Over the weekend a popular Catholic priest known for his seemingly unbridled support for homosexual behavior, tweeted, “Pete Buttigieg is married.” His Tweet was a response to a Catholic commentator’s assertion that Buttigieg’s so-called marriage is “legal fiction.”
Both the priest and the commentator should clarify their statements. In reality, Buttigieg’s “marriage” is legal non-fiction because our misguided federal government recognizes it in the recently signed Respect For Marriage Act. But its recognition is unjust because his “marriage” is not real. Allow me to demonstrate by way of a short analogy.
If the federal government enacts a law that recognizes unicorns as American citizens, the law is real and their recognition is legal non-fiction (it is formally signed into law), but their recognition is based on pure fantasy. Thus, the law is unjust. The same is true for gay “marriage.” And this is a problem for the above-mentioned priest and other Christians who say they follow the Truth, Jesus Christ, but affirm teachings that are diametrically opposed to reality. In other words, they embrace lies and fantasy rather than reality. See Catechism paragraphs 1897 to 1904 for more on just and unjust laws.
Why This Priest Is Wrong
This priest and many others fail to understand or are outright apathetic about reality, natural law, and the plain words of Scripture. They reject what should be plain to them, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman. The reasons for this follow:
Man is clearly made for woman and woman for man. The sperm’s and ovum’s purposes make no sense otherwise. The sperm is clearly designed to seek out and fertilize the female’s ovum even if it cannot accomplish this task due to age, disease, or some defect. And the ovum is designed to be fertilized by the sperm.
Therefore, the sexual act is designed to get the sperm to the egg. In the sexual act, the man and woman truly unite as their two halves of a reproductive system join together as one, something two people of the same sex cannot ever accomplish.
Since the sexual act is designed for union and for procreation, marriage is a preparatory, covenantal promise in which a man and woman pledge lifelong fidelity, reciprocal care, care of their potential children, and care of society (familial, secular, and ecclesial). After all, human beings are not just independent individuals. They are born into families and societies and are designed to participate in the common good.
Also, the mother and father must be prepared to provide their child with a lifelong example of female and male complementarity. They have a duty to show their child how a good man and woman should live and how they should love one another through the good times and the tumultuous ones.
So, the priest is wrong about Buttigieg being married. Buttigieg is no more married than a unicorn is a U.S. citizen. This priest continuously seeks to confuse others by publicly supporting homosexual behavior.
The Priest’s Feigned Surprise
In a follow-up Tweet, the priest wrote, “Surprised this got so much attention,” as if he intended for it to not receive attention. But people post on Twitter precisely because they hope or believe that their messages will receive attention. Why else would they post on such a popular public forum?
The priest knew his Tweet would garner attention, and that’s exactly what happened. His Tweets not only show that he is a disingenuous priest whose single mission seems to be contradicting Catholic/Christian teaching, but his feigned surprise also shows that he is willing to lie for his cause.
35 thoughts on “A Catholic Priest Who Doesn’t Understand What Marriage Is”
Interesting podcast on the subject.
https://soundcloud.com/rto_podcast/pope-francis-increases-confusion-on-homosexual-sin?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
Gene:
Thanks.
Apparently I have been banned from submitting comments.
Robert: No you have not been banned. For some inexplicable reason the CS Comments filter didn’t allow your comment. (For what it’s worth, it’s happened to me as well.) I’ve restored your comment.
Nate:
We have disagreed on a few issues in the past.
On this issue, we find agreement because the Bible and Church dogma make it clear that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong.
God has declared that homosexual behavior is an abomination in the Old Testament. Jesus reinforced God’s idea of marriage in the NT. Other NT passages make it clear that sodomy is sinful.
Unfortunately, the current pope and an underling priest (James Martin) make statements that cloud the issue.
Paul warned us in his letter to Timothy that “For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers 4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.”
Seems to me that Paul’s warning has been ignored.
OP: long before Christ, homosexuality was known. The OT and NT both warn people, and the point about ovum and sperm is only to make it clear that, without scriptural reference you know that they are made for one another etc. Aquinas and his view on inquisition/torture, and the hope that the Church may err in validating what it has never approved so far are akin to hope that the Church will teach false and scandalous notions, and pass them as true.
I don’t hope for anything. Merely pointing out that the norms of human sexuality in hundred years time is going to settle this question about sex being legit or not and will stand or fall on its own merits. Also, in Aquinas’ day the church handed over the heretics to the state for execution so as to insure their blood couldn’t be laid at its feet.
Who am I to judge ?
Then I guess you can’t judge those five police officers.
Touche. But my answer was a comparison. I may make loaded statements as do you but we should give up on those kind of questions.
If you asked Thomas Aquinas if it was morally right or wrong to break people on the rack and then burn them at the stake in the name of God he would have nodded, yes.
So, is homosexual behavior morally right or wrong?
The jury is out. Come back in 2123 and see for yourself.
Would Fr. Martin be equally guilty of misrepresenting Catholic teaching by referring to Donald and Melania as being “married?” In the eyes of the state, both couples are, indeed, married, equally, married.
He is free to adhere to Catholic teaching, as set forth in the Catechism, regarding any moral questions he wishes to address. As long as he faithfully represents Catholic teaching in its entirety who could protest? Regrettably he often neglects to do so in reference to Catholic teaching on same-sex relationships.
Yes.
Catholic marriage requires ejaculation into a vagina.
Love is not required. (Arranged marriages are o.k.) Female orgasm, certainly not. Not even a uterus is required. Fortunately the Catholic laity have moved beyond that; what is important to them is the happiness of the couple, and any children. They think this not because of being seduced by some evil or modernist force but because of what they see with their own eyes and ears, people they know.
No doubt you are Satan’s propagandist, Crisis. He must be in pretty bad shape if he needs you to spread his filth.
For the sake of honesty and clarity it might be best to distinguish “Catholic marriage” from just plain “marriage”, because the common understanding of the latter has diverged, probably permanently, from the former. In the same way that we specify “Catholic priests” to make clear we’re not talking about Buddhist priests or Episcopalian priests.
I don’t take advice from you, Crisis. You’ve proven yourself to be an untrustworthy person who enjoys sowing confusion on this site. Pathetic!
One wonders what a priest who is on the same page as you would do with a long term loving gay couple who faces rejection from their family when after many years they decide to “come out”. In a typical situation these days most of their younger friends would be supportive but traditionalists would be opposed. What would you tell them?
Catholic teaching is that they would be treated with love and understanding. Are you opposed to that? What would you say to them? What if they were your own sister and her long time “companion”?
Crisis, is homosexual behavior morally right or wrong?
Woman performs oral sex on man, he ejaculates.
Ok.
Man performs oral sex on man, he ejaculates.
Not ok.
This makes no sense.
Crisis – Is homosexual behavior morally right or wrong?
Pingback: A Catholic Priest Who Doesn’t Understand What Marriage Is | Newsessentials Blog
This Priest needs our prayers. Even though he is one of the Blessed Virgin’s ‘sons’, he obviously has some serious mental defects which impede him to think and deduce correctly and responsibly in accordance with his vocation. If I were his Bishop, I would speak with him while considering nullifying his vows.
PostScript:
I somehow missed this Priest was a Jesuit. Hmmmmm So share with me someone please: who does have ‘control’ over a much wayward Jesuit?
Thanks Mary! And I completely agree. This priest has been a problem for years. He used to walk the line on Church teachings regarding this matter, but he as become more brazen over the last couple of years. This is what happens when the Church fails to correct wayward priests. It emboldens them.
Regarding who has control over Jesuit priests, I assume it’s the order’s superior general and ultimately the pope, but I’m not sure.
While bishops (other than the pope) apparently cannot discipline a Jesuit, they should make abundantly clear that his sophmoric remarks are a danger to the faithful and sow lots of confusion.
I completely agree, Joe! Thanks!
As you articulate so clearly the priest in question and the order he belongs to as well as their magazine know exactly what they are doing. They practice the fine art of obscurantism, straw man arguments and willful misdirection. Thank you for making the effort to put this into an understandable article.
Indeed, CJ. Sowing confusion is what Satan and his minions do best. Thank you for your comment!
The only problem I see is that I can apply your this only fits that thesis to procreation itself.
We shouldn’t put ovum and sperm together because : it positively every time producers sinners who break all 10 commandments causing unimaginable worldwide suffering and results in (according to some) the loss of their immortal soul and an eternity of horrible
anguish while others suffer in purgatory (or get reincarnated so says the one of 4 who believe). Since the ‘poor will always be with us’ so will injustice and war and struggle which in any case results in our worse fear (dying any number of excruciating ways) being realized not to mention those we love. You really have to be careful extolling, Nate, but then again where would I be without a fine protagonist such as yourself.
Not sure what your point is, OP. Are you saying that just because all people sin that no one should ever be conceived? Thank you for your comment!
My reason for framing your essay with bare facts is to underscore how puny it seems to compare same sex people who spill their seed for sense gratification and pleasure while ie: those five HETERO police thugs just left one of the ugliest marks on society and the world to date, devastating their community, the family of the victim as well as the perp’s kin who will carry that shame for life. Bringing children into this vale of tears is both an act of risk, to feed the ego, and a role of the dice. All of which begs a question – if we the living know in advance and have no problem doing it once, how ignorant to eschew the notion that somehow it’s heretical and outrageous to believe that, god forbid, our souls using another ready made seed to ovum body, should ever have to come back and do it again.
OP, is homosexual behavior morally right or wrong?