You may want to sit down for this…

You may want to sit down for this… May 23, 2012

…but a stark–and really quite compassionate contrast–to the approach of the Jerks for Jesus who tell SSA people that their form of temptation is somehow not merely temptation but sin itself is (surprise!) found in this generous and thoughtful video from Michael Voris:

I think this is really quite a beautiful approach to the matter. Please do not tell anyone I posted this, because it is a scientifically established fact that I bear an irrational hatred for Voris and never have anything good to say about him, not that I disagree with him on certain points and think is approach is often dangerous and demagogic. What will be entertaining is the explanation my readers who have me all figured out will give for my praise of this good, compassionate, and generous video. I could, of course, explain that I say this because I think Voris’ urging compassion, respect, and love rather than Sungenis-style contempt calculated to drive SSA folk away from Jesus is good and decent. But who would believe *that*?

Anyway, well done, Mr. Voris.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Lisa

    This is pretty amazing. I like it. I wish Voris did more of this and less of the other.

    The problem is that contemporary people will not comprehend this at all.

    By way of contrast, I would present to you something I read on Ted Allen’s Facebook page. Allen is, of course, the host of CHOPPED, former member of the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy team and gay. He posted something after Obama’s coming out on gay marriage which was something like, “Can you imagine how gay youth must feel? The hope they must feel for their future?”

    He was giving us the image of a gay male teen, for example, who, as opposed to what he might have faced forty years ago – shame and secrecy and no hope of “normality” – could now look to a future in which he can be open, not be ashamed and see himself on the “normal” track of society – which includes a spouse – except that his would be male, and it would not be a big deal.

    I disagree because I agree with the Church’s teachings and what Voris says here , but I do think it is important for us to really confront where those who think very differently are coming from. Ted Allen would be grossly offended by the suggestion that his desires to love a male partner are a “cross.”

    How do we talk to him? And how do we talk to young people who are living with this – and how do we convince them that the way Voris sets out is more life-giving than the happy vision that Ted Allen presents?

    • julian

      Perhaps, Voris’s talk isn’t so much a reflection on how we talk to people who carry this struggle, but more of a reflection on how we pray for AND with them. This clip makes me so thankful for the Church’s teaching on redemptive suffering and the encouragement that God is always doing more than we can see, despite, (and often because of), overwhelming struggles.

  • Just wow. There was so much in that one. I’m stunned.

  • Gary Keith Chesterton

    That was terrific.

  • B.E. Ward

    We speak the truth in love, then just hope the heart is willing to hear the message.

    • B.E. Ward

      Oops.. this was supposed to be a reply to Lisa.

  • Donalyn

    It’s stunning because it’s so unexpected from him. And that is the sad part of the whole thing; this video should not be considered remarkable at all, except that he’s such a jerk and so much more frequently gets it wrong. I have the same DNA ingrained reaction to this guy.

    • Ted Seeber

      I don’t. I listen to Voris frequently, despite the fact that he’s a jerk and blocked me from commenting on his channel on YouTube.

      I’d say that he’s about as right as any other cafeteria Catholic- he’s coming from his own version of charity, which has more fidelity to truth than most, but still has it’s own blind spots (a certain Elephant in the Political Room comes to mind). But he’s at his best when he links what he says to Church teaching and Papal documents, just as we all are.

      • Ted Seeber

        And in fact today’s Vortex was even better- it was entirely a short quote from Fulton Sheen, repeated several times, and less than 40 seconds long. Voris is always at his best when he’s quoting somebody else.

  • Peter M

    I’ve had my doubts about Mr. Voris, but I don’t think I can laud him enough for this piece. Hearing this message from a (very) few people made a massive difference when I was desperately coming to terms with SSA as a teenager. It didn’t make light of my anguish, but acknowledged the pain and offered hope and a way forward when I felt trapped with no way out. I feel that so many young people struggling with their sexuality hear the amplified voices of the Dan Savages of the world, offering affirmation but telling them that their fulfillment lies in embracing perversion; and from the other side, there is only silence. We want the truth, but no one seems to get it, no one wants to talk about it. I wish every priest would preach this.

    Lisa, I don’t know the answer exactly, as to how to reach Ted Allen, but one good first step would be to correct the idea that the chaste, single life is a life devoid of love or intimacy. I will always be grateful to the good priest who told me as a teenager about how such a life can be lived with intense love and purpose; it had honestly never occurred to me. A second step, though unpopular, would maybe be to draw attention to the unhappiness that the gay lifestyle brings (statistically much higher rates of physical abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, STDs, depression, other mental health problems, suicide, etc., as well as notoriously poor rates of fidelity and longevity in relationships). Hard to do that without appearing to attack people though. Just my $0.02.

    I do have a question for whoever: is that accurate what he says about victim souls, i.e. God loves them more? It doesn’t sound quite right to say that God loves anyone more than anyone else, seeing as His love is infinite. But then, I’m no theologian.

    • Mark Shea

      I would quibble with victim souls being loved “more”. But I think there is room in the Tradition for recognizing that there are degrees and kinds of beatitude and blessing. Therese compared souls to buckets and thimbles. One holds more than the other, but both are as full as God meant them to be and both are happy to be be what they are.

      • Clare Krishan

        The “more” part is where I started to tune out, forgive me. There’s an unhealthy fetishistic paraphilia evident in some religious machismo of a certain RadTrad kind (think the emotive passion of excessive flagellation displays banned in distant Latino-influenced cultures like the Phillipines that is as unholy as the emotive “spirit” amateur dramatics on show in Pentecostalism ) that verges into pagan idolatry IMHO.

        As BXVI stated in his closing chapter of Called to Communion, “A Company in Constant Renewal,” all members, ie each of us ‘ammiratore’ must be ever mindful to suffer reform, in latin ablatio, not mistake our form of ammiratore (our ‘means’) for the end (the Godhead). Sexuality doesn’t make it more or less heroic, indeed SSA-tempted persons need never fear the spectre of abortion that heterosexual sinners very often do. I’m not buyin’ his valorization of a particular inclination to sin, but I grant you male SSA persons may have to struggle with custody of the eyes (St. Lawrence is a favorite icon) to a greater extent than female SSA persons perhaps in redolent rococco decor fashioned in other ages on display in some worship spaces. But the rest of us? We have to struggle with the redolent rococco decor fashioned in THIS age on display in most worship spaces by the folks in the pews!!

  • MasterThief

    Wait, Michael Voris preaching compassion? And not through gritted teeth? Isn’t this one of the signs of the end times? Didn’t Nostradamus predict this?

    • ivan_the_mad

      You have your prophets mixed up, it’s Medjugorje, not Nostradamus.

  • Rich M.

    Mr. Voris (almost called him Mr. Vortex!) says, “He (the homosexual Christian) is different. He is a treasure beyond compare to the God who brought him forth and **crafted this cross for him through the circumstances of a fallen, sinful world.**” He goes on to say, “His cross, if accepted, **unlike that of many other peoples crosses**, will draw countless (more) souls to Christ.”

    Question 1: Does God “craft” our crosses for us out of the circumstances of a fallen world? OR, Are does God permit difficult circumstances to come our way and we choose either to resist them or “take up our cross” and model the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? (I’m less interested in hashing out the “Are homosexuals born that way” debate, than I am interested in understanding crosses that come to us from a “fallen, sinful world.”

    Question 2: Can someone clarify for me how taking up the cross of Homosexuality potentially brings countless more souls to Christ than taking up some other cross?

    What are your thoughts on these questions, Mark?

    • Ted Seeber

      If sin is the result of our fallen world, then the crosses we must take up to expunge sin *also* come to us from our fallen world; for if the world was not fallen, the opportunity to take up a cross wouldn’t exist. Even Christ’s cross can be seen as coming to him through the intense disbelief and broken understanding of God that existed among the various cultures of 1st century Palestine. A great example of that is the cross that Pilate was asked to take up, and refused, scapegoating the Jews for deicide in the process “I wash my hands of this, and am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matthew 27:24)

      • Sally Wilkins

        There are many physical, mental and spiritual crosses – I have had several cancers, my daughter suffered from major depression and eventually died of an auto-immune disorder, my mother had Parkinsons, my friend’s son has paranoid schizophrenia – none of these are CHOICES, all of them cause suffering, and they are all the result of the fallen nature of our world, since we believe that everything God created was good. Two fallacies to avoid are the assumption that saying something is a result of sin means it is sinful, and assuming that because something is natural is must necessarily be good. What we can and must choose is how we will live the life we have in the body and mind that we have. The old notion of “offering up” our suffering has been very much overrun by the urgent desire to eliminate all suffering – which is, of course, admirable, but which is also a manifestation of a very modern notion that humans can and should be able to control/determine everything.

    • Clare Krishan

      indeed. Self aggrandizing and narcissism are the ever present danger, I fear, especially for those who accepted Holy Orders under this premise. I have to agree with modern theologians who teach that SSA disorder is not compatible with the form of sacrifice of the Bridegroom for his Bride the Church. IMHO, a lot of misogynistic authoritarianism can be cloaked in this sort of reasoning, a type of “tyranny of relativism” or “dictatorship of idealogy” (ie that human suffering is somehow the non plus ultra, not! Divine love is so wholey different, its grace given, that’s why Adam was gifted with an ancilla dei, Eve, a share in the Trinitarian mystery. I recommend JPII’s play “Radiation of Fatherhood” to see how a fallen Adam (a homo autofaber or homo autoeros if you will) needs to be coaxed into contemplating Revelation, by glimpses of radiation from the mirror, the feminine genius of the Theotokos. Particularly this Pentecost Sunday – the descent of the Holy spirit, enkindling the fire of sanctity in the mishapen clay of mankind, birthing the Church. It falls on the same day as the giving of the law on Mt Sinai ( in other words Moses’ decalog or the natural law, the one that teaches that ad-ultery is not good, our incarnate bodies are imaged to the good ultimos, anything that turns our physical presence away (ad) from that means we aren’t being grateful, we aren’t facing the source of the light we wish to reflect in gratitude for the gift of our bodies and their potencies.

  • Extremely well stated – beautifully expressed and very true. Our Lord did tell Angela of Foligno he loved her more than anyone ‘in this valley of Spoletto’ – what that means is between the soul and Christ. Nevertheless, God loves each of us to our capacity and more – to infinity. His mercy and love is inmeasurable.

  • I came across this thread via my Google alerts. I respect that we are all entitled to my point of view. Here’s mine. Being gay is not a choice; God makes us this way. Your messages to gay kids that they are broken, damaged, whatever, are devastating to them. Consider this: What IS a choice is the religion you choose to pursue, if any. You can choose a church that discriminates against gay people, or you can choose one of the many that does not. This is your choice, and your responsibility. If you decide that you’re going to try to deny us equality and teach your children that they are less human than straight people, don’t blame it on God. That is a decision that YOU make. You, too, can change. And right now, you are on the wrong side of truth and fairness. And of history. We will win, ultimately, because we are right.

    • Amy

      Ted Allen,
      I do want to address a few misconceptions you seem to have about what the Church teaches. We do NOT teach that those with homosexual inclinations are less human. Not all all. We do not teach that discrimination against gay people is acceptable. And we do not teach that homosexuality is a choice (though, I personally think that can vary per person). What we do teach is that our bodies, including the sexuality of our bodies, are vital parts of who we are. That we are created in God’s image and are called to use our bodies as much as our minds and souls to glorify Him. That the sexual nature of our bodies has a purpose. And that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman that images God in a profound and unique way.

      • Lisa

        Awesome. Ted Allen! Love Chopped!

        Amy, the disconnect is going to be that Mr. Allen is going to define “discrimination” differently than you do. He would probably define any action that privileges heterosexuality or implies at all that homosexuality is not as normal as heterosexuality as discrimination. Hence the divide.

        • Amy


          I know, but without getting (as Peter M says below) “bogged down arguing about definitions,” this seemed the better path between long treatise and silence.

          • Rosemarie


            >>I came across this thread via my Google alerts.

            IOW, you walked in on this conversation without checking out everything said in previous posts over the last week or two. Then you spoke your peace, apparently without realizing that you’re not the first person who has stated those things in the course of this ongoing discussion.

    • Peter M

      @Ted Allen:
      Not sure what kind of a dialogue we can hope for in the internet comboxes, so I’ll just say two things:

      1. For what it’s worth, MY point of view, as a gay Catholic, is that the Church’s teaching is compassionate, respectful, and loving, media portrayal notwithstanding. That teaching, and the help of good Catholics, saved this gay kid from suicide. If you want, I can give reasons for why I think what you say is wrong; but I feel like we’d be bogged down arguing about definitions before too long.

      2. Kind of off topic, but I wanted to say that you were my favorite one on QE. Also nice to catch you every now and then on Iron Chef. Cheers.

    • Mark Shea

      Win what?

    • Ted Seeber

      All strange spellings are due to the spam filter not letting this through.

      @Ted Allen- If we’re on the wrong side of truth and fairness and history, why does history seem to agree with us and only monogamous heteros*xual cultures survive long term, and why does biology agree with us and only heteros*xual unions produce children?

      I agree with the others that you’ve got a very twisted view of what the Church teaches- the church teaches that marriage is the unification of two people to *produce children*. S*x is the willful act of a married couple to produce that union and to produce children. If any part is missing, it isn’t marriage- and that as much includes the contraception heteros*xual couple as the homos*xual couple. It doesn’t include the infertile couple that is desperate to have children, because God can work miracles.

      SSA is inborn and NOT disordered, and can result in great good and great friendships. Using that SSA to end a marriage or to pretend to be married when you are not or to use your partner in sex for nothing more than an object for your own gratification without being open to life is objectively disordered, because the purpose of intercourse is to procreate the species.

      Do you understand the difference?

      • ds

        Could a man validly marry a woman with no uterus? Because God isn’t in the habit of performing miracles to overcome that obstacle to children.

        You say marriage between contracepting straight couples isn’t marriage. IS that really what the church teaches? Isn’t that just validly married people who are committing the sin of contraception?

        There is a unitive function of sex that it brings the married couple together, even if it can never result in children. Why is this not a valid sexual function for gay people?

        • Clare Krishan

          Canonically, I don’t think so. Sorry. Similar to prohibition of marriage for eunuchs.
          Can a man marry a sterile (female parts damaged by involuntary traumatic injury or a life-threatening condition like uterine cancer, or post-menopausal) bride? Yes. The difference? In the latter the faculty of generation was present and has been damaged or aged out. In the former, it was never present. May a Catholic woman elect to sterilize herself even before marriage? No, only for medically grave reasons (see above)

          Spouses must have spes – ie they plight their troth (they pledge the truth) that they have the faculty for hope in their union — and plan to use it — in developing fruits in service to the community not in service to each other. A widower’s second wife can mother his children, a cancer survivor’s hubbie can father their adopted children. A couple who marry sacramentally intending to contracept perform the sacrament in bad faith. The form of the sacrament is damaged but not irredeemiably so. They can confess, repent and make amends. Two SSA persons aren’t in that same ‘irredeemable’ category, they’re in the ‘irremediable’ category – they can’t mediate the unative act, redeemably or not.

          • Amy

            It has been a while since I read the canon law on this, but I believe you are incorrect.

            Infertility (even intentional infertility) is not an impediment to marriage. Having a hysterectomy for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy would be sinful, but not prevent marriage.

            Chronic physical impotency, on the other hand, is an impediment to marriage. If the couple is incapable of consummating the marriage, it is invalidly attempted.

            If a couple attempted marriage while intending to prevent pregnancy, then that could be grounds for declaring the marriage invalid, since they are not consenting to what the Church recognizes as marriage (just as a couple intending an “open marriage” would invalidly attempt marriage). A couple who intends to delay (but not avoid altogether) pregnancy using contraceptives could validly marry, though would be committing grave sin.

            • ds

              Chronic physical impotency, on the other hand, is an impediment to marriage. If the couple is incapable of consummating the marriage, it is invalidly attempted.

              Why is this any different from a woman with no uterus? I am not intending to be indecent, but is the physical act required, even if it’s hopeless for procreation?

              • Amy

                “I am not intending to be indecent, but is the physical act required, even if it’s hopeless for procreation?”

                Yes. Rather than write a full explanation myself, I’m going to be lazy and let Jimmy Akin explain.


                I probably won’t be back tonight, so if you have more questions, hopefully someone else will be able to field them.

        • LUKE1732

          There is a unitive function of sex that it brings the married couple together, even if it can never result in children. Why is this not a valid s*xual function for gay people?

          Two people of the same gender can’t have s*xual intercourse. What homosexuals do is not a valid s*xual function.

          (* to make spam filter happy)

          • Clare Krishan

            Yup. That’s how I recall hearing Evelyn Waugh taught pubescent Auberon the distinction on a BBC radio recording years ago. When it came time for him to give “the talk” father told son the rectum’s purpose is excretion only while leaving the female anatomy the territory of virginal mystery (starkly counter-cultural, even then!)

    • Dale Price

      Sorry to see you frame the issue in such terms. Quite a bit of deck-stacking going on in that paragraph, there’s no way around it.

  • Um, we are all entitled to OUR point of view.

    • ds

      Are you sure you weren’t expressing your true feelings the first time?

      • Amy

        Play nice ds. Address what he was trying to say, not his typos.

        • ds

          He set it up on a tee.

        • ds

          But more seriously, and a little more nicely…

          The bind catholics are in here is that they don’t feel it’s a choice. Not being gay, but what the church teaches, or which church to go to. The truth is the truth. Sex is for one-man-one-woman matrimony only, and that’s not their choice, but Gods (so I guess they are blaming God). And yeah you can go to another church, one with less truth. I don’t really like what the church has to say about gays either but when I’ve tried protestant churches my gut screams “this is bullshit!”

          So I guess I don’t have any solutions here. I’m pretty sure the church is wrong on this one but who cares wtf I think, plus the church seems to be doubling down on it’s resistance to find any vocation other than faithful celibates for gays.

          • Noah D

            That’s the vocation for everyone outside of marriage.

            • ds

              I am aware of that, but they have no other choice. Heteros can get married or have children,or join religious orders. Gay people can’t. It’s discriminatory.

              Can gay people join any religious orders?

              • Amy

                “Can gay people join any religious orders?”

                I don’t think there is a blanket answer for that. I know currently a gay man can’t enter the priesthood, but I think that was in large part because in reaction to the scandals any disordered sexual desire disqualified someone. I think as we have time to step back a little, deepen our understanding, and clean up our seminaries (some of which reportedly created an environment that encouraged unchastity for gay men), that will change.

                For religious orders, I think each order sets their own rules to some extent, so it may depend on which order.

    • Ted Seeber

      No, actually, we’re not. I’m not entitled to the point of view that I can eat radio waves, and you’re not entitled to make up false biology to fit your whims.

      • But I would really like the idea that 2+2=5. (okay, that’s not true, but I really wanted to make a silly statement).

      • ds

        You’re still entitled to it, it’s just false. And actually you can eat shorter wavelength EM radiation, once it has been processed by plants.

        • And actually you can eat shorter wavelength EM radiation, once it has been processed by plants.

          Exactly. So, continuing your analogy, you can consummate homosexual love once it has been processed by chastity.

          • ds

            Or by plants. Or maybe homosexual love can be chaste within a faithful marriage.

  • Harry

    My flabber has been gasted.
    This isn’t Michael Voris. It can’t be. This is some sort of precursor to an invasion of angry Rad Trad clones issuing from the basement of Robert Sungenis- a clever copy of Michael Voris intended to put us off our guard.
    If this is the genuine article, I’m sorry to say my earlier impression of Mr.Voris was entirely off-base – I’ve entirely misjudged his character. What he said was fair, compassionate and wonderfully illustrative of how we should talk to people with heavy burdens to bear. Fair play to him.
    Still hoping he’ll get rid of that anti-Semite guy, though. But this video kinda eliminates my hastily formed categorization of him as irrational, angry Rad Trad.

  • Faith

    First of all I just want to say how cool it is that Ted Allen responded! Dialogue! Intelligent, respectful dialogue. That is what is missing so often and here we are actually doing it the right way! Treating all humans with dignity! My dh and I used to watch QE all the time. Anyway, I have an objection to Voris’ assertion that a life of celibacy is one of such sadness. The Church doesn’t ask anything of anybody that it doesn’t ask of itself own clery. People most definitely can live rich, beautiful lives and be celibate. I have an maiden aunt who never married. She had one great love in her life and he left her at the altar. She never got over it but she lived a wonderful life. She had a great career she is proud of. She has a great circle of friends. She traveled all over the world. She is incredibly well read. You would never feel sorry for her at all! She’s also a devout Catholic. So while I do think having SSA must be a great burden, it is not unlike the many, many burdens that many people share. All different but all bringing tremendous pain to be wrestled with. And frankly, I think in the grand scheme of things homosexuality is not the most horrible cross. Look at Mr. Allen here who is obviously very talented and successful. He’s been given gifts that I’ll never have. I have a sister who profoundly mentally retarded. I’d rather be gay and having to bear that cross than to saddled with my beloved sister’s plight. And finally I don’t think you can choose a church? I least it didn’t feel that way to me. I was shopping for something that suited me. No, it was the Holy Spirit that found me and dragged me kicking and screaming in to the arms of Mother Church. I for the longest time didn’t understand the Church’s teaching on birth control but I grudgingly accepted it because I realized that even if I didn’t understand it, it was the Church and not I who called the shots on issues of morals. And you know once I became obedient my mind was able to understand.

    • B.E. Ward

      Faith.. unfortunately, I’m not sure Ted Allen is interested in intelligent, respectful dialogue. I hope he comes back to listen and engage with more than a bunch of bumper stickers strung together, but I’m not holding my breath.

  • Faith

    please forgive typos. I hate typing from my ipad!

  • All I can say is buyer beware. This is a complex issue, made complex mostly by forces outside of the Church. Approach it with love and caution, and that means dealing with folks on all sides of the issue. I’m sure most people here could run circles around me when it comes to explaining the Catholic Faith’s approach to this. Likewise, I realize that the Catholic Church has certain, shall we say, safeguards in place that our Protestant brothers and sisters do not enjoy. Nonetheless, as one who was a pastor for almost 15 years, from the early 90s, and who watched denomination after denomination get ripped apart over this one issue, I can assure everyone that it is an issue that demands calm, reasoned discussion, prayer, charity and understanding all around. Anything less, and expect things to unravel quickly.

  • Rich M.

    Very interesting…interesting, indeed.

    Mr. Allen “discovers” a thread via Google Alerts. And as one person mentioned above, he “strings together a number of bumper stickers” in a single post, then leaves the thread. In the wake of his post, he stirs up a number of comments that diverge in many directions (very interesting and substantive comments, but often having little to do with the original post.)

    Its a very interesting strategy. I wonder how many other activists employ it. I also wonder if it is effective. Does it frustrate and confuse people causing them to become indifferent? Does it entrench them in their beliefs? Hmm.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I don’t think it’s as insidious a strategy as you think. He saw an article that provoked a response from him, whether you or I agree with that response or not. He then didn’t stick around to continue the combox discussion. That kind of thing happens in comboxes all the time, and it’s usually not part of their Grand Scheme.

  • Andiron

    Respectfully, I have never met any one who discovered they were gay when they were adults. Everyone who has shared their experience with me said that they knew they were different until they were 12 or 13, then they knew why.
    I don’t believe I was created to be a “magic negro” for the church, which would appear to be what this man is claiming. If you don’t understand the reference, please google it.
    If what he says is true, then I can only imagine how tempting it would be to hate god.
    I will state again my difficulty with the claim that what the church teaches is different from what the people of the church do.

  • Hello, again! I tried to keep discussing this with y’all, but my posts got rejected as spam. Which made me wonder if I had been blocked. So I’ll try again. If this posts.

    • So, Michael has expressed his new ‘opinion’ on stuff.

      Perhaps he will gather more sponsors for his multi media company. Times are hard for all of us after all, business wise. We need fresh approaches to be sure. Shrewd guy (in the hard headed sense of the meaning).

      Truth ( as taught by the Magisterium)..
      “Homosexuality… Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
      John Paul II, New Catechism, #2357:

    • Andy, Bad Person

      The spam filter here can be pretty picky. Please keep trying.

    • Lisa

      Yes, keep trying. I once could *not* get a comment to post – it had no html links in it, it wasn’t very long…I never could figure out what the reason for.

      Mark Shea wouldn’t block you – don’t worry. And if problem persists, just email him. He’s a very big-hearted guy.

      • Mark Shea

        I do not understand the spam system. It randomly does this for reasons that are opaque to me. Sorry!

    • Claire

      I just have to say how cool it is that he posted here!

      It would be great if we could keep this dialogue going.

    • Mark Shea

      Nope. It’s just the stupid and mysterious spam filter. Dunno why it does this. Sorry!

    • B.E. Ward

      Generally, the filters don’t like the word six with an e, even if it’s in the middle of another word.

  • Kelley

    It was nice to finally see a video where he wasn’t being a total jerk. He came across as actually having compassion for gay people, but his words are empty to me. Am I somehow supposed to just forget about the number of other videos he has made that are bashing them?

    He kept referring to being gay as a “cross to bear”. I am a Catholic that happens to be gay and I find it to be presumptuous when a person assumes what my cross is. I do not see my s*xual identity as a cross to bear, rather the cross is having to deal with being treated as an outcast in the community. Lately it’s been even worse because LGBT people are not only seen as outcasts or disordered, but as the enemy. I was talking to my spiritual director about this the other day. I told him I feel like I am trying to duck to avoid getting hit by all the cr@p being thrown back and forth over this hot topic.

    I am a convert and have been attending daily Mass every day for the past few years and I am very engaged at my parish. I try to avoid reading blogs and media about the hot topic (especially the comment sections!), but lately it’s pretty much impossible not to see it. It got to a point a few weeks ago where I didn’t even want to step foot into a church because I felt so unwelcome. I never wanted to become Catholic, but I was drawn by the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and just couldn’t resist responding to His love. I am very blessed to be at such a great parish… these Dominican’s have really grown on me. But lately I am reminded on a daily basis by the Catholic media that I am an outcast in the community. When I seek support from within the Church I find that the ministry to gay people is a 12 Step model. I don’t have a s*xual addiction and my s*xual identity isn’t a disease, so how is this helpful?

    Voris can talk all he wants about how challenging it must be for a gay Catholic, but the bigger issue currently is how they are being pushed away from the Church and there is little support from within the Church to help. I know many that are very devout and lately this has been taking a toll on them too. I wish that during all of the heated debates about this hot topic people would remember the humanity of the people they are talking about and realize what it’s like for a gay person in the Church during a time when many view you as the enemy.

    • Clare Krishan

      Can you entertain thinking of ‘carnational vocation’ along the lines of parsing personal predelictions thusly:
      “I don’t have a carnational [s*xual] addiction and my carnational [s*xual] identity isn’t a disease, so how is this helpful?
      to facilitate an encounter designed to lead others to a less vague comprehension of — what to other fellow faithful fallen like me is incomprehensible about the self-tagged ‘gay catholic’ moniker — your soul’s journey in the material world? We are not separate [minds] [bodies] and [hearts], our soul’s eternal destiny is integrated to our biological destiny, our generative parts ie our gender may become aroused and titillated by means that dissect the body acts from the soul’s acts, e.g. racey images can awaken appetites designed and intended for soulful acts (ie conduct of a sacred order) and our impatience to experience such glories, our precocious minds release the good carnate sensations prematurely (i.e. disorderly conduct). The object of such predelictions may not be associated with another gender (our genitals often mature at puberty way ahead of particular-friend developments in the psyche) so the danger of neglecting to acknowledge carnationally well-ordered libido means that an attachment to carnational disordered libido is habituated as integral to the soul. Libido is integral to the soul, no doubt. But feminine libido is a different creature from male libido. Both are ordered to be consummated (ie reach their perfection) in exclusive gift (that means go it-alone no-hands on, either, hard to say but true for females also) of conjugal continence open to the fruits. Feminine libido is notoriously inconstant (chuckle) it is heightened in a natural lunar rhythm tied to peak fertility and is seriously harmed when the beloved cannot be trusted to wait for the fruit to ripen (sadly habituated by a preference for one or all of various arousing attributes: the flower’s perfume ie solitary viewing of porn or indulging in autoerotic release; sterile pre-cut blooms ie contracepted conjugal intercourse; or artificial silk blossoms ie mutual genital recreation in other orifices) – in a lyrical sense, her moon needs his sunlight. Two moons (or two suns) just don’t sing the celestial harmony of the one cosmos we all share, whatever dreamy sentimental wishful thinking may titilate delectable sensations that satiate personal predilictions.

      Dante knew that the ancients had experienced this primeval struggle, Baudelaire too, his Fleurs du Dal ‘Incubus’ attests to the lacerations experienced in his soul, without grace we’re all musical illiterates unable to hear transcendental resonances, without love we’re merely clanging cymbals says St Paul.
      Desire can be purified. Seek ‘the moon at noon’ in Paul Claudel’s “La vierge a midi” and her splendeur originale intacte ineffablement (click on#2 you’ll not hear anyone pray with so much sensual abandon in English, they’d think it a little improper, chuckle, we’re a bit too ‘puritan’ for our own good, here’s “parce que vous êtes belle” rendered longingly in the feminine voice
      (and yes for francophiles, that’s Spaniard Louis de Funès in the audience, he of ‘Le Gendarme de —-‘ famed hilarity, and FWIW that’s what our sad-sack American culture is missing, as Barb Nicolosi noted

      • Clare Krishan

        that’d be Fleurs du Mal of course (Flowers of evil), excusez moi (comment pending)

      • Clare Krishan

        and a clumsy misplaced negative, its no go it-alone (not ‘no hands on’)

    • Clare Krishan

      FYI the original 12 steps (c. 500 AD) were penned to aid detachment not disease or addiction
      please don’t scoff so readily…(I’m a clutterer, they help me detach from a predeliction to hoarding) and Dante honored them in his epic: the penitents in purgatory are required to master that virtue first before tackling the more tricky vices, leaving lust to last mind you – the generative appetite is the most profoundly related to our heavenly regeneration in Christ, its therefore the one we need to keep (desire) to the last however deformed!

      • Clare Krishan

        Mark, my comment preceding this “FYI” is still ‘awaiting moderation’ – can you check the logs pls?

      • Kelley

        So if it’s to aid detachment… how would it be relevant to what I was saying? Detachment to what? Would it help a gay person become detached to the fact that they are treated like an outcast in the community? Would it help to become detached to being rejected by their families and communities?

  • One of the things I miss about the Baptist and Pentecostal Church is that testimonies were personal.
    On Catholic blogger, it’s often someone else’s inventory being discussed. It’s seen as ‘not quite the done thing’ to speak of one’s own shortcomings. There are some brave exceptions.

    I have never heard M.Voris’ testimony. Oh, I know he blames poor catechesis, bad Bishops etc for his wanderings but that’s not quite the same as taking responsibility in an ‘I confess’ sort of way, is it? He has appeared positively angry at the Church hierarchy for all the sins and lack of proper teaching since Vat 2.

    When did, or when will, he be able to state publicly:

    I confess to almighty God
    and to you, my brothers and sisters,
    that I have greatly sinned,
    in my thoughts and in my words,
    in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
    through my fault, through my own fault,
    through my own most grievous fault;
    therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
    all the Angels and Saints,
    and you, my brothers and sisters,
    to pray for me to the Lord our God

    In the meantime, let’s call out another person, place or thing.

    (Of course he may have turned over a new leaf now, let’s hope so)

    • Andy, Bad Person

      When did, or when will, he be able to state publicly:

      I’m gonna guess that he states that every single time he attends Mass.

      • I meant on his media publicity sites…..

    • Clare Krishan

      Why does his ‘testimony’ resonate (or not, me not so much)? Is this particular temptation something he, like Jacob with the angel, has struggled with in the dark night of his soul?

  • What exactly has Mr. Voris said about gays other than this. There seems to be quite a few folks saying that what he has said in the past cancels this out. What has he said?


      Well in one of these videos linked above, he more or less asserts that only feminists and cissy men still attend Church in large numbers! However, he believes real men are beginning to be spiritually formed into what I can only decipher as ‘warriors’ who will return to the Church having proved their masculinity in some sort of spiritual/ritualistic/tribal event and carry the good women off into the er er sunset? As for the men who are not ‘real masculine men’ well, it’s unclear what will become of them.

      That is, it was unclear until this latest video posted by Mark, we now know that they have a special ministry all of their own. Michael obviously didn’t know that, at the time of making these real men videos. Still, I guess we’re all on a learning curve.

      By the way Dave G, I notice you have a picture of your President on your blog, that refers to him as ‘The First Gay President’ so you will probably find Voris’ videos quite mild and be flummoxed as to how anyone would find them insulting.

      Is Obama gay? If not, why are people saying that he is. Specifically why are Roman Catholic blogs stating this, if it is untrue?

      • Mark Shea

        I think it’s probably a reference to Andrew Sullivan’s recent hagiographic cover piece for Newsweek, titled “The First Gay President”.

      • Yes, Mark is correct. If you look at it, you will see that the picture is simply the cover of Newsweek that proclaimed President Obama ‘the first gay president.’ I didn’t say it. I didn’t even say it in the post. That was straight from Newsweek. I’ll bet that’s what most of those you mention are referring to.

  • John

    This whole debate is two sided: one, we need to discuss what “health” means and how anyone can prove another is or is not “healthy” in as objective a way as possible. If there IS no objective way to prove another person is ‘healthy’ then how is the entire field of Medicine (if not psychology, politics, etc.) even possible?

    To this challenge we need to distinguish different areas of health: biological, psycho-social, emotional, and even spiritual or “interpersonal”. Not everyone of perfect physical health is “healthy” – take those prone to Depression or PTSD. Neither phenomenon (depression, PTSD) are choices and either could be due to environmental or innate, in utero causes without at all being ‘genetic’. Neither are a cause of moral failure but not for that are they not health problems to seek assistance with.

    So what makes us sure that Same Sex Attraction is perfectly healthy and also assume that any suffering is absolutely, 100% and entirely the cause of some hostile social environment and not in any way an effect of internal (and totally innocent, accidental) forces?

    And how would you prove it either way?

    One way would be to take a longitudinal study of people with SSA who live in locales that are positive with SSA and compare them with folk who live in areas where it’s still taboo. If there are statistically fewer cases of suicidal ideation, drug abuse, domestic violence, depression, etc. then the “society makes me sad” hypothesis might have validity. So far, despite decades of studies the data just doesn’t hold up the hypothesis.

    The second aspect of this debate is the moral-interpersonal one that is quite separate from the concept of Health…. saints, “good people” need not be perfectly healthy. It is quite possible to suffer physical, emotional and psychological ailments and impairments and yet still be a holy and altruistic person. So proving those who have SSA to have an objective disorder is NOT the same thing as proving them to be “horrible people with no value”. Indeed to not grasp this KEY distinction, to immediately assume that any evidence of disorder is somehow the same thing as evidence of utter worthlessness is ITSELF a phenomenological proof of some sort of mental disorder going on because there is a collossal distinction and most people make this distinction all the time in other DISORDERS that carry societal taboos.

    • Clare Krishan

      well said. « Le pire n’est pas toujours sûr » (the worst is not the surest) Paul Claudel’s subtitle for his masterpiece ‘Le Soulier du satin’ a kinda autobiographical penance, in the Graham Greene sense

  • letterman

    “What will be entertaining is the explanation my readers who have me all figured out will give for my praise of this good, compassionate, and generous video.”

    Aha! NOW we see the truth, Mark Shea. BOTH you AND Voris are secretly gay! And now you are almost openly crushing on him. All your quips about his hair are just cover. You LOVE that thing he does with his hair.

    • letterman

      No, seriously, major props to Mr. Voris, and to Mr. Shea. Well done.

    • Claire

      LOL! Hilarious comment 🙂

    • Mark Shea

      Now you must die!

      • Haha! I love the way Mark clearly states what certain slavishly articulate blogs only mask, by using terms such as the ‘biological solution’
        I always call a spade a spade (apart from the one I tripped over on the way home once)! 😉

  • Ryan

    Thanks for posting this and props to Mark Shea and Michael Voris. God Bless

  • Laura

    Do we really need to be reminded to love people? Have we become so rigid that we’ve lost our charity? After all, charity means LOVE – And to want to see people protected from the physical and spiritual consequences of grave sin can only come from love, right?

    So I think Voris’s handling of this was good, albeit a bit incomplete…

    Thanks, Mark.

  • Joe R.

    Who is this guy? Where did he come from? I want to see his birth certificate!

  • Parasum

    This was a really excellent & compassionate video. If *only* the rest were this good…