The Catholic Thing
The Lies of the Sexual Radicals Print E-mail
By Austin Ruse   
Friday, 04 October 2013

Except in very rare circumstances the Catholic Church takes decades even centuries to determine if someone is a saint. Even martyrs are not raised to the altars right away. There is an exacting, indeed exhaustive process that tests and challenges all aspects of the person’s life. A miracle is required.

Would that seculars took such care. They elevate their own with an embarrassing speed and sometimes sloppiness. Another of their plaster saints has just come crashing down.

If you are of a certain age you will never forget the story of Matthew Shepard. A winsome boy who happened to be gay was tortured – beaten with a gun butt, burned with cigarettes – left alive, yet dying, tied to a fence in freezing weather.

Within a few hours of the discovery of his tortured body and several days before he finally succumbed to his wounds, we were told he died because of hate. His killers targeted him because he was gay, tortured and killed him not just because of their own homophobia, but the rampant homophobia of America.

The New York Times fed us this story. NYT columnists, principally Frank Rich, fingered the religious right. It was their fault for creating a climate of hate against gays. Thousands of stories appeared worldwide telling the Shepard story. He was compared to Christ. One pastor in Washington State gave a sermon called “Matthew Shepard Died for Our Sins.”

Vanity Fair ran a long story called “The Crucifixion of Matthew Shepard.” Before he died, President Clinton opined on his attack and called for national hate-crimes legislation.

Over the years, the hagiography continued. Three made-for-TV movies aired about his life and death. One of them, The Laramie Project, is now a play being performed in schools all over the country. It is playing now at Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C where the comparison to Abraham Lincoln is unmistakable. The Washington National Cathedral is currently sponsoring a sold-out “Tribute to Matthew Shepard.

The importance of his story for the cause of gay rights cannot be overstated. As in this from the New York Times: “For homosexuals, the key to winning acceptance and respect has been to make themselves familiar, visible and known. Yet in almost thirty years of struggle to repeal state sodomy laws and win equal protection under law, the modern gay movement has never achieved a recognizable public face. Now, in a victim, a young man who wanted to be a diplomat, it has been given one.

It all seemed settled and its significance clear.

But investigative journalist Stephen Jiminez just published The Book of Matt, which punctures the Shepard balloon. After ten years of research and more than 100 interviews, Jiminez, a gay man once sympathetic, reports that most of what you have heard about Shepard’s life and death is false.

Jiminez reports that Shepard and his killers not only knew each other, but did drugs together, methamphetamine mostly, and likely were rival drug dealers. Much of this was reported on an ABC 20/20 episode in 2004. But something new knocks the props from under the homophobia charge. Shepard and his killers were sometimes-sex partners. (A fair bit of violence against homosexuals is perpetrated by other homosexuals.)

Conservatives did not start the culture wars, liberals did, and more than a few times, their aggression has been based on lies.

Conservatives did not initiate a national war over abortion. Conservatives did not initiate a war over marriage. It was the sexual radicals who initiated both of these wars that have caused so much damage to our political and religious institutions, and our society in general. Conservatives have certainly reacted but almost exclusively have acted in self-defense against aggression fueled by intentional, deliberate lies.

Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade herself, has admitted that she was never gang raped, one of her lawyers’ central claims. It was a lie.

Lawrence v. Texas was based on a lie. In Lawrence, the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws in Texas and around the country and has become the legal wedge that gave us the Prop 8/DOMA decisions and could lead the Court to impose gay marriage in America.

At the time, we were told that Texas constables entered a home responding to a call of domestic disturbance, a guy waving a gun. They happened to see two men having sex and promptly arrested them. Activist lawyers encouraged these gentlemen were to plead no contest to violating sodomy laws, which led to their case going eventually to the Supreme Court. But according to a new book by a gay law professor, the gents were not having sex at all. Lawrence was a lie.

Why lie? In Roe, Lawrence, and the Shepard case? The reason may be that perfect victims are hard to find.

Advocates for abortion needed not just a rape victim who needed an abortion; they needed something even more extreme, a victim of gang rape.

Sodomy laws were not being enforced anywhere. So how do you find a victim of unjust sodomy laws? You make one up.

And what about hate crimes? You want to show that homophobia is a killer but victims of such things are not exactly a dime a dozen. Even now, only 1400 such cases are reported each year in a nation of 310 million. And how many of those are really hate crimes? As we see from the Shepard case, things are often not what they seem – or are made to seem.

But Shepard came along at precisely the right time, with the right pretty face, victim of the perfect crime of homohatred.

These cases have done much damage to all levels of our society, government, the law, politics, and the family. Are the perpetrators of these lies embarrassed or repentant?

Of course not. They are likely busy finding the next phony – but politically useful – victims.

Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washington, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Ruse’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of C-FAM.
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (36)Add Comment
written by Scotty the Menace, October 03, 2013
It is truly sad that the left has such little regard for the inherent dignity of every person that they use for their own political ends the very people they claim to represent.
written by Mercy, October 04, 2013
I struggle with hypocrisy myself, but I can go to Mass and see the doctor. Sadly the people Mr Ruse speaks of have fear and loathing and safety of the herd, I'm not sure how much they have to answer for, but I certainly know to resist them. They approximate an atheocratic church and largely comprise unreconstructed hypocrites (rivers of money flow between DC and Harvard, Hollywood blacklists conservatives, fourth estate is almost wholly owned, libertarian oligarchs control the Dems and GOP), because they cry 'autonomy! autonomy!' but there is no autonomy when they eviscerate the institutions and jobs that create self governing citizens. They themselves don't truly enter, dependent as they are on central gov. funded sinecures. They do go to lengths to self select unanointed aspirants out of their professional bodies they control, and they have the means and zip code to live the lie in comfort, not really testing their ideas against reality and so the lie genuine becomes part of them.

Patrick Deneen wrote recently, there aren't enough young people being born or surviving the womb to rouse to revolution.

I see the movie Elysium in our future and so a quasi-Benedict option/simplicity as solution.

Austin Ruse is a hero of mine.

God have mercy on us.
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, October 04, 2013
I believe the link between Lawrence and SSM is fanciful.

The new penal code of 1791, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau, abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphème, la sodomie et la sorcellerie] This became the law in much of Europe, when the armies of Napoléon gave a code of laws to a continent and restored the concept of citizenship to civilisation. Yet, it was only two centuries later that civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples were introduced anywhere.

The same assembly that ratified the penal code on 6 October 1791 introduced mandatory civil marriage on 9 November. It was an essential part of a revolution that had turned ten million landless peasants into heritable proprietors; at its heart was the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage had the husband for its father and its proponents would have seen it as utterly irrelevant to a same-sex couple.
written by Sue, October 04, 2013
"And what about hate crimes? You want to show that homophobia is a killer but victims of such things are not exactly a dime a dozen. Even now, only 1400 such cases are reported each year in a nation of 310 million. " 1400? Please that 1400 killings of homosexuals? That would be huge, even out of 310 million.
written by Jack,CT, October 04, 2013
Dear Judy and Dennis Shepard,
Please accept my
huble apology for this insensitive and homophobic
rant.I hope you understand that the 18 hours your
son clung to life suffering and sruggling to breathe
was not in vein and MOST Catholics are offended by
articles like this.
Secondly,squeezed into this rant at a glance was

marriage issues
Hate crimes
All seemed to be pointing at blaming the
victim,as he states ONly 1,400 Hate crimes
a year",I wander if he were one of them if
it would be signifigant and if it resulted
in his DEATH if he would apreciate articles
Meant to Discredit his life?
God Bless you and Congrats on Bill 1913 that
to was signed into LAW.

Sept 9/ Article
Gay topics.... wander whats next month?
Oct4/ Article
written by William Manley, October 04, 2013
When you get an Austin Ruse post at this web site, you get an obsession with gays. It has gotten beyond tiring. Thank God for Pope Francis.
written by Austin Ruse, October 04, 2013
Sue, the figure of 1400 comes from FBI statistics. They are guided by this definition from the Federal law:

“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

Would that include murder. Yes, obviously, but much else....
written by Rich in MN, October 04, 2013
Thank you, Mr. Ruse, for your very helpful summary of the case, the spin, and the general modus operandi on how lies help overturn laws. When it comes to following the marching orders given by one's ultimate authority and leader, some people are children of a lesser god.
I know that one of my most regretted donations was to a woman from an organization of which I was previously unfamiliar called "The Human Rights Campaign" when she came to my door months after Matthew Shepherd's murder and asked me if I opposed this hate killing of gays for being gay. Well, of course I oppose hate crimes! She had a great line for getting money.

The one quibble I have with your article is your sentence that begins, "Before he died, President Clinton opined...." You dangling pronoun almost got me running to see if Federal flags were at half mast....
written by Grump, October 04, 2013
First off, let's dispense with the notion of "hate crimes," which is a tautology invented to suggest that a crime is much more egregious when hate is a component. Is not all murder hateful?

Mr. Ruse explodes the myth that homosexuals are somehow always society's "victims" rather than perpetrators of some of the most horrific crimes, including pedophilia, that largely go unreported in the MSM. This, of course, is intentional to advance the modern narrative that only so-called "minority" groups are somehow entitled to special protection and privilege. White heterosexual God-fearing believers need not apply.

If it has not happened already, it is only a matter of time before "The Book of Matt" will be widely criticized and dismissed, much like author Tom DiLorenzo's scathing critiques of Abe Lincoln, whom pop historians have forever enshrined as "America's greatest President."

Sooner or later, truth always wins out.

written by Mark, October 04, 2013
"[O]bsession with gays" or an obsession with the lies that people say which lead to the destruction of lives and souls?
written by Chris in Maryland, October 04, 2013
Some people just refuse to see...

They choose to See-no-evil/hear-no-evil/speak-no-evil.

They expect all to do the same.
written by Pay, October 04, 2013
Another good article. The Left does not like it because they call you obsessed which is beyond absurd considering every single aspect of this culture is obsessed with normalizing homosexual acts and ideology. Nothing in history can compare to the current obsession with all things "Gay".

You point out what needs pointing out and you get the flack.
written by Walter, October 04, 2013
After some thoughtful columns on young suffering martyrs, Mr. Ruse is back to form, throwing rhetorical hand grenades. In his own quirky way, he is bombastic and sometimes even entertaining for Friday lunch hour. Not particularly Catholic or Christ-centered. Mostly just loud. He's like a right wing verison of Christopher Hitchens.

Like Hitchens, Mr. Ruse resembles those who he most criticizes, in this case the MSM: take a single allegation, declare it to be unassailable fact, build a worldview around it and move on.

....@Mark - definitely an obsession with gays.
written by Sam Glaston, October 04, 2013
Who is that Father of Lies guy? He must be busy in modern America.
written by pjm, October 04, 2013
In the Lawrence case, the police charged the two men because "they were cantankerous and flagrantly gay..."
written by Mr. Levy, October 04, 2013
This piece very accurately describes the immoral extremism of the Left, immoral and extreme in tactics as much as in substance. We will never begin to roll back Leftist family policies until we have the same courage to describe the situation so candidly.

Mr. Ruse, thank you for your daily work, for which you are too little recognized.
written by Mr. Levy, October 04, 2013
Sue, the 1400 claims of anti-homosexual incidents include all criminal incidents as recorded annually by the FBI. Murders amount to a very small percentage of the incidents recorded for any group. You can find these stats online with an easy google search. I hope you will take a look and learn the facts.
written by Mr. Levy, October 04, 2013
Jack, you speak for almost no one here. Please do not claim that you do.

1400 total incidents in a population of 310 million do not amount to anything more than a negligible level of crime. Make an effort to look squarely at the facts.
written by James, October 04, 2013
"Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded."
Pope Francis

written by Deacon Ed Peitler, October 04, 2013
Begin always with the assumption that liberals are incapable of telling the truth. How could they when their political positions emanate from the Father of Lies. And when you shine the light of truth on their lies, to what do they then resort? Character assassination. Proof? Just read a few of the comments here. It's the Alinsky/Clinton/Obama way of life. But we're used to it by now so we can recognize the game and, as I said, begin with the assumption that what a liberal tells you is a lie. How else could they countenance abortion, homosexual "marriage", fornication and pornography, and (mis)appropriating others' money to insure the continuation of their power?
BTW, thank you Austin for this most interesting piece.
written by Tony Francois, October 04, 2013
You can throw in another example, that being the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down state laws against sale of contraceptives which no state had enforced in decades. The case started as a collusive prosecution between a DA and defense attorney who had both clerked on the Supreme Court together.
written by Jack,CT, October 04, 2013
Mr Levy,
I hear you loud and clear
perhaps your "Point" is True and
that may be the issue "HEAR".
God Bless.
written by kristinajohannes, October 04, 2013
Walter et al, I don’t think you have a clue about how difficult it is to speak out on these sorts of topics. I’m a class A chicken and the first time I was interviewed as a spokesperson on a ballot initiative regarding the protection of the definition of marriage I almost fainted afterwards! From time to time my name was bandied about in the letters to the editor as a bigot and homophobe and every other name that was designed to intimidate me. I thought I was going to have a nervous breakdown! Before I would go to radio debates I would have to steady my nerves through great prayer. This is not a cake walk. I always tried to treat my opponents with respect and friendliness but that did not matter…you are the enemy if you oppose the destruction of marriage. I do believe that truth is stronger than fiction and love is stronger than hate, so I have hope for the world but it is very sad when you see how lies and distortions are used to advance agendas without any significant challenge and with the collusion of the media.
I have not read this book; I don't know enough about the facts to render an opinion, but unfortunately, based on my experience I would not be surprised.
written by kristinajohannes, October 04, 2013
Excuse me, this sentence should read: " are the enemy if you oppose the destruction of the legal definition of marriage."

One can never destroy marriage because it is a natural institution but you can certainly confuse people through unreasonable laws.
written by Marc Williams, October 04, 2013
Mr. Ruse is quite correct that the sexual revolution, of which the aggressive attempt to normalize homosexuality is a grandchild, has been a series of lies. Here are just a few. Heterosexuals were as susceptible to contracting Aids as homosexuals males. The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal was about pedophilia, not the molesting of post- pubescent boys, and that when all the facts were in girls would be shown to be an equal number of victims. Sexual orientation is in all cases inborn and immutable (but somehow not gender identity despite objective biology). The higher levels of psychological disorder, drug and alcohol abuse and relationship violence among homosexuals can all be explained by societal oppression. Gay men and lesbian want to marry just like everyone else, despite polls by gay organizations themselves showing more than 50% have no interest in abiding by the conventions of traditional marriage, specifically the presumption of sexual fidelity. And of those who have engaged in pseudo marriage, roughly 70% are lesbians. Then the serviceable lies of Matthew Shepherd, Lawrence, and so forth pointed out in this article. The latest lie and self-deception is that children do just as well raised by two mothers or two fathers or any number of alternative family structures.

The author is not irrationally obsessed with homosexual issues. Rather he understands that redefining marriage and countenancing all manner of sexuality are an epochal and nihilistic attack on the foundations of culture and, in particular, the Church.
written by Chris in Maryland, October 05, 2013
William M and Walter:

Are you implying that you are agnostic to the administrations policy of "queering the schools?"

Or do you hold that this is a phantom of which parents need to stop obsessing?

I will watch for your answer.

In Christus Veritas
written by Pay, October 05, 2013

You can deny the obvious and call people names but the truth is self evident. This culture is obsessed with all things "Gay".
written by Jack,CT, October 05, 2013
The Holy Father has asked
us Not to ONLY focus on
such issues all the "TIMES",
I for one will take my lead
from him!
written by Walter, October 06, 2013
@Chris in Maryland, the TCT column on Sunday, October 6 by Randall Smith captures precisely what was missing here: no Christ or Christian context.
written by Austin Ruse, October 06, 2013
jack, I have written maybe three or four pieces in the last year on this topic...out of 26 columns. And TCT has run not many more than that out of 300+ columns. You are being a bit of a drip and I know the reason why. You and yours are trying to bully people into silence and now you are incorrectly using the Pope as a cudgel. Sorry, bud. Won't work.
written by Chris in Maryland, October 06, 2013
To Walter:

I believe you are over-stretching the application Walter. Randall Smith's point was about homilies that had no reference to Christ.

Mr. Ruse's work here, and for C-FAM, is in the public square - where he is contending with what the new testament calls "principalities and powers." As one king said to the other in the film - "War is upon you, regardless that you wish it weren't so."

There is a war being waged in the public square against Judeo-Christian culture and truth. Mr. Ruse is not agnostic about that, nor is he the one making war.

He is defending the truth, the truth which is being warred upon. You seem intent on avoiding that point, since you do not take up my question in your response. As a Catholic husband and father, I stand with him, and others like him, who will not "submit" to the "dhimmitude" being prepared for our children by the sexual left.
written by Chris in Maryland, October 06, 2013
And indeed Walter, what of the poison of the homosexual predator scandal in the U.S. Church, reported by the National Review Board, including prominent liberal men, lead by presidential attorney Robert Bennett? In the archdiocese of Washington, the former Archbishop tried to silence parental concern about this, and rigged the training program ("Virtus") to deny and avoid the very that the disease would go unabated.
written by kristinajohannes, October 06, 2013
Jack, the murder of Matthew Shephard was horrible. And I know that people with homosexual inclinations have at times been treated poorly and worse. And Matthew's parents suffered the heartbreaking loss of a troubled but nonetheless beloved son. None of those points are in dispute.

The only things in dispute are the motivation of Matthew's killers and whether or not the media and others ignored and are ignoring evidence to the contrary in order to push their cause. When something new develops on that score this is news and there is nothing unchristian about discussing it, especially when we have seen a modus operandi of dishonesty that is repeated over and over again to advance negative social change.

To call people who want to consider the evidence, homophobic etc., is unjust and also part of the modus operandi that has developed as a way of making the discussion radioactive. To paraphrase Pope Francis, who is anyone to judge the heart of Austin Ruse?

I'm sure Austin is stronger both emotionally and spiritually than I was at the time of my trial by fire but regardless, he has the right to his good name.

The only point I would dispute with Austin is his analysis that Matthew is not a saint. We won't know that till we die. If he is, though, it will be because he sought God's mercy for any sinful actions for which he was subjectively guilty before his death, not because he was a martyr to "gayness". And in that I agree with Austin's point.

written by kristinajohannes, October 06, 2013
Let me fix my last paragraph (I seem to do this a lot, sorry Austin!) I don’t think Austin and I are in disagreement about the possibility that Matthew could be a saint in the real sense. I just wanted to explicitly add that point that he could be for the reasons I mentioned.
written by jrj, October 06, 2013
First, thank you for the article and the facts reported therein. I learned new facts I did not know about cases ntoed, that have shaped laws, public opinion, cultural evolution I did not know. I am thinking about the Sheppard case for starters. Interesting that none of the negative responses to the article challenged Jimenez's book and the facts presented. Instead many wanted only to disparage a report and conclusions one might logically reach after considering new and contrary information to what the case was built on.
GK Chesterton and two of the previous popes had it right when they, in their own way, said truth and reason are the real victims in today's secular culture.
written by Jack,CT, October 07, 2013
Mr Ruse,

As the President of a" Non Profit" you certainly seem
to have strong opinions and same for those who disagree
with you.

Find it very hard to believe you are "Non Partisan"
when you make statemets like : (Right Wing Watch,
Brian Tashman quotes you as saying, in regards to
watching a cooking show that had a lesbian couple:
RUSE: "Looked like a butch lesbian had to put my fingers
on the remote in case i was exsposed to Gayness'

I can go on and on ALL Day "Bud",the reader only need
to google your name and they will find all the "Hate speech"
one can find!

I never called you a "Extremist" but plenty have and Yes
I believe you will not be halted by my "Crude" remarks as
you have proven over the years even the "Death" of a young
man should not be "Wasted" right?
Anyway, Sir you have no right to call me a Bully",as you
have used your "Non Profit" to subsidise hate.

I want to stress my letter to Judy and Dennis DOES NOT

So accuse me of lacking taste all you want good sir at
least I do not use Hate Crimes to push a 'Radical'

God Bless and I wish you and yours the best.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author