Friday, October 30, 2009

Jack Chick says "no" to Satan's Birthday

To those who are confused by the subject line of this post; join the club.

Jack Chick is the founder of a "Christian" outreach organization that uses tracts, comics, and obnoxious  misrepresentations of reality to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.  His favorite target is Catholics (who doesn't like pick on a Catholic now and then?) but he also doesn't care for Halloween.

That's fair, I can understand not being a fan of Halloween as a Christian.  It's one of those things that we just don't know how to react to.  Do we shun it completely?  Do we go with the flow?  Do we try to tame it down and just let our kids have fun?  Well, the answer is easy at hand with Jack Chick's comic "Boo".  It's sure to scare the living daylights out of your kids so they'll wet their pants every time they even think about Halloween!  After all, everyone knows Halloween is Satan's Birthday (well, actually I thought it was just the night before All Saints Day but then what do I know?)

Check out this article from the First Things blog for more info on the "comics" that some folks think are suitable for children.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Want a good abortion debate?

The University of Victoriea, a Canadian university, recently hosted a debate on abortion. It's worth watching if you want to see what a civil discussion on this divisive topic looks like. The first video is below and you can continue watching the debate by heading to YouTube.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

What are Indulgences?

"Indulgences" is one of those words that has a very strong
connotation.  Few people know what the word actually means, but nearly
everyone knows that it was one of Martin Luther's chief complaints
about the Catholic Church.  So what are indulgences?

First off, the term "indulgence" means "favor".  If you indulge
someone, you treat them well, you look after them, you take good care
of them.  Some people mistakenly think the word itself carries the
modern meaning of over eating or gluttony.  They assume an indulgence
is a license to indulge in something; particularly sin.    In fact,
the word means the Church is granting a favor, or is being good to
someone.  In this way the Church indulges me.  I do not indulge in
anything.

Now that we have the cumbersomeness of the word out of the way, what
does it actually mean?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the
power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes
in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of
the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of
mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.
Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these
Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and
charity.(CCC 1478)

Ok, but what does that mean?  The key concept is that sin has two
repercussions; temporal (in tine) and eternal (outside time).  Jesus'
death on the cross forgives the eternal consequence of sin, which is
infinitely more important.  This is the big deal, does a soul go to
heaven or hell.

However, the Bible suggests, and Tradition has always taught, that
there is temporal punishment due for sins as well.  This punishment is
designed to repair the damage done to ourselves and those around us
because of our sin.  Similar to a thief who steals money but is
pardoned (eternal forgiveness) but must still repay what he stole
(temporal punishment), we must "repay" what our sins have stolen.
The normal means of repayment are acts of penance, "offering up"
suffering you're experiencing, and purgatory.  This is the whole point
of purgatory; to provide a place where souls who still have temporal
punishment, but eternal forgiveness, can be purified before entering
heaven.

This is also where indulgences come in.  Indulgences are a grace
granted by the Church for particular pious actions and this grace is
particularly effective at atoning for temporal punishment.

In other articles we will discuss the different types of indulgences,
what the whole selling indulgences thing was about, and how to get
indulgences today.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

NBC's Law & Order Takes Up Abortion Case

Very interesting that Law & Order takes takes a recent situation and actually portrays it in a balanced light.  The show last Friday featured a murdered abortionist strikingly modeled after George Tiller, a late-term abortionist who was murdered back in July (I believe).

The murderer killed the abortion doctor in the Law & Order episode to protect an unborn baby who was scheduled to be aborted.  Many of the characters in the show express opinions on both sides of the abortion issue and the "pro-life" side is surprisingly not painted as religious fanatics but as well-reasoned and compassionate.

Unsurprisingly, this annoys most pro-abortion folk.  I have and continue to pray for the soul of George Tiller; but so many people get upset when he is portrayed as anything but a hero.

To read more about the episode, check out LifeSiteNews.com's article.  The episode, called "Dignity" can be viewed via iTunes.

Monday, October 26, 2009

40 Days for Life Leaders

Neat video produced by 40 Days for Life.  A few of the leaders of the campaign share their experiences and passion regarding the 40 Days for Life process.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Bidding War for Anglican Souls?

Isn't it amazing how a conspiracy can be found in anything the Vatican does?  Aren't all of the Vatican's actions so mysterious and directed toward dominating the world (or was that eliminating the Illuminati or something like that)?

Recently, the Vatican has made it possible for Anglicans to enter communion with the Catholic Church and her critics were quick to point out this newest "conspiracy".

Headlines like "Vatican Bidding for Anglicans" or "Pope Lures Anglicans into Catholic Church" abound.  The Vatican has been called "divisive" for attempting to steal away Anglicans who are disappointed with their leadership's actions.

So… the Vatican is divisive for giving people a way to enter the Church?  What Church doesn't allow for people to enter it?  Should the Vatican disallow new members?  Where is the logic in that?

If anyone had bothered to read the Vatican's announcement, they would've seen that the Vatican has received hundreds of requests from dissatisfied Anglicans requesting a way to enter the Catholic Church without losing their Anglican identity.  The Vatican's invitation isn't an attempt to "lure" them; it's actually a very humble and generous response to the request of the very people they are allegedly "bidding" for.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Anglicans Allowed Into Communion with Catholic Church

Just this morning the Vatican has announced that it has provided a way for Anglicans to enter into communion with the Catholic Church while retaining their liturgical form.

More details can be found at LifeSiteNews.com.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Is Relativism logical?

Before reading this article, check out What is Relativism.

The basic definition of moral relativism is that there are no moral truths.

Many people believe that moral relativism is a logical consequence of human reasoning.  The basic idea is that all humans are morally equal so none of us have the authority to tell anyone else that this or that is morally true.

The problem is that logic, and the behavior of moral relativists, destroy their own argument very quickly.  Let's demonstrate.

Person 1:  "Artificial contraception is truly immoral."

Person 2:  "That's not the truth; it's your opinion."

See what happened?  Person 2 said Person 1 is wrong.  Why; because Person 1 violated moral relativism.  The only way Person 1 can violate moral relativism is if he is subject to it.  The only way he can be subject to it is if it applies to all people and the only for that to happen is for moral relativism to be true.

In brief; "there are no moral truths" is self-defeating because it is a moral truth. 

This is like saying "I do not exist".  A logical question is "how did I write that sentence if I don't exist?"  Another logical question is "if moral relativism is a moral truth, how can moral truths not exist?"

Moral relativism isn't logical; in fact it destroys itself quite conveniently if we care to reason it out.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Woman Murdered for Refusing Abortion

Please pray these men, for the woman and child who were killed, and all people in similar situations around the world.
 
So much for this woman having a choice.
 

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Unsafe Abortion Killing 70,000 Women a Year?

A new report by Allan Guttmacher Institute, which is part of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has released a study that shows a staggering 70,000 women each year are killed each year by unsafe abortions.

 

The study indicates that countries that limit access to abortion have equal numbers of abortion as those countries that legalize it (in other words, legalizing abortion does not increase abortion).  In those countries where abortion is illegal, it is deemed to be unsafe.

 

The study goes on to show that those countries that accept contraception with open arms have decreased need for abortion while those stubborn countries, especially in Africa, that don't like contraception have higher abortion rates.

 

That's weird since the abortion rates in Britain, the poster-child from easy access to all imaginable types of birth control, have skyrocketed since abortion became legal there in 1967; and the rate continues to rise. 

 

It's also weird since that trend is repeated in many other European countries.  When contraception goes up, abortion goes up.

 

How strange that a research organization that is funded by an abortion and contraception provider would discover that contraception and legalization of abortion is the way to prevent these women from needing unsafe abortions.

 

It reminds me of the old adage, consider the source.

 

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is currently creating a response to the report and I'll make sure to post that here as soon as I get it.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Why is abortion such a big deal? (Part 3)

(This post is part 3 of 3)

Isn't your anti-abortion rhetoric just making women who get abortions feel guiltier?  Are you just making them out to be monsters that kill their children?  Aren't you calling them murderers?

This is why so many pro-life people don't support laws making unborn children "persons" under the law.  What if a mother falls and miscarries; was that manslaughter?  What are the legal reunifications of making a baby a "person"?  The answers are two-fold.

First, most people who get abortions don't realize the child is a child.  They are told that it is a lump of tissue.  The moral responsibility in that case is questionable.  The idea of prosecuting a mother for her unborn child's death is revolting.  Because of that, I believe any legislation declaring unborn children "persons" should also include protections from prosecution for mothers.

The pro-life movement doesn't see women who abort their children as "monsters" or "murderers".  We see them as women who feel they have no choice and we want to be there for them.  We want to help them grieve their loss and help them come to a place where they can forgive themselves.  Rachel's Vineyard retreats are places for women (and men) who went through abortions can go learn how to heal.  They aren't abused, they aren't chastised, they are loved.  We want to help women who are considering abortion, not demonize them.  This is why we focus on other options instead of just making it illegal (as stated before).

Regardless, justice demands that all people be treated equally.  All people regardless of age, race, color, religion, etc.  Notice age is on the list.  Saying that "we can't make unborn children legal "persons" because that may compromise the mother" is unjust.  That's like saying "we can't make blacks equal to whites because that may compromise whites". 

Keeping unborn children from being legally regarded as "persons" because it may negatively impact the mother is discrimination.  There is no other word for it.


I hope this essay helps clarify the pro-life position to those who just don't "get" us.  To summarize, we simply want all people to be respected equally.  We want the poor to be comfortable, we want the hungry to be fed, we want the naked to be clothed, we want pregnant women to have choices that everyone can live with, and we want unborn children to have a shot at life.

We may focus on abortion more than other issues but not because we don't care about other issues.  We see abortion as fundamentally different.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Dear Elliot

Dear, God,

Thank you for the two wonderful, healthy children you have given my wife and I. Thank you, also, for the parents of the baby in this video. Thank you for their compassion, their faith in you, and their selflessness in choosing to allow their son to live and experience life as well as he could.

Thank you for giving them the grace they needed to resist sending him home early.


Why is abortion such a big deal? (Part 2)

(This post is part 2 of 3)

Isn't it unfair for one religious group to push their views on everyone?  What gives us the right to tell everyone else what to do?

While abortion is often opposed by religious groups on religious grounds, the charge that it is a "religious issue" simply doesn't stick.

While President Obama says that the question of when life begins is "above his pay grade" anyone who studies the scientific evidence with an unbiased mind would conclude that a fertilized egg is alive and is human.  It has all of the properties of a living human including the ability to multiply cells, develop vital organs, etc.  A fertilized egg has everything it needs to develop into an adult human.

Some argue that because it cannot survive outside its mother means it's not really human.  This argument is completely illogical.  I cannot survive outside of the earth; am I therefore not human?  Everyone requires a safe environment to live in.  An embryo is more fragile than an adult and needs a different environment.  That has nothing to do with whether it is human or not.

To reject the idea that an embryo is a human opens some difficult questions.  When does a human become human?  Some say at birth, but what's the difference, scientifically, between an unborn and a born baby?  Nothing more than an inch or so of its mother's abdomen.

Yet it is illegal to kill a born baby.  Isn't it consistent to also make illegal killing an unborn baby?  There is no scientific difference between the two.

Abortion supporters claim that they use science, not religion, but I argue it's the other way around.  Science suggests that there is no physical difference between a born and unborn baby.  The statement that "life" or "personhood" is assigned to a born baby but not an unborn one is much more religious than scientific.  "Life" and "personhood" are non-scientific terms.  They are labels that science cannot define (don't believe me?  Google "brain death" and check out the debate about what it means for a person to be dead.  People are trying to change the obvious scientific answer with one that happens to be more conducive to organ harvesting).

If there is no scientific difference between a born and unborn baby then what logical reason is there for them to be treated differently under the law?  There is no such logical reason.


Yes there is, an unborn baby is part of its mother so she has extra rights over it.

Why?  Why does a mother have more rights than the child inside of her?  I think any person has the right to do with their body as they choose; but that right ends when their actions intrude on the rights of someone else.

Smoking cigarettes is becoming less and less acceptable.  Why?  Why can't I smoke cigarettes if I want to; it's my body, isn't it?  Yes, but your actions affect the people around you via second-hand smoke.  Your freedom is trampling my freedom.

A mother's body is necessary for an unborn child's survival, it is true, but that doesn't make the unborn baby a "part" of the mother's body.  When it is cold, I need a heavy coat to survive outside but that doesn't make me "part" of that coat.  The coat and I are independent.  I am a living human who happens to need different things for my survival; but I am still a distinct human being.

A born baby needs his parents for many things, food, shelter, warmth, etc.  A born baby cannot survive without its parents, or without someone to take care of it.  Does this make the baby "part" of the caregiver?  Can the caregiver decide that the baby is an inconvenience and "dispose" of the baby?  No, that is universally disallowed.

An unborn baby needs its mother for survival but is not therefore "part" of its mother.  It needs warmth and nutrition but it doesn't depend on its mother for development any more than a born child does.  If we had the right technology, an embryo could be conceived and developed seamlessly into an adult outside the womb.  To say that the baby then is somehow "part" of the mother makes no sense.  The embryo is a distinct human being.

Don't get me wrong, mothers are vital and essential to their children and I don't want to mitigate that importance; but to say the unborn child is "part" of the mother and therefore under her authority is illogical.

If the unborn child could talk, I bet it would disagree with the notion that its life is less important than the life of its mother.

This is why abortion is so important to us; we are speaking for humans who can't speak for themselves.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Why is abortion such a big deal? (Part 1)

Yesterday I wrote about an open letter the Religious Institute published in which they promote access to abortion for all women regardless of circumstance.  Let's look at why some of us "religious types" oppose abortion in light of the letter's arguments.  Several arguments will be addressed over the course of the next three days to keep the length down to something reasonable.

Many people think that some of us put too much emphasis on abortion.  Don't we realize that to be "pro-life" is to support all life; like the poor, the marginalized, the hungry and so on?  Doesn't the focus on abortion take the focus away from these other people who are also weak and vulnerable?

Everyone agrees that we need to help the poor and the marginalized.  Everyone agrees that we need to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.  We may disagree on how to do that, but no one says they're "pro-poverty".

However, there are people, even Christians, who say the mother's life (not just life but convenience and happiness) take precedence over the life of her unborn child.  In that sense we have a fundamental disagreement about reality.  Everyone says poverty is bad; not everyone says abortion is bad.  That's why the focus on abortion is so necessary.

Imagine if many people thought it was fine for all of the kids in Africa to starve to death.  Don't you think there would be a huge ruckus from "religious wackos" who want to persuade the public into believing that the plight of African children is a bad thing that we should work to end?  Of course we would.

As an odd sidebar; many pro-abortion people say they want abortion to be "rare".  If there is nothing inherently wrong with abortion, who cares if it's rare?  Anyway, I digress.


But, isn't pushing for abortion to be illegal just pushing people into getting dangerous illegal abortion? 

What gets covered in the media is the push to make abortion illegal.  What doesn't get talked about is the push (by the same people) to make adoption more accessible and available, to open more crisis pregnancy centers that can help fund a baby to term and ensure that the mother and baby get the medical attention they deserve.  There is much more that goes on with ending abortion than just changing laws.

The primary goal is to change minds.  We want to change the minds of women and men so they see children as a blessing and not a curse.  This is why consistent "pro-lifers" also oppose artificial contraception (that's conversation that's already been addressed).  As long as people see pregnancy as a disease they will seek abortion.  When they see pregnancy as a blessing, even if they can't keep the child themselves, abortion becomes an illogical choice.

In that sense, we are "pro-choice".  We want women to make a choice; a choice that everyone, including their baby, can live with.

That said, making it illegal will reduce abortions dramatically.  The mantra is always "make abortion legal and it will magically decrease".  That has happened in 0% of the countries that have legalized abortion.  It's backward thinking.  Legal things are more likely to be done than illegal things; that's just common sense.

We have no intention of passing laws and letting pregnant women just suffer the consequences.  The pro-life movement is involved at all levels of making a workable alternative to abortion, regardless of a woman's circumstances.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Betrayal of the Religious Institute

The Religious Institute, an organization that represents many different denominations of Christian churches has sent an open letter to all politicians discussing the issue of abortion; specifically abortion and healthcare and abortion and tax-payer subsidies.

If you're thinking "when will those Christians give up and say abortion is morally justifiable?" today is your day.  The opening statement goes like this:


"We are committed to social justice, mindful of the 46 million women worldwide who have an abortion each year, almost half in dangerous and illegal situations. We seek to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rare."

Safe, legal, and rare?  Isn't that plagiarism from the Planned Parenthood playbook?  I thought these were Christian churches?  I thought Christians oppose killing unborn babies.  The letter continues:


"We affirm women as moral agents who have the capacity, right and responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not abortion is justified in their specific circumstances."


"However, we uphold the teaching of many religious traditions: the health and life of the woman must take precedence over the life of the fetus."

What?  The life of the woman takes precedence?  Please show me the chapter and verse in Scripture that shows we are able to judge whose life is more important.  I'd be very interested in reading that.  I don't remember Jesus saying "Mothers, you're life is more important than your child's."  I'm not sure what Gospel that comes from.


"It is precisely because life and parenthood are so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. We support responsible procreation, the widespread availability of contraception, prenatal care and intentional parenting."

Let me get this straight.  Life is so "precious" that we don't want a woman inconvenienced by a baby if she doesn't want it so the baby should be dismembered and sucked out of her by a vacuum?  We should brutally destroy a living human being because life is sacred? 


"Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion….Scriptural commitment to the most marginalized means that pregnancy, childbearing, and abortion should be safe for all women."

Doesn't Scripture imply that pregnancy and childbearing should be safe for children, too?  Oh, wait, "the woman takes precedence", I forgot.

The letter goes on to talk about how abortion is a religious issue and no government should make laws based on any religious views.  It presses all government officials to use their power to legalize and provide access for everyone in the world to abortion.  It concludes:

"Many religious denominations have passed policies in support of legalized abortion.

They include:

-American Baptist Church
-Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
-Episcopal Church
-Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
-Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
-Presbyterian Church (USA)
-Union for Reform Judaism
-Unitarian Universalist Association
-United Church of Christ
-The United Methodist Church
-United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism"

The letter even invokes Catholic support:


"More than half (53%) of US Catholics identify themselves as pro-choice, and more than six in ten (61%) believe abortion should be legal."

I don't understand how "Christians' can say this sort of thing in honesty.  Where do they see these themes in scripture, the moral law, or even common sense?  "That's ok," Jesus says, "you didn't intend to get pregnant and your life takes precedence over the life of your baby so go ahead and have it killed."

As Protestants are so fond of saying; please show me that in the Bible.

I realize that many non-Catholic Christians oppose abortion; and to you I say speak up!  Tell your pastor!  If your denomination is in the list above, do something about it!

To Protestants who belong to denomnations firmly opposedto abortion, I encourage youto let your leadership know you support that position.  Do what you can to prevent your denomination from sliding down the slope toward acceptance.

Remember that when the Anglican Church allowed contraception in 1930, Protestants and Catholics stook shoulder to shoulder denouncing it.  Then one by one each Protestand denomination "chnged their minds".  Today Catholics stand alone.

lease don't let that happen with abortion.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Why American Bishops Are Concerned About Our President

Back in July, Cardinal Georges Cottier, who worked closely with John Paul II and has worked closely with the Vatican ever since, wrote an article downplaying American bishops' pastoral concerns regarding President Obama.  Cardinal Cottier specifically focused on the uproar regarding Obama's invitation to and honoring at Nore Dame's commencement ceremony.

Archbishop Charles Caput of Denver, CO, has written a response of "Humble Realism" for Cardinal Cottier and other Vatican officials who seem content taking Obama's lofty promises as truth; but haven't investigated what actions have followed the words.

I strongly encourage everyone to read Archbishop Chaput's article titled "Politics, Morality, and a President: an American View" both for the sound reasoning of why our American shepherd are concerned about our president's actions (though his words are indeed very nice) and for a study of how to appropriately address members of the Church in positions of more authority than yourself.

As we've said before on this blog; lashing out in anger at those we disagree with is a sure way to push them away and solidify their viewpoints we don't share.  Archbishop Chaput is a model of charity in truth that we can all learn from.

More background, and the archbishop's article, can be found at the Catholic News Agency's website.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

A Day in the Life of 40 Days for Life

40 Days for Life (http://www.40daysforlife.com/) organizes 24/7, inter-denominational, peaceful prayer witness at abortion centers accross the U.S. and Canada.

A common statement by abortion supporters is that these witnesses "harass" people.  Chck out a video taken very recently in New York.  Who's harassing whom?

Monday, October 5, 2009

Bible Myth #75: Anyone can interpret Scripture correctly by praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance

Many non-Catholic Christians believe that praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance will lead them into the correct interpretation of the Bible.  While this is a nice thought; reality shows pretty quickly that it doesn't work.  The Holy Spirit may be guiding me; but I also am influenced by my education level, my preconceived notions, my biases, and, most importantly, my desire to be right.

The historical and cultural heritage of the Bible makes it quite difficult for a reader in the third millennium to understand the metaphors, the connotations, and subtle word play that would have been obvious to those alive when it was written.  What is "so clear" to us is our own, modern understanding of the English translation.  It can be hard for us to get a proper context.

For example, the word "works" is used by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans and by St. James.  They are speaking, however, about two completely different things.  St. Paul speaks about "works of the law" which are those actions required by Jews while St. James speaks of works like loving and charity.  This is why St. Paul can say we are saved by faith and not works (of the law) and St. James can say we are saved by works and not faith alone yet there is not contradiction.  This context isn't obvious from the text.

If that weren't enough, the Bible itself condemns personal interpretation.  Let's take a look:

"And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Pt 3:15-16)

"Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. This was the scripture passage he was reading: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth. In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth." (Acts 8:30-33

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (2 Pt 1:20)

Well, if the Bible says we shouldn't interpret it on our own; where should we find the truth?

"the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15)

Friday, October 2, 2009

What does the Catholic Church teach on homosexuality?

Why is the Catholic Church so anti-homosexuality? The Church opposes gay marriage and all that. Why do Catholics hate gays so much?

There is a lot that goes into the Church’s teachings on homosexuality; but first among them is the Church does not hate people, any people, no mater what they have done or how they are inclined. The Church NEVER hates people. All of the Church’s teachings are derived from love for people; true love. Love in the sense that we will give you the truth; not just what you want to hear. Telling someone what they want to hear when it’s not true is never love; it’s appeasement.

When we say something is “right” or “wrong” we mean it brings a person closer to, or farther from, Christ. Some actions bring us closer; others push Him away. Homosexual orientation is neither right nor wrong, in the Church’s eyes, it’s the behavior that can stem from it that can bring a person away from Christ.

First, marriage exists for the creation and raising of children. The purpose of marriage is not for the married people to enjoy each other; it is to have children and protect those children. Homosexual marriage cannot be approved by the Church for the simple reason that two people of the same sex cannot naturally create children. We believe that is not God’s plan and therefore we have no authority to do so.

Second, extra-marital sex takes a person away from Christ. God created sex only to be used in the context of marriage. This means opposite sex and same sex couples having sex outside of marriage is equally sinful. This puts homosexuals in a very difficult position of not being able to be married, and therefore, not able to have sex in its correct context.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses this issue in paragraphs 2357-2359, and they are worth reading in their entirety but the gist is this: We don’t know if people are born homosexual or not. However, those who are so inclined are called to live their life chastely.  Remember it’s not the inclination that brings a person away from Christ, it’s the acts that may come that do.  All people are tempted to one thing or another; the temptation isn't sinful but giving in to temptation is.

Homosexual people are to be treated with just as much love and respect as all other people. Paragraph 2358 says it very well: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.

The Church does not hate or reject anyone based on sexual orientation, age, race, color, or anything else. Our aim is for all to draw closer and closer to Christ; and we are willing to tell you the truth; regardless of how difficult that may be.