Weaponized Self-Pity, Part II: ‘Gay’ Clergy

Originall published at the National Carholic Register, February 27, 2019. 

In a recent column, I introduced the concept of weaponized self-pity. I noted how often I’ve seen divorced parents become defensive when I talk about the impact of divorce on children.

Numerous times, my friend Leila Miller and I have assured people that, yes, of course, spouses have every right to remove themselves from a genuinely abusive environment — although these assurances often go nowhere with some of those divorced parents to whom we speak.

In a similar way, I was about to respond yet again to someone claiming that the “Catholic right” seeks to “purge” all “gay priests” from the priesthood. Then I caught myself doing for priests who identify as “gay” what Leila was doing for divorce: repeating myself.

I am an outspoken proponent of the research that links homosexually inclined clergy and the incidences of clergy sexual abuse. My colleague, Ruth Institute senior research associate Father Paul Sullins, is the author of the important report “Is Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexuality?” showing such a connection. Continue reading “Weaponized Self-Pity, Part II: ‘Gay’ Clergy”

Memo to Andrew Sullivan: There’s No ‘Anti-Gay Purge.”

Originally published at The National Catholic Register, February 11, 2019. 

Is a “purge of gay priests” imminent? Does the “Catholic right” seek such a purge?

To hear self-described “gay Catholic writer” Andrew Sullivan in his recent article “The Gay Church,” you would think the answer to both questions is assuredly a fiery “Yes!” But as an out-and-proud member of what Sullivan would characterize as the “Catholic Right,” I say the answer is “No.”

Andrew Sullivan

Sullivan opens his article with this factually correct sentence. “We have no reliable figures on just how many priests in the Catholic Church are gay.” However, his essay goes downhill from there. Sullivan continues: “The Vatican has conducted many studies on its own clergy but never on this subject. In the United States, however, where there are 37,000 priests, no independent study has found fewer than 15 percent to be gay, and some have found as many as 60 percent. The consensus in my own research over the past few months converged on around 30 to 40 percent among parish priests and considerably more than that — as many as 60 percent or higher — among religious orders like the Franciscans or the Jesuits.”

He offers not a single source for any of these claims. Continue reading “Memo to Andrew Sullivan: There’s No ‘Anti-Gay Purge.””

Daniel Mattson: Statement by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, and the Ruth Institute

Daniel Mattson is a dear friend of mine and of the Ruth Institute. He spoke at our First Annual Awards Banquet last spring. We awarded him the Public Witness of the Year Award for his book Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I reclaimed my sexual reality and found peace.

Recently, an allegation of sexual misconduct has been lodged against Mr. Mattson. As of this writing, I do not have all the facts relevant to the allegation. I can say two things with absolute confidence.

Number 1: Many men who have lived a sexually active homosexual life, have dark deeds in their past. Indeed, for many whom we might call “ex-gays,” escaping this darkness was part of what they were trying to get away from when they left the active participation in homosexual sex.

Number 2: The message of Dan’s book remains valid, true, and life-giving. The Ruth Institute will continue to sell his book, without apology or hesitation.

And we will continue to be friends to anyone who sincerely repents of their past sins, and who is striving to live a chaste and holy life. That certainly includes Dan Mattson.

Stop Exploiting Desmond: A Challenge to the LGBT Community

COMMENTARY: Put an end to the exploitation of an 11-year-old boy.
From the “Desmond is Amazing” website.

Imagine this scenario: A married mother and father encourage their 11-year-old daughter to dress in sexually provocative clothing. They take her to a strip club and allow her to dance onstage. The patrons throw money at her. No one touches the girl in any way, given the environment. What are we to think of these parents?

Now imagine this scenario: A priest invites an altar boy to spend evenings with him. The priest encourages the boy to dress in women’s clothing. The priest tells the boy how nice he looks and how wonderful it is that he is expressing his true self. The boy and the priest spend time together watching videos of men in drag. He arranges for the 11-year-old boy to perform at a nightclub that caters primarily to a homosexual clientele. The patrons throw money at the boy. No one, including the priest, touches the boy, at the club or elsewhere. What are we to think of the priest? Continue reading “Stop Exploiting Desmond: A Challenge to the LGBT Community”

Keep your grubby ideological mitts off the Catechism!!

This post is not what you think it is… 

UPDATED FOR CLARITY

A friend sent me a concern about someone doing some internet hanky-panky with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is the gist of her note:

There is a revised version of the Vatican’s Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2358 on homosexuality floating around. If you search Catechism of the Catholic Church Homosexuality on Google, you find the top two links are to Vatican pages which look nearly identical. The only difference is paragraph 2358.

The second link is the revision. A web-savvy friend found it does belong to the Vatican and was created in 2015. It is indexed which means “they” want it to come up in searches. It comes up as number two: a problematic acceptance of pop theory on homosexuality and the removal of the words intrinsically disordered. The correct version of CCC 2358 is first on google searches. Verbal engineering is afoot!!!  Continue reading “Keep your grubby ideological mitts off the Catechism!!”

CA “You Must Stay Gay” bill withdrawn

The Christian Post reports that California State Assemblyman Evan Low has withdrawn his controversial gay “conversion therapy ban” bill, citing fears that it would not pass constitutional muster. 

Curtis Schube, legal counsel with the Pennsylvania Family Institute:

“We are grateful that the California legislature has tabled this bill. Not only would a ban on counseling violate the constitutional rights of Californians, it would have been bad policy to limit individuals from obtaining services that they would find beneficial to their own lives,” Schube said in a statement to The Christian Post on Friday.

Continue reading “CA “You Must Stay Gay” bill withdrawn”

Your child is only your child when the government says so.

A little girl in New York is in foster care, even though her father is a perfectly fit parent.  The court will not even recognize him as her father. How is this possible, you ask?

The little girl’s mother is in a same sex union. The girl is in foster care, because of  neglect petitions pending against both the mother and her lover. Although the five-judge panel agreed that the fact that the child was in foster care was “relevant” and “concerning,” they nevertheless denied the father’s request to prove his fatherhood.

In the court’s logic, this man “merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights.”

In other words, he is not a father unless we say so.

The news stories about this case focus on its implications for “Marriage Equality.” The Daily Beast story has a sub-headline: “judges rule in favor of marriage equality over biology in case of 3-year-old girl.” A Canadian paper, The National Post describes the case this way:

Without legal advice, Christopher and the women drew up a contract in which he waived any claims to paternity, custody or visitation, and the women waived any claim to child support. But troubles arose, and they disagreed on Christopher’s access to the child…In April 2015, Christopher went to court, seeking an order for a paternity test, and later for custody of the child.

The Post is not too clear on what “troubles arose.” We get a clue, from the court documents (page 18), which The Daily Beast cited only in passing, that the child has been in foster care for a lengthy “period of time” since the 2015 hearing.

Perhaps this explains why he “belatedly asserted parental rights.” Maybe he saw what the child welfare authorities eventually saw. These women were neglecting the seven-month-old child.

Christopher volunteered his sperm as a “humanitarian gesture” to two women who were family friends. He evidently absorbed the Grand Gay Narrative that assures us:

  • biology is overrated: any two people who love each other and the child are just as good as any others and,
  • lesbians make the best parents ever.

If the Grand Gay Narrative is true, a man might logically conclude that donating his sperm could be a “humanitarian gesture.”  He might well believe that agreeing in advance to stand down from active fatherhood was a fine thing to do, costless to himself and his child, and beneficial to these two women.

The problem is that the Grand Gay Narrative is false. Biology does matter, both parents and children care about their biological connections. Being raised by a same sex couple does present risks to kids, compared with being raised by one’s own biological parents. The people who say otherwise base their opinion on highly suspect, cherry-picked data, from small unrepresentative samples. Frankly, most of it is highly publicized junk science.

Neither of these women has pulled herself together enough to have the little girl returned to her care. I was a foster parent in San Diego. I know that child welfare agencies try to give parents every opportunity to reunify with their children. If the child has been in foster care “for a lengthy period of time,” these two women must be bad news. Christopher was trying to be a nice guy in 2014 when he donated the sperm. He has been trying to be a responsible father since April 2015 when he first petitioned the court.

Isn’t this how we want men to behave toward the children they sire?

The five-judge panel was not interested.

“We believe that it must be true that a child born to a same-gender married couple is presumed to be their child… A paternity test for an outsider, who merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights, would effectively disrupt, if not destroy, this family unit and nullify the child’s established relationship with the wife, her other mother. Testing in these circumstances exposes children born into same-gender marriages to instability for no justifiable reason other than to provide a father-figure for children who already have two parents.” (emphasis added.)

News flash to the judges: a child in foster care is already “exposed to instability.” Is letting her father be involved more disruptive than foster care?

The court’s ruling does not protect the child’s best interests. Their ruling circles the wagons to protect the Grand Gay Narrative.

“Marriage Equality” advocates assured us that removing the gender requirement from marriage was only a matter of making same sex couples the legal equivalent of opposite sex couples. This case shows that “Marriage Equality” creates a whole round of new inequalities. Some fathers are permitted to be involved in their children’s lives. Others are not: the law actively blocks Christopher from his own child. Some children have a legally recognized right to their fathers. Others, like this little girl, do not.

She only has the parents the government allows her to have. And that is way too much power for any government.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute. They recently released their special report, Marriage and Equality: How Natural Marriage upholds equality for children.  

Originally published at The Stream, on February 9, 2018, under the title: “New York Court: A Girl’s Right to Her Father Doesn’t Matter. Protecting ‘Marriage Equality’ Does.” 

Daniel Mattson explains it all
Dan Mattson. Not Fr. James Martin.

Am I the only one who is tired of Fr. James Martin? I’m not only tired of seeing him fetedby the Main Stream Media. I’m almost as tired of hearing people I agree with, attacking him, arguing with him, or otherwise calling attention to him.

Not that we shouldn’t disagree civilly and respectfully with people we believe to be in error. We should. But, I think we can do far more good by calling attention to the things we believe to be true.

K43692CARAVAG 1
The Featured Image of Courage The Call of St. Matthew: Who Me? Follow you. Ok.

For instance: who or what, would be the opposite of Fr. James Martin and his Bridge to Nowhere? The Courage Apostolate, which helps people with same sex attraction to live chaste and holy lives. Same sex attracted men and women who are living chaste and holy lives (some of the holiest people I know, actually.) Men like Dan Mattson and Doug Mainwaring and Paul Darrow and Joseph Sciambra.

Let’s play a game. Humor me. Every time you see a post that attacks something or someone you disagree with, do more than “like and share” that post.  Post about something or someone that you DO AGREE WITH on a related topic.

For instance, you could post a link to Courage, or to their film, The Desire of the Everlasting Hills. You could post a link to Dan Mattson’s book, or a review of same. You could post to Joseph Sciambra’s website: this article is particularly raw.  Or this post fromthe Chastity Project. Or this blog from a Latter Day Saint who experiences same sex attraction and who married a woman and values her and their children more than his attractions to men. And so so.

Josh Weed Blog Header
Header from Josh Weed’s blog, gay Mormon man with his wife of 3 of their 4 daughters. (Find out why the 4th one isn’t there. It is a hoot.)

My point: refute James Martin if you must. But do not leave “James Martin” as the final word. Let Dan Mattson or Paul Darrow be the last word.

Or, maybe even let Jesus have the last word, “Take heart: I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

Root for the Home Team: Dan Mattson’s new non-gay book

My friend Dan Mattson has written a truly Catholic, truly great book, called, “Why I don’t call myself gay.”  Part memoir, part social commentary, part theological commentary, “Why I don’t call myself gay” is a great counter-weight to the numerous people in society, including sadly, many in the church, who tell young people to “come out.” The whole society tells young people that best way to deal with feelings of sexual attraction to the same sex is to “admit it: you’re gay.”

Dan shows that people who experience same sex attraction have other options. You need not declare yourself “gay,” live a sexually active life, and endorse the entire political agenda served up by the Gay wing of the Sexual Revolution.

A certain very public Jesuit has released a book justifying certain sexual sins. (I don’t want to mention either his name, or the name of his book.) I know many of my friends will want to express their disgust with this man, and disagreement with his views. May I make a respectful suggestion? Every time you mention the heresy, or the heretic, please mention this Dan Mattson, and “Why I don’t call myself gay.”

Catholic and Christian public intellectuals who toe the Sexual Revolutionary Party Line will get plenty of attention from the Main Stream Media. Dan Mattson will only get noticed if we notice him. Please give Dan Mattson more time at the microphone and heretical Jesuits less. Dan’s our guy. Let’s root for him. Let’s ignore the other guys whenever we decently do so.

And get the book.

If you have young people in your life who are telling you that they think they are “gay,” get this book for them. Read it together with them.

IN the meantime, read this story about Dan’s book, by my friend Doug Mainwaring.