There has been an ongoing effort to shift the Church's attitude towards the so-called "LGBT community," and, as discussed previously, this subversive cancer has largely been helped by forces within the Ecclesia Nova Concilii Vaticani Secundi. One of the main proponents of this has been James Martin, SJ, who has primarily advocated for the Church to be "more welcoming" to unrepentant homosexuals, but, recently, he openly promoted an article entitled "The Gay Church" penned by Andrew Sullivan—pictured above with his "husband"—that appeared in New York magazine, praising it as the "most thorough and comprehensive article yet on the topic."

What makes this stand out is that Sullivan does not merely argue for the tolerance of the laity, but he rather argues that the Church suffers from "a giant, unsustainable paradox" because homosexuality is viewed as “objectively disordered” while he estimates that it is prevalent in "around 30 to 40 percent [of] parish priests and ... as many as 60 percent or higher [in] religious orders like the Franciscans or the Jesuits." To his mind, the Church's teaching is an attack on "an integral part of the human mystery," and it is "based on a lie—a lie that the hierarchy knows is untrue," derived from "a deep and un-Christian cruelty ... a bigotry profoundly at odds with the church’s own commitment to seeing every person as ... made in the image of God."

Furthermore, Sullivan does not merely argue that homosexuality should be tolerated, but he instead says there is actually a deep "connection between homosexuality and spirituality" with homosexuals being "conservative in the best sense and cherish[ing] the values of the past" while having "a wealth of religious feelings ... and a spiritual receptivity which makes [them] responsive to revelation." Rather than being a barrier to serving God, their homosexuality actually prepares them to be priests as a young homosexual ponders "deeper questions than most of his peers, acquires powerful skills of observation, and develops a precocious spirituality that never fully leaves him." Indeed, he goes so far as to say that gay priests' sexuality is actually "integral and essential to Catholic worship" as the "High Mass, with its incense and processions, color-coded vestments, liturgical complexity, musical precision, choirs, organs, and sheer drama, is obviously, in part, a creation of the gay priesthood."

To reinforce his point, we are told that the prevalence of homosexuality among the priesthood is much older than we realize, and, by implication, there is no reason for it to be of concern today. For example, he says that St. Augustine of Hippo confessed to having a homosexual relationship, that St. Aelred of Rievaulx admitted the same, that the 11th century Popes St. Leo IX and Alexander II defended gay priests, and that clergy and religious in the 12th century wrote love poems to each other. It was only in the 13th century that the "tide turned decisively" when St. Thomas Aquinas declared homosexual acts to be unnatural, a supposed "paradox" as homosexuals were seen as "part of nature ... but they were also somehow contrary to nature." Despite this turn, apparently little changed as Sullivan says, as a matter of fact, that the "greatest Catholic poet of the 19th century, the Jesuit priest Gerard Manley Hopkins, was gay."

There is a problem, however, namely: virtually all of the claims are derived from the works of John Boswell, a Yale philologist and homosexual activist who died of AIDS in 1994, which is a rather important detail that Sullivan fails to reveal in his article. This is no small oversight as Sullivan also does not mention his own homosexuality, and we can safely assume that this blatant conflict of interest was purposely withheld as it would provoke a more critical eye while the above claims do not stand up to much scrutiny. For example, Sullivan draws unrelated quotes from Books III and IV of St. Augustine's Confessiones to give the impression that he admitted to a gay relationship in Carthage when, in reality, his relationship was with his long-time concubine with whom he had a son. Similarly, bits of St. Aelred's writings are taken out of context to recast him as a homosexual when, in truth, he only ever alluded to his lust earlier in life, not sodomy. As Marsha Dutton, Executive Editor of Cistercian Publications, says, "[T]here is no way of knowing the details of Aelred's life, much less his sexual experience or struggles." We find the same thing in the case of Hopkins, there being no real evidence he was homosexual. The details of events involving St. Leo IX and Alexander II allegedly defending gay priests are likewise misrepresented.

It should also be noted that even among historians who accept the general premise of sodomy being common in Christianity's past, not all necessarily accept the sweeping implications put forward by Sullivan. For example, it has been suggested, in England at least, that there was a clear divide between secular clergy who took wives and monasteries where sodomy was perceived as a problem, as well as a divide between reformers who promoted clerical celibacy yet ignored sodomy and those who sought to target sodomy. Rather than comporting with Sullivan's picture of an intrinsically gay priesthood, that would suggest a centuries old war between the proper priesthood—including married priests as well as celibate monastics—and sodomites hiding in Holy Orders and seeking to use their authority to excuse their own predilections and secure the priesthood for themselves. This is hardly what Sullivan wants us to think.

For the sake of argument, however, let us accept Sullivan's premise and ignore the fact that Boswell et al simply assume, without demonstrable evidence, that any and all affection between two people of the same sex is inherently sexual in nature, that any reference to the sins of lust and fornication must be references to sodomy, &c. Let us instead assume that there were openly gay Saints, that monasteries in the 11th and 12th centuries were full of gay men sodomizing each other, and the like. Does it mean, as Sullivan hopes, that Catholics today have to embrace gay priests and, eventually, homosexuality in general? Not at all, and this marks a clear divide between those truly of the faith and those who seek to create an Ecclesia Sodomorum.

As Sullivan sees it, there are really three options. First, there could be "a massive investigation" and "purging the priesthood of 'homosexual tendencies'," but he says this would be untenable as the "mass firings would brand the church as baldly homophobic" and the laity may not accept losing their beloved priests. Secondly, the Church could officially say that gays should not be allowed in the priesthood while doing nothing about it, but this is apparently even worse than the first option. Instead, Sullivan says the Church should bring "an end to the clerical closet" and allow priests to live openly as homosexuals in exchange for "a renewed public vow of celibacy." He asks, "If a priest is committed to celibacy and doing a good job, why is his public gayness a problem?" This is essentially argumentum ad peccatum Sodomorum populare, an argument to the popular sin of Sodom. In other words, if the sin and the sinners were and are popular enough, are they really sins and sinners at all? This gets to the heart of the new Church and religion that they desire.

All good Catholics must ignore Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," and Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them," and Romans 1:26-27, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Failure to do so necessarily means that you are a bigot, and your "homophobia" is against Church teaching, or at least how it has been reimagined in the minds of these activists, these warriors of Sodom.

Of course, as any faithful Christian knows, God's will is what matters, and neither the Word nor the Church can or should change to accommodate "changing times." Sullivan lays an obvious trap for the faithful when he says that the "gay priesthood" was a fact of life then and now, so both traditionalists and modernists should come to embrace sodomy as "an integral part of the human mystery." If that is not enough to convince you, then you must accept homosexuals out of charity and love. Besides, as Sullivan tells us, he really is only arguing for celibate priests to be open and honest with their flocks, which would allow them to "provide priestly role models for gay Catholics." You just need to ignore the unrepentant homosexual and his "husband" behind the curtain as well as the fact that he says the gay priests would be role models for homosexuals "who find themselves called to celibacy," implying active gays amongst the laity are also to be accepted, which is really what this is about.

Homosexual activists such as Boswell and Sullivan do not now nor ever have cared about whether or not the Catholic Church had a "gay priesthood," no more than feminists actually care about whether or not there were ever "female priests." It is all simply a way to manipulate people into accepting their sinful ways. If they can convince us that the past was something other than what it was, they hope to trick us into giving them what they want today. This is painfully obvious because what they want does not truly hinge on what happened in the past. If one were to go point-by-point refuting all of their historical claims, the homosexuals would still want the Church today to change to accommodate them just as the feminists would still want female ordination to become a reality. This is no different than how they collectively manipulated and cajoled society into believing that a bunch of white Christian men in the 18th century believed "separation of Church and State" meant that Christian morality had no place in their own legal system. Theirs is a movement that is ultimately at war with God yet feigns religiosity when it suits them, a new religion of irreligion, a Church of Sodom where sin is love and God's will is irrelevant.