March 22, 2004
vol 15, no. 82

'Pope' Boteach Pontificates

The Rabbi of Rad Lays Down His Own Ten Rules of Avoiding Homophobia, which to him would seem worse than the Vice of Sodomy!

By Gary L. Morella
      Editor's Note: The following is Traditional watchdog Gary L. Morella's insightful and absolutely Catholic response to yet another Jewish leader's idiocy. This is the infamous Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, of late known for his rabid criticism of Mel Gibson and 'The Passion of The Christ' and one who has called the Evangelists liars and that the Gospels are "cheap forgeries." Few realize that this 'moral guardian's claim to fame came from schmoozing with and guiding that beacon of morality Michael Jackson. Yeah, he serving as his 'spiritual' guide. Did wierd Michael a lot of good, so much so he embraced the Nation of Islam! Now that the gloved-one is no longer a meal ticket, the radical and rabid rabbi turns his fangs on the Gospels, using as his rationalization all that Vatican II has taught. In addition it would seem that he has taken on the mantle which previously the bishops were spouting but now are so strangely quiet. Thus let another heretic take over and Schmuley fits the bill perfectly. If there can be a Jewish bishop in Jerusalem, why not a neo-Catholic Rabbi in America acting as if he has the authority of a Pope!! Thus we have titled Gary's rebuttal to his rubbish: "'Pope' Boteach Pontificates." Considering the bishop's feeble stance, one shouldn't be surprised how Boteach is so accommodating toward the vile sin of sodomy in an article published on this past Friday, titled "Gay Marriage: Top 10 issues." Gary's comments are in regular sized type, Boteach's inane 'logic' in smaller size maroon font color.

   Can Rabbi Schmuley Boteach get anything right?

    With the hysteria surrounding the debate on gay marriage, it is time that facts, reason and logic be brought to a discussion that is being conducted increasingly by extremists. While I am opposed to gay marriage, I am equally opposed to the shrill homophobia which is sadly being expressed on the part of many religiously minded colleagues.

    Here are the 10 most important religious and legal considerations that should guide us in our outlook on homosexuality and gay marriage.

    1. Defenders of the family attack gay marriage as the single most serious threat to the heterosexual institution of marriage. This is a boldface lie. It would behoove straight men and women to accept personal responsibility in having nearly destroyed heterosexual marriage rather than passing the buck onto gays.

   Granted marriage has been under assault. This is due to the divorce of the primary purpose of marriage which is procreation from the marriage act due to the pill, i.e., the contraceptive mentality of the age. But to imply that recognizing what is unrecognizable in the legitimizing of unnatural acts as normal, which can never lead to procreation, is no big concern is equally a "boldface lie." Survival of the species is at stake.

    Straight men and women have killed off marriage by creating an acceptable culture of male womanizing, no-fault divorces, workaholism that puts professional success ahead of the marital intimacy, and by having developed a grossly misogynistic culture that trains exploits and degrades women, thereby impeding male respect. Gays and lesbians constitute, at most, 15 percent of the general population, while heterosexual divorce is at 50 percent. So, let's stop the canard that gays are a threat to the institution of marriage.

   Let's stop the canard that "gays and lesbians" constitute double digit percentages of the total population which is the lie debunked by the exposure of Kinsey's fraudulent research. The reality is that around 2 percent is a more realistic figure per objective research. Marriage has been killed by the aforementioned contraceptive mentality of the age which eliminates children, THE primary purpose of marriage.

    2. The argument that homosexuality is 'a crime against nature' is belied by the fact that much heterosexuals do much between the sheets that is pretty darn unnatural as well. No one would seriously suggest that the mouth was made for kissing or that God made orifices to be used for oral sex. So it's seems that objections to "unnatural" sex are only used when it comes to homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a sin against nature and nature's God because it can never lead to procreation, PERIOD! There are consequences to be paid for confusing orifices intended SOLEY for waste with those for reproduction - the Center for Disease Control stats speak to this truth clearly as homosexuals by over 2-1 remain the reservoir for HIV/AIDS in America. For more info on this see the following:

  • Scientific Evidence Against Homosexuality

  • The Medical Evidence That Homosexuality Is Incompatible With Good Public Health

  • Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent 'Science'

  • Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior - A Political Agenda Is Trumping Science

  • Exposing the Media Lie That Homosexual Relationships Are Healthy, Stable and Loving

  • The Direct Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

  • HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOPE: Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association

      In addition, Prof. David Greenberg shows in his book "The Construction of Homosexuality" that throughout history, and in virtually every culture, homosexuality was as common as heterosexuality, with the sole exception being Judeo-Christian civilizations where same-sex unions were banned by the Bible, thereby demonstrating that homosexuality is not "a crime against nature" but a biblical prohibition.

       What is conveniently ignored here is the considerable evidence that those civilizations which embraced homosexuality as normal no longer exist.

       An argument for the commonality of homosexuality as normal flies in the face of reason as there is that little problem with reproduction of the species. It is an absurd argument that because homosexuality was prevalent in some cultures, somehow that makes it normal or natural. The natural law is knowable through reason exclusive of any connotation to divine revelation. The kindest thing that Saint Thomas Aquinas had to say about homosexuality via his natural law teaching is that "it is the unnatural vice." It goes downhill quickly from there. See Homosexuality Is Biologically And Metaphysically Against The Natural Law

       I will let Saint Thomas Aquinas respond directly through his own words in the Christian Classics 1948 Benzinger edition translation of the Summa Theologica, the clarity of which is unmistakable. First the Natural Law will be addressed, then homosexuality.

    The Natural Law.

         Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.

         Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances; inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, BELONGS to the Natural Law. Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to belong to the Natural Law, WHICH NATURE HAS TAUGHT TO ALL ANIMALS, such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth.

         Thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the Natural Law. [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 2]

         For it has been stated that to the Natural Law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature.

         Wherefore, since the rational soul is the proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to virtue.

         Temperance is about the natural concupiscences of food, drink, and sexual matters, which are indeed ordained to the natural common good, just as other matters of law are ordained to the moral common good.

         By human nature we may mean either that which is proper to man - and in this sense all sins, as being against reason, are also against nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orthod. ii. 30): or we may mean that nature which is common to man and other animals; and in this sense, certain special sins are said to be AGAINST nature; thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special name of the UNNATURAL CRIME. [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 3]

         Consequently we must say that the Natural Law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge.

         As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers, so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must needs be directed according to reason. [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 4]

         The Natural Law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does NOT vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.

         The Natural Law was perverted in the hearts of some men, as to certain matters, so that they esteemed those things good which are naturally evil. [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 5]

         THY LAW IS WRITTEN ON THE HEARTS OF MEN, WHICH INIQUITY ITSELF EFFACES NOT. But the law which is written in men’s hearts is the Natural Law. Therefore the Natural Law CANNOT be blotted out.

         There belong to the Natural Law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the Natural Law, in the abstract, can NOwise be blotted out from men’s hearts. [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 6]


         The unnatural vice IS a species of lust. It is reckoned together with other species of lust (2 Cor. xii. 21) where we read: ‘And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness,’ where a gloss says: ‘Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust.’

         The venereal act is rendered unbecoming through being contrary to right reason, and because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called THE UNNATURAL VICE. This may happen by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom. i. 27): and this is called the VICE OF SODOMY. [Summa Theologica, Vol IV, Pt. II-II, Q.154 Art. 11]

         Augustine says (De adult. conjug.) that ‘of all these’, namely the sins belonging to lust, ‘THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE IS THE WORST.’

         I answer that, in every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the UNNATURAL VICES man TRANSGRESSES that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter THIS SIN IS GRAVEST OF ALL. After it comes incest, which is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

         Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an INJURY IS DONE TO GOD, THE AUTHOR OF NATURE. Hence, Augustine says (Conf. iii. 8): ‘Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times DETESTED and PUNISHED, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the author, is POLLUTED BY THE PERVERSITY OF LUST.’

         Vices against nature are also against God, and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

         The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

         Wherefore among sins against nature, the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. After this comes the sin of Sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. [Summa Theologica, Vol IV, Pt. II-II, Q.154 Art. 12]

    Thus spoke Saint Thomas Aquinas!

      3. The further argument, favored by religious individuals, that homosexuality is singled out by the Bible for special condemnation is only partially true. The Bible does indeed refer to homosexuality as an "abomination," but the word actually appears 121 times throughout the Bible, describing, among other things, eating non-kosher foodstuffs and shell-fish (Duet 14:3), a wife returning to her first husband after she has been married to another man (Deuteronomy 24:4), and bringing a sacrifice to God that contains a blemish (Deuteronomy 17:1). Indeed, Proverbs labels as an "abomination" even such things as envy and a false heart, pride, slander and "he that sows discord among brethren." (Proverbs 3:32, 16:22).

       It is a lie to say that homosexuality is not singled out for condemnation by the Bible given any objective exegesis of Genesis 19 instead of the eisegesis of those wanting to make the Bible say what it doesn't. Moreover the moral aspects of the Old Law were not revoked by the New which clearly states the condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans, Corinthians, and Jude referencing in particular the abomination of the Cities of the Plain, Sodom and Gomorrah.

      4. Homosexuality is a religious rather than a moral sin. The Bible clearly distinguishes between sins against God (religious) and sins against man (moral), and neatly divides the Ten Commandments into two tablets reflecting the division. Sins like not worshipping idols are on the first tablet, while sins like refraining from theft and murder are on the second.

       It is ridiculous to say that homosexuality is not a moral sin when morality means basically distinguishing between what is right and wrong, good and evil. What could be more wrong than the advocacy of unnatural acts as normal, the advocacy of proven changeable aberrant self destructive lifestyles, physically, psychologically, and especially spiritually, which if not repented of will lead to Mortal Sin and the death of the soul, i.e., eternal perdition.

      Adultery is both a religious and a moral sin because it involves breaking one's marital covenant and deceiving one's spouse. Homosexuality, by contrast, which involves consensual sex and no deception, is only a religious sin and not a moral one. No one is being lied to and no one is being stolen from. Therefore, those who label homosexuality as "immoral" would likewise have to argue that those who don't go to Church are immoral, when in fact they are simply irreligious.

       The illogic here is laughable! Never has such a bastardization of the Law both Old and New been presented traditionally as religious teaching. Homosexuality is a sin against nature and nature's God. That is an undeniable fact in Judeo Christian Tradition. Anyone saying anything to the contrary is a LIAR! The "no harm" scenario is straight out of the morally bankrupt Kantian "I'm OK, you're OK" philosophy where the harm done by the wounding of society due to the advocacy of immoral unnatural acts is completely ignored.

      5. Yet, while society should be encouraging gay men and women to live in stable, exclusive, and faithful relationships, society dare not legalize gay marriages and elevate it to the same plane as heterosexual marriages. There is a good reason why God established heterosexual marriage as an unassailable standard.

       There is nothing gay about being inclined to filthy unnatural acts. THE reason that God established the Holy Sacrament of Marriage as an "unassailable standard" is for the husband and wife to cooperate with Him to procreate, i.e., populate, Heaven in accord with THE primary reason for man's creation.

      From time immemorial philosophers have debated whether there is a single source from which all the diverse phenomena of the world stems, a unified field through which all existed could be orchestrated together. Heterosexual marriage refutes the idea of dualism, the ancient and wildly influential idea of the philosopher Zoroaster who argued that the world is made of contradictory opposites that will always be in conflict: light and darkness, body and spirit, good and evil.

      God's message to the world through heterosexual marriage is that opposites can be orchestrated together as one indivisible whole, thereby giving the lie to those who believe that war and discord between people on earth is inevitable. When organisms as different as male and female are drawn together, marry and create a single unified life, the unity rather than duality of creation is affirmed.

       God's message to the world through heterosexual marriage is not solely related to natural concerns but rather the supernatural in a metaphysical sense. It is through obedience to God's Laws, in particular, His Natural Law which is a participation in His Divine Eternal Law, that health and happiness on earth inevitably leads to the Beatific Vision in Heaven for eternity.

      This is turn gives us hope that one day different peoples – Protestants and Catholics, Arabs and Jews – will one day live together in harmony. The union and compatibility of male and female in marriage is the ultimate confirmation that we all come from the same place. Hence, jivanmukta, the Hindu word for the union of opposites, has always been a universal goal.

       Living together in harmony is not a function of indifferentism toward the true Faith. It is a manifestation of the social reign of the Kingdom of Christ on earth leading to a Kingdom not of this World.

      6. Homosexual marriage, involving as it is does the predictable attraction of two people who are similar, while it can of course be genuinely loving and committed, sends the message that like only meets like and those who are very different have no real appeal or attraction to us.

       To say the homosexuality involves the "predictable" attraction of two people who are similar flies in the face of reason that says that inclination to unnatural acts are not to man's benefit per the aforementioned Natural Law. How can such a perverse sexual attraction be considered "loving" when the first requirement for love is to tell the truth, not the lie that homosexuality is normal? This is a tortured skewing of the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

      7. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of gay men have had sex with a woman, demonstrating conclusively that many are capable of attraction and interest in women. Elevating gay marriage to the same level of heterosexual marriage would give no incentive to the many gay men and women, who harbor attraction to both sexes, to first try and live within a heterosexual relationship. (Indeed, gay men who are attracted to women usually make much better husbands and fathers since they are usually softer, gentler, more domesticated and more nurturing than their heterosexual counterparts).

       It is incredible to continue to see the lies being told here that those suffering from developmental disorders such as homosexuality, per the National Association and Research of Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH) are somehow better than normal individuals. The inference here is that those inclined to homosexual acts should at least try to have sex with a woman, and if that fails, there is no problem reverting back to their perverse behavior. THE reality is that, per the extensive research of NARTH, those inclined to homosexual acts can, with effective reparative therapy, per the American Psychiatric Association, and a former chairman of the American Psychological Association, LEAVE as opposed to live homosexual lifestyles.

      If some men with attraction to both sexes are not encouraged to explore their heterosexual attraction, we are condemning millions of women to lives of loneliness without husbands since the higher proportion of gay men to lesbians creates a strong numerical imbalance between the sexes.

       This ridiculously skewed reason is not why those inclined to perverse acts should be encouraged to overcome their perversions. THE reason is for their own physical, psychological, and especially spiritual well-being, given the many pathologies associated with homosexual behavior, and the religious condemnation of it on MORAL grounds per the Natural Law.

      8. While gay marriage should not be legalized, we should be encouraging gay men and women, who profess no interest whatsoever in the opposite sex, to live together in legally recognized civil unions. This is good for the men and women in question, and good for society. At all levels, society should be encouraging fidelity, commitment and faithfulness in relationships, and this of course applies to gay couples as well.

       This is farcical. What is being said here, after the poorest of arguments against homosexual marriage, is that homosexual marriage in everything but name only is PERFECTLY FINE! How can the advocacy of unnatural lifestyles leading to physical and spiritual ruin, i.e., Mortal Sin, be good for society? Such an inference is lunacy. Is the promotion of sexual promiscuity leading to a litany of STDs something that taxpayers should be subsidizing?

      9. Religious individuals who encourage gay men and women with no attraction to the opposite sex to live completely celibate lives are often unrealistic, cold and heartless. It even goes against the grain of the very first thing that God labels as "bad" in the Bible: "It is bad for man to be alone." Likewise, the practice of encouraging gay men who harbor zero heterosexual attraction to marry women is immoral, deeply destructive to the marriage's participants, as well as to the children who follow.

       In view of the aforementioned consequences of homosexual behavior, to called "cold and heartless" individuals who genuinely care for those afflicted with homosexual inclinations, telling them a truth that they are not getting from a world that confirms them in their vice, is irrational. Moreover, to say that God condemns such truth contradicts Who God is, i.e., God IS Perfect Truth. This entire exercise in "gay apologetics" is a bastardization of faith and reason, which cannot contradict each other as the Omniscient, All-Good God gave us both, and He cannot contradict Himself.

      10. While banning gay marriage is indeed discriminatory, so are the bans against polygamy and polyandry, which seem equally unfair. After all, a man who is married and has a mistress whom he only meets for sex has done nothing illegal (and in some countries has even proven his virility.) But if he suddenly desires to take responsibility for the woman and commit to her in marriage, he is thrown into jail. This is, of course, absurd because by doing so we reward causal sex and punish commitment. Still, amid the absurdity of the logic, nearly all agree that polygamy must remain strictly illegal so as to protect the single, time-honored definition of marriage: one man to woman. Period.

       A responsible society must justly discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil. Parents who genuinely care for their children do this as a matter of course. It is correct in that if sodomy is a civil right in an affirmative action sense, so is every other aberrant unnatural act to the destruction of civilization as we know it. It is unclear what Rabbi Boteach is saying here, which is to be expected given his previous arguments. Is he telling us that adultery is perfectly OK? If so then we need to look up the meaning of adultery in Webster’s, and review the Commandment against adultery.

       In summary, the "absurdity of the logic" is the only way that Boteach's arguments can be characterized. So, in essence, he has done us all a service in confirming our suspicions via his repeated unwarranted criticism of Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ (see first link below) as being hateful to Jews that, basically, he does not know what he's talking about.

    Gary L. Morella

    For past articles in "Father, forgive them...", see "Father, forgive them..." ARCHIVES

    • March 22, 2004
      vol 15, no. 82
      "Father, forgive them..."