“Homophobia” is Contrived, so Where is “Adulterophobia”?

What is a “phobia”? It is “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”1

“Homo” is the prefix meaning “a genus of primates that includes modern humans (Homo sapiens) and several extinct species.2

Let’s Build a Word

Putting these two together, we arrive at “homophobia” which means an irrational fear of a genus of primates. If this exists, it would be exhibited as a fear of all people… probably not the originally intended meaning.

Could it be that this word is being misused by those who wish to discredit fellow humans who understand that sexual activity between two men or two women is intrinsically disordered? Even someone who does not follow a religion should know without a doubt that this behavior is contrary to Natural Law.  (Key point: it’s the behavior that must be rejected, not those involved.)


Distortion of language is the weapon of choice for the politically correct crowd. Realizing this, it is surprising that they haven’t labeled those opposed to adultery, and its cousin fornication, as being “adulterophobes.” Perhaps it’s because this mortal sin has been so ingrained in our society that it’s considered standard procedure. This brings to mind a mid-1980’s episode of the television series “Murder She Wrote” when one of the main characters attempted to chide another by saying, “Infidelity isn’t exactly front page news anymore.”

Of course, even if “progressives” felt the need ridicule those men and women attempting to be virtuous, the term would still be absurd. These individuals do not have an irrational desire to avoid sexual relations outside of a valid marriage. They are simply respectful of the disruption this behavior causes to society, not to mention its eternal consequences. That is a reasonable thing to be concerned about!

A Charitable Response, not Enabling Behavior, is What’s Needed

By its origins, “homophobia” does not exist as social engineers claim. It’s merely a clever attempt to demean those who acknowledge “the big picture” into accepting a disordered lifestyle which goes against Natural Law as well as the Ten Commandments. Arbitrary social changes produce contrived terms which divert our focus from what should be our top priorities, in this case: on loving and assisting those afflicted with these tendencies into a better life— both now and, more importantly, beyond.

1 – taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phobia
2 – taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homo


Charles Cooper Would Have Prevented Embarrassment With Church Catechism’s Understanding of Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court case involving California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriages is receiving an elevated level of attention.  It’s providing an excellent opportunity for those supporting the unchangeable institution of marriage to reveal their understanding of it… or lack of it as evidenced by:

From  the  Court’s  Proceedings

“Much of the debate circled around the needs of children and the importance of procreation to the state’s interest in marriage. In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked whether it would be constitutional to prevent couples over the age of 55 from marrying, given that they would not be procreating.
‘Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples, both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional –‘Cooper began, before being interrupted by laughter.
‘I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage,’ Kagan shot back.”1

Key  Aspect  of  Marriage  is  Misunderstood

Charles J. Cooper, representing Proposition 8, got himself into this jam when he said that it supports “responsible procreation”2 and the implication that marriage without children is not a marriage.  One of the aspects of a valid marriage is that the couple is “open to having children,” not necessarily discovering whether they are able to have them.  Thus, the discussion with Justice Kagan took a turn for the worse (see footnote #3).

The Old Testament case of Abraham and Sarah is a great example of this distinction.  They were an elderly, childless couple.4  They proved to be open to God’s will to give them a child, even though they certainly weren’t of the age normally expected to be able to have one.

Society  Chose  the  Wrong  Fork  in  the  Road  in  the ‘60s

“Openness to children” is a recurring theme regarding human sexuality, especially since the arrival of artificial contraceptives in the 1960s.  Many, including a great number portraying themselves as Catholic, were “relieved” and took great delight in reducing the chances for conception within marriage through unnatural means.  By doing so, they ignored a key aspect of marriage.3,5

This notion of trying to circumvent the inherent responsibility of sex spilled over into the unmarried segment of the population.  The outcome is a complete disregard for all that the 6th Commandment entails.6


With the resulting distortion of what marriage is and the erroneous belief that human sexual activity does not have to be restricted to valid marriages, is it really surprising that there is a movement to legitimize disordered same-sex unions?

1 – from “Supreme Court Prop. 8 Arguments Focus on Sex, Science,” by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience senior writer, 3/26/2013
2 – Huffington Post article by Mike Sacks and Ryan J. Reilly, 3/26/2013
3 – Paragraph 1664 of Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Unity, indissolubility and openness to fertility (emphasis added) are essential to marriage.  Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (emphasis added).”  Before someone argues that the Church does not consider a couple to be married when it is discovered they cannot have children, there is Paragraph 1654: “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms.  Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.”  (published by Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)
4 — Whether or not one takes their stated ages literally is not important.  The purpose of the account was to show that they were beyond the normal child-bearing years, at least for the wife.
5 – Preventing conception through natural means allows for God to “overrule” us.  By the same token, “openness to children” does not mean having children using any method.  This includes having in vitro fertilization (which also involves the destruction of “excess” babies) and surrogate conception, both of which go outside the marital bond.  Each is an attempt to overrule God’s natural plan for procreation.
6 – In discussions, I have found that a great many Christians think that the 6th Commandment pertains only to married couples because it says “adultery”—that single people are not bound by a moral standard for sex, too.  Somehow Scripture’s condemnation of fornication between heterosexuals and disordered sexual behavior between those who are same-sex attracted has been conveniently swept under the carpet.  In addition to the overriding fact that same-sex relations are inherently disordered, they are also a means of unnaturally blocking the potential procreative aspect of sexual activity in the same way self-gratification does (masturbation).

By the Way: Moral Truths Have Never Been Subject to Referendum

Trying to understand Catholicism is difficult for many in the United States.  It has been worsened by two of generations of weakened catechesis producing many “Catholics” who are unable to explain basic concepts or who mistakenly believe that the expression of their faith must be confined to the church structures a la Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius.

As there are only so many hours in a day, one must be judicious in allotting time to clear up the widespread misconceptions.  Consequently, I will only be addressing a couple of points in an article I read in a recent newspaper.

Bloomberg View columnist Margaret Carlson was commenting on the U.S. Catholics bishops’ response to the recently announced “religious accommodation” regarding the much-debated HHS mandate, also known as Obamacare.1  My purpose here is not to delve into the doctrinal justifications for the bishops’ position of which she seems unaware.

Issue “A” :  Pro-Life  vs.  “Choice”

I will, however, address the two statements which stood out the most.  After she suggested that the bishops were probably looking to pick a fight with the President (make that three statements needing rebuttal, but the third will have to wait for another time) Ms. Carlson wrote: “In 2004, the bishops warned Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that he would be denied Communion for his pro-choice views.  By ostracizing political candidates, they like to enforce beliefs that their parishioners have rejected.”

This implication that the bishops are defending something archaic comes from the mistaken notion that moral truths can be voted out.  (This is one of several erroneous concepts in the Christian community having roots nearly 500 years old.  And you thought you were having trouble with weeds in your yard.)

“Thou shall not kill” was declared by God long before Christ established His Church early in the first century.  To the apostles and their successors, Jesus delegated the responsibility and authority to guide His Church until His return.  He did not confer upon them the authority to change His father’s Commandments.  Just because the “Catholic vote” went 50-48 for a presidential ticket which ignores this basic law of right-to-life does not make the 5th Commandment irrelevant, but it does make the “50%” voters essentially non-Catholic.2,3,4

Issue #2:   Purpose  and  Responsibilty  of  Sex

The other point of contention to be dealt with here arose from: “Of course, Catholics will use contraception.  They have been for decades.”  Several polls have attempted to calculate how many people claiming to be “Catholic” have ever used or routinely use contraception.  There is often confusion as to what the data really mean or which percentage is truly representative.  But in reality, it is immaterial whether a few or nearly all “Catholics” use contraceptives frequently.   Popularity has no authority to change a moral truth.

Moral relativism may be in fashion, but it has no justification.  If it did, we could dispense with that annoying 6th Commandment (you know, the one about sexual relations outside of a valid marriage are forbidden).  I’ll even add the conveniently forgotten statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  (More proof that “Catholic guilt” is Scriptually sound.)  Incidentally, some contraceptives cause early term abortions. Consequently, the 5th Commandment is involved here, too


The Catholic Church is not a social committee presided over by the pope and bishops who take periodic surveys to see what Commandments the faithful feel like following.  Its teachings have Scripture and Tradition backing them up.5  While society and technology change, moral truths do not… they cannot, or they wouldn’t be truths.  Whenever a pope, often in consultation with the bishops, makes a statement regarding a current issue, he is not revealing a “new” truth.  Rather, he is applying one with at least a 2000-year old track record to address an issue which didn’t exist at the time of Christ or of the apostles after the Ascension.

Murder has always been wrong, regardless of the euphemisms used to disguise the true nature of a particular mode of killing (“reproductive rights,” “choice,” etc.)  What constitutes a valid marriage and the inherent responsibilities of this vocation (including openness to children) have been the same since God revealed it in ancient times.  Sex is solely tied to marriage regardless of what our spiritual adolescence wishes were true.

Speaking of adolescence, the attainment of age 21, 40 or even 70 does not give us license to dismiss any of the Commandments.  Rationalizations become comfortable when Pride takes hold.  It is good to remember who is the chief promoter of Pride and how it led to his fall.

1 – as published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/9/2013
2 – voter breakdown from www.freerepublic.com
3 – The stance which pseudo-Catholics take regarding what constitutes a “Catholic” defies rational thinking.  If one does not believe in the foundational beliefs of any group, then one is not a member of that group.  This is logic, plain and simple, not being “judgmental.”  Rationalizing that a true “Catholic” can be in favor of allowing abortion and same-sex “marriage” is as contradictory as a person claiming to be “Christian,” who does not accept that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is both God and human.
4 – Technically, a Catholic could vote for someone who does not defend the unborn if he is not supporting the candidate because of that particular issue and the candidate is not using that belief to promote the evil and if there are no alternative candidates who are pro-life or if there are pro-lifers but they support other intrinsic evils.  Such was not the case last November.
5 – It is helpful to remember that Church Tradition existed before the New Testament came into being.  Re:  “Whoever listens to you listens to me.  Whoever rejects you, rejects me.  And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke  10:16)
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 19-20)