t all that matters how much we love Jesus?!” This is Rodney King theology” “Can’t we all just get along?”

If we were taught to be indifferent about doctrine, then the logical conclusion is that doctrine doesn’t matter, and if doctrine doesn’t matter then it doesn’t really matter what you believe, and if it doesn’t really matter what you believe then you can make up your own religion and believe pretty much whatever seems right and good to you and makes you feel like a nice person. Consequently, the next generation didn’t really see any solid reason to remain Catholic.

So they went church shopping, and they found that the other churches had better merchandise. If they were looking for wonderful music, beautiful architecture and fine liturgy the Episcopalians did all that better than the Catholics (who were busy building concrete flying saucers to worship in) If they were looking for gung ho youth groups, happy music and powerful Biblical preaching the Baptists did that better than the Catholics. If they wanted relevant hip hop sermons with big screens, bagels and a latte–the community church sure did that better than the Catholics. If they wanted groovy, soothing music, easy going services and a feel good sermon “contemporary worship stream” at the mainstream Protestant church filled the need. The Catholics were simply doing Protestant badly.

In the meantime, all the things that were really distinctive and unique about the Catholic faith we, in America, put up at a kind of ecclesiastical yard sale. Eucharistic adoration, the real presence of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, the apostolic authority, the papacy, the church fathers, the communion of the saints, images of saints, pilgrimages, the promise of heaven and the pains of hell, the need for confession and the sanctity of marriage….if they weren’t exactly put up at a yard sale, at least they were stashed away in the attic in order to make way for a bland, watered down, wall  to wall carpeting version of Catholicism that was a mix between a Protestant church, Dr Phil and a poorly done nightclub singing act…and the amazing thing is a huge number of American Catholics liked the result. If you don’t believe me try introducing Gregorian chant or something called a hymn to an AmChurch parish.

The third aspect of indifferentism is simply being indifferent. Careless. Complacent. Worldly. Lacking in passion. Lukewarm. Boring. The reason I am a committed Christian and a passionate Catholic today is because I grew up with people who really believed the old, old story of mankind’s fall from grace and God’s saving sacrifice. My parents not only took us to church. They lived a life of sacrifice. My Dad–with five kids and a failing business–gave 15% of his income to the church and we knew it and were proud of his action. We met missionaries who gave their lives to go and live in the jungle with their families to bring the gospel to aboriginal tribes living in fear and darkness. We met refugees from Russia who had been imprisoned for their faith and escaped with nothing but the shirt on their back and had set up missions to smuggle Bibles into communist lands.

This third aspect of indifferentism is the worst of all. It tames Aslan. It waters down the wine. It replaces the fire of the Holy Spirit with one of those tacky fake candles you pay a nickel for and press a switch. Why do they leave? It’s not hard to figure out. They say it themselves–as some folks in the combox have pointed out. They asked their kids why they didn’t believe the Catholic faith and the answer was stark and simple: “If it really is the body and blood of Christ and he is really present–why don’t Catholics–priests included (or should I say priests especially) behave as if it is so?  They have shopped elsewhere and found other Christians who seem to love Jesus Christ more and wish to serve him with their whole lives.

So what do I actually say to the parents who are bereaved at their children’s loss of faith? I say what I say to any Catholic. “Be a saint!” By the grace of God be the most reverent, most radical, most radiant and sold out follower of Jesus Christ. Leave everything and follow him. Sell it all and be a missionary! Even now leave your nets and follow Christ. Do not be afraid. If even only a fraction of Catholics lived as they say they believe the church and the world would be transformed.

From Fr. Longnecker:

I’m in Indianapolis Indiana leading a parish mission this week, and in the meet and greet session afterwards, the most common conversation I have is with middle aged women who say, “Father, what can I do, my children have stopped practicing the faith!” or  they tell me how their children have married Mormons or Methodists or Baptists and left the Catholic Church.

What’s the problem? The problem is not now. The problem is back then. The problem is how we have educated a whole generation of young Catholics. We’ve driven them off with being nice. The Catholic Church over the last fifty years in the USA has become just another nice American institution. Nice like McDonald’s. Nice like Disneyland. Nice like the Mall. Nice like the neatly trimmed suburbs.

We’ve made catechesis nice. It’s all about the sacraments and being nice and the church and being nice and peace and justice and being nice and forgiveness and hugs and being nice. That’s all very nice… but there is another aspect to the gospel which we’ve quietly forgotten. We’ve forgotten that part about, “If anyone would be my disciple he must take up his cross and follow me.” Or that part which says, “The world will hate you as it has hated me.” or “Broad is the way that leads to destruction, but narrow is the gate and few there be that find it.”

So our children aren’t dumb. They grow up and they figure that if it’s all about being nice that you don’t have to go to church to be nice. You can be nice without church. You don’t have to be Catholic to be nice. You can be a nice Methodist if you want. So if they want to be nice they just go along being nice without church, and they believe that because that’s actually what we taught them even when we didn’t know that is what we were teaching them.

Because we never told them it would be difficult and that it would require discipline and that they should have some backbone and determination if they were going to make it in the spiritual life, they learned that lesson, and therefore when it did turn out to require a little bit of grit and determination and difficult things like confession and self discipline and prayer–they went scooting off because they thought it was all about being nice and praise and worship songs that made you feel good and a warm comfy sermon from Father about loving each other more. That’s what they thought it was. That’s what we taught them it was, and when it turned out that being a Catholic required some backbone and self sacrifice and dedication they were disappointed like we are all disappointed when our expectations are shattered. Never mind that they were false expectations to start with.

They felt like they were sold a bill of goods. Everybody said the  Catholic faith was all nice and warm and cozy and when it turned out different they scoot off to a church where they are made to feel warm and cozy, and who can blame them?

I think our catechesis should be more realistic. It should be more like boot camp than fat camp. We should tell the confirmation kids up front that they shouldn’t sign up unless they’ve got the backbone to do so. We should tell them up front that being a Catholic is a serious business of soul making and if they aren’t going to be there 100% they shouldn’t bother. Keep your lukewarm Christianity. We want intentional disciples or no disciples at all.

I reckon a bit more vinegar in the water would yield good results at the end of the day, and the wandering lambs the concerned mothers worry about will only migrate home to the Catholic church once they see that it is only the Catholics who have the guts and the glory to stand up for the Truth and fight the good fight.

From Fr. Longnecker:

Cut Off Catholicism vs. Continuous Catholicism

In the midst of composing this series on what’s killing American Catholicism I am not only reading George Weigel’s Evangelical Catholicism and Sherrie Weddell’s Forming Intentional Disciples  but on the flight out to Indianapolis read Russell Shaw’s American Church — The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America. 

Shaw’s book is written in his usual readable and personal style–full of fascinating history and observation. It assesses the problems in the American church accurately–pinpointing the difficulties American Catholic leaders had in establishing Catholicism which was both faithful to the Catholic teaching and yet loyally American. One of the main problems was dealing with the cultural Catholicism of the immigrant communities. In an effort to help them assimilate the bishops encouraged a new kind of cultural Catholicism: American Catholicism. The problem with this is that the predominant philosophies of the American republic weren’t really Catholic. If they were Christian at all, they were Protestant.

Let’s be honest: America was founded first by Protestant Puritan settlers and constitutionally by eighteenth century Deists and Freemasons. There ain’t much Catholic about America’s founding principles and what was compatible with Catholicism–a certain set of Christian values and  moral principles–is fading fast. Russell Shaw quotes Harvard philosopher Georges Santayana on the essential incompatibility between historic Catholicism and the rationalistic, materialistic and secular philosophies which lie at the heart of the American system.

This faith [Catholicism]…is full of large disillusions about this world and minute illusions about the other. It is ancient, metaphysical, poetic, elaborate, ascetic, autocratic and intolerant. It confronts the boastful natural man, such as the American is, with a thousand denials and menaces. Everything in American life is at the antipodes to such a system. Yet the American Catholic is entirely at peace. His tone in everything, even in religion, is cheerfully American. It is wonderful how silently, amicably and happily he lives in a community whose spirit is profoundly hostile to that of his religion…Attachment to his church in such a temper brings him into no serious conflict with his Protestant neighbors. They live and meet on common ground. Their respective religions pass among them for family, matters, private and sacred with no political implications.

If I must continue the alliteration of my series with ‘C’ words, then this is what I call “Cut Off” Catholicism. It is cut off from the deep philosophical and theological roots of the historic faith. Here are some examples. The Catholic religion–like all ancient religions both pagan and Jewish–is ritualistic. It speaks in the language of liturgy, sign, symbol and sacred gesture. We only have to experience the typical AmChurch Mass to see that the Americans attending Mass don’t understand such things. The altar servers wear robes but they don’t know why. They serve the altar, but have not the slightest idea of the liturgical or symbolic significance of what they do. The chew gum and wear da-glo sneakers underneath their robes. The people sit in the pews in big auditoria dressed as if they are at the movies or a basketball game. The music is an entertainment based blend of honkey tonk, nightclub style and country Western. This is made worse by the fact that the vast majority of AmChurch Catholics don’t realize there is anything wrong. They like this form of worship, and they like it because they don’t understand ritual, sign, symbol and sacred gesture–even worse they don’t understand that they don’t understand.

The historic ritual of Catholic religion is rooted in an acceptance of the metaphysical. In other words, we believe that through the ritual we are making a transaction with the other world. The supernatural impinges on us at all times. We are at the threshold of heaven and on the doorstep of eternity. Most AmChurch Catholics don’t understand this. I am convinced that it is simply not a part of their world view. Why should it be? They have been educated in a culture and by a system that is essentially materialistic, utilitarian and secular. There is no sense of the immanent, no sense of the awesome presence in life. The Protestant founding fathers weeded out all that “nonsense” and the deists and materialists finished the job. Such poetic and otherworldly ideas are not even dismissed by the typical American. They are not even misunderstood. They simply do not exist in their vocabulary.

Worship has become for most American Catholics therefore a mixture of civic duty, a way to inculcate good values into their children, a matter of family tradition which is presented in a way that is comfortable, easy going and entertaining. The idea that we are in touch with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the pillar of fire and the burning bush, the idea that we are on the threshold of a life changing mystical experience is utterly foreign to their imagination.

The desire for the mystical, however will not die, so instead of finding this mysterium tremendum et fascinans in the ritual, music, architecture and art of ordinary Catholic worship or in the religious traditions of contemplative prayer, monasticism and devotions the American Catholic is most likely to wander off into the misty mystical mess of New Age practices, Eastern religions or the occult.

It seems to me that this divorce from not only our ancient traditions, but our ancient way of viewing the world and our religion in America is not simply the result of the mis-application of the Second  Vatican Council or the ravages of modernism or the desire to make Catholic worship ‘relevant’. These are only part of the problem, and indeed are really only symptoms. The deeper malaise–and one which is most difficult to counter–is that the American founding philosophy is fundamentally opposed to Catholicism. America is individualistic, anti authoritarian, pragmatic, materialistic and aggressive. It has historically balanced this worldly view with a Protestant Christian ethos, but that is disintegrating because it also had woven into its genetic code a kind religious form of the American philosophy: a Christian form of individualism, anti authoritarianism, materialistic pragmatism with not a little bit of aggression.

What can be done? Cut off Catholicism can only be countered by Continuous Catholicism. This is what Pope Benedict XVI was trying to establish with his concept of “the hermeneutic of continuity”–that we thrive as Catholics as we nurture and cultivate our roots. This is not simply a matter of putting on a fancy alb with lace or using a more ornate miter. It is a whole approach to our faith which sees everything we do as Catholics from our liturgy to our prayer, education, catechesis and family life as deeply rooted not in American (or any other) culture, but as deeply rooted in the traditions and understanding of historic Catholicism.

It means nurturing in art, music, liturgy, education, prayer and formation a worldview that is counter cultural in America. It means developing a more sacramental vision of reality–one that is rooted in the metaphysical transaction of the Mass and the daily interaction between this world and the next. It means consciously developing a new way of seeing–one that runs counter to the materialistic pragmatism of everyday America. How is this done? Through prayer, asceticism and a radically prophetic way of life.

T.S.Eliot suggested that the renewal of Christian society would come through a renewal of monasticism. Certainly at the fall of the Roman Empire it was the monasticism of Benedict that established in that materialistic, cruel and selfish age a new kind of mysticism and spiritual awareness. This is part of the answer for us as well…and set the stage for part five of the series:

Coca Cola Catholicism vs. Contemplative Catholicism.

From Fr. Longnecker:

What’s killing American Catholicism? This is the third part of a series. The problems all begin with the letter ‘C’. The first part was Cultural Catholicism. The problem when people are more cultural than Catholic. The Catholic faith transcends culture, and if it is linked too closely to culture, when the immigrant stops being Italian (or Irish or Polish) he stops being Catholic–or worse–he adapts Catholicism to his American culture just as he adapted it to his former culture. Cultural Catholicism is countered by Comprehensive Catholicism–a Catholic understanding that affirms what is good in culture, but also transcends all cultures.

The second ‘C’ was Complacent Catholicism. A certain laziness in the faith which is rooted in American individualism and materialism. It’s countered by Compassionate Catholicism.

The third ‘C’ is Cafeteria Catholicism. Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what they  like about the faith. Do they think the Sunday Mass obligation is binding? Not if it is inconvenient. If their marriage breaks down they get divorced and re-married like everyone else. Do they think they should refrain from communion if they re-marry? Nah. That doesn’t apply to them. Is co-habitation wrong? Everybody does it. Do they still want a white wedding with all the trimmings and a schmaltzy sermon from Father about their beautiful love? Sure! What about Catholic beliefs? Transubstantiation? That’s medieval isn’t it? We know it’s just a symbol now. Homosex marriage? Why not? Women priests? The church needs to get with the times.

Cafeteria Catholicism is rooted in two basic problems. The first is a foundational relativism. What I mean by “foundational relativism” is the sort of relativism that is simply woven into American culture. Nobody thinks about it or discusses it. It is just there as a founding principle of the American worldview. This relativism can be stated as “I know what’s best for me” or “everybody has their own truth–what works for you doesn’t work for me.” Nobody thinks this through. It’s just part of the American air we breathe, but it’s poisonous air when it comes to the practice of the Catholic faith.

The other thing which has exacerbated the problem of Cafeteria Catholicism is a poor understanding and poor exercise of Church authority. Too many Catholics regard the teaching of the Catholic Church to be a sort of arcane theory of life for saintly people–not something for ordinary folks like them. They have a vague notion that the Pope is infallible, but see no real reason or way that the Church speaks to them in their ordinary life. Why is this? Because too many priests have been dishing out saccharine Oprah Winfrey self help homilies rather than teaching the faith.

Furthermore–and the most damning–they have seen the clergy and bishops living just like all the other materialistic compromising American Catholics. To often the clergy and bishops themselves have not lived the life they profess and preach. Why should the people take the authority of the church seriously when their own clergy and bishops don’t seem to take it seriously? They have been picking and choosing which parts of Catholic faith and practice they want to observe. Why should the laity be any different?

Cafeteria Catholicism, then is rooted in a deep and abiding worldliness in the  American Catholic Church. What’s the answer? Complete Catholicism. By “complete” I mean whole and perfect. I mean radiant lives of disciples of Jesus Christ that are conformed totally and completely to his will and to the loving teachings of the church. Don’t misunderstand. I am not talking about some sort of legalistic approach in which all compromising Catholics will be forced to sign a confession of faith and observe all the rules and regulations of the Catholic faith. That kind of legalism kills just as much as Cafeteria Catholicism kills.

Instead I’m calling for lives that are completely committed to Christ and his church out of love, enthusiasm and an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I’m talking about disciples of Christ who, every day of their lives, are turning again away from themselves to draw closer to Christ, to follow him more completely in joy and to be transformed daily more and more into his likeness. Then there will not be a question of picking and choosing which bits of Catholicism they like. Instead they will cry out with St Therese, “I will have all!” They will embrace the wholeness of the Catholic truth because it is a beautiful, complete and dynamic map for the spiritual life.

This Complete Catholicism is the only thing which can challenge the lukewarmness and compromise of the Cafeteria Catholics. It is the only thing which will win the battle and win the world.

From Catholic Answers:

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Divine Law

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

“I Was Born This Way”

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.

The Ten Percent Argument

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

“You’re Just a Homophobe”

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with “homophobia”—that they hold the position they do because they are “afraid” of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way “afraid” of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying “homophobe!” falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

The Call to Chastity

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

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

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage, 
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

From Fr. Longnecker:

I’m continuing a series on things that are destroying American Catholicism. They all begin with the letter ‘C’–as does the solution to the problem.

You can use the ‘Categories’ tool to pull up the whole series as they are written. Here is a link to the first article in the series on Cultural Catholicism

If you would like to copy these articles for publication in parish newsletters or bulletins or to re-publish elsewhere you are welcome. Please just email me to discuss the best way to do this.

Cultural Catholicism which blends a particular culture with the Catholic faith is destroying American Catholicism because it keeps the faithful from seeing that Catholicism, by its very definition, should transcend culture and challenge culture.

The second thing that is killing American Catholicism is another ‘C’ word: Complacency. Too many American Catholics are complacent. They are lukewarm, and when a church is lukewarm (as it says in the Book of Revelation) God will spit them out. Why are American Catholics lukewarm in their faith? The problem is not simply laziness. It is linked with the first problem of cultural Catholicism.

Too many American Catholics have soaked up the materialistic spirit of the American age totally uncritically. They have chosen the way of materialism, hedonism, utilitarianism and consumerism, and this has dulled their commitment to Christ and the gospel. What are all these “ism’s”? Materialism is not simply buying lots of stuff at the mall. It is also a philosophy that the physical world is really all that matters. This translates into an attitude about the church in which all that matters is the good works of feeding the poor and doing peace and justice. While these things are important–to focus on them alone makes the church, (as Pope Francis says) no more than an NGO–just another charity.

Hedonism is the pleasure principle. If it feels good do it. You needn’t be a debauched drug addict to be a hedonist. Your a perfectly good candidate for the hedonist party with your dedication to a nice, comfortable middle class lifestyle. If you live for pleasure–even if it is a refined and tasteful pleasure–you’re a hedonist.

Utilitarianism is putting practicality first. It is relying on worldly common sense rather then the Holy Spirit. It is making choices according to the bottom line, efficiency and practicality. Most American Catholics choose birth control, for example, because it is a practical, seemingly common sense decision. While we should be practical and efficient and choose wisely–we are also called not just to be practical, but radical. The saints are never utilitarian. Instead they are devoted to the wild and wonderful and unpredictable love of God.

Finally, consumerism is not just soaking up just as much of the world’s resources as possible. It is also a mentality that one is a customer. It’s Frank Sinatra’s theme song, “I Did it My Way”. It’s the attitude, “I’m paying. I’ll choose.” When this attitude comes into the church everybody is the loser. It breeds discontent, disorder and dissent.

Together these “ism’s” produce a kind of lethargy in the American Catholic Church. There’s a deadness and torpor. Eyes glaze over. Parishes become like yesterday’s porridge: cold and hard to stir. The fire is gone. The Church is complacent.

How to counter complacency? By another ‘C’ word: Compassion. By ‘compassion’ I don’t simply mean feeling sorry for people. Instead I mean what the word means: “Passion With”. Passion is emotion that is disciplined and informed and active. “Compassion” is emotion and fire for God that is disciplined, informed and active. Compassion in this sense is an active nurturing of the love of God which is put into action to counteract the consumerism, utilitarian, hedonism and materialism of our society.

This “Compassion” starts not with a movement or a sermon or a new rule or regulation for religion. It starts in the human heart. It starts in each individual human heart.

It starts now. With my heart. It starts now with yours.

From Fr. Longnecker:

Reading Sherry Weddell’s excellent Forming Intentional Disciples is making me think about the American church and what ails her. Can anybody deny that there is a sickness in the body ecclesia? When 50% of Catholics vote for a man who stoutly defends same sex marriage and partial birth abortion can we say that Catholics in America are okay?

I don’t think so.

Thus a series of posts on what’s killing Catholicism. All the words begin with the letter ‘C’. I can’t help it. I was brought up as a Biblical Evangelical and our pastors always used alliteration to make their points memorable.

The first problem is cultural catholicism. The Poles, Italians, Irish, French, Czech, German and more Catholics came here from the old country and the bishops reckoned the best thing to do with them all was to allow cultural parishes. So in the same town the Irish Catholics went to St Patrick’s and the Poles to St Stanislaus and the Italians to St Anthony of Padua. Geesh, a man in my parish who grew up in Reading, Pennsylvania said that when he was a boy a girl from his Czech parish fell in love with an Irish boy and the Irish priest wouldn’t marry them because it was a mixed marriage.

I’m all for cultural customs and so forth, but the problem is that the immigrant Catholics–in a foreign land–clung to their culture for security and happiness and part of that culture was their Catholicism. They didn’t distinguish their culture from their Catholicism. Then, after a few generations, when they were all really American and stopped being Italian or Irish or German they also stopped being Catholic. The Catholic faith wasn’t much deeper than Mama’s special spaghetti sauce or stories of the Blarney stone.

Of course they didn’t all stop being Catholic. Something else happened which was even more subtle and insidious. They became Americans and because their mindset was that their Catholic faith was something which blended with their culture, instead of being Italian-Catholics or Polish Catholics they became American Catholics. Just as nationalism and love of culture blended with their Catholic faith when they were ethnic minorities, now it blended seamlessly with their new American culture. Just as Catholicism gave their former culture God’s approval, not their Catholicism gave American values and culture God’s approval.

Thus we have what I call AmChurch: the American Catholic church which is happily and blissfully blended with everything wonderful about America. Except that the “wonderful” values of most Americans are unapologetically materialistic, hedonistic and self centered. Thus at least 50% of American Catholics live like their American neighbors–going to the mall, getting as much stuff as possible, giving as little as possible, having a neat and tidy two children and a double income, and basically smiling their way to success like everyone else.

Now this grates with me because I was brought up as an Evangelical fundamentalist and I realize the roots are deep. More than that, I come from seven generations of sturdy Pennsylvania Dutch anabaptists–Mennonnites, Amish, Brethren and such. These people had exactly the other point of view. They were first and foremost Christians. They considered it the default setting that each person had to hear the call of Christ and leave their nets and follow him. The church was a pilgrim people–a people set apart. They were suspicious of the surrounding culture and very suspicious of officialdom of every kind. If the Catholics absorbed culture the Mennonite were deliberately counter cultural.

The Mennonite approach, however, has it’s problems. The gospel says we’re to be “in the world but not of the world”. We’re not actually supposed to be totally counter cultural. We’re supposed to be yeast in the dough, a light set on the hill. You get too counter cultural and you become a weird sect like the Branch Davidians.

Being a happy Benedictine oblate I see the solution as being something more than both of these ways. The problem with cultural Catholics in America is that they have never come to realize that the Catholic faith transcends every culture. That’s what Catholic means for goodness sake! It’s universal. The Catholic faith is therefore embedded in every culture and takes from every culture what is useful and good, but because it transcends culture it is also automatically counter cultural in the right way.

The Catholic should always be in a constant tug of war with the culture around him. Here affirming what is good–there condemning what is bad. Here supporting all that is full of life, love, truth beauty and goodness and there condemning and avoiding all that is full of death, hate, lies, ugliness and evil.

The answer to Cultural Catholicism, therefore, is what I call Comprehensive Catholicism–a Catholicism that embraces all things for their essential worth. If their value is precious and eternal the more highly we love them. If their value is trash–well we love trash for what its worth too: to be thrown on the rubbish pile and burnt. This sort of constantly discerning Catholicism is what is needed at the individual and local level, but the reason people opt for cultural Catholicism is because it is easy.

This is the core problem with Cultural Catholicism: by its very nature it goes with the flow. In its love and acceptance of the ethnic culture it is uncritical, and because individual cultural Catholics are uncritical of their culture they are also uncritical of the level of their Catholic faith. They chortle along quite happily living the unexamined life.

When the test comes this kind of Catholicism will simply wither and die in the heat. “When the test comes?” We are in the middle of the test already. What I see in the American Catholic Church is a huge “F” on that test. The opportunity to stand up and be counted and to stand against the culture of death in this country has already been lost by the majority of so called Catholics because so blinded by the love of their culture, they didn’t even realize there was a test to start with.

From Breitbart:

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians–including chaplains–sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime–possibly resulting in imprisonment–for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)–whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by “proselytizing.” …I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 30,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.

**UPDATE**

The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty with the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.  

From Matt Fradd:

Sacrosanctum Concilium is the Vatican II document that dealt specifically with the reform of the liturgy. Due to the great confusion many people have regarding the changes implemented by Vatican II, allow me to point to three things which the constitution did not say.

1. Abolish Latin in the liturgy
In paragraph 54 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it states: “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people.” Yet it goes on to say, “Nevertheless, steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass” (that is, the unchanging parts that we say every Sunday, such as the creed, the Gloria and the Lord’s Prayer) “which pertain to them.”

2. Give contemporary music pride of place in the liturgy
In paragraph 116, the document states: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

3. Have the priest face the people during the liturgy

Nowhere in the document does it say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. Check for yourself. Founder and President of Ignatius Press, Fr. Joseph Fessio, says “Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.”

In pointing to these facts, I am not insinuating that a Mass celebrated entirely in the vernacular with contemporary music and a priest facing the congregation is wrong, sinful, or not permitted. All these things are permitted. But they are not mandated by Vatican II – or any subsequent council for that matter.

From The Bellarmine Report:

Cardinal Walter Kasper made the long-awaited admission in L’Osservatore Romano on April 12, 2013 that Vatican II was created with ambiguities and contradictory statements for the precise purpose of fomenting division between the liberal and conservative ranks of the Catholic prelature.

Here are some choice excerpts from the article:

“In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.”

“For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintry look, and shows clear signs of crisis.”

“For those who know the story of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this[the state of confusion] will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The [Second] Vatican, however, is a special case.”

We at The Bellarmine Report and Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc. have stated this to be the case with Vatican II for many years, and now our position has been vindicated by one of the highest prelates in the Church.

Please see my lecture below: Was God Behind the Ambiguities of Vatican II? recorded in 2005.

There you will find a better reason than Cardinal Kasper’s as to why Vatican II, which was led by the Holy Spirit just as the twenty councils before it, was divinely permitted to contain ambiguities. It is much deeper than what Cardinal Kasper is revealing. God allowed the ambiguities as a judgment against the Church for her sins.