Marriage won't fix these problems of disease and disorder

The CDC has reported that men who have sex with men contract HIV at 44x the rate of men who don’t.  New syphilis cases are 81.7%  MSM. During 2011–2015, the chlamydia rate in men increased 20.0%, compared with a 0.3% increase in women. Gonorrhea is increasing 3x faster among men than women.  Oral and anal sex, multiple sex partners including bisexual behavior with girlfriends or wives, and IV drug use will do that.  Men who have sex with men also have much higher rates of suicide, eating disorders, depression and addiction.  As any heterosexual couple can tell you, a marriage certificate issued by the state doesn’t fix you if you’re a mess.  Marriage doesn’t solve deep seated unhappiness, self esteem, career losses, unemployment, rejection by loved ones or distorted body image. Unfortunately, that’s the direction the LGBTQ torchbearers went--legal marriage intended for establishing families the foundation of society.  Rather than work for legal recognition for a lifestyle that fit their needs--perhaps a 5 year contract or unique financial regulations for support--they demanded complete acceptance from churches, government, society and family--a “just as if” marriage.  That became the goal; not the betterment of their followers.  And they got it. 

What about gay men and women who don’t have someone to love, or don’t have a toned and buff body to show off at the gym, or who don’t want to be political, or who don’t want to come out to mom and dad?  Too bad.  LGBTQ “leaders”  turned their vast war chest and efforts to the tiny fraction of vulnerable people, less than one percent, who are confused about their biology and birth certificates, victims of a fraud turning into a billion dollar industry.

Suggested reading: Alex P. Serritella, “Transgenda; abuse and regret in the sex-change industry,” Bookstand publishing, 2016, ISBN 978-1-63498-355-6.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fact-sheet-on-hiv-estimates.pdf

 http://www.ncsddc.org/blog/not-moment-lose-extragenital-stds-and-gay-men%E2%80%99s-sexual-health

This kind of bully has approval all the way from the White House down

For years, gays (except librarians, stage actors, ballet dancers, male models, some female athletes, women's clothing designers, and hair dressers) thought they needed to hide their sexual preferences. Despite their fear and self-loathing, gays are the most educated and wealthiest demographic in the country. Again, except librarians.  They weren’t loud, or rich, but they were very out, proving it can be done—even in the 60s and 70s.  But that's all changed now--the president finally came out in 2012 against traditional marriage and the entertainment industry particularly has been relentless for four decades in providing gay themed and gay story line and gay actors for TV and movies--far beyond their 2% representation in the population. So now they are popping out of closets like they've run out of moth balls--professional athletes, news anchors, authors, etc. The response? To demonize Christians who have a biblical view of marriage. So I guess it isn't about sexual preference or love or marriage at all, but about power and bullying, very human traits and behaviors that transcend gender, race, ethnicity and religion.

It’s not going to stop with same sex marriage

I've been saying this for years. And get called homophobic for just stating common sense.

WSJ: "If a relationship characterized by love and commitment becomes a Constitutional right to marry, then no state restriction can withstand judicial review. This applies to the number of people eligible to marry, the duration of the contract, and the nature of the individuals eligible to marry (age, degree of genetic relation and so forth). This is not meant as a parade of horribles, but it is a warning that the Court will find itself hearing many cases challenging any state regulation of marriage."

How can you stop 3 sisters and their 10 year old niece from getting married to each other and applying for government benefits if gender doesn't matter, only love and commitment? Why should number matter? Or consanguinity? Or age?

Two men marry as part of a radio contest

But they aren’t gay—they just wanted the prize.  Not fair, say those stodgy old gays who want marriage to be about love, social acceptance and government benefits, not publicity prizes and sports (rugby).

Since the whole world is making a mockery of marriage as it has existed for thousands of years, I can't see why anyone would object to 2 straight guys marrying each other. They look like they could be brothers, and there will be no reason to condemn that either since two men, two women or transgendered are not capable of impregnating their spouses.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gay-groups-angered-as-heterosexual-men-marry-to-win-rugby-trip-20140912-10fu3t.html

The marriage agenda

Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/  I am gay and I oppose same sex marriage

Mozilla CEO fired, er, resigns due to thuggery

Political donations are covered under the first amendment--freedom of speech. Belief in traditional marriage is covered under the first amendment--freedom of religion. In 2008, Obama assured his supporters he was a Christian and supported traditional marriage--one man and one woman--he even supported don't ask don't tell for the military throughout his first term. And now a CEO Brendan Eich  is ripped by the left, deprived of his first amendment rights to speak and believe, and forced to resign because in 2008 he donated money for California's Proposition 8. Why not fire Obama for what he did in 2008 (and 2009-2012)?

 http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/03/mozilla-ceo-resigns-after-uproar-over-his-opposition-to-gay-marriage/

In theory, it is not the government trying to coerce him, it's a private business, (try firing a Muslim or Orthodox Jew for their beliefs), but we know who are controlling business culture these days, and it isn't businesses like Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-a.

Never did like Firefox. And supposedly, Mozilla is a non-profit 501c3 getting government perks for existing and competing with for-profits.You know he won't sue and further be smeared by militant gays, but I wish he would.

Gay activists are for purging, discrimination, stifling free speech, denying religious freedom, burning heretics at the stake of their profession, and bullying in the worst way. In 2008 the president made the same stand as the Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich . I'm sorry he caved at the hands of despicable thugs. Did the President speak out for what he believed and campaigned on in 2008? Of course not. He's not for basic American values of speech and religion.

Intolerant gays on the left

Only about 2% of the population is gay--and most of them haven’t taken the steps to insure their partners (at Ohio State you can buy insurance for your gay domestic partner, but not straight), put their names on a mortgage, include them in a will, or have a joint checking account. Many males have the same motive as their straight colleagues--protect their money and estates (some have children and grandchildren and have been in multiple relationships).  And gay men are among the wealthiest demographic, in part because up until now they’ve been able to keep it all ($61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054, lower unemployment, more education).  A lot of the ridiculous show of gay intolerance comes not from gays, but from heterosexuals, disappointed with their own relationships and failed marriages, so of course, it's society's fault, or the institution of marriage.

Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-i-oppose-gay-marriage/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/26/gays-who-dont-want-gay-marriage.html#url=/articles/2011/02/26/gays-who-dont-want-gay-marriage.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/style/gay-couples-choosing-to-say-i-dont.html?pagewanted=all

The left never allows tolerance or bi-partisanship, cooperation or acceptance.  They always need to be stirring the pot.

The ignorant right

Sometimes I can’t believe the way some conservative talk show hosts, bloggers, on-line news hounds and website owners underrate President Obama. Folks, he’s not dumb, or careless, or naïve.  He would be if he had core American values, but he doesn’t.  Why does the right continue to fall for this, putting out insipid cartoons, wringing their hands, and thus taking their eyes off the November 2014 prize?

It’s no coincidence that we’re having this flurry of gay marriage law suits and gay coming out parties.  Obama was firmly in the traditional marriage camp until he found out the U.S. Catholic Bishops finally got a spine and were going to hold the line on just who created this universe. The Catholics are leading the fight on abortion and the HHS mandate--compulsory contraceptives in insurance forced on religious agencies despite the assurances of the first amendment.  I guess they figured out from closing their adoption agencies that the thugs in government meant business, and they’d better not concede another inch. 

Compulsory abortions and euthanasia in government health plans are not outside the realm of possibility if the social thugs just use the same tactics--a few cute TV shows to soften the brain and conscience, celebrities yukking it up with Bill Maher, ridiculing people on Twitter who want to save mama or the disabled, and then calling anyone a bigot or racist who disagrees.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services in the world, the only organization/entity that can compete with a government—any government. The Protestants, totally fractured and disorganized into thousands of competing groups, are a push over for Obama. He talks and walks their language. Learned it in Chicago.  They’ve already got divorced pastors, gay choir directors and “committed partners” teaching Sunday School.  They are not even worth worrying about in the social/cultural battle.  He will have to take on the only church that still stands for something and has some power—and unfortunately there are enough squabbling, petty Christians around who will help him do it.

Three important terms in today’s political climate

Don’t confuse these terms:  same sex attraction, homosexual acts, and gay.  They are not the same.  The first is a feeling or emotion that does not involve choice; the second is sodomy an act or behavior not compatible with Scripture or church teaching; and the third is a political movement.  The culture teaches that our sexuality is just biological.  But God says otherwise.  This is not about civil rights, but God’s truth and creation.

“God created us as male and female. Host Gloria Purvis along with Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers and Damon Owens discuss complementarity between men and women, and why homosexual acts and redefining marriage are not compatible with authentic freedom. They also explain the difference between accepting homosexual behavior and a person with same sex attraction.”

Episode 5, http://www.ewtn.com/series/shows/authentically-free-at-last/episodes.asp

Who is the bigot?

If you have the progressive view of marriage (it is an emotional attachment approved and defined by many in the 21st century), and I have the traditional view (it is approved by God and all of history and cultures), are you then a bigot if you think the 21st century marriage should be limited to two adults, but not three or four, or one adult and a minor, or a brother and sister, or three sisters, or five cousins, or a grandfather and granddaughter? If it is an emotional attachment and the people are committed and need the tax benefits, who are you to judge, if I can’t judge?  If my belief in traditional marriage doesn’t matter, why does yours?  Is it unfair for those with a different view to call you be a bigot because you deny them their loving relationship with societal approval?

You can Google “polyamory” and find many websites of people looking for your participation and approval.  They are using the same argument about civil and government rights and societal approval you are.  Many African and Muslim cultures approve and encourage child brides, as well as the genital mutilation of young girls as the threshold for marriage. (The men think they’ll be less likely to be infected by disease if they marry a young virgin.

Three years of Obama’s views on marriage, civil rights, and faith

Obama has been guilty of many lies and flip-flops. Based on some things he said/believed while campaigning, is he a homophobe?  Those of us who believe that marriage is between one  man and one woman, that it does not include legalized polygamy, incest, pedophilia or same sex relationships, and for that historically sound belief that thousands of generations and cultures have held to, we have been called homophobes,  I offer this excerpt from American Thinker by Joshua Foxworth.

“Prior to becoming president, Barack Obama repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a "civil right." This goes back to his debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, in which he clearly and repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a civil right, but that property matters and hospital visitation were. After becoming president, Obama compared the struggle for marriage to that of the civil rights struggles of African-Americans. Since Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, the White House website now clearly classifies marriage under the civil rights tab. Thus, marriage was not a civil rights issue before Obama was president, and now it is.

In multiple interviews and debates, Senator Obama asserted that the issue of marriage was one to be decided by the states. He noted that the federal government simply did not have a constitutional role in marriage. However, not long after assuming office, the president endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act. While the White House website asserts that this legislation is intended to prevent the federal government from denying rights to same-sex couples, simply reading the summary of the bill shows that this is not the case. The legislation clearly states that it would repeal the parts of DOMA that allow a state to decide for itself how to define marriage, and force a marriage carried out in one state to be recognized in all states. Thus, marriage was a states' rights issue prior to the Obama presidency, and now it is not.

Finally, there is the issue of faith. In 2004, State Senator Obama clearly and articulately denoted his view that his faith dictated the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. In his interview to endorse gay marriage, the president asserted that his faith dictated that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. Without addressing the problems with this assertion and the questions it raises about the president's knowledge of his faith, consider this: as little as three years ago, the president's faith told him that marriage was between one man and one woman, and now it tells him the opposite.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obamas_marriage_masquerade.html#ixzz2dus2mTB1

If there is no bread on the table, there are no crumbs on the floor—Gay marriage

The so-called gay marriage event/law will eventually pass--nothing in the progressive movement of the last 100 years hasn't. You can see politicians rushing for the bandwagon. But I believe they will be getting an old worn out pair of shoes, scuffed, run down, out of fashion and tossed aside because no one but they and a few nuns and priests from the 70s seem to want it. And if gender doesn't matter, neither does age or number or consanguinity. If there is no bread on the table, there are no crumbs on the floor.

They could have lobbied and demonstrated for something new and fresh, free of the hundreds of laws now circling marriage, but instead they wanted what they really can't have--God's blessing and ours. Marriage is not respected today by the young, or even by most Christians who either shack up or serially marry--which seems to guarantee more divorce and remarriage. Marriage today is just one more lifestyle of choice. Our birth rate in the U.S. is below replacement rate and almost 41% of children are born to unmarried women, up from 18.4% in 1980. That's a good indication that marriage doesn't matter much. The state doesn't care about love--it has an interest only because families with children make better citizens and pay more taxes and will fight for their country (family) if need be. Those laws will have to go too since gay couples are by definition infertile and will need donors or AI--and new custody battles involving egg donor, sperm donor and partner. Should be a cottage industry for lawyers.

How can legalization of same sex marriage affect my own marriage?

Writes Stella Morabito on April 6:  This is #6 of her 10 points

[Same sex marriage]  is the vehicle by which all civil marriages may soon be abolished, including yours. When children are no longer considered central to state purpose, marriage becomes nothing more than a contract between any two (or more) people. A reversal of DOMA could give force to an emerging movement called "singlism," which argues that the state should cease recognition of marriage because it is discriminatory against those who do not have partners.

Furthermore, the un-defining of marriage is only one part of a package deal that includes the transgender push for the un-defining of gender. This is already happening under the radar through laws that define gender identity only on self-perception: seeing yourself on any given day as male, female, both, or neither. If that goal is achieved, the reduction of your "marriage" to social and legal gibberish will be complete. And as we become more isolated from family bonds in the eyes of the state, the state becomes freer to define our humanity.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/ten_qa_on_same-sex_marriage_canards_and_evasions.html

Leading from behind—the politicians on gay marriage, polygamy and legalizing pedophilia

Obama consistently supported traditional marriage and DOMA in public statements up to shortly before the 2012 election. So did Rob Portman and Hillary Clinton until the last few weeks. Used all the same words conservatives use. No one on the left called Obama or Hillary a bigot, hater or homophobe. Portman, of course, was different, he is a Republican and always was a target for hate. Politicians have led from behind, cowering, on marriage. TV and movies led the way.

Some states have no age limit for marriage if the child has parental consent. Sharia Law says girls as young as 12 can give informed consent. NAMBLA wants laws on age of consent thrown out so they can molest young boys without getting into trouble with child authorities. This can of worms will only get bigger and squishier.  Let’s see how long politicians will resist polygamy.  It’s big on reality shows like Big Love and Wife Swap. 

Legalizing  molestation of children has already begun—today’s school sex education materials is what the FBI warns about in hunting down perverts. Planned Parenthood gets money to indoctrinate children into become their life time customers in the PREP program. "PP follows the same business model as a drug dealer: Young children are encouraged to masturbate and explore their bodies with mirrors to introduce them to sexuality. Hichborn says of the graphic pictures used to “educate” pre-pubescent children, “If a dirty old man showed these things to a ten year old in a park, he would be arrested. But when Planned Parenthood shows them to kids in a classroom, it gets government money.” http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/27/obamacare-funnels-75-million-to-planned-parenthood-to-push-sex-on-kids/

Will rich gay men marry and share their assets in a divorce?

I don't believe a lot of gay men are going to rush out to marry their lovers--they are the wealthiest demographic in the US and also big in the art, music, interior design, literature, film and political fields. How many have added the boyfriend to the will or mansion deed?  Some have, and nothing has prohibited that.  But just look around at the trophy wives or the girl friends (a certain golfer comes to mind) of men.  Do you really think gay men want the expense of lawyers and alimony?  Why hand over their assets to someone who is the equivalent of a rich man's mistress?

What gay marriage has done in states that have recognized it (like Massachusetts) is create over night a new lower class--kind, loving, respectable people can now be bullied and ridiculed as bigots and homophobes with a simple redefinition of a word. In those states, churches are losing freedom of speech and religion; parents are losing control of their right to transmit their values to their children. Adoption will not be about what is best for children, but about pleasing adults.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/real_bullies_the_homosexuality_is_normal_movement.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/gay-marriage-religious-freedom.html

What comes next?

After gay marriage legalization, the fight will be to legalize what used to be called pedophilia, but will be redefined, and then polygamy and polyandry. The law already allows (in some states) someone younger than 16 to marry with parental permission. Once same sex marriages are OK, so will young teen boys and older men; if it's OK for young girls and older men, why not? The man-boy love advocacy group is pushing for this. And our society has been softened up for several years with a reality TV show called Big Love to accept polyamory, or multiple partner families in a formal relationship (with benefits).  Our president’s father was a polygamist and his mother was only 17; is it such a huge step to see groups demanding that it is just about love for a 30 year old man with 3 “husbands” to want to take on a teen boy?

If this is about love and government benefits, what difference is the number? And although it may be awhile, there will be no compelling reason to forbid incestuous marriages--in fact, you'll be called a bigot and a sibophobe if you call it that.

Gay marriage fantasies—I don’t think it is the benefits

It's interesting that more young people, liberal and conservative, Christian and non-, have become more favorable about gay marriage--but not so much for traditional marriage, the one promoted in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and all civilizations from the beginning.  They’ve fallen for that “rights” argument—the carrot of government benefits.  Ha!  Marriage in the last 20 years for young adults is becoming more and more optional, with the children walking down the aisle with mom and dad, if they marry at all.  All the government studies in the world that show their own children are less likely to thrive haven’t budged their opinion that shacking up is more fun and economical.

I know a lot of older couples (male and female) living together, who I assume know about all those wonderful government perks gay marriage proponents  seem to seek.  Yes.  She ran into her 1950s boyfriend at the reunion, but they don't want to give up her alimony, so they have a commitment ceremony spoken by a preacher who got her license on the internet and see a good lawyer to protect their assets which will go to the children.  Or her husband died 30 years ago, she's got a good pension, they keep their homes separate, but are always together, on trips, outings and social events. Or they don't marry because of consanguinity or they were formerly in-laws. And of course, there's always his kids can't stand her kids, so for peace and inheritances, they avoid the marriage thing. Or, the worst.  He divorced her after her stroke which left her brain injured so she could get Medicaid and he comes to visit her in the nursing home with his girlfriend with home he shares his wife’s home.

Social security?  Oh really?  Ask any widow in her 50s who hasn't worked in 25 years. Or ask someone with a teacher's pension like me. There is nothing for us.  Also, they might want to talk to a woman, not divorced, whose husband left her for a younger more buff version of herself, and she found out the hard way there is no legal requirement for support while married and he doesn’t care if the house goes into foreclosure or the utilities aren’t paid.

Marriage--what's your excuse?

It used to be that if you said the word "marriage" people knew what the word meant. It was a state and church recognized contract between one man and one woman. For thousands of years and in all sorts of religions and cultures from primitive stone age and idol worshipers to Lutheran mergers in the USA it was understood that in order for there to be a solid family, the bedrock of all society, there had to be a recognized contract between a man and woman and the governing authority, whether the village elder, the king, or the state. Occasionally polygamy was recognized, (still is for some Muslims), but that too is for protection of the family unit and ultimately the state. Even those societies that encouraged or winked at relations among homosexuals, like ancient Greece or decadent Pompeii, never gave them the stamp of state or society approval of marriage.

These days you have to qualify the word marriage with the word, "traditional," if you mean that relational contract between a couple and the state. And if you own a business, it's not enough that you are a fair and just employer and you hire, train and promote people of all genders, faiths, and ethnicities--you must also contribute money only to those organization that support "non-traditional marriage." Like Chick-fil-a, a restaurant whose product I've never used, but will have to check out.

That said, we conservatives, Christians or otherwise, should be ashamed to target proponents of gay marriage as our marriage problem! We messed that up all by ourselves. Homosexuals didn't send the divorce rate soaring; they didn't invent the trophy wife or annulments; they aren't dropping babies to be raised by the state on welfare and Medicaid; if they are shacking up without our blessings, it's because the state and the church haven't an alternative for them.

Newsweek’s gay president cover

An awful lot of people don’t read, they glance.  Many don’t read well, they skim. They do know, however, what the words “gay president” under the photo of Barack Obama means even if after 12 years of public school they can’t pass a 4th grade reading test in Cleveland or Detroit. What were they thinking? Especially with that YouTube video that’s been going around for several years.

                               

Leaving the church because of sex

A blogger I’ve  known only through our shared cyber-space as librarians on discussion lists and as bloggers mentioned at his blog that he has moved over to an Anglican church from the Catholic church due to the Roman Catholic’s position on women clergy, on marriage of gays, and the sexual abuse scandals.

That’s putting a lot of stock into current cultural beliefs in the face of 2,000 years of church history and teaching, plus all the Hebrew/Jewish traditions that came before that.  In fact, it flies in the face of the history of the human race and all religions, not just Catholicism.  There’s virtually no mention of homosexuality in the Old Testament except in veiled references to temple practices of other religions which the Jews were supposed to avoid at all costs.  But dalliances with young men and male temple prostitutes were certainly well known and even accepted in Greek and Roman cultures.  Gracious!  Have you seen some of those murals in collapsing ancient buildings? The Greeks and Romans lived in sex saturated times, male, female, animal, child, multiples—made no difference (if we can believe their art and literature, and why shouldn’t we?). They probably inherited profligate and perverted sex from the civilizations who came before them.  God chose the Jews for a reason—they were the only ones, even in sin who seemed to really get the story of creation. 

That said, even with trips to the temple for sex with young, beautiful temple prostitutes, male and female, when it came to building blocks for the society, it was marriage between a male and female.  Yes, some engaged in polygamy, or polyandry, some had mistresses and concubines and some men may have preferred a male concubine, but the state/monarchy/emperor or tribal elder recognized the marriage.  There was a distant memory and command in the mind of all cultures.

As for women priests, show me a church that is growing under female leadership.  Sure, maybe you support it, but have you joined one?  Have you encouraged your call committee in that direction?  Even men who claim to be “feminists” don’t like sitting under the authority of a woman, often not at work, but certainly not at the church.  They’ll never admit it, but quietly, the numbers begin to drop.

Child abuse?  The Roman Catholic church is a huge target; and it’s rich.  Why sue a school system where the abusers, at least until recently, are just passed from school to school, protected by their unions?  We’re just beginning to hear how many female teachers are predators as the stories are leaked to the papers.  How many Protestant clergy have been caught with their hand in the . . . well, and just quietly moved on to the next small church thinking the problem will go away if we just warn him.  Although many young girls have certainly been molested at the hands of clergy, teachers, babysitters, etc., the number of boys and gay men involved is way out of their proportion (1.5%) in the general population.

But this particular librarian who has left the church, who became a convert to Catholicism and took all the instruction in 1992, now thinks that the profound spiritual wisdom of the 20th and 21st centuries exceeds that of the church he committed himself to just 20 years ago and in which he agreed to raise his children and be faithful to his wife (who has remained Catholic).

Imagine all the stuff a Protestant is exposed to in RCIA which must completely have baffled him—like 7 sacraments, or the teaching about the perpetual virginity of Mary, or all the stages to go through to become a saint, or all the special holidays, seasons and observances he’d never heard of.  Think about undoing all the teaching Christians hear in Baptist or Lutheran or Nazarene churches about evil, unscriptural Catholicism.  That’s a huge leap for gay marriage and the ordination of women priests!

And  he threw it all over for a fad, fable and fantasy.  I’m not a Catholic, but it appears he wasn’t either.