I’m not steering you wrong, folks. We are in the midst of the greatest mass apostasy in the history of the Church. Apologists for the new modernist heresies will accuse me of ignorance for making that statement, and some level-headed orthodox Christians might agree with their assessment. And yes, I know—the history of the Church is filled with chaos, struggle, and sundry evil-doings. Nevertheless, I believe that one can make the case that our current situation is uniquely dire: Representatives of the pope are being praised by numerous bishops and cardinals for preaching an anti-gospel that attacks the authority of the Church at its very foundations. And I submit to you yet another piece of evidence to make that case. Take a look at the link below. It will connect you to a brief six minute debate from Fox News that tackles the sensitive subject of LGBT culture and the Church: what should an authentic Christian ministry to gay people look like? The guy on the left side (not politically) is Daniel Mattson, author of Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay. The book describes his personal conversion from disciple of LGBT dogma to disciple of Catholic orthodoxy. On the other side was supposed to be the heretic Fr. James Martin, but he sent a surrogate to represent the views of his own book, Building a Bridge. And whom he sent is informative—a doctoral candidate in theology from Catholic Fordham University who is involved in a gay relationship. Their message is clear. Smart people who are educated in their faith will understand that it is okay to be gay and be Catholic. So what is the argument that justifies this heresy? We don’t know from the video because he doesn’t make any argument. He only makes the unsubstantiated claim that the Church has been wrong on other matters (democracy, conscience, and slavery) and invites us to conclude that, therefore, the Church is also wrong on homosexuality. But that’s no argument. And if he wants to pass it off as one, then it’s a bad and fallacious one at that. Let’s grant his popular but unproven premise that the Church has been wrong on other issues. What should we conclude from that? The Church also condemns murder. Does it follow from the premise “that the Church has been wrong on other issues” that, “therefore, the Church is wrong to condemn murder?” Of course not. A more reasonable conclusion would be that the Church is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. (That’s reasonable to a person who doesn’t recognize the divine origins of the Church. For those who accept those divine origins, the teachings of divine revelation are always right and never wrong. They are infallible because their Author is infallible.) So the question left unanswered is to what category do issues of homosexuality belong? Maybe the Church got those questions right just like it has gotten other issues right. Fr. Martin’s surrogate offers us nothing to decide the case. I have shown in my previous posts (here and here) that their inchoate argument against Church orthodoxy on homosexuality borrows heavily from the New Atheists: scientific advancements have invalidated the Church’s understanding of human sexuality. In my upcoming video discussion of Building a Bridge for the NWBC, I will tackle this argument. Stay tuned.
Spirited Debate: Daniel Mattson and Jason Steidl discuss the relationship between the Catholic Church and the LGBTQ community and how they reconcile the two identities.