By Matthew Hoffman, from his Matthew Hoffman.net:

Julio Severo, a Brazilian protestant whom I met through my writings on the March for Jesus and the Gay Parade in Sao Paulo, is doing extremely useful work on the issue of what Latins call “homosexualism” — the new ideology, or even religion, that justifies sodomy and other sexual perversions. Among his writings (which can be found on his English blog) is a very incisive analysis of the roots of the moral crisis in Brazil. He notes what should be obvious to all of us: that in a country whose citizens are overwhelmingly Catholic, the blame for the rise of “homosexualism” and other perversions rests on the weakness and doctrinal corruption within the ranks of the Catholic Church itself. (It should be noted that he also blames the situation on corruption among protestants in Brazil). Severo notes that when the Church was strong in Brazil “homosexualism” and other ideologies of sexual liberation and perversion wouldn’t have had a chance:

The social and moral structure of Brazil in the decade of 1950 and 1960 was basically strong, largely because of the predominant Catholicism in more than 90 percent of the population. In many places, evangelicals were threatened with lynching if they tried to evangelize, especially in small towns. Homosexual activity was a shameful and secret behavior, despised by the society. A pregnant girl out of wedlock ran the risk of being expelled from her house. The Brazilian people were socially conservative, although the Carnival and public prostitution were tolerated.

 

The largest threat to the society came from radical leftist movements. Communists almost took control in Brazil in 1964, but the military took over the government and was able to stop a communist coup.

 

The Catholic Church was a driving force against the communist threat, but after the Vatican II many Catholic leaders began surrendering to the Theology of Liberation. In the decades of 1970 and 1980, traditional Protestant churches embraced Protestant versions of this theology. In late 1990s and early 2000, Pentecostal and charismatic churches also subscribed. These leftist Christians are today known as progressistas. The Brazilian term progressista (progressive), according to the noted Aurélio Dictionary of Portuguese Language, means “someone who, though not being a member of a socialist or communist party, accepts and/or supports socialist or Marxist principles”. So evangélicos progressistas are evangelicals committed to supporting and promoting the socialist agenda.

I highly recommend this piece to those who want to understand why Brazil, and Latin America generally, are beginning to succumb to the same moral decline already destroying Europe and Anglophone North America:

Julio Severo article: Last Days Watchman: Behind the homosexual tsunami in Brazil

The following is excerpted from LifeSiteNews.com, a must “go-to” site for pro-family advocates and citizens no matter what country you live in. Needless to say, you would have heard a lot more about this huge Italian rally had it been an “anti-Bush” protest against the war, or maybe a pro-“gay marriage” protest. The people “get it” regarding marriage and family; the secular media are obsessed with political correctness. One wonders how the political/cultural equation over homosexuality would be different if the media’s coverage were anything close to being fair rather than overwhelmingly pro-“gay”-activist as it is in most of the West today.— Peter LaBarbera  

1.5 Million Italians Turn Out in Massive Rome Protest Against Homosexual Civil Unions
Oraganizers Were Expecting Only 100,000

By Gudrun Schultz, LifeSiteNews.com

ROME, Italy, May 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Italians from across the country poured into Rome May 12 to join in a demonstration against a law that would give legal recognition to homosexual couples–reports showed up to 1.7 million people overflowed the St. John Lateran piazza. Organizers initially expected to draw about 100,000.

The proposed legislation would give homosexual couples–and unmarried heterosexual couples–similar rights to those of married couples, stopping just short of legalizing homosexual marriage.

“Living together is not family,” protester Anna Manara told the Associated Press.
“A commitment such as marriage cements the bond, while other models make it easier to be together and therefore end up making it less valuable.”

While the pro-family demonstration was backed by the Vatican and Italy’s Catholic bishops, it was organized by lay people independently of the Church. The “mind-blowing” success of the event is an outstanding example of the power held by ordinary citizens when sufficiently mobilized in support of traditional values, said Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, a priest in Rome who is the moderator of the Catholic Online Forum (see blogsite: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/05/winners-and-losers).

“The importance of this event is not merely that when left to their own devices the Italian people will support traditional values in great numbers, giving the lie to the script presented by the intellectuals in the press. It also means in concrete terms that the traditional values laity can organize and achieve results.”

“The success of “Family Day” also highlights a now deeply entrenched trend not only in Italy, but in the West: the marginalization of the Church from the public square,” Fr. Zuhlsdorf said. “Nearly everywhere the Church’s is being denied its right to speak freely. Committed Catholic and other religious politicians and public figures are pressured never to make reference to their religious convictions. The constant mantra is that religion should be a purely private matter than has no influence on public policy. Be religious, fine. But you may never act outwardly on your interior opinions.”

I am witnessing my friend’s unique path to holiness: a remarkable instance of grace working through a broken earthly vessel, making all things new, and leading to fullness of life. I think how blessed I am that I’ve been fortunate enough to witness it and find inspiration for my life in his struggles.

This piece is heart-rending yet beautifully hopeful. Please take the time to read it in full (it’s only posted in part here) — and then to pray for all the young men who are struggling to overcome and to please their Maker.

But don’t stop there: If you are a Christian man, please look around at church for the boys with no dads, for the boys with troubled homes, for the ones who just don’t fit in that well. Put your arm around the shoulder of a vulnerable young man and encourage him. Invite him over for Sunday lunch or to watch a ballgame; ask him to help you with a chore. You may be saving both his life and his soul. — Sonja Dalton

——————————

Excerpted from Struggling Alone, by Ryan T. Anderson, published Feb 2007 by First Things:

He came out to me in an email. I’ve known him for years, long enough that I can’t remember when we first met, and we were recently emailing back and forth about our lives, our futures-the kind of stuff separated friends discuss. Along the way he mentioned, in an aside, that he had some – lingering troubles he had to work his way through. My reply asked for an explanation-and that’s when he told me.

Over the past three years, “Chris” (let’s call him) has experienced a pronounced attraction to other males-for one old friend from high school in particular. A crush, maybe, or an infatuation. Whatever it was, he knew it wasn’t healthy. And though he had never acted on the attraction, he explained, it led to fantasies and lusts he didn’t want. So he made a resolution never to embrace them as essential to his identity or accept them as permanent or untreatable-a resolution he has kept practically alone, without the support of community, family, or friends. Over the course of many phone calls and emails, he shared with me his reflections on what he thought had created his problem of same-sex attractions. He described an “exceedingly close, best-friendly relationship” to his mother, often serving the role of her sole confidant, and a subsequent alienation from his father. Relationships with his friends, he thought, also contributed, as he suffered through “deeply hurtful rejection” by male peers, along with “oscillations between reverence for and fear of typically masculine” classmates. Once puberty hit, this took on sexual connotations, as Chris began experiencing “eroticized desire” for traits he found in other males that he himself lacked…

What he described seemed an accurate summary of the person I have known for years. So when he pointed to the likely causes and said he was seeking help in addressing them, I was supportive. “I would be untrue to myself if I simply accepted this condition right now,” he wrote. “I would be denying what I’ve come to believe — what I believe I know — to be the causes and potential cures of this condition in my case.” Some people say that change isn’t possible, but he thinks that with God all things are, and he at least wants to try to do his part.

When will the Catholic church hierarchy exercise Biblical church discipline and expel those who work directly against their teachings on homosexuality and extramarital sex? At the website for the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Nichols writes:

TAKE ACTION — Let Archbishop Nichols know that the issues are perfectly clear: Children should not be placed with unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. Agencies which exist to embody Christian teachings must not be compelled by government to act against their religious beliefs. Catholic adoption agencies should not be placing children with homosexuals or unmarried, cohabiting couples.

——————————–

Excerpted from Birmingham Archbishop: “Oh by the way,” Britain’s Catholic Adoption Agencies Already Adopt to Gay Singles, by Hilary White, published Jan 29, 2007, by LifeSite News:

…Archbishop Vincent Gerard Nichols of Birmingham admitted that his own adoption agencies were already adopting children to homosexual singles.

Nichols told the BBC’s Newsnight on Tuesday that his agencies were happy to place children with single gay people, just not couples. Catholic agencies are equally happy to place children with unmarried but cohabiting couples, despite clear and even more widely understood Catholic teaching on the sinfulness of such arrangements.

The announcement has frustrated those defending the rights of Christians to their conscience who are complaining that the laxity of their bishops has caused the argument to unravel.

One popular clerical Catholic blogger, Fr. Tim Finigan, a seminary professor and founder of a pro-life organisation for priests, wrote that while it might be possible for a Catholic adoption official to allow a child to be adopted by a person with homosexual temptations, it is impossible for a Catholic to agree to adoption to those who adhere to the “gay” philosophical and political outlook.

“I cannot see how it would be possible for a Catholic agency to place a child with someone who defined themselves publicly as ‘gay’, was regularly part of the gay ‘scene’, was involved in sexually active gay relationships, or opposed the teaching of the Church.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Brazilian Priests Could Face Jail-time for Saying that Homosexuality is A Sin, by Meg Jalsevac, published Mar 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Brazil’s Senate is currently engaged in a debate over proposed legislation that would criminalize anything deemed a condemnation of homosexuality.  The new legislation, labeled the ‘homophobia law’ would demand jail time for violations of the law and would not provide for any religious exception.

…According to ZENIT, priests who preached against homosexuality could face 3 to 5 years in jail and seminaries would not be permitted to reject applicants based on their sexual orientation.

…Exodus Brazil, the Brazilian branch of the international ex-homosexual ministry, has expressed grave concern about the law saying, “It will extinguish ex-gay ministry in Brazil for all practical purposes.”

Brazil has been a recent leader in pushing for gay rights and trumping traditional family values.  In 2005, Brazil legalized homosexual adoption.  As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, Brazilian ambassadors have been the driving force behind a 2006 proposal to the Organization of American States to designate sexual orientation an “inalienable right” with full human-rights protection.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from The Crime of Conviction, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 15, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…While the world should be applauding a man who proposes that one of the most important institutions in our country should have moral integrity, instead we hammer him for having a conviction.

But I believe this goes far beyond the whole question of homosexuals in the military and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This cuts to the core of the question of whether anyone in public office is free to speak his deepest religious or moral convictions. The Constitution says there will be no religious test for office, and yet we are applying one. We are basically saying that if you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are not allowed to express your moral or religious views — especially on matters of sexual preference and behavior.

This is another sign that we live in an age that no longer believes in objective truth or a moral order. Moral relativism is the rule, and personal preference trumps all. And government is there to ensure that no one place any restraint on the pursuit of our own desires.

I have long said that C. S. Lewis was prophetic when in 1943 he wrote about the irony of our education system, saying, “Such is the tragicomedy of our situation — we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. . . . In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

Ironic that today, the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the military should have consistent policies of moral integrity, and the world demands an apology. Maybe it is time to lock him up: General Pace is guilty. He has committed the intolerable crime of our day: He has stated his conviction in a value-free society that respects only so-called “tolerance.”

As for me, well, General Pace makes me proud that I am a former Marine.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

From Marine Gen. Pace Praised for Calling Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Jim Brown and Jenni Parker, published Mar 14, 2007, by One News Now:

A pro-family leader is applauding America’s leading general for declaring that homosexuality is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. In a recent interview with the Chicago Tribune, U.S. Marine Corps General Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he also condemned.

Hear This Report

Homosexual activist groups are now calling on the general to apologize for the remarks he made to the Chicago Tribune, which quoted him as saying, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” But Peter LaBarbera, director of the pro-family group Americans for Truth, says it took a lot of courage for General Pace to say what he did, because the homosexual lobby will now be going after his job.

“Their idea of civil rights is that we can’t voice our moral beliefs about homosexuality,” LaBarbera notes. “And this is whole problem with treating homosexuality as a so-called civil right,” he says. “You know, the fact is, he has a right to state his beliefs.”

And those beliefs are shared by a majority of the people in America, the pro-family advocate contends.

“I think, at least half the country — according to a recent Culture and Media Institute poll — agrees with [Pace] that homosexual acts are wrong,” he says.

Homosexual activist groups are condemning General Pace and, predictably, attempting to intimidate him for stating the obvious, LaBarbera contends.

“If you say that homosexuality is wrong, they come after you,” he says; “and, ultimately, we have to believe that they are going to want to ban [speaking out against] it, just like is happening in Canada, and England, and other countries.”

The homosexual lobby in the United States “has been very silent about this censorship that’s going on abroad, where we see people not even being allowed to say that homosexuality is wrong,’ the Americans for Truth spokesman observes. “And so,” he asserts, “you’ve got to believe that, under a ‘hate-crimes’ agenda, in the long term the gay lobby is going to want to silence people.”

Reportedly General Pace said he bases his opposition to homosexuality on his upbringing. He also told the Chicago Tribune that he supports the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, which implements legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

The law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton states that the U.S. Armed Services’ prohibition against homosexual conduct “is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” The legislation also affirms that such conduct is grounds for discharge from the military.

From AFA calls on President Bush to support General Pace, published Mar 14, 2007, by American Family Association:

American Family Association (AFA) says its supporters have sent nearly 150,000 e-mails to President Bush asking him to stand behind Marine General Peter Pace. The e-mails came from the AFA’s website, afa.net.

AFA said several homosexual groups are trying to force Gen. Pace out of the military because of comments he made calling homosexual acts immoral.

Gen. Pace said homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and should not be condoned. “The homosexuals are angry because General Pace told the truth, something homosexual activists cannot stand,” said AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon. “They want to force the military to approve their perverted behavior.”

“These radical activists called Gen. Pace’s comments ‘insulting and offensive to the men and women who are serving in the military honorably.’ What is insulting and offensive is that, to these radicals, upholding military law isn’t important. An overwhelming number of military members find such acts insulting and offensive,” Wildmon said.

He said AFA is urging supporters to engage others to send e-mails to the president in support of Gen. Pace. “As Commander In Chief, the president should applaud Gen. Pace for upholding military law,” Wildmon said.