St. Pope John Paul II attends an inter-religious peace meeting in Assisi, Italy, in this Oct. 27, 1986 CNS/L'Osservatore Romano

Faith in civil discourse waxes, then wanes

  • October 13, 2017
When this column cited a vicious smear campaign against Fr. James Martin, it was expected that some people would disagree with his call to build a bridge of dialogue between the Church and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. It was also expected some would agree with his call for civil discourse. Naturally, both things occurred.

The main argument of my recent column in The Register was a call to stop the cyber bullying of Martin over his new book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. After all, his Jesuit superior and several cardinals endorse the book and say Martin is in line with Church teachings.

Indeed, the point of that column (and this one) goes beyond Martin’s case and more broadly to society in general where schoolyard taunting is becoming the norm and civility increasingly wanes in the age of social media.

Just to recap, “alt-right” Catholics are up in arms about Martin’s book and have pressured several institutions to cancel the priest’s speaking engagements. Many U.S. bishops and cardinals (both liberal and conservative) have come to the priest’s defence, offering him new speaking engage-ments and calling on Catholics who disagree to do so with respect, not degrading insults.

After all, the book does not endorse homosexuality or other al-ternative lifestyles. It simply looks at things we get wrong on both sides, then offers some prayers to help bring people together.

Two recent email correspondences opposed to the book and the overall papacy of Francis are worth noting. Let me begin with the first one in my mailbox.

In this one, the writer attacks Pope Francis for being too left wing and going against Church teachings in various ways such as meeting “with an infamous Italian abortionist in Rome” and “meeting with a gay couple, seemingly giving approval to their actions.” He then said “it is time the mainline Catholic press, including The Register, spoke out about what Francis is doing."

The email was definitely aggressive, but certainly not abusive. After checking with the editor of The Register to confirm such news stories about Pope Francis were published in non-judgmental ways, I wrote him back. He wrote a nice note back saying he must have missed those things and telling me a little about himself. For example, he’s 84 years old and he converted to Catholicism 64 years ago in the United Kingdom.

Then he stated he is not “alt-right” or “ultra conservative,” but rather “a traditional Catholic.” Fair point and that is how we left things.

My faith was restored in the possibilities of civil discourse amidst differing opinions, I thought. Here was an exchange of ideas without personal insults or “ad hominem trashing,” as a conservative bishop wrote urging an end to the Martin smear campaign.

But compare that gentleman’s approach to that of another writer. This second person said he read my column at Bible study at a North York church and immediately launches into an accusation of me “pushing sodomy under the guise of compassion.” (For the record, the person’s first name could be either gender but the aggressiveness sounds more like a man than a woman.)

He then accuses me of being a homosexual, which gave my wife and our children a chuckle. Personally, I actually got a belly laugh out of that accusation before feeling sorry for him for owning a heart filled with so much anger. (When I wrote him back to tell him his email gave me a chuckle, he replied with more vitriol than the first.)

He lashes out at so many other people — Martin, Pope Francis, bishops and cardinals — accusing them of things like homosexuality and heresy. He says men like Robert McElroy, bishop of San Diego, who defends Martin, have “renounced their obedience to the revealed truth of Christ.”

You get the point; that’s enough of his babblings and accusations, except to say that according to him, if one talks of “compassion,” “building bridges” and “dialogue” between the LGBT community and the Church then one is in league with the devil. The only certainty I could glean from his ravings is that if one does not hold the same views as this person, then you’re a fool (or worse) and he will hurl endless insults in your general direction.

What causes such behaviour in people these days? Is it social media which allows them to spew hatred with no regard to the concept of respect? Is it the ease in which the online world allows them to find so many others who align perfectly with their world views and, thus, re-enforce their views?

Who knows? But I’d like to think there are more in the world like the first writer who was in disagreement than the second person, a true ad hominem trasher.

(Brehl is a writer in Port Credit, Ont., and can be reached at, or @bbrehl on Twitter.)

Comments (1)

  1. Chris

“Ad hominem trasher?” No need to go “Michael Coren”on me! In fact, in the fake news-at-its-finest world of so-called journalism, the alt-left - whether secular or religious – the primary modus operandi is to spin narratives in order to accuse the...

“Ad hominem trasher?” No need to go “Michael Coren”on me! In fact, in the fake news-at-its-finest world of so-called journalism, the alt-left - whether secular or religious – the primary modus operandi is to spin narratives in order to accuse the right (i.e., righteous) of the very things they are guilty of themselves to divert attention. Like Hillary and the DNC accusing Trump of Russian collusion, to disguise their treasonous money laundering schemes of selling American uranium to Putin. Or to keep it biblical, Satan accusing God of being a liar, when he himself told the biggest whopper of all time to Adam and Eve. Brehl’s previous (Sept. 28) article was based on a lie. The supposed “vicious smear campaign” against James Martin was actually a campaign for orthodoxy against Martin’s promotion of heresy. Yes, Martin is a heretic - as many disgusted, faithful Catholics have pointed out and we shall show.

Hell hath no fury like a gay activist contradicted. Clearly, Brehl, was the one doing the trashing. Everything I stated was absolutely true. One wonders how much more belittling the language would have been were it not constrained by his Catholic employer. “Smearing” involves calumny, not the dissemination of truth to protect the faith from moral heretics. And, unlike Brehl, I included links to back up my assertions. Because we live in the age of the professional victim, it’s become the primary tool of the activists trying to destabilize society. It’s axiomatic that pride and rage go together, especially gay pride and rage. As Brehl’s column so well illustrates, righteous Catholics endorsing orthodoxy are subjected to endless insults and labelled fools and bigots - such a stranglehold does the pro-gay movement hold over the Church. Unless Brehl is the world’s biggest dupe, he knows exactly what Martin is up to and hence takes his readers for dupes. Fact!

Such hostility to the commands of Christ on marriage and celibacy similarly explain the LGBT rage at Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin. After instructing his priests to follow church dogma and deny Catholic funerals to manifest sinners - such as gays living immoral and unrepentant public lifestyles - they are currently petitioning Pope Francis to remove him. Fact!

For CINOs, unable to argue their position from moral reason, the only alternative is to call their opponents jerks. It’s all they’ve got! Brehl uses the same method to describe orthodox Catholics: i.e., the professional victim narrative that attempts to morph and spin a defense of the Catholic faith into a smear campaign. In this case, it involves gay activist James Martin SJ, unabashedly using his priesthood to destroy the Catholic faith from within. For there is no ‘alt-right’ or ‘alt-left’ with respect to the theological virtue of faith - i.e., the Catholic faith; there is only orthodoxy and lies (heresy).

I called Brehl a “homosexualist” – i.e. someone who vigorously promotes the LGBT agenda - not a homosexual. (Brehl himself avoids a direct answer and responds to the issue by way of broad mental reservation.) However, it matters little whether a person is straight, gay or bisexual if they’ve adopted the same activist tactics and language. The former term has come into use because most gay activists (within the church) are careful to not go on record as admitting they’re gay in any way. Priests like Thomas Rosica and James Martin know it would expose their hideous objectives if they officially identified their orientation as gay. For example, Rosica calls the defrocked and disgraced, bisexual, activist-priest Gregory Baum his hero and a shining Catholic light in this Salt and Light interview:

Thus being married with children doesn’t necessarily mean a person isn’t bisexual. The fact that we now have gender fluidity implies that we should no longer pin anyone down to a single gender. According to the New York Times, there are 71 genders - and counting, so it’s pretty darn easy to lose track of what you are. (And by the time you find out, it’s liable to change.) The same is true of many seminarians; by their own admission, according to an article in the Register, a fair number are still wondering about their orientation(s).

Another highly decorated Catholic chaplain and counsellor, that I knew and whose identity I’m not at liberty to reveal, also has a wife and kids; however, he was also gay and into cross dressing. I remember him telling me that John Paul II was “senile.” It can’t be coincidental that such disordered men gravitate toward counselling position with naïve, younger students. The point is that just because a man has a wife and kids, it doesn’t mean that he can’t be gay too. Heck, my best friend married a woman (after her annulment) whose husband used to bring home his male dates.

Still another gay activist is Michael Way Skinner, a Harvard graduate and father of 5 adopted children with his wife. He was recently appointed religious coordinator of the York Catholic District School Board, and was the lead author of “All God’s Children” and the new sex-ed curriculum for Catholic schools. He boasts that he’s made a careful study of power analysis and its use by marginalized groups to overcome the hegemony of those in authority. Hence his beguiling of an unsuspecting Cardinal Collins to garner/shyster his recommendation to a gatekeeper-leadership position within the YRCSB. Get them while they’re young. Right out of the LGBT Handbook for Professional Victims. The “weaponization” of dialogue never ends. The utter contempt Skinner holds for Catholic morals and what his real agenda is can be seen from this YouTube video where he conducts a workshop for Catholic educators. Clearly, their sole purpose is to encourage gays their same-sex dates to Catholic proms and dances.
Skinner’s devilish pseudo-arguments are a template of James Martin’s. Coincidence? They claim that if acting upon same-sex attraction is mortally sinful, then equity would require the Church to screen heterosexual couples from attending too, unless they could be sure they were in a state of grace. Martin & Skinner facetiously suggest that if Catholic schools are going to forbid gay couples from attending dances, then moral equity requires that heterosexual students also be in a state of grace. Their reductio ad absurdum argument is itself absurd. Because:

(1) Outside of special divine revelation, Catholic dogma teaches that it’s impossible for us to be certain that we ourselves are in a state of grace, much less that of anyone else.

(2) Heterosexual relationships, properly conducted, obey natural law (i.e. moral laws founded on our created nature) while homosexual ones utterly contradict it. The fact that heterosexual couples may indulge in lustful actions is usually a mortal sin; however, in so doing they too would be contradicting the natural law. Lust is always a sin, no matter what its object; it’s just that as a species, fornication is less disordered than sodomy, which is less disordered than pedophilia. Developing morally healthy heterosexual relationships develops maturity and self-restraint. Thus it is ordered to the “good of marriage.” In bleak contrast, there exists no parallel for same-sex relationships (we’re not talking about platonic friendships here). So-called gay marriage is not a good at all, it’s an abomination - as was demonstrated by the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, 3,900 years ago.

(3) Approving of homosexual relationships, explicitly or tacitly, creates gross scandal.

LGBT activists, disingenuous to the core, despite playing the victim, will only be satisfied when teaching the Catholic morals is outlawed in Catholic schools. In fact, this situation has already legislatively occurred in Alberta. All God’s Children?
Alberta Catholic Education bill:

LGBTS 1; Catholic Church 0

EDMONTON, Alberta, October 26, 2017: The Alberta government says it is “unacceptable” for Catholic schools to uphold Church teaching on sexuality in school curriculum.

As for heretic James Martin SJ, his sly efforts, coated with the usual LGBT buzzwords of “dialogue” (the devil’s favorite term) leave little doubt about his sinister mission. It’s all he talks about – the central obsession of his life and likely the reason he became and stays a priest. His objective is to normalize the cancer of homosexuality (even though Martin thinks it’s a “gift from God”) in Christ’s Mystical Body. Here is noted canon lawyer Ed Peter’s take on Martin’s advocating gays kissing during Mass:
And speaking of dialogue, here’s what happened to one faithful priest when he tried to dialogue with the Pope. Fr. Martin’s supporters got very, very nasty.
“There is no way” the priest told me, “that this remark didn’t directly sting Cardinal Cupich, Cardinal Tobin, Cardinal Ferrell, and Bishop McElroy in particular, as they have been busy supporting Father James Martin, S.J., and others like him. I would be very surprised if they were not directly behind Fr. Thomas Weinandy’s forced resignation.”
According to Martin’s casuistry, for church teaching on moral issues to be valid, they must be “received” by the community of churchgoers. Since gays haven’t accepted that sodomy is wrong – actually, many gays I’ve met have accepted it and are trying to change and have changed - but not the ones Martin hangs out with.

And despite the fact that homosexuals comprise only perhaps 2% of the population, numerous surveys in the United States and elsewhere have found that 15% to 58% of priests are homosexual despite repeated Vatican and canon law directives sating that homosexuality represents a permanent impediment to the priesthood.

And then there is the link between homosexuality and ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents), a fact confirmed by the USCCB commissioned John Jay Report

As a result, many seminaries became gay clubs with their own dating and hookup sites. It was only a matter of time before many rose up through the ranks to become bishops and cardinals, where they look out for their own and cover for each other. Michael Coren in “The Walrus,” July 21, 2015 interview illustrated the situation well:

"There are Catholic priests in Canada living with their partners, and some of these men are prominent clerics. Living that lie, existing in such a state of moral dissonance, is achingly damaging. One former priest told me that he once visited a senior bishop (I am being purposely vague here) to explain that he was gay and needed to leave the priesthood. The bishop responded that it was okay to stay in the church and that the priest could have a parish outside of the city, where he could live with his lover. None of this, believe me, is shocking to those who truly know the church as insiders."

Another example of pro-gay prelates pushing the LGBT agenda are Bishops Robert McElroy and John Dolan.

u.s.-bishops-celebrate-anniversary-of-vatican-censured-homosexuality-letter" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

Though there are faithful Jesuits, homosexuality has made many “in persona Christi “shells. The priests and seminarians in the 60’s and 70’s ran off with women, but now, if they run off, they usually do so with men. However, most gay Jesuits describe it as being far more comfortable to stay in the order where they are financially supported and provided with access to more resources and connections than they would ever have on their own. Even the leader of the Jesuits is a heretic: Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, the Jesuit’s Superior General, said in a May 31 interview with the Spanish paper El Mundo that Satan is a “symbolic figure” who doesn’t really exist.

I remember going on a men’s retreat at Manresa during the 90’s. Many of the retreatants were non-Catholic or not affiliated with any religion. The head of Manresa back then held a closing Mass on Sunday morning and proceeded to invite everyone to communion, Catholic or not. He cared not one iota if Our Lord was offended by sacrilege.

The North York church I attend uses Brendan Byrne’s "Galatians and Romans" for its adult bible study guide. On pages 71-72, chapter 3, regarding Romans1:26-27, Bryne states that St. Paul was erroneous in condemning all homosexual acts; the apostle was referring only to immature gay encounters, not mature committed homosexual relationships. It seems that had the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah been practicing committed sodomy, God would have been hunky-dory with it. Ditto for the Mosaic Law in Leviticus that prescribed death for homosexual acts.

Much could be said about Pope Francis’ heretical remarks such as:
"Cohabiting couples are in a “real marriage” and receive the grace of the Sacrament. “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity.”
So much for the hermeneutics of continuity! However, such scandalous assertions are usually made only during interviews since he must be well aware they’re contrary to the faith and morals established by Sacred Tradition, and have no magisterial authority. But surely Francis must also know they have a humongous effect on the faithful. In more formal settings, he realizes that he would be taken to task for putting his ‘liberation theology’ convictions with all their cognitive dissonances (so well displayed in Amoris Laetitia) on the table. That’s something Pope Francis will never do because it would violate his clandestine program of what to his mind is “reform.”

Having banished or rebuked just about every orthodox cardinal around him, like Raymond Burke, Robert Sarah or Gerhard Muller, Francis has subsequently surrounded himself with heretical cardinals like Reinhard Marx and Walter Kasper. In fact, just before the 2015 Synod, Gerhard Muller, then head of the CDF, stated that the Catholic church was already effectively in schism. Perhaps one fact will convey just how absurd things gave gotten: The ghost writer for the encyclicals Laudato Si, Evangelii Gaudium and the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia is sexual weirdo, Victor Manuel Fernandez, author of "Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing." Unbelievable! Fernandez was personally parachuted into the episcopacy by Francis, against the protest of many other prelates because of his inadequate and dangerous heterodox theology.

Finally, as I pointed out, regarding your Aug. 31 article, which starts off by gratuitously insulting Donald Trump, misquotes 1 John 4:18, wherein you assert the opposite of love is not hate but fear, shows that you couldn’t have bothered to read the Catechism.

Expanded explanations are given by Thomas Aquinas. The opposite of love is hatred [Summa: Part I-II; Question 29, articles 1, 2]. And the opposite of fear is daring (cf. hope) [Summa: Part I-II; Q 43, article 1.] Aquinas shows that love is the cause of EVERY hatred.

Read More
There are no comments posted here yet

Leave your comments

Posting comment as a guest. Sign up or login to your account.
Attachments (0 / 3)
Share Your Location