- For Survivors
- Resource Center
- Make a Difference
- Book Clubs
This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.
Posted on: Wednesday, April 03, 2019
Luis Ruiz lived an active gay lifestyle until a man opened fire in 2016 at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, FL, where Luis was celebrating his birthday.
“After losing many of my friends and being taken to the hospital for wounds sustained during the shooting, I came to learn that I was HIV positive,” Luis writes. “At that moment, I dropped to my knees and wept. I wanted to live a healthier life, one that was not centered around sex and damaging behavior.”
Luis will share his full story at the Ruth Institute’s Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, April 26-27, in Lake Charles, LA.
Luis will be among others relating their personal experiences with the LGBT sub-culture at the Summit, including Elizabeth Woning, who describes herself as “once lesbian.”
Ruth Institute Founder and President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., says, “These witnesses testify to the fact that they were not ‘born gay,’ and that change is possible. Many individuals and families need to hear their message.”
The Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution will include experts such as Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, professor of New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University, speaking on “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” and Fr. D. Paul Sullins, author of The Ruth Institute’s “Clergy Sex Abuse Report.” Other topics explored will be the trauma of divorce, with stories from adult children of divorce and abandoned spouses.
Click here for more information on the Summit’s program.
Find more stories on the once-gay movement here.
The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a Civilization of Love.
Posted on: Tuesday, March 26, 2019
by Jim McDermott
This article was first published March 1, 2019, at America Magazine.
In an effort to pressure Cardinal Roger Mahony to withdraw from a talk he is scheduled to give at the upcoming Archdiocese of Los Angeles’ Religious Education Congress, a private Facebook group called 1000 Fed Up Catholics launched what it deemed “D-Day” on Feb. 26. The group asked 500 of its members to send registered or certified letters to the cardinal requesting he remove himself from the event—the gesture forcing the cardinal or someone assisting him to sign for each piece of correspondence. The group also asked its members to blast the archdiocesan religious education office with emails urging that he be withdrawn from the congress.
The invitation-only Facebook group objects to the cardinal’s participation at R.E.C. because of his handling of the church’s sexual abuse crisis during his leadership of the archdiocese between 1985 and 2011. The group was created by the Ruth Institute. That organization is also responsible for one of a number of online petitions pressing to have Cardinal Mahony removed from the R.E.C. program.
To date the institute’s petition has received slightly more than 4,000 signatures, roughly one-tenth of the normal attendance at the congress (though there is no indication how many of the petitioners would also prove to be R.E.C. attendees). Members of the Fed Up Catholics group have also posted negative reviews on the Facebook pages of the R.E.C. and the archdiocese’s Office of Religious Education. The office’s review page is filled with attacks on Cardinal Mahony and demands that he withdraw.A “global non-profit organization creating a mass social movement to end family breakdown” with no affiliation with the R.E.C., the Ruth Institute is not a stranger to controversial activism. The Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed the institute an extremist organizationbecause of a pattern of incendiary comments related to the L.G.B.T. community, such as describing homosexuality as a “decision” and transgenderism as “a political act.”
Commentary from the institute has compared Christians who fail to oppose marriage equality for L.G.B.T. people to Catholic priests who were loyal to the Nazi regime in Germany. In 2017 the organization’s online donation processor dropped the institute as a client because of the promotion of “hate, violence, harassment or abuse.”
In an interview with America about the Mahony petition, founder Jennifer Roback Morse defended her organization’s positions. “I believe what Pope John Paul II says about human sexuality is correct, and certain things flow from that. I also get a lot of grief from people who don’t agree with my positions on divorce; that’s how I got into this work, my belief that traditional Christian morality protects the rights of children to both their parents.”
When it comes to Cardinal Mahony and the issue of his upcoming talk, though, Ms. Morse is deferential. “We respect him and his office,” she told America. “But right now the issue of clergy sexual abuse is so much in the news, and the issue of covering up.” Cardinal Mahony, she said, is a “symbol of this. Whether you could convict him in a court of law or not, he’s a symbol of covering up.” To this point, she noted the investigative work of The L.A. Times into these issues.
“I’ve been trying to look at this from a position of those who have been harmed,” she said. “And it occurred to me that he didn’t need to be on that platform. Out of respect for these people who have been harmed and who are vulnerable, particularly at this time, I just think it would be the decent thing to do to stay home.”
Cardinal Mahony did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this article. Asked about the campaign to remove the cardinal from the R.E.C. program, archdiocesan communications director Carolina G. Guevara said in a statement that Cardinal Mahony remains a priest in good standing, “as has been clarified by the archdiocese on several occasions and covered in news outlets.”“While nothing can take away the very real harm that has been done by those who abused children and the vulnerable and by the church’s faults in addressing allegations of misconduct,” she said, “Cardinal Mahony was one of the first to not only apologize for the mistakes of the past, but also to establish some of the most strict policies for reporting and abuse prevention in the nation that continue today. He also personally met with victims and established the Victims Assistance Office to ensure that they would receive the support to help them through the healing process.”
Ms. Guevara also pointed out that this year’s R.E.C. will include workshops addressing issues surrounding abuse. “It is the hope that this will be an opportunity to foster healing and empowering our communities to prevent abuse in our local church.”
Cardinal Mahony has apologized for poor judgment in responding to allegations of sexual abuse by clerics under his watch, though his critics remain dissatisfied with his various efforts to explain his decisions regarding priest abusers. He has also regularly appeared at the Religious Education Congress, both before and since he was temporarily removed from public ministry by Los Angeles Archbishop José Gómez in 2013. “The cardinal has been a speaker at Congress for more than two decades as a leader on the issue of immigration, which is the topic of his 2019 presentation,” Ms. Guevara said.
But the point that Ms. Morse and others are making is that the church has dramatically changed in the last year. After the revelations about decades of abuse that emerged from a Pennsylvania grand jury report and the offenses committed by former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, clericalism, cover-up and ecclesial privilege have become public scandal to such a degree they threaten the credibility and future of the church.
And having a Catholic religious leader identified with cover-up and failure in his duty to care for young people speaking at the largest Catholic religious education event in the world? “The optics are bad,” said Ms. Morse.
Posted on: Tuesday, March 26, 2019
LifeSite's Lisa Bourne drops off petition to Los Angeles Archdiocese March 22, 2019.
by Lisa BourneEditor’s note: LifeSiteNews appreciates Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and the Ruth Institute for their collaboration with LifeSiteNews on this petition project
LOS ANGELES, California, March 25, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSiteNews delivered two petitions to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Friday opposing the scheduled appearance at its massive annual religious education gathering by its controversy-laden former cardinal archbishop who was involved in sex abuse cover-up.
The two petitions totaling more than 10,000 names protested the archdiocese standing by while retired Cardinal Roger Mahony spoke at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress (LA REC) amid the continued devastation of the Church’s clergy sex abuse scandal. Mahony has a contentious history of cover-up with sex abuse cases, which resulted in his having been removed from public duties in the archdiocese several years ago by its current leader, Archbishop José Gómez.
The event ran from Thursday through Sunday, and Mahony gave a workshop at the LA REC on Saturday titled, “Connecting Junior High and High School Students with the Volatile Immigration Issues.”
LifeSite delivered the petitions to the archdiocese located in Los Angeles Friday morning, the opening day of the three-day adult session of the REC.
“It is unconscionable that the organizers should have invited Mahony to speak at the REC at all,” it continued. “But, it is all-the-more insulting to the faithful that he should be invited to speak about connecting with youth!”
Addressed to the organizers of the REC, the hard copy of the LifeSite petition that was delivered the archdiocese Friday contained 5893 names and has continued to accumulate signatures. A petition from the Ruth Institute containing some 4300+ names asking Mahony directly to withdraw was delivered along with LifeSite’s petition.
“His participation is a travesty,” the Ruth Institute petition stated, continuing on to list the various reasons why. “Cardinal Mahony should voluntarily withdraw from participating in the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress.”
The LA REC, long known for dissenting presentations and liturgical aberration, along with its repetitive LGBT affirmation, is presented by the LA archdiocese, conducted in the neighboring Diocese of Orange, and promoted as the largest gathering of its kind in the U.S.
Criticism and concern were intensified this year with the scheduled appearance from Mahony, who led the Los Angeles archdiocese from 1985 until his 2011 retirement. Mahony was found to have had secreted his knowledge of abusing priests and protected the offenders from prosecution, and also moved some abusers after they’d had counseling, at times out of state to skirt reporting laws, where they could abuse again.
Mahony was reproached by Gómez in 2013 following the court-ordered release of archdiocesan files in the wake of a 2007 sex abuse lawsuit settlement, which was the largest payout in Church history ($660 million).
Once the files were released, Gómez publicly removed Mahony going forward from having “any administrative or public duties” in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Mahony, who has flouted the sanction, has reportedly apologized for his handling of sex abuse cases, met with victims, and set up a victims assistance office.
But critics say this is not enough.
Because he embodies the Church hierarchy’s mishandling of its abuse scandal, they say, Mahony should not be making public appearances at Church events, and further, it’s a slap in the face to the victims of clerical sex abuse.
Security was at the ready during Mahony’s REC workshop. During the question and answer period, the cardinal avoided engaging the question of one particular participant. Since Mahony did not allow the question, it was not clear whether it was germane to the session topic of immigration. As the man attempted to ask the question, Mahony told him he’d already talked to him and security approached, with Mahony then escorted from the venue via a side entrance.
To respectfully communicate concerns on Mahony’s appearance at the L.A. REC, contact:
Posted on: Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Cardinal Roger Mahony on March 8, 2013 at the conclave that elected Pope Francis. Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images
by Lisa Bourne
March 8, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Criticism of the annual Los Angeles Religious Education Congress (L.A. REC) is heightened this year as the event is again poised to scandalize Catholics with some presenters who affirm homosexual behavior, and also include a cardinal who embodies the Church hierarchy’s mishandling of its clergy sex abuse crisis.
The L.A. REC, billed as the largest religious education gathering in the U.S., is sponsored by the Los Angeles archdiocese and conducted in Anaheim in the neighboring Diocese of Orange, and it is again offering presentations that are ostensibly LGBT-affirming.
But additionally this year, as the devastation of the Church’s clergy sex abuse crisis continues to unfold, Cardinal Roger Mahony, the retired archbishop of L.A., is scheduled to appear despite his controversial history of cover-up with abuse cases and his having been pulled from public duties in his archdiocese several years ago by his successor, Archbishop José Gómez.
Mahony is scheduled to present a workshop at the L.A. REC later this month on “Connecting Junior High and High School Students with the Volatile Immigration Issues.”
Gómez is taking part in the REC and is celebrating its closing “Eucharistic Liturgy.”
“The cardinal has become a symbol of the mishandling of sex abuse complaints,” Ruth Institute president Dr. Jennifer Roeback Morse said in a statement provided to LifeSiteNews. “For him to address a Catholic education conference at this time is wildly inappropriate.”
Morse’s organization has gathered over 4,000 signatures on a petition for Mahony to withdraw as a speaker for the L.A. REC. LifeSite has also gathered over 5,000 signatures on a petition urging the conference to disinvite Mahony.
Mahony stirred controversy last November at the U.S. Bishops’ fall meeting in Baltimore, which was largely centered on the abuse scandal, when he took the floor during an open mic session of the meeting and spoke for more than five minutes about how he thought the bishops should lead during the abuse crisis.
Pope Francis had appointed Mahony as his special envoy to the 150th anniversary Mass for the Diocese of Scranton in Pennsylvania to be held last March, but following word of planned protest by local Catholics, Mahony pulled out of the appearance.
Mahony, who led the Los Angeles archdiocese from 1985 until his 2011 retirement, was censured by Gómez in 2013 after a court-ordered release of archdiocesan files following a 2007 sex abuse lawsuit settlement that constituted the largest payout in Church history ($660 million).
The documents showed that Mahony had concealed his knowledge of priest abusers, shielded offending priests from prosecution, and transferred abusers after they’d received counseling, at times out of state to skirt reporting laws, where they could abuse again.
After the files were released, Gómez publicly removed Mahony going forward from having “any administrative or public duties” in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
While some continue to deny the role active homosexuality on the part of clerics has played in the Church’s sex abuse scandal, the fact remains that an overwhelming majority of the abuse was perpetrated by male clerics upon post-pubescent males.
Abuse survivors and other lay Catholics deserve better
As the debate over clergy sex abuse causation continues, and Church leaders connected to abuse cover-up such as Mahony appear at Church events, lay Catholics and abuse victims persist in their calls for accountability.
LifeSiteNews inquired with the Los Angeles archdiocese about how, with the sex abuse crisis continuing to play out, the archdiocese reconciles Cardinal Mahony’s appearance and that of other presenters at its faith formation event, whose message conflicts with Church teaching on sexuality.
The archdiocese did not respond.
James Grein, a crucial voice in the Church’s sex abuse scandal as Theodore McCarrick’s most incriminatory accuser, criticized the L.A. REC for presenting behavior at odds with the Church’s moral principles as acceptable at a religious education event, saying it could perpetuate abuse.
“The title of this conference brings innocent interest from many Catholics,” Grein told LifeSiteNews. “Most people attending believe they will receive guidance about the Church and our faith.”
“This is another misguided ploy by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to disguise homosexual and abusive behavior as [being of] good holy men of God,” he said.
What about chastity?
There are 10 workshops on LGBT issues on the event schedule, nine classified under the REC’s LGBTQ Ministry category. Workshop descriptions show a focus on LGBT acceptance, with no language pertaining to chastity or Catholic moral principles in that regard.
The Church teaches that everyone, whether ordained, single, or married, is called to be chaste and that sexual relations are reserved for marriage, which occurs only between one man and one woman. This is a mirroring of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as His bride. The Church teaches as well that homosexual acts are sinful and can never be condoned.
Some among the L.A. REC speakers are known for homosexual affirmation and are regularly booked to present at the REC.
Welcome and respect?
Repeat L.A. REC presenter Jesuit Father James Martin, widely known for his LGBT activism, is scheduled again for the REC. One of his workshops centers on “showing welcome and respect to LGBTQ people” in parishes.
Martin’s LGBT activism has been criticized for suggesting that welcome and respect mean acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle, for failing to effectively articulate the Church’s teaching on sexual relations outside of sacramental marriage, for the claim that LGBT-identifying individuals’ sexual preferences are given to them by God, and for implying that this sexual preference is innate in a human being’s identity.
Some of the LGBT workshop speakers are lay people recognized for their LGBT activism, some openly gay, and there are other priests presenting on this topic as well at the event in both Spanish and English.
The Church’s Catechism is “gravely evil” regarding homosexual acts?
Dr. Arthur Fitzmaurice, former longtime chair of the archdiocese’s Catholic Ministry with Lesbian & Gay Persons, is a scheduled REC speaker who has called the language on homosexual acts in the Church’s Catechism gravely evil.
At last year’s REC, Fitzmaurice said in a presentation that the Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a choice and also suggested that it was acceptable for Catholic parents to allow two boys or two girls to attend their high school prom or homecoming as dates.
One of the other presenters in that 2018 workshop was Fr. Chris Ponnet, director of the Office of Catholic HIV/AIDS Ministry for the archdiocese and the archbishop’s spiritual director for Catholic ministry with lesbian and gay persons.
Ponnet will again join Fitzmaurice this year at the L.A. REC to present “Building Bridges with Catholics Who Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Questioning.”
Fitzmaurice had moderated another 2018 workshop that presented “transgenderism” among children positively. Joining him for that presentation was Fordham University theology professor Father Bryan Massingale, another regular REC presenter.
Massingale had said at previous REC events that the Church invented sin at the Council of Trent and that moral rules don’t always apply in every situation. He is scheduled to present this year at the L.A. REC with workshops titled “Race and the Limits of Dialogue” and “Jesus and the Virtuous Life.”
Massingale, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, spoke in 2017 at a national symposium for New Ways Ministry, the co-founders of which were officially silenced by the Vatican in 1999 because their teaching on homosexuality was found to be “erroneous and dangerous” and “doctrinally unacceptable.”
In 2011, Massingale spoke at a Capitol Hill event advancing the increased support for homosexuality among Catholics, appearing alongside dissident Sister Simone Campbell on behalf of the pro-LGBT group “Equally Blessed.” He also opposed Wisconsin’s 2006 Marriage Protection Act, which banned gay “marriage” and civil unions.
A retreat for gay priests
Massingale tangled with Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki last fall when leading a retreat in the archdiocese for gay priests, brothers, and deacons. Listecki criticized the event but allowed it to proceed, and Massingale pushed back against critics — including his archbishop.
Responding to America Magazine in regard to Mahony’s problematic history with abuse cases, archdiocesan communications director Carolina Guevara told the Jesuit periodical that the cardinal had “apologized for mistakes of the past” and “met personally with victims and established a Victims Assistance Office to ensure that they would receive the support to help them through the healing process.”
Morse called this response “pathetic.”
“To call the horror of clerical sex abuse, and the cardinal’s role in covering it up, ‘mistakes of the past’ is an understatement of epic proportions,” Morse said.
“It’s good that Cardinal Mahony met with some victims of crimes he may have helped to cover up,” she said. “But, if he’d acted responsibly when he was in a position of authority, there wouldn’t be as many victims in need of healing.”
“Guevara’s statement is a weak rationalization for inexcusable conduct that diminishes the suffering of victims,” continued Morse. “Imagine how they will feel when he speaks at a conference where he will, in part, interact with youth.”
“For the sake of victims,” she said, “and the pain that never goes away, the cardinal should do the decent thing and withdraw from the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress.”
Grein forthrightly condemned the presentation of homosexuality as acceptable to the Church by priests at the L.A. REC.
“A different church”
“The abuse from these men may not be physical, but their speeches, writing, and pictures are presenting a different church,” Grein told LifeSiteNews.
“It’s Jesus’ Church,” he said. “Not a false god church. Jesus wants us to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexual behavior is forbidden. [With it o]ne cannot multiply.”
He expressed hope that L.A. REC attendees will be exposed to authentic Catholic teaching on human sexuality.
“It is a mortal sin for a priest to use his collar to speak or preach blasphemous ideas that homosexuality is part of Jesus’s Church,” Grein said. “It would be great if a few hundred true followers of the faith were there to help attendees see, hear and witness how a true Catholic lives.”
To respectfully communicate concerns on the L.A. REC, contact:
Posted on: Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Cardinal Roger Mahony speaks at LA REC in Los Angeles, March 2019
by Lisa Bourne
LOS ANGELES, California, March 25, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – With Cardinal Roger Mahony’s problematic history of cover-up with sex abuse cases during his time as head of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, it’s expected that Catholics would be scandalized by his appearance over the weekend at the archdiocese’s massive annual Religious Education Congress (LA REC).
Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse concurred with the impropriety of Mahony’s appearance at the LA REC.
“The cardinal has become a symbol of the mishandling of sex abuse complaints,” Morse said in a statement to LifeSiteNews. “For him to address a Catholic education conference at this time is wildly inappropriate.”
Mahony’s mishandling of abuse cases became public record upon the 2013 court-ordered release of archdiocesan files in the wake of a 2007 sex abuse lawsuit settlement, for which the LA Archdiocese had to fund the largest payout for sex abuse claims in Church history ($660 million).
Following the documents’ release, Mahony was admonished by his successor, Los Angeles’ current Archbishop Jose Gomez, and pulled from having “any administrative or public duties” in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Nonetheless, Mahony, who has flouted the restriction, and is a known campaigner on immigration, gave a workshop at the LA REC on Saturday on the issue. The Los Angeles archdiocese’s event takes place each year in nearby Anaheim in the Diocese of Orange.
LifeSiteNews delivered two petitions to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles on Friday in opposition to Mahony’s appearance – LifeSite’s petition of more than 5,800 names, and another petition with more than 4,300 signatures gathered by the Ruth Institute.
While Mahony has reportedly apologized for his handling of sex abuse cases, met with victims, and established a victims assistance office - the wounds of the sex abuse crisis remain fresh and he still embodies for many the hierarchy’s mishandling of abuse cases. It’s this, but also other aspects of the controversial cardinal’s history that have some Catholics dismayed at Catholics at Mahony’s appearing at the REC, as though nothing were wrong.
“I am still disappointed that Mahony is still speaking,” one local Catholic told LifeSiteNews on the first day of the three-day adult section of the gathering.
Catholics are supposed to be supportive and forgiving, a local Catholic man told LifeSiteNews, but the situation with Mahony is different, because of the harm done to sex abuse victims.
“He could be doing some other kind of penance, not out in public,” the man said regarding Mahony. “It implies that what he did is okay.”
Both Catholics requested anonymity in their comments.
In at least one other REC workshop that was focused on the Church’s handling of the sex abuse scandal, one Catholic called out during the question and answer period, remarking how Mahony had still been performing Confirmations in the archdiocese despite being suppressed from public ministry.
The local Catholic continued to cite other issues with Mahony for LifeSiteNews.
This included barring the Church’s only sanctioned ministry for same-sex attracted Catholics Courage, and its companion Encourage program for family members, she said. The woman, who has a child who struggles with same-sex attraction, said this act directly impacted her family negatively since it left them with only LGBT-affirming groups to choose from.
“Not only did he cover up the sex abuse in LA,” the Catholic said, “not only did he propose and push horrible liturgical changes in our parishes in Los Angeles .…”
She then referenced Mahony’s 1997 document on the liturgy, in which he calls for an Americanized liturgy that ignores the meaning of the Mass as a sacrifice. His writings prompted criticism from EWTN foundress Mother Angelica, to which Mahony responded by angrily seeking her censure with various Vatican offices unless she would publicly apologize, even broaching threats of denying Mother the sacraments.
The local Catholic woman’s list on Mahony went on.
“Not only did he forbid Courage and Encourage from being in LA,” she said. “But instead he brought in so many gay-affirming anti-Catholic ministries to LA.”
It was only after Mahony’s time that the Courage apostolates would receive a blessing and be allowed to minister within the archdiocese.
The local Catholic man is also the parent of a child who struggles with same-sex attraction, and he too recalled for LifeSiteNews that Mahony wasn’t supportive of Courage and Encourage.
“Overall he was not supportive of traditional teaching,” he said.
The Courage apostolates work to uphold the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which is that all Catholics - gay or straight, married, single, celibate and ordained – are called to live chastely. Courage’s programming stands largely alone in upholding this teaching in the area of homosexuality. Many "support" groups for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction espouse acting upon their attractions under the guise of being welcoming, accepting, and accompanying. This has meant some quarters in the Church have actually acted to suppress Courage, while “accompanying” same-sex attracted Catholics into acting on their inclinations is pushed at venues such as the LA REC.
Mahony is lauded on the archdiocese’s Catholic Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Persons (CMLGP) webpage.
While Courage and Encourage have since gained Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez’ blessing to be available to Catholics, the Mahony legacy persists, and other LGBT-affirmative groups still have precedence.
“I think it’s easier to find all the other groups,” the Catholic gentleman said, “all the more liberal groups.” “I think in that sense it hadn’t been promoted as it could be,” he added.
The Catholic father further told LifeSiteNews that under Mahony, Mass in the archdiocese started to take different turns, becoming more Protestant, with guitars and clapping, and the Religious Education Congress kept getting more liberal.
This was evidenced by the closing Mass for this year’s REC, which, when it surfaced on YouTube Sunday, garnered remarks on social media from Catholics for its bizarre liturgical character.
“It definitely transformed into something that’s not very Catholic, or orthodox,” the local Catholic man told LifeSiteNews of the REC.
Mahony’s appearance at the REC was also not good given the larger picture in the Church right now related to the clergy sex abuse crisis, he said.
“The Church is often accused of forgetting the victims,” the Catholic man said.
“That’s evidence right there that we aren’t being sensitive,” he said of Mahony being given a platform to speak at the REC. “At best we’re being insensitive, at worst, we’re condoning what he did.”
Mahony had caused controversy as well last November at the U.S. Bishops’ fall meeting in Baltimore, which was mainly focused on the abuse scandal, when he took the floor during an open mic session of the meeting and talked for more than five minutes about how he thought the bishops should lead during the abuse crisis.
Mahony was one who refused to deny Communion to pro-abortion politicians or homosexual activists who purposely presented themselves for Communion wearing rainbow sashes to protest Church teaching on sexuality. He was among four U.S. bishops to officially welcome them to Communion wearing the sashes.
He is reported, though, to have denied Holy Communion to a young Catholic woman because she approached to receive it on the tongue.
He also had a group of young pro-life Catholics removed and threatened with arrest at the Los Angeles Cathedral in 2005 during prayerful protest of the inauguration ceremonies being held inside for Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor-elect of Los Angeles, who is pro-abortion while identifying as Catholic.
In the investigation leading to the archdiocese’s abuse settlement, the cardinal was found to have had concealed his knowledge of abusive priests and shielded them from prosecution. He’d also moved some abusers after they’d had counseling, at times out of state to avoid reporting laws, where they were able to abuse again.
He had withdrawn from a scheduled fundraising appearance for Utah’s Catholic diocese in August in anticipation of possible protests over his involvement in covering up clerical sexual abuse.
Mahony had also pulled out from an appearance earlier last year as Pope Francis’ special envoy to the Catholic Diocese of Scranton’s 150th anniversary Mass. Francis had appointed Mahony as his representative at the celebration observed with a Pontifical Mass on March 4 in the Cathedral of Saint Peter in Scranton, and local Catholics had promised to protest the event due to Mahony’s presence.
To respectfully communicate concerns on Mahony’s appearance at the L.A. REC, contact:
Posted on: Tuesday, March 26, 2019
The Ruth Institute’s first annual Survivors of the Sexual Revolution Summit (April 26-27 in Lake Charles, LA) will include a brilliant array of speakers, among them academics, scholars and authors.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute said: “We are honored to present such an illustrious group of speakers at our first Survivors Summit. Together, they represent decades of research and scholarship on a broad range of issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution.”
Keynote Speakers include:
Fr. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D. --- The Rev. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., is a senior Research Associate of the Ruth Institute. Dr. Sullins is a leader in the field of research on same-sex parenting and its implications for child development. He has written four books and over 100 journal articles, research reports, and essays on issues of family, faith and culture.
Dr. Sullins is also the author of The Ruth Institute’s “Study on the Role of ‘Sexual Orientation’ in the Catholic Clerical Sex Abuse Scandal.”
Formerly an Episcopalian, Dr. Sullins is a married Catholic priest. He earned a Ph.D. in sociology at Catholic University in 1997 and taught there from 1998 until his retirement. He also serves as Associate Pastor of the Church of Saint Mark the Evangelist in Hyattsville, MD.
Dr. Sullins will speak on “What It’s Costing Our Children: Clergy Sex Abuse and Gay Parenting by the Numbers.”
Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. is a professor of government at Patrick Henry College. He holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and has held regular appointments at Howard University and Palacky University in the Czech Republic, as well as visiting appointments at Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland, and the Russian State University for the Humanities in Moscow.
Dr. Baskerville writes on comparative and international politics and on political ideologies with an emphasis on religion, family policy and sexuality. His books include: The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties and the Growth of Governmental Power, and Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family.
Dr. Baskerville is widely recognized as a leading authority on fatherhood, family policy, and sexual politics.
Dr. Baskerville will speak on “How No-Fault Divorce Empowers the State.”
Leila Miller is a Catholic writer and author whose passion is Church teaching on marriage, family and human sexuality. She is the author of Primal Loss: The Now Adult Children of Divorce Speak, Raising Chaste Catholic Men: Practical Advice, Mom to Mom, and her latest book, coauthored with Trent Horn of Catholic Answers, Made This Way: How to Prepare Kids to Face Today’s Tough Moral Issues.
Mrs. Miller will speak on “The Lifelong Impact of Divorce on Children.”
Robert A. J. Gagnon is Professor of New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University. Previously, he was a tenured Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, teaching there with distinction for 23 years (1994-2017). He has a B.A. from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible.
He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics and co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.
Dr. Gagnon will speak on “What the Bible Really Teaches About Homosexual Activity.” He will also receive the Ruth Institute’s Scholar of the Year Award at the Awards Dinner Friday evening.
Moira Greyland plays stunning harp solos and sings beautiful songs including selections from the repertoire of Sarah Brightman and Andrea Bocelli and Celtic Woman.
Greyland is the only daughter of bestselling science fiction author and feminist icon, Marion Zimmer Bradley (author of The Mists of Avalon series) and author Walter Breen.
Both of Moira’s parents led lives of unrestrained homosexual sex. Moira’s book discloses that her mother molested her from the time she was three-years-old until she was 12. Her talk, “Growing Up with Gay: Why Christians Promote Chastity” will be based on her childhood memoir, The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon.
Ms. Greyland will receive the Public Witness of the Year Award at the Awards Dinner Friday night. She will also perform the world-premiere of her original song, The Monster’s Lullaby, based on her experiences.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was a spokeswoman for California’s winning Proposition 8 campaign, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. She has authored or co-authored six books and spoken around the world on marriage, family and human sexuality. Her latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and How the Church was Right All Along. She earned a Ph.D. at the University of Rochester and taught economics at Yale and George Mason Universities.
Dr. Morse will close the Summit, speaking on “We Can Make A Difference.”
Regarding the program, Morse commented, “It’s hard to imagine a better-credentialed group to refute the Sexual Revolution’s myths. This all-star program will help us arrive at a better understanding of how we got where we are today, and what we can do about it.”
For more information on the Summit: http://www.ruthinstitute.org/upcoming-events/survivors-summit
To arrange an interview with Dr. Morse or other speakers, contact: info@ ruthinstitute.org
Posted on: Friday, March 22, 2019
The Ruth Institute will award Ms. Moira Greyland the Public Witness of the Year Award for her autobiography, The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon, at the kick-off dinner to the First Annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution on April 26-27 in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Ms. Greyland is the only daughter of bestselling science fiction author and feminist icon, Marion Zimmer Bradley (author of The Mists of Avalon series, among other works). Ms. Greyland’s father, Walter Breen, was also a famous author.
Both of Moira’s parents led lives of unrestrained homosexual sex, which included molesting their own children. Moira’s book discloses that her mother molested her from the time she was three-years-old until she was 12. Moira caught her father in the act of molesting an 11-year-old boy and called the police. Her father died in prison. The rest of her family never forgave her.
The Summit will focus on Survivors of Divorce, as well as Survivors of the LGBT sub-culture. The Summit will feature testimonies from people who describe themselves as “once-gay” as well as adult children of divorce and abandoned spouses, who are nonetheless faithful to their marriage vows.
Other speakers will include:
Morse observed “The Summit will rip the mask off the Sexual Revolution, which has left millions of ruined lives in its wake. Besides exposing the seedy truth about the revolution, the Ruth Institute is helping to turn victims into survivors and survivors into activists for the family.”
For more information on the Summit’s program: ruthinstitute.org/upcoming-events/survivors-summit
Posted on: Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Finally, Victims and Survivors of the Sexual Revolution will get their turn at the microphone!
History will be made in Lake Charles, LA, on April 27, when the Ruth Institute holds its first annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution.
Ruth Institute Founder and President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. stated:
“The Summit is historic because:
The Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution is unique because it features top experts on the impact of divorce and the gay life-style on individuals and society. In addition, the Summit also includes “Survivor Panels” featuring people who have suffered from the lies of the Sexual Revolution.
Dr Morse charges: “Far from liberating, the Sexual Revolution has left millions of ruined lives in its wake. Casualties of one of history’s most destructive revolutions keep piling up:
“The Summit will rip the mask off the Sexual Revolution,” Morse promised.
Expert Keynote Speakers will include:
Dr. Stephen Baskerville (Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College, author of The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties and the Expansion of Government Power) “How No-Fault Divorce Empowers the State.”
Mrs. Leila Miller (Catholic blogger, mother of eight and author of Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak) “The Lifelong Impact of Divorce on Children”
Dr. Robert Gagnon (Professor of New Testament, Houston Baptist University, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics) “What the Church Really Teaches About Homosexual Activity: Refuting Common Pro-Homosexual Scriptural Misinterpretations.”
Fr. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D. (author of The Ruth Institute’s Clergy Sex Abuse Report) “The Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children, and the Impact of the Homosexual Sub-Culture on Clergy Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church.”
There will also be panels by Adult Children of Divorce and Abandoned Spouses, as well as refugees from the gay lifestyle, presenting first-hand testimony.
The evening before the Summit, there will be an Awards Dinner where scholars, leaders and activists will be honored for their contributions to the pro-family cause.
For more information on the Summit’s program, go to http://www.ruthinstitute.org/
To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Posted on: Tuesday, March 19, 2019
by Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was published March 18, 2019, at National Catholic Register.
The reception of Frederic Martel’s widely anticipated book In the Closet of the Vatican has been surprising. The tantalizing hints dropped before the “bombshell,” “salacious” book’s release exclaimed, “80% of Vatican priests gay.” After an initial international media flurry, the book has dropped out of sight. Two questions arise in my mind. First, what, if anything, can we infer from this deeply flawed book? Second, what did Martel believe he was accomplishing?
The author, Frederic Martel, is a self-described “French gay atheist.” His overarching theme is that the Church’s stance on homosexuality is hypocritical and harmful. Many priests are living “double lives,” professing Church teaching by day and seeking homosexual sex by night.
The solution, in Martel’s mind, is to change Church teaching so that these clergy can live openly homosexually active lives. In this, he, no doubt, has many supporters, both inside and outside the Church.
But all sides of the Catholic debate over moral issues have panned Martel’s book. They make essentially the same critique: Martel trades in stereotypes, gossip and innuendo. He is grossly unfair to prelates he (evidently) does not like.
To answer the first question, I infer beyond any shadow of a doubt that Cardinals Raymond Burke and Müller and Pope Benedict are not homosexual. Not that I ever thought they were. But Martel makes a great deal of suggestive noise on this topic, without a shred of proof. Jesuit Father James Martin objects, saying flatly, “Pope Benedict, Cardinals Burke and Mueller are treated unfairly.”
If Martel had the slightest shred of actual evidence, he would have provided it. Instead, he goes on about their choice of clerical vestments.
Therefore, we can reasonably conclude: These men are not “gay” in any morally relevant sense. Tripping Martel’s “gaydar” doesn’t prove a darn thing.
Second, we can infer from In the Closet of the Vatican that Archbishop Carlo Viganò’s charge that Pope Francis knew about then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s misdeeds is substantially correct. Martel states that “the pope’s entourage indicated to me that Francis ‘was initially informed by Viganò that McCarrick had had homosexual relations with adult seminarians, which was not enough in his eyes to condemn him.’ In 2018, when he learned for certain that he had also, apart from his homosexual relations, sexually abused minors, ‘he immediately punished the cardinal.’”
In other words, Martel’s implied defense of Pope Francis and his unnamed “entourage” is that homosexual activity with seminarians is not problematic in any way worthy of serious correction.
Thirdly, we can conclude that two synods on the family were deliberately steered toward changing the ancient teachings of the Church on marriage, divorce and the Eucharist, with the added goal of changing the teaching on homosexual practice.
In the chapter entitled “The Synod,” Martel’s highly-placed sources, including Cardinals Lorenzo Baldisseri and Walter Kasper, confirm this. Whether they intended to reveal as much as they did, I cannot say. I feel certain, though, that Martel does not realize that his chapter confirms the worst suspicions of defenders of traditional teaching. Pope Francis deputized a “war machine,” a “gang” of “fast workers.”
I followed the synods closely and even participated in a conference designed to encourage and equip the minds of prelates who would be participating in its deliberations. I remember when Ignatius Press published Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a collection of essays by prominent cardinals defending the traditional teaching. Ignatius mailed it to the synod participants. None of them received it. The book “disappeared.” We were all suspicious, but nothing could be proven at the time.
But Martel reports that Cardinal Baldisseri “had the pamphlet seized!” Martel does not seem to realize the significance of what he has said.
This brings me to my second question: What exactly did Martel believe he was accomplishing?
I think he thought that demonstrating hypocrisy and double lives would be a “slam-dunk” argument in favor of changing Church teaching. By painting “conservatives” as closeted and not-very-nice homosexuals, he seems to have thought he would discredit them personally, and by extension, discredit their views.
But proving someone does not live up to his professed beliefs doesn’t actually prove much. The hypocrite is unattractive; that is for sure. But we cannot automatically conclude that he should change his beliefs. Perhaps his professed beliefs are correct and his behavior is wrong. Piling up examples of hypocrisy, even if they were all true, (which, in this book, they certainly are not) does not tell us whether the hypocrite should change his beliefs or his behavior.
To answer that question, we have to look elsewhere.
What is Martel’s underlying belief system about human sexuality and its place in our lives? He does not explicitly say. But his “Rules of the Closet” give us clues. In a chapter on Roman clergy who use male prostitutes, Martel tells us:
“In prostitution in Rome between priests and Arab escorts, two sexual poverties come together: the profound sexual frustration of Catholic priests is echoed in the constraints of Islam, which make heterosexual acts outside of marriage difficult for a young Muslim.”
Confining sex to marriage is “poverty” for young Muslim men, and, we would suppose, non-Muslim men, as well. Keeping sex inside marriage is an unreasonable, even unbearable, burden to place on young men: Martel evidently thinks that people cannot live without sex.
His belief has this one virtue: It is easy to live up to a standard that says there are no standards. There will be no conflict between that belief and any possible set of behavior. When sex is an entitlement, there are no hypocrites.
This is exactly the belief that has caused so much trouble in the past 50-plus years. We now know (or should know) that “consent” is not an adequate standard for judging the worthiness of sexual behavior. We now know (or should know) that people who think they are entitled to sex cause a lot of problems for other people.
The more powerful they are, the more problems their power allows them to cause. We now know that sex within marriage protects the legitimate interests of children to a relationship with both of their parents. And we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that children need their parents.
In other words, the evidence of the past 50-plus years tells us that the Church’s teaching is correct. We can eliminate hypocrisy, but not in the way Martel supposes. We, the members of the Body of Christ, need to change our behavior to conform to the Church’s teaching.
Posted on: Tuesday, March 12, 2019
The children of divorce, even as adults, have become accustomed to being silenced.
Recently, I noticed my friend Leila Miller repeating online that she does not insist that people remain living with an abusive spouse. My inclination was to say, “Stop! You don’t need to say it again!”
Around the same time, I noticed that I was about to repeat myself on a seemingly unrelated topic. I started thinking, “What exactly is going on here?” My answer: We are dealing with weaponized self-pity, not a good-faith question.
Miller is the author of Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak. She gives voice to the adult children whose lives were disrupted by their parents’ divorces. This is the context in which people continually challenge her about abusive marriages. “Why,” Miller asks herself in frustration, “do I have to keep assuring people that no one is required to remain living in abusive situations?”
I’ve had this experience myself. Like Miller, I point out how difficult divorce can be for children. Our focus is on the children, their lifelong suffering and what we can do about it, as individuals and as a society.
The children of divorce, even as adults, have become accustomed to being silenced. As children, they were expected to go along with whatever the adults decided to do. Their parents’ love often seems uncertain and fragile. Challenging the parents’ interpretation of events risks that love.
Even as adults and even outside their families, children of divorce often hesitate to speak up. When they state that divorce was hard for them, people regularly shut them down. In fact, some children of divorce sardonically take bets among themselves in online discussions. “When we talk about how hard divorce was for us, how long will it be before someone says, ‘But what about abusive marriages?’ Counting down, 3-2-1 …”
Do you see that bringing up abusive marriages in this context is changing the subject? The subject is the child and the impact divorce had on him or her. Whether the marriage was abusive or the divorce was justified: These are subjects for another time.
The children of divorce deserve to have at least a few minutes where their experience is the primary subject. “What about abuse?” shuts down the child and his or her perspective.
It is true, however, that sometimes people bring up the question of abuse as a justification for divorce in good faith. Perhaps those asking the question want to know what public policy should be on the issue. Or maybe they want to know how to think about an abuse situation they’ve encountered in which divorce otherwise may not be an option.
I’ve noticed that the person asking a good-faith question is generally satisfied with a good-faith answer. “No, in a truly abusive situation, a woman may have a responsibility to herself and her children to create physical separation between herself and her husband. That may ultimately include civil divorce.”
But some people are not satisfied with such an answer — or with any answer, really. In such cases, the woman (and it is almost always a woman) will desperately recount the abuse. She will urgently tell me more than I wanted to know. She ratchets up her description of the horrors of her marriage, although it doesn’t usually come to physical danger. The final blow is: “You don’t understand! How dare you judge me?!”
I also have another sort of experience of women telling me about their abusive husbands: Often times the husband is a sex addict committing multiple infidelities, violent to the point of throwing furniture through walls, or the spouses’ daughters feel creeped out by their fathers’ pornography addictions. These women don’t need my assurance on the right or prudent thing to do, although I gladly give it.
These same women don’t flip out when I say, “Divorce is hard on children.” They already know that. That is why they worked so hard to preserve the marriage. But, given the circumstances, they are at peace with themselves and their decision.
What is the difference between these two types of responses — the one irrational and angry, the other calm and reflective?
My working assumption is that the first group has unfinished business with their divorce. Maybe they are not really sure it was abusive. Maybe they had a new boyfriend waiting in the wings, whose significance they diminish by shouting, “Abuse!”
Somehow, in some way, their conscience is bothering them. They don’t want to believe they inflicted unnecessary pain on their children. No matter how many times Leila Miller or I assure them that abused spouses can remove themselves, they can’t hear it.
Honestly, I don’t care how they treat me. I bet Miller doesn’t either. What bothers me is that these parents cannot hear what their children want to say to them, need to say to them and have every right to say to them.
These parents have grown deaf to their children by feeling sorry for themselves and by not thinking about the impact of their behavior on others — especially their children. They weaponize self-pity, using it as both a shield and a projectile. Argue with them and you will get blasted with the sad story of their lives.
Divorced parents, if your adult children are trying to talk to you about a long-ago divorce, I’m begging you: Set self-pity aside. Whatever problems you may have in your lives, self-pity will not help you solve them. You will be happier without it. And you will be more available to listen to your children, who may really need you.
The weaponizing of self-pity is on high display in another arena of recent public discourse when priests come out as “gay” and tell a sad story about life
“in the closet.” Part 2 will discuss that in greater detail.