“Catholic” Theologians Blast Bishops for Opposing Gay “Marriage”

A group of “Catholic” theologians are quoted in today’s online magazine The Daily Beast excoriating the bishops for upholding the Catholic Church’s teaching on same-sex “marriage.” Some even go so far as to advocate gay “marriage” not only as a civil matter but within the Catholic Church.

If one were to read this article called “Do Most Catholic Theologians Support Same Sex Marriage?” you might get the faulty impression that theologians at Jesuit institutions make up the sum total of Catholic theologians. The piece quotes professors of theology at Fairfield, Marquette, and Santa Clara. And that’s it.  Oddly, they didn’t quote any theologians to argue as strongly in favor of the Church’s stance on marriage. The online magazine also spoke to Fr. James Martin,  culture editor of America Magazine, who tepidly stated Catholic teaching but is not quoted arguing for or against it in any meaningful way.

“[W]hile many non-Catholic Americans may take the political position put forward by the bishops as the final word in American Catholic life, progressive Catholic thinkers and theologians say it is time for the church to step back from political arguments about same-sex marriage, and reconsider its own position,” the article states.

Paul Lakeland, a professor of religious studies director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University, a Catholic university in Connecticut, is placed “among the theologians who say the bishops are in the wrong.”

Dr. Paul Lakeland

Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest, was the conference organizer at Fairfield University for the “More than a Monologue” conference which The Cardinal Newman Society reported on here. Lakeland’s 2004 book, The Liberation of the Laity, displays how little regard he has for the Catholic bishops: “What we have is an episcopate of men selected more for their commitment to the party line on outmoded ideas about contraception, ordination, and homosexuality, more for their administrative capabilities than for their stature as spiritual leaders.” In 2009 Lakeland  reportedly opposed Bishop William Lori and testified in support of Connecticut State legislation that y would have wrested legal control of Catholic parishes away from the diocesan bishop.

And now he is quoted in The Daily Beast saying:

“That’s not really an argument that has a theological justification,” Lakeland said of the [C]hurch’s opposition to same-sex civil marriages. “It’s an argument that’s based more on fear or repugnance.”

“There is a lot more to be said about these issues than one stream of words from the hierarchy,” Lakeland said.

But wait, it gets worse.  Taking on the USCCB’s latest statement on gay “marriage” which was written by Bishop Salvatore Cordileone which said, “this is not a partisan issue, but a matter of justice, fairness, and equality for the law to uphold every child’s basic right to be welcomed and raised by his or her mother and father together,” a theologian at Marquette blasted the bishops’ position.

That theologian is, of course, Daniel Maguire, a former priest who reportedly once called partial birth abortion “a necessary procedure.” Most recently, Maguire reportedly called the bishops “moral heretics” for their opposition to the HHS mandate.

Maguire is quoted saying Cordileone’s position is dead wrong. Maguire reportedly said the interpretation of Church teaching held by Dolan, Cordileone, and other bishops isn’t representative of the position held by many lay Catholics and theologians.

Archbishop Dolan and the United States Catholic Conference are misrepresenting ‘Catholic teaching,’ and are trying to present their idiosyncratic minority view as the ‘Catholic position,’ and it is not,” Maguire wrote in an email to The Daily Beast. “The bishops will stand with Dolan and the U.S. Catholic Conference, but on this issue, they are in moral schism since most in the Church have moved on [to] a more humane view on the rights of those whom God has made gay.”

“Most Catholic theologians approve of same-sex marriage and Catholics generally do not differ much from the overall population on this issue,” Maguire said.

The Daily Beast also quotes “Frank Parella” of Santa Clara University, yet another Jesuit institution. Since there is no Frank Parella listed at Santa Clara, we wonder if this isn’t Santa Clara Theology Professor Frederick J.  Parrella. Anyway, “Frank” Parella reportedly told the online magazine that he finds “nothing in the Gospels” that should lead the Church to oppose legalization of gay “marriage.”

And according to The Daily Beast, Parrella and Lakeland agree there are “good theological arguments” to not just allow same-sex civil marriages, but also to support same-sex unions in the Church.

The level of one-sided journalism displayed by The Daily Beast is bad enough, but the theologians quoted here are worse. Attention should be paid to avoid them.

Cover Photo Credit: Catholic News Agency

Matthew Archbold


Matthew Archbold is a contributing writer to Campus Notes and to National Catholic Register, as well as the co-founder of the popular website, Creative Minority Report.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Karen

    I don’t understand how men with opposing Catholic beliefs are allowed to teach at Catholic universities.

  • Joyce

    When will the respresentatives in power exercise the right to excommunicate other public figures who proclaim heresy….

  • Rakeys

    When speaking about marriage, Jesus said, ‘Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother be joined unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’.” Mt19:4-5  Jesus did not say joined unto his husband. Jesus also said,”Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted” Mt 19:11
      50% of Catholics also get divorced, but I don’t think that is in agreement with Jesus’ teaching either. 

  • Karen

    Click on the link in this article for Daniel Maguire.  He is listed on the faculty of the Theology Department for Marquette University – a Catholic college.  One of his latest books is Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religions.

  • Joe DeVet


    Why are dissidents allowed to teach at Catholic universities?  The answer is these schools are not Catholic, but Jesuit.  Unfortunately, the Jesuits themselves for the past two generations or so have made this distinction.  It does seem to me the bishops have been tepid in their response to these abominations.

  • Simple.  Excommunicate these heretics, take away “Catholic” status from any university that keeps them on the payroll.  Disband the Jesuits and any other dissident religious communities.  Give an option for those in such communities who are faithful to the Magisterium to join a new, orthodox iteration of their former communities.  Enough is enough.  These CINO’s speak for no one but themselves…and the father of lies…

  • Sjocr

    1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. 11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. > Homosexual lifestyle is the sin of idolatry! For this man to be teaching sin is not a sin at a Catholic University is a sin!

  • nah

    Here’s the simple litmus test for considering any source as representing the Catholic viewpoint on any moral issue: Does it agree with the Magisterium.  If yes, then accept it as truth coming from Jesus’ mouth.  If no, then disregard as deceit coming from the influence of Satan. 

  • Maya

    This theologian denies the working of the Holy Spirit through the bishops with his stance.  Without the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church is simply another megastore offering cut-rate salvation through a choice of items in the aisles.

  • Simple. These “theologians” are NOT Catholic and they don’t speak for the Catholic Church. If the universities they teach at were truly Catholic universities, they would be thrown out on their butts.

  • Paul Lakeland

    You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, of course. But I would like to correct one error of fact in your article. I did not work to “wrest legal control” of parishes from the bishop. What the bishop failed to tell people at the time is that legal control of the parishes is currently in the hands of the CT legislature, who defined over a hundred years ago what should be the make-up of the parish corporation. So all the posturing about first amendment rights was just that, posturing. The ideal situation would be for control of the parish corporation to be in the hands of the church, but failing that it would be better than the present situation if it were left in the hands of the legislature but they amended the parish corporation to provide a majority role for the parishioners who actually provide the funds for the parish and diocese to function, and not for the functionaries who just spend (or occasionally misappropriate) those funds. On with the mission! God bless all of you, just try not to put the worst possible interpretation on everything that those who disagree with you actually say.

  • Charles Greene

    These men take God for a fool, when it is they who are the fools. Pray for them, their immortal souls are certainly at risk. I believe excommunication  is not only appropriate but the only thing that may save them.

  • Editor

    Dr. Lakeland, 

    While I’m pleased that you’ve chosen to comment, and you are to be commended as much as anyone for taking the time to clear up any perceived factual errors in a CE article, I must say: you’ve chosen something of a straw man in this case, haven’t you? I’m sure most of us would rather you address, for instance, your alleged statement that the Church’s position on same-sex civil marriages is based on “fear and repugnance” rather than actual theology, or your apparent belief that what the Church teaches on these matters has no more value than your own personal opinion. How could any faithful Catholic in the pews regard your positions as anything other than heresy? Please feel free to respond, and I urge patience and charity among all readers and participants.

  • I suppose someone must read the drivel in The Daily Beast, just to see what shenanigans they’re up to, if for no other reason; I am only glad that it is you, and not me Matthew.

    As for the “self”alogians the rag quotes, I am glad I am not worthy to judge them; though I envy not their inevitable appearance before the Lord.

    Still if Dan Quagmire … er-r-r … Maguire is correct, and most theologian and lay Catholics believe as he does, then Papa Benedict sorely misspoke when he stated that we would be members of “a smaller Church”; he must have meant a “much smaller Church”.

    Anyone feeling lonely out there?  Not I!

    Viva Cristo Rey

  • Bo
  • Paul Lakeland

     Well, I wanted to clear up the factual error because sometimes people are persuaded not to listen to others because of things imputed to them that are not true. This often happens to me, for whatever reason. So please not that I think the issue with parish corporations is not that the legislature should be unilaterally changing them, but that the legislature should not be in the business of determining their make-up at all.

    I am happy to comment on what is more central to the argument of your article, namely, same-sex marriage, though I am sure that I am unlikely to persuade many of your readers. First, let’s clear out of the way the matter of civil same-sex marriages or civil unions. It seems to me that the same separation of church and state that protects churches and religious groups from the power of the state also protects the state. What the state decides to do about same-sex marriage, so long as they do not attempt to enforce them on churches which disagree with the practice, is really of no concern. They are, by definition, civil and not sacramental marriages.

    As for sacramental marriages, my point simply is that the argument from authority is empty if it does not grow from a theological foundation, and to date I have not heard any theological argument against same-sex marriage. The magisterium has, to my relief, stopped employing proof-texting from scripture, because although scripture does indeed include harsh words about promiscuity and sexual violence, both straight and gay, it has nothing to say about the rights and/or wrongs of loving unions between same-sex couples. The magisterium argues that the two ends of the sexual relationship within marriage, procreation and the “mutual support of the spouses,” are inseparable, and therefore that same-sex unions cannot possibly be marriages in the sense in which the church understands them. Of course, the church blesses unions in which one or other partner has medical issues that make procreation impossible or marriages between quite old people in which procreation is, to say the least, highly unlikely. These people marry for love, with the intention of their love spreading beyond themselves to family, friends and the larger community. Thus, in the absence of children, they are still fruitful unions. The only difference between these unions and unions between same-sex couples is the nature of the sexual act in which their love is celebrated. And that brings us back either to the application of “natural law” or some quasi-mystical thinking about sexuality.

    My own position, which I do not set up as superior to that of the magisterium but which I have a perfect right to express, is that the fundamental law of the church is the law of love, and that wherever true love is encountered the church is in peril if it places obstacles in its way. So the argument comes down to whether or not there is true love in the relationship between at least some same-sex couples. If so, then I personally think the church ought to bless these unions with joy and gratitude to the God who is love.

    So, I am for the gospel, and I do not believe that it is the role of the church to create laws that inhibit the gospel of love. I have two pieces of advice to people who disagree with me on this. The first is to stop getting hung up on sex. People can have sex whenever and wherever they wish, and most often–outside marriage–it is less than perfect if not downright sinful, whether same-sex or heterosexual. The second requires a quick anecdote. In the mid 1960s the American Catholic woman Patty Crowley served on the papal birth control commission. She was a strong proponent of relaxing the church’s teaching on birth control, and had an argument with a moral theologian who also served on the commission. He argued fiercely that the law should not be changed because “what would this say about all the people we have condemned to hell for breaking the rule in the past?” But father, she gently replied, what makes you think that God has obeyed all of your instructions?

    Do people really think that the God of Jesus Christ condemns genuinely loving relationships because of the bodies involved in them? Apparently so, but I worry for a church that simply reflects the prejudices of large sectors of society rather than one that tries to live by the gospel adage of love.

    Thanks for listening, but you did ask!

  • Peter Nyikos

     Paul, you made one glaring omission in your statement: just what was your testimony about? 

    I don’t suppose the article is wrong about you having testified about something to the legislature; if that were true, I should think you would have mentioned that.

  • Peter Nyikos

    And I don’t understand why these universities are allowed to call themselves Catholic when they go on employing heretics like Maguire.  [I’d call him an apostate, but I think that requires that the person in question announce his repudiation of the Church.]

  • Karen

    Thank you, Joe.  I am going to have to read up more about the Jesuits.  This is something I did not know or understand – like so many other things now!

  • Karen

    Anyone if free to believe or not believe anything the Catholic Church teaches, but you cannot pick out the things you like and disregard the teachings you don’t.  If you have a problem with a Catholic Church doctrine, just leave and find a church that agrees with you.  Heaven knows there are PLENTY of churches out there!

  • Paul Lakeland


    I did not testify before the legislature. The proposed legislation never reached that point. In fact, the proposal itself was simply mischievous. The point I made was in response to queries from the press, namely, that it is time for a change in the make-up of the parish corporation, and as things currently stand the change can only be made by the legislature. The present CT law mandates that the parish corporation be made up of the bishop vicar-general and pastor ex officio, with two laypeople appointed annually. This does not in my view adequately represent where the responsibilities for parish finances should lie.

  • Editor

    Thank you for laying out your thinking on these things. I think you are quite wrong in your conception of the state and how we, as religious people, are to regard it. What the state does is of major concern, since the state is not really a separate, autonomous entity but no more than an expression of the people. It is our responsibility to see that the state governs in a way that accords with good morals and true justice. If it refuses to do that, then it falls upon us to rectify that–which is what the Founding Fathers did.

    Your reasons for defending same sex unions (whether the state is involved or not) end up sounding completely subjective to me. In your second paragraph you show very little regard for magisterial teaching or natural law, both of which rule out same sex unions. But if those aren’t good enough for you, what is? You ask for theological argument against same sex unions–in fact, you claim that none exists. Yet I hardly know where to begin to point out to you excellent writing by good, solid Catholic thinkers which put the whole question of human sexuality in a theological context–John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, layman Christopher West’s work based on it, “Love and Responsibility” by John Paul II (writing as Karol Wojtyla), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” etc. and all of it is rooted firmly in love…love for the Creator, love for human persons, and love for ourselves. Best of all, it’s real love. The kind of love you are referring to sounds an awful lot like nothing more than license, a mere self-satisfaction with no regard for others. 

    Consider also the homosexual persons who are, at this moment,       heroically struggling to live out the Church’s teaching. Steve Gershom, who has written for Catholic Exchange, is a man with same sex attraction who has found true freedom and joy in faithfully living out what our Church teaches about homosexuality. Perhaps you could read his work, as well.

    Consider this: “To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.” (On the Pastoral care of Homosexual Persons)

    As to the blessing of unions where children are medically impossible, the man and the woman are still physically and spiritually ordered towards each other. They are still working in cooperation with God’s design, and if they are physically challenged in some way it is not their fault. Homosexual persons, as such, are not suffering from a medical problem.  

  • Mary-Lynn

    I am a laity of the Catholic church. I am not a theologian or spend my time reading extenisvely on the subject.The basis of your arguement seems to be God is love, therefore, we can love all because we can love all… we need to bless all relatiosnships that proclaim to contain love because we don’t really know the definition of God’s love. Simple I as I may be, I thought Jesus promised to stay with us and guide us through his church, specifically through the pope and bishops. and love as ignorant as I may be I know their are differnt love: the love of man and woman, the love of mother and child, father and child, love in friendship… I think you get the picture. But some of these loves can become perverted. as in the love of father and daughter turning to physical attractions and physical union…but they love each other…..I think you can see were I’m going.
     My prayers are for you my dear servant of God..

  • Karen

    You are the perfect person, Professor Lakeland, to help people like me who are not a member of the religious, or in academics, to try and understand priests and nuns who publicly teach on matters contradictory to Church teachings.  It is very confusing to us.  I appreciate your dialogue in this discussion.

  • Marcel

    the problem is that these universities train priests, right?

  • Maryann

    Our Pastor told our St. Peter grade school students at a daily Mass last week to ‘always follow the Pope and the bishops who are in agreement with  him.’ Many saints have advocated this over the centuries. Certainly, I have intelligence to read and reflect and question but why spend time and energy reading and listening to those who disagree with orthodox Catholic teaching? I personally could care what these ‘dissident’ former priests have to say BUT am dismayed they are in a leadership position in a Catholic college/university.  WHY?

    As the dark gets darker, I believe that grace abounds more. Jesus has told us over and over to ‘trust and obey Him.’ I intend to do so til my dying breath.  Lord have mercy on us sinners.  Jesus, I trust in You! 

  • Peter Nyikos

     Paul, the following words of yours just don’t ring true:

    “So the argument comes down to whether or not there is true love in the
    relationship between at least some same-sex couples. If so, then I
    personally think the church ought to bless these unions with joy and
    gratitude to the God who is love.”

    There is true love in many relationships, but we do not ask the church to bless friendships nor the love of parents for their children with the sacrament of matrimony.  What you are really asking the church to bless is a union marked by physical acts and passions  which are considered repugnant in the Old Testament and also in Romans 1. 

    Yes, St. Paul did not condemn the acts in the same way the Old Testament did, but he explicitly stated that God had abandoned idolaters to their “unnatural” passions and “shameless acts”: women burning with lust for women, men for men.  If that is not a “theological” argument against same-sex matrimony [you claim never to have seen one] it is certainly an Apostolic one.

  • I am sick to death of these Catholic Church haters!  Get rid of them!  CINO’s everyone and poor lost souls!  Not really Catholic but full fledged social justice jerks whose only goal is to change the Church from within!  It will be a cold day in Hell before that happens.

  • to Dr Paul Lakeland and readers, 
    while I am young (21 years old), and might be theologically vastly inferior than you and english is not my first language, I have some of my opinion to share with. 
    First, to the role of the Church, the role of the state, yes there is a separative distinction between civil and sacramental marriage, we should not forget ‘Render unto Caesar’ incidence. They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.” He said to them, “Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.”  While civil marriage might accept the idea of same-sex marriage, as children of God, we belong to God, not the state. As other readers have commented, the Bible did indeed include the purpose of union of men with a women, to produce a fruitful love. In case things were not clear, Blessed Pope John Paul II also reinforced the Church’s position on theology of the Body which he wrote: Love must be free, faithful, TOTAL and FRUITFUL. How can a same-sex marriage bear fruit? be it children or benefits to the already corrupted society which keeps deviates further from the truth? 

    as a child of God (especially a Catholic professor or priest), it is our duty to while not condemn same-sex marriage to the very core, but to guide the ‘misguided sheep’ back to the flock, to the absolute truth. The spirit of God teaches us Docility, with it obedience of God. If Christ gave authority to the church, we are also obliged to listen to church superior. 

    with your reply to the Editor of ‘People can have sex whenever and wherever they wish, and most often–outside marriage–it is less than perfect if not downright sinful, whether same-sex or heterosexual.’ How can you say that you are for the Gospel? 
    The Gospel is the Truth of God. with the Spirit of God empowered to us, how can we will our advices (which stem from our own desires, inclined to our own personal tastes and caprices instead of the will of God?) 
    If everyone has their own personal tastes and interpretations of the Bible, there will be plenty of ‘churches and pastors’ out there proclaiming their own ‘truths’. Also, we do not every sunday in church proclaim: We believe in ONE holy, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC church for just the mere proceedings in a mass, but to live out the full truth of the gospel. Catholic as in Universal, we believe in one, Apostolic for our obedience to those who God has given them the grace to govern us.
    Lastly I would share this:
    “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 John 4:6) 
    Even the saints (and Mystics alike with their revelation) show exemplary characters of obedience:
    “…not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I request of you without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please Me” [Autobiography of St Margaret Mary – with Jesus conversation].  “The will of the Bishop is the will of God.”  – St Padre Pio when the Bishop dismissed him

    Thank you for your time to read!

  • Paul, you would have to admit that love is not simply the urge to satisfy our desires, but are about the elements inherent in the parables. The Bishops and, in deed, everyone
    who is interested in the wellbeing of society should support marriage as it has
    always existed in all cultures all over the world.


    There is one feature in human nature that separates us into
    two distinct groups, namely gender. The principal organs associated with these
    genders perfectly complement each other. When two people from the two genders
    unite a marriage is consummated. This marriage is then blessed by nature to
    provide the community with stability and, yes, continuity. No other
    relationship, no matter how loving, is like it.


    Over two thousand years ago the Chinese realised the
    importance of marriage, the fundamental unit of society. They believed that all
    relationships within marriage and family needed to be protected and nurtured.
    However, since you are a Catholic Theologian you would be familiar with our
    Saviour’s answer to a question on marriage. Jesus said that it was for this
    reason that God made us Male and Female.   You
    have every right to contradict the Church and Jesus, but do not try to pull the
    Bishops down with you.

    I believe that this marriage is a human phenomenon designed
    in our nature fro a very specific reason. Any attempt to re-define or corrupt
    this marriage is not only futile but  dangerous
    as well. It should be deemed a criminal attack against society.

  • Julia

    Many of these theologians seem to think it is the job of the clergy to change church teachings to keep up with the times, that because “most in the church have moved on to a more humane view of the rights of those God has made gay” the bishops should follow by changing the churches teaching!!! This is in no way what the church is for. The church is meant to be our mother, and our teacher…We aren’t supposed to be teaching the church. The church was founded on rock because it was meant to be permanent, not something to change with the times. This seems to me to be an issue in which the theology of the body is being completely disregarded in favor of something that will be more politically correct, leaving the church divided, and making us even weaker. There is a reason the devil is also known as the great divider. 

  • annie

    The Church was not to change but rather the the people in the church, those who claim to know the “Truth” yet damn people to hell, God’s children to hell. There needed to be more humane treatment of gays in this world, again because they are children of God and He is the only one who is to judge.  Do you really think the Catholic has not changed with the times.  If you study the history of the Catholic Church you will find that many bishops and popes have been corrupt in the past which actually lead to the start of the Anglican church as well as others. Yes the Church is becoming divided, it is being divided by those who believe they are the ones who should judge and those who leave that up to God while focusing on over coming our own personal sins. 

  • annie


    A possible reason that these bishops have been so tepid in their response to the Jesuits is because they know that the Jesuits have millions of followers all over the world and that if anyone were to address the Jesuits it would be the Pope and he hasn’t done that so why should any of you. For one who was raised by the Jesuit and now raising my children among them, I have been completely stunned by how many here use the Bible (using quotes) to damn people to hell. Preaching and condemning are two very different things.

    Do you really know anything about the Jesuits? Why don’t you learn about them. It is unfair to speak of them as a group when saying ” the Jesuits themselves” made the distinction they are not catholic but rather Jesuits. If you had any idea how the Jesuit Society was set up around the world, you would know they do not have a priest that makes that kind of statement for all of them and they do not always share a common belief.  Again, maybe you should let the Pope handle the Jesuits.

  • annie

    Mr Lakeland thank you for posting. Being a cradle Catholic raise by the Jesuits, I have never heard such judgement for others in the name of God as I have heard on these posts. Many here sound as if they were appointed by the Pope himself to condemn all those who do not follow the “Truth”. I agree that only God knows what is in peoples’ heart and if they treat others with love and respect, how can God condemn them.

    As for the issue of gay couples not procreating, would God not be happy with these couple adopting a child in need. Does anyone one really think God cares if they bring another child into the world or raise one that needs a home.

  • annie

    Sorry Karen, I meant that to Joe. But I think you will like much about what you read on the Jesuits and all they do.

  • annie


    I have 3 children of my own and they all  go to Catholic school which we believe to be the best place to learn about and live their faith.However, if we were to go on and have more children we would not have the means to do that and they would have to go to public school where they would be exposed to more corrupt behavior, as where we live the public schools are terrible.

    I cannot see where God would have a problem with a couple using birth control in order to not raise their children in poverty, in more dangerous area, in terrible public schools. Not only do we have our children in Catholic school, we help kids go there that could never afford to go. There things you talk about are not so black and white, nothing in the world is and just because a group of priests, none of who have raise children or earned a living to support them, makes the rules doesn’t make them right.

    There comes a time that we must look at the situation at hand. Have you slowly watched a child starve to death in a third world country; it takes months for that to happen as his body slowly eats away at itself. Have you seen children that have been brutally beaten or killed by a mother on drugs? Have you adopted a child who my never have a home or family when they are thrown out into the world. The world is simply not that black and white. What are your answers to prevent these drug addict from having children; they are too strung out to preach to and no one whats the babies they are having. No one ever discusses another solution. Some of these priest are out in the world watching the suffering everyday, unlike those coming up with the “Thruth”.

  • annie


    It is so nice to hear someone have an open mind. Many of these priest and nuns having been living among people in a great deal of pain and suffering, unlike the priests preaching “the Truth”. The world is not so black and white and these priest and nuns are often times trying to find a way to lessen their pain, especially the children. People who condemn them never seem to have an answer other than “the Truth” which often times doesn’t help the mentally ill, drug addicts, or the very poor.

  • Victoria

    are you suggesting that drug addicts should be sterilized to prevent them from having children, since clearly they are not good at using birth control successfully? We tried that in this country in the past; Americans do not do things that way any longer. Besides, if that were the case my adopted daughter, who I did want very much, would never have been born!
    There are plenty of adoptive parents waiting for babies, that is not a problem.
    I suggest that the simplest solution to all these problems is to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. When they change, Catholics can change.

  • there is a good chance that the real reason for this push for formal acceptane of the homosexual act is that so many have engaged in this breach of faith in gods order . i see hollywood pushes , planned parenthood has been endoctrinating our children for many years by its graphic explanations of how to avoid pregnancy . we need to see past these teachers attemps to seem hip / cutting edge / aven garde etc .. and  start being humbly following the way , truth , life that our lord says will lead us to everlasting life . to do other puts much pressure on the justice/mercy equation of the economy of salvation .

  • Maccabeus

    Paul Lakeland and Co. are not Catholic theologians in any true sense of the word.  A Catholic theologian works within the framework of divine revelation, as understood and taught by the Church, e.g., see Dei Verbum, “The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” of Vatican II. That framework specifies that divine revelation comes to us through two fountains – Scripture and Tradition – and is taught authentically by the Magisterium – the Teaching Office of the Church.  One does Catholic theology when one stays within this orthodox framework.  Move outside or “beyond” it and one is no longer doing Catholic theology.  Sadly, many so called “Catholic” theologians, including “ex-Jesuit priest” Paul Lakeland, have moved to the “beyond” realm. You know, above we mere ordinary non-thinking Catholics who like to cling to “outmoded ideas about contraception, ordination, and homosexuality…”, etc. and who gladly follow the Church’s teaching and love them.  What strikes me as odd is that many of these “Catholic” theologians love to rely on Vatican II for their strange theological opinions, but they are selective about which parts of Vatican II they like.  Dei Verbum certainly would not support their way of doing theology.  It is also very odd, but a mark of our sad times, that Lakeland and Co. earn their livings teaching in Catholic universities across the nation. In Lakeland’s case, he is the head of the Catholic Studies Department at Fairfield University.  How does a man who clearly dissents from, to use his own words, “outmoded” Church teachings on sexual morality become the head of a Catholic Studies department????  I would certainly not want my son or daughter to take one of his courses. One would think that a university run by a Catholic religious order would want someone who believes in Catholic doctrine and morals and who can teach it with love and enthusiasm to their students.  These are strange times indeed!  I suggest that Dr. Lakeland and Co. reflect carefully on these words of Isaiah 5:   “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” 

  • Maccabeus

    How right you are!  And worse, they use their positions as bully pulpits to spout their errors for all to hear. They have no shame. May God have mercy on them for leading souls astray.

  • God bless our Catholic Bishops who speak the truth.  God bless those at universities who are given a voice to speak out and they use it to spread lies and say things contrary to what the Church teaches.  

  • Christian

    Jesus was very clear about what our paramount duty to God and man should be. See Luke 10:26-27 and similar passages in Matthew and Mark and in various places in the Old Testament all saying the same thing. As a Christian, I believe my first priority must be to follow Christ’s teachings.