Catholic Mass Lectionary Omits Anti-Homosexualism Verses from Romans 1

Why do Catholics in America support homosexuality proportionately more than the general population?

Two reasons: lack of authentic Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality…and the Church omitted one of the clearest Bible verses on homosexuality from the lectionary:

Screen Shot 2015-10-18 at 10.22.02 AM

One of the very unfortunate results of the New Lectionary is that verses that might be deemed offensive have been omitted from our liturgical celebrations. (I’ve written about how three “offensive” Psalms were removed from the Liturgy of the Hours after 1971 here.)

Verses against Homosexuality Omitted from Current Lectionary

An example of the silence of offensive passages is from the readings of last week, where the reading of Saint Paul against homosexuality (including female lesbianism) in Romans 1:26-32 is notably omitted from the cycle. Below are the readings for the 28th Week in Ordinary Time (Lectionary 468 and 469):

Tuesday of the Twenty-eighth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 468
Reading 1 ROM 1:16-25

Wednesday of the Twenty-eighth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 469
Reading 1 ROM 2:1-11

So what’s missing? Romans 1:26-32 is clipped out. Yet this passage at the end of Romans 1 is the locus classicus for Paul’s theology against homosexual behavior and it also forms the cited passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its teaching:

CCC Para. 2357. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law.”

In the footnotes in the CCC for this passage, you’ll find the citation for Romans 1:26-32. So if this passage is important for the Saint John Paul II’s Catechism, why is it skipped over in the Lectionary?

The Missing Romans 1:26-32

Here is the skipped passage in full:

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural [Paul calls lesbianism is “unnatural”], 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men [male homosexual acts are “shameless acts”] and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [homosexual acts are an “error” with “due penalty”]

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve those who practice them. [those that approve of homosexual acts and any of the sins above deserve to die according to “God’s decree”]

This passage is inspired by the Holy Spirit – by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. This is not a politically correct passage of the Bible, but it’s just as true as John 3:16. We may not read it at Mass, but we need to accept it as “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

Why is it omitted from the cycle of Romans for the Catholic Mass?

Is there a bishop out there who will ask the Holy Father to have this verse included in the Mass readings of Roman Rite? In this time of crisis, we need a Saint John the Baptist who defends God’s teaching on human sexuality against the Herod’s that compromise God’s loving law.

Taylor Marshall, PhD


Question: Should the Catholic Church revise the Lectionary and include Romans 1:26-32 in the readings for Holy Mass? You can leave a comment by clicking here.

Sample New Saint Thomas Institute Video from Dr. Taylor Marshall on “How to Explain Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality”:

Comments Policy: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic. If your comment contains a hyperlink to another site, your comment automatically goes into "Comments Purgatory" where it waits for release by way of moderation.

  • Bipin Zacharia

    Yes. the lectionary has to be revised to include as a prayer request to protect the family.

    • Brett Page

      Yes to protect the family. By ensuring a decent minimum wage and affordable health care for His children. Things Jesus would stand for.

      • Mary

        Christ stated the poor would be with us always, not because He was indifferent to them, but that without salvation, all the food, and material things in the world mean nothing. The lies of the “social justice” scammers are not inspired by Christ, but to deceive the poor to hate and violence.

        • Brett Page

          ‘Food and material things’ have a habit of not meaning much to those who have plenty of them. But to those starving or, perhaps less dramatically, trying to raise God’s children with little or no money, they are very important things. Christ told us to share our material wealth with the less fortunate. Not just to pray for them. To actually divest ourselves of the worldly things which ‘moths destroy and rust corrodes’. That’s where the religious right start to cross their arms and get cranky. Because unlike marginalising homosexuals, sharing material wealth (such as paying their fair share of taxes) involves personal sacrifice. That’s where the rubber hits the road with Christianity. And I have absolutely no idea of who you mean by social justice ‘scammers.’ Perhaps you can enlighten us.

  • Donna Ruth

    I noticed this immediately at Mass last Tuesday. How could they stop at verse 25? I have noticed other key passages of Scripture left out of the readings over the years. Who cobbled together the readings for the Lectionary? When? Have the readings been changed since the new lectionary was first formulated?

    And then, to add insult, our pastor, overlooking the rich food for fodder in the Romans verses that actually were there, went on to preach about Pharisees – ummm, that would be us who are not “tolerant.” Sigh … these are not easy times.

    BTW, why at Mass do we never pray for government leaders to be filled with faith, holy boldness and courage as we have been instructed to do in Sacred Scripture?

    • LizEst

      Must be that particular parish, me thinks.

    • Robert Piluso

      The omission of such passages as Romans 1:26-32 is another victory for those in the Church hierarchy who have espoused the tenets of “progressive liberalism”. Whoever approves these “selected” readings should be held fully responsible for misleading Catholics along the road to salvation.

      • Joe Ser

        Hold their feet to the fire.

      • Adrian Johnson

        God has a word for those who alter His Scripture: ” Let them be ANATHEMA !”

    • “Have the readings been changed since the new lectionary was first formulated?”

      The post-Vatican II lectionary was first issued in 1969. The second edition in 1981 – which is the edition currently in use – added a few extra readings here and there for new saints, new Votive Mass formularies, etc., but the Sunday and weekday cycles remained the same. (BTW, Rom. 1:26-32 isn’t in the 1962 Missal either.)

      “[W]hy at Mass do we never pray for government leaders to be filled with faith, holy boldness and courage as we have been instructed to do in Sacred Scripture?”

      Why not ask your priest – and perhaps give him a stipend! – to say one of the following Masses from the “Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions” section of the Missal, on a weekday of Ordinary Time:

      21. For the Nation and State
      22. For Those in Public Office
      23. For a Governing Assembly
      24. For the Head of State or Ruler
      29. For the Progress of Peoples

      There is actually a lot of material in the Ordinary Form Missal that is not used by a lot of priests, largely in my experience because they don’t know it’s there. In my opinion, we should all familiarise ourselves with the contents of the Missal and encourage our priests to use all of it!

      • Daniel

        I try to use those when I can and when the perfect opportunity strikes. For example, I used Eucharistic Prayer VI this past weekend. The challenge is that we cannot use the “Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Occassions” on Sunday as those prayers, like Eucharistic Prayer IV, have a Proper Preface that must be used. Unlike Reconciliation I and II, we cannot replace the Preface with the Sunday Preface. So they are limited to weekday. In the revision, it was made clear that the Advent and Lenten Prefaces may be used with Recon I and II. The Ordo will sometimes make a recommendation for 21-29 so if you want to give your priest a hint (especially if they are busy or liturgy is not their forte-but they genuinely do their best) take a look in the Ordo and ask him a few days in advanced.

      • ToS999

        How about we just stop using invented material from the 1960s (invented almost wholesale or reconfigured from outdated material from antiquity – antiquarianism) and just use the traditional forms? Forms that have organically developed and fed the souls of countless Saints through the centuries. I think that makes the most sense.

        • My suggestions assumed (I don’t think without warrant!) that Donna Ruth is in a parish that only has the Ordinary Form of Mass available – and the OF is licit and valid for use!

          I generally agree with your desire to return to the traditional liturgical forms, and there are votive Masses in the 1962 Missal that would be suitable for offering for government leaders. And I have substantial concerns about how the reforms after Vatican II were carried out, particularly with regard to the unprecedented rearranging and editing of the prayers in the Missal of the Ordinary Form.

          I would say, however, that not every new composition in the OF Missal is bad or in some way deficient, though IMO each prayer in that Missal needs to be looked at individually, and in detail, to judge whether or not it is consonant with the liturgical tradition and worth keeping in any future “reform of the reform”.

    • Faustina11

      Find another parish if you can.

    • Brett Page

      We do. And we have been rewarded with health care reform which benefits the working poor, despite the opposition of evil forces who would also keep the minimum wage for the poorest at their current level. The poorest. You know, those who would be Christ’s core constituents were He to return today.

  • bosita

    Yes. It is important not to gloss over serious actions that affect our spiritual lives especially when they are so blatantly pushed as a human right yet it is so clearly explained as not natural , that is deviant from nature hence can surely not be a human right.

    • Gloria Hensley

      We are to speak the Truth in love. Many people don’t even know what is a sin and what isn’t any more. Just because something is “legal” because a group of men say so, doesn’t mean it is morally righting the eyes of God. We use to hear: love the sinner, but hate the sin” – now we are being asked to love the sin. Jesus said “Go and sin nor more” Too much “political correctness” will enable people to continue walking in the sin that will condemn them, so we who encourage that will be held accountable as in Ezekiel 3:18 “. . .and I will hold you accountable for his blood”. We are in the business Jesus was, e.g. to save souls from the grasp of the devil, not help them into the pit of destruction.

      • TripleTriple

        I agree that the truth must be spoken in love, but going around telling people to stop sinning isn’t the whole truth, its only half the truth, which means its not completely loving. Before Jesus told people to sin no more he forgave them of their sins. Are we just yelling for people to stop sinning without truly letting them know they are forgiven if they ask? Sometimes people use the line “go and sin no more” but I find its often in spirit of dishonesty, meaning it lacks the full truth. The times Jesus told people to “go and sin no more” was after he saved their life from death, in the case of the woman caught in adultery, or when he healed the man and talked to him in the temple. If somebody saved my life from imminent death by defending me against attackers or if a person healed me.. I would be incredibly grateful and would more likely take any advice that person gave me.. but if somebody just started giving me instructions without showing me love or without changing my life… it wouldn’t be as genuine and wouldn’t impact me the same.

  • LizEst

    “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”– St. Augustine

    • Hervé Villechaize

      I like many of the things St. Augustine has to say but this is not one of his wiser statements. First, I think depending on your political leanings, you’re going to reject and/or emphasize certain aspects of the gospel over others. Also, while I think what we emphasize or reject says a lot about our own psychology, I disagree that it means you “believe” yourself over the gospels. That seems like a non-sequitur.

      • PalaceGuard

        Simply. it means that you have given yourself over prideful idolatrous adoration of yourself. It’s a sinful tendency for all of us, and one for which we need to be constantly vigilant.

        • Hervé Villechaize

          Of course it is;-)

  • Thomas Lazarus

    Absolutely Not. They have no right to take one WORD out of the bible. Don’t they not know this fundamental thing. God help those responsible.

    • They can’t read the entire Bible at every Mass (or even in the entire lectionary).

      • Greg Broussard

        Obviously he did not imply reading the entire bible at every mass. But to pull out a verse/s because it goes against what is trendy and accepted is no doubt against Church teaching.

      • Patti.RCIA

        If I may be so bold as to interject, I think Thomas wasn’t trying to imply that the whole Bible or even the whole New Testament be read at every Mass, but rather, that the verses shouldn’t be cut short due to secularist thoughts on the Bible.

        This often happens when other ‘Christians’ quote “one liners” out of the Bible while neglecting to continue reading the verse. However, we (Catholics) belong to the fullness of Faith and shouldn’t omit vital parts of the verses being read, particularly at Mass.

        • Whether or not that verse was pulled to avoid homosexuality being mentioned isn’t entirely clear (at least I’ve seen no evidence presented that would allow us to conclude that particular motive). I agree those verses need heard today more than ever, but let’s face the facts – the Church has to “pick and choose” what we hear at Mass. The new lectionary gives us A LOT more Bible than we’ve ever had before, but Mass isn’t primarily a Bible study. We ought to be reading the WHOLE Bible outside of Mass (and the CCC too), both of which clearly state the Church’s stance on homosexuality.

          • sw85

            The old lectionary was quite effective at picking and choosing what we heard at Mass — we were told this was a defect and thus precisely the reason it is no longer used!

          • Good point.

          • emiliani

            I can’t fault anything you’re saying; however, I often keep hearing that implied comment of yours (i.e., “the Church hasn’t changed any of its teaching”) with increased frequency lately.

            What is happening all of a sudden that that comment seems to be so necessary?

          • What is happening is that people are claiming the Church will change her teachings and thus people need reminded that, as the Church hasn’t in 2,000 yrs, so she won’t now.

          • Ruthie Guidry

            Catholic Leaders are failing to speak strongly on what is morally correct in fear of not being politically correct. They are entering places they have no place in such as the government. Jesus and the Saints called out the truth whether it offended someone or not. Our Church Leadrers lack boldness in prclaiming the truth in the name of political correctness.

      • Edward Power

        That’s a disingenuous comment….and you know it!

      • Ruthie Guidry

        It is my understanding that in the 3 year cycle of the the Church, years A,, B, and C, we are supposed to read the whole bible. Of course, this means attending daily Mass, but no part of the bible should be omitted. Someone please corer react me if I am wrong.

        • emiliani

          You’re wrong. 100% of the Bible has never been covered in the 3-year cycle. And as has been pointed out, this particular verse wasn’t included in the previous Lectionary … or the one before that. There’s no NEW conspiracy of silence on the issue of same-sex attraction.

  • KristinLA

    Offensive verses are left out, yet we are told that we hear the whole Bible read at Mass (Sunday & daily) over the course of 3 years.

    • Dan

      Whoever told you that the whole bible is contained in the lectionary was mistaken. If you were to attend mass every Sunday and every weekday you would hear about 70% of the NT and 15% of the OT over the course of 3 years.

      I don’t agree with omitting potentially offensive passages, either, BTW.

  • Fenton Mole

    ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!! But why do I think that the high level of homosexuals in certain seminaries probably has a lot to do with it?

    • Joycey

      I really think a disproportionate number of homosexuals do enter seminaries, monasteries and convents. Some are chaste and do God’s bidding. Others are infiltrators and work to destroy the church from the inside. Most recently was the hypocrite priest Kryzsztof Charasma who flouted Catholic/Christian chasteness. He was having a gay relationship for a long time whilst in high position. Cardinal O’ Brien is yet another.

      • emiliani

        Joyce, are you cool casually throwing information about Cardinal O’Brien out like that?

  • Fr. Lawrence Love

    Absolutely yes! It needs to be revised to include the missing verses. We cannot be afraid — actually, we are urged — to engage in fraternal correction, something which is so not practiced anymore. Thank you, Dr. Marshall!

    • Father would it be wrong for a priest to add the missing verses – or would this break the rubrics?

      • Donna Ruth

        It strikes me a wise priest would do the scheduled reading and then in the flow of his homily go on to read and refer to v 26

        • James Rosa

          Yes Ruth I agree! But how many priests would have a back bone to do so? We must pray for good and holy seminarians to enter the priesthood!

          • standtall909

            Not many. We have not had homilies with backbone for the last 50 years, at least with most of our Priests. It has been mostly ‘fluff’ and NO CHALLENGE to actually follow and stand for the truth of Christ. The modernists in the Church have managed to take all the meat out of actually preaching the Gospel of Christ…….we’ve been fed pablum and sometimes even poison since Vat. ll, not from all but from most, and that’s a fact.

      • Fr. Lawrence Love

        Dr. Marshall, I looked at the previous 1970 Lectionary for Tuesday of the 28th Week of OT, Cycle 1, and it is the same reading — Romans 1:16-25. What we have to remember is that the weekday readings are not continuous from day to day. On Monday of week 28, vv 8-15 were/are not used. On Wednesday vv 12-29 of Chapter 2 are/were not used. Going on thru the rest of the week, major sections of chapters 2-4 are not included in the official readings. So it would appear that not recently have the anti-homosexuality verses been excluded, but that they have not been in the Lectionary for many years, at least in Cycle 1 for weekdays. Therefore, a priest may not add them onto the reading as proclaimed for that day, for we are told in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vat II, section 22, subsection 3 “Therefore, no other person, not even if he is a priest, may on his own add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy.” And I do not violate that dictum.
        Having said that, I agree completely with the comments of Donna Ruth that came right after mine, and that is there is no reason a priest cannot read the verses and comment on them in his homily.

        • It’s also perhaps worth noting that Rom. 1:26-32 are not in the 1962 Missal either. And you are right, Father, to point out the semi-continuous nature of the NT readings in the post-Vatican II lectionary.

          With regard to Dr Marshall’s question about adding “missing” verses, the General Introduction to the Lectionary (GIL) states that “In the celebration of Mass the biblical readings with their accompanying scriptural chants may not be omitted, shortened, or, worse still, replaced by non-biblical readings” (GIL 12) It doesn’t say anything about lengthening them!

          The priest also has a surprising amount of leeway regarding the readings on weekdays: “The one using the Order of Readings for weekdays must check to see whether one reading or another from the same biblical book will have to be omitted because of some celebration occurring during the week. With the plan of readings for the entire week in mind, the priest in that case arranges to omit the less significant selections or suitably combines them with other readings, if they contribute to an integral view of a particular theme.” (GIL 82)

        • Adrian Johnson

          A few years ago, I was lector when I had to read Isaiah 7:14 which in the lectionary was “Behold a young woman shall conceive.” I smoothly read, “Behold a Virgin shall conceive.” I was waiting to be reprimanded afterward, but I wasn’t. Had Father challenged me on it, I would have said, “I’ll be damned it I will read any mistranslation that casts aspersions on Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.”

          –However as I look back on the incident, I wonder if nobody challenged me because they knew I was spoiling for a fight about it 🙂 Despite what you say above, It wasn’t as if we hadn’t been reading “virgin” in this verse only a few years before. I’d not hesitate to do it again — .

          • Gallibus

            Concerning this translation of ‘young woman/virgin’, David Nathan – a converted Jew has this to say in his book ‘Awake o Israel’: –
            ‘Wow, this is absolutely amazing! The God who made the universe with outstretched arm, who created the heavens and earth by the words of His mouth, who split the Red Sea, who stopped the sun from going down can only use a pregnant young woman as a sign of the coming Messiah?
            ‘What is so miraculous about a young woman becoming pregnant, that would herald the coming of the Messiah?
            ‘Every year millions of young women give birth to children, how are we to know which one will be the Messiah?
            ‘This is a blatant mistranslation of the Hebrew text.
            ‘The Hebrew word for a young woman is ‘na’arah’.
            But the Hebrew word found in Isaiah 7:14 to describe this young woman is the Hebrew word ‘almah’ which is translated ‘damsel, maid or virgin, who has been veiled.’
            ‘In Biblical times it was not uncommon for virgins to wear a veil and the word ‘almah’ is specifically used to describe virgins, as opposed to the Hebrew word ‘bethuwlah’ which could mean a bride or an unwed woman or else a virgin.
            ‘The correct translation of Isaiah 7:14 should read, “behold, the virgin is with child…”

          • Adrian Johnson

            Thank you Gallibus. I hope lots of people here print out your comment and sneak it as a book-mark into offending Lectionaries — and keep a copy in their wallets. This, in case they are challenged elsewhere for reading the verse correctly when the book has the willfully-ambiguous version by deceitful translators (let them be anathema !) who aimed to foster heretical disbelief about the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mother of God.

      • Hervé Villechaize

        I think this would probably fall under a spirit of recalcitrance. Obedience should probably be the way to go rather than trying to reinsert the verses.

    • Joe Ser

      Very few even know about fraternal correction hanging their hat on “do not judge”.

    • Hervé Villechaize

      I think changing the lectionary, by removing the ignorant and offensive text, IS a form of fraternal correction to those such as yourself who insist on having a misguided morality that doesn’t take into account a better – less repressed – understanding of sexuality.

  • Linda Vallot

    The way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, through His teachings–ALL of His teachings. Many people do not read scripture and only hear God’s word in His church. Therefore, Romans 1: 26-32 should be included in the Lectionary so that those who do not read scripture on their own can be informed of God’s teachings by way of the church.

    • James Rosa

      Amen sister!

  • aja

    Yes. But I wonder how many people care enough to insist on the right to hear all of the truth.

  • The verses that have been omitted should be reinstated. “LizEst” (comment below) quotes from St. Augustine, and she is spot on. I cannot do better than repeat what she wrote:

    “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”– St. Augustine

    One day, if only far in the future, the omitted verses WILL be reinstated. It is not possible to suppress truth indefinitely. It has a way of making itself felt and known, doesn’t it?

    • Gloria Hensley

      Thank you – yes, it will be known again, but how many may be lost before that?

      • James Rosa

        You are so right! How many will be lost? Those who put this Lectionary together have a lot of blood on their tainted hands!

  • TheostudentStJoe

    Another example of watering down our faith. My parish priest never utters the words “we pray”, degenders all the read language in the order of the Mass as well as the readings and preaches discipleship but no responsibility or consequences for our daily sins. The deacon preaches apostasy–non celibacy for priests, women on the altar, encouraging “rich” to give more to the poor. I am moving to another diocese where the Word of God is preached and lived through works. I am done with Baltimore Diocese!

    • Patti.RCIA

      I beg you to reconsider; your voice matters, find others who agree with you and talk to you priest(s) and deacon(s) directly, ask them the hard questions of why they are catechizing less than the truth of the Gospels. Write to your bishop… you are not the wooden bell unless you allow yourself to be, so speak with love but be firm about what the Catholic Church professes.

      • Donna Ruth

        In our Canadian diocese faithful Catholics write and write to our bishops and laughingly refer to the oft-overflowing circular file that must be down there in the chancery. We rarely get replies. So much for Canon 212. We are nobody – not even the ubiquitous “children of the light.”

        And our daily missalettes contain this go-get-your-reading-glasses disclaimer gem in 6 point: “Adaptations for liturgical use have been made to selected Scripture texts. These adaptations have been made to bring the readings into conformity with Ordo Lectionum Missae, editio typica altera (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanus 1981), the Lectionarium, and Liturgiam Authenticam, as well as to facilitate proclamation. These adaptations were prepared by and are the sole responsibility of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Adaptations copyright 2009.

        • Patti.RCIA

          Not all diocese are the same, I have written to bishops and received responses, often in agreement, and rarely not in agreement, but always with an explaination of why they agree based on scriptural reasons or the CCC, or why they disagree based on ‘pastoral’ reasons. I always start my letters by saying a pray to St. Catherine of Siena (who is also the saint I chose to be my confirmation name); perhaps my devotion to her has something to do with receiving responses?

        • Adrian Johnson


    • Mary Irene

      You should go to The Church of The a Immaculate Conception in Towson: my cousin’s Pastor there.
      He and his assistant are awesome!

  • Paul Curtin

    Jesus never tried to politically correct. He spoke the truth. He called a spade a spade. Everything in the bible is the word of God – without exception. Leaving passage out of liturgy because it makes some people offended or uncomfortable is hiding the truth. Speak all of the truth but have love and compassion for those who have trouble with it. Pray for them and try to help them.

  • Yes, of course they should. I doubt the passage was clipped to avoid homosexuality being condemned (after all homosexuality has only recently been promoted to forced, universal acceptance by the cultural), but it certainly needs to be heard from the pulpit now more than any time since the classical world in which Paul wrote those words.

  • Tom Williams

    The Church stood against Galileo 400 years ago when it recognized his propositions could endanger the faith. When Jesus is removed from The Center of the universe where He choose to incarnate Himself and remain in His Church, which scripture supports, we can disclaim scripture at will. If the earth holds no special place in creation and everything came together by chance, then faith in Jesus as God only becomes a nice idea.
    The Church has bowed to and placated the culture to not offending which has culminated in our present situation in The Church. For 1600 years the Fathers of the faith and Saints that followed all believed the earth was at the center of the universe because that is how it is presented in scripture.

    • Joe Ser

      Check out theprinciplemovie com

  • Gerard

    LizEst and Robert Bennet are spot on with St Augustine, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”– St. Augustine.”
    Dr Marshall, Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

  • AnneM040359

    Does not the Bible warns againsts either adding or subtracting from God’s word?

  • Don

    I recently converted to Catholicism in 2015. the catholic church loses the born again Christian due to not teaching all the scriptures. They new mega churches teach all the scriptures but also welcomes all.

    • Joycey

      Welcome home! 😀

    • Joe Ser

      The Catholic church welcomes all. Being a practicing Catholic is key. Living the joy of the gospel is trying to reduce sin.

    • Stephanie

      Be careful. It won’t be long before the mega churches condone and promote the sin of sodomy, just as they slowly began to condone contraception starting in the 1930’s. The sexual revolution would have died before it started if the churches stood their ground, because of the high practicing (church/Mass-going) Christian population at the time. Mega churches generally are about making people feel good and making money, they do not want to “offend” too many people or they’ll lose money.

      Protestants are already missing seven books from the Bible (so they actually do not teach all the scriptures), and it would not be shocking it they cut out the “offensive” verses against sodomy, “interpreted” them to be talking about something else, or read them and then told the congregation that the verses are either outdated or only for that specific group of people.

  • Mark Trimble

    Yes. If the Church is to survive, it must be credible. We must let our “‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes’ and y(our) ‘No’ mean ‘No'” (James 5:12). If it is a part of our Dogma, then it should be a part of our Liturgy. To do less is hypocrisy. Our Church’s position on homosexuality is not motivated by fear or hate, but by love. The kind of love that cares more about a person then perhaps they are able to appreciate or even comprehend. This too, needs to be clearly communicated, so that faithful Catholics do not themselves become confused by society’s seemingly compassionate arguments. For society’s compassion on this point is, at best, misguided and, at worst, godless. There is nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that we need feel confused about or ashamed of. It is tied in faith and reason to the Word of God and is more than capable of withstanding any assault brought before it. Let us use it.

    • Gregory Doyle

      Of all the comments, I believe Mr. Trimble’s comments reflect my views on this subject. I have worked with and know and call several men and women who have stated their homosexual/lesbian life style my friends. I don’t know for sure, of course, but perhaps those who have made this decision to remove these versus did so out of the belief that the language used is more “condemning” or “harsh” and therefore would turn them away from the Church by leaving them feeling that they are condemned and cannot be “saved” through God’s mercy and love. To me that would be a greater sin. At least by leaving the door open the chance to inform and evangelize these folks would be greater rather than simply condemning their actions.

      • James Rosa

        The greater sin would be to withhold the truth!!! Let them KNOW they are welcomed by letting them SEE the LOVE we have for one another! Scripture says that in St. John 13:35, By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” LOVE is the key to change! Let them know what says the Lord and let the Holy Spirit do His job by convicting them of their sin! God clearly says in Ezekiel 3:18, When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. The bible goes on to say in, St John 8:32, Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Vatican II has done enough damage in communicating the true teachings of the Church!

        • Gregory Doyle

          Thank you James, I agree and also believe these missing versus need to be added back into the readings. The greater challenge is also two fold: explain why these versus were removed in the first place (? ); and then be prepared to educate all of us so that we can “defend” the Church’s regarding this subject to the greater world! That would be a great starting point to open discussion on how best do we bring the truth of the gospel to those who believe they are honestly doing “no wrong”. As Dr. Marshall as already stated many Catholics support the homosexual life style, even beyond the general population! To me that means many Catholics are ill equipped and very uncomfortable to “defend” the Word in a loving and compassionate message. Full disclosure: Including me! God help me!!

          • James Rosa

            Me also George! Let us pray for one another! Be blessed brother! 🙂

          • Gregory Doyle

            I will and God bless us all. To Jesus through Mary!

    • Mark, I could not have said this better than you. Thank you.

  • Paula

    Those verses definitely need to be put back!

  • Sophie Tait

    The Church must teach the truth at ALL COSTS. Having these verses read at Mass gives priests a good opportunity to instruct the faithful on how to properly address these types of issues. A good number of mass-goers are poorly cathechized as it is. The priests and bishops need to step up and be bold. Not everyone is going to open up the CCC and find out for themselves. They need to hear the truth directly from the mouths of their priests!

  • EKMcM

    As one who reads the news almost daily, the people need to be reminded that it may not be their job to go around and do the killing of the sinners.

  • MaryB435

    Of course ALL the passages of the Bible should be included in the Lectionary. We do know that the Bible is TRUE. We do not have the right to “edit” Scripture for the purpose of political “correctness”.

  • Tom Saltsman

    As a former homosexual, I was actually more convicted by the other writings of St. Paul against various forms of fornication that included homosexuality, the ones in say I Corinthians and Ephesians. I think that was so because they were less focused on homosexuality that self righteous heterosexuals have always done to justify themselves. It’s much easier to condemn the sins of others than our own sins.

    I think Bipin Zacharia has a good point about making the readings family friendly. We, of course, don’t know their motivations. We only know they can’t anything take it out of the Bible. All this proves that we can’t be lazy in our private study of scripture. We can’t be like little birds in the nest, stupidly and helplessly waiting to be fed our next meal. We must feed ourselves. We must search for the Truth individually. Even the Catechism and Vatican II documents reaffirm this need for individual initiative.

    BTW, I took the “cure” for my homosexuality found in Matthew 19:12 and all the other verses than encourage cutting off sin-leading body parts. Don’t let any kid you. It works FANTASTICALLY! I am now totally free of homosexual temptations. The “cure” used to be quite common but it would appear that some party has an agenda and it’s not Christian ethics by a long shot.

  • Jim

    I don’t see any huge conspiracy, but think that somewhere some parent complained about having to explain this verse to their 10 year old on the ride home. This is an issue because unlike many protestant churches we don’t hide our young children in a daycare or Bible study group during sermons. However, the Church informs us that the entire Bible will be covered in Masses over a period of time, so there lies the conflict. Not knowing the actual justification it is impossible say yes or no to this reading during Mass.

    • The average age of exposure to porn in the USA is age 8 years. Also Saint Paul words it in a way that little ones wouldn’t probably pick up on.

      And…Saint Paul intended his Epistle to the Romans to be read in the liturgical assembly of the congregations in Rome.

    • Stephanie

      I actually think tweens might need to hear about this if it doesn’t go over their heads and they ask questions. Remember how little kids are told not to let people touch their private parts? This is sort of a related subject, especially considering groups like NAMbLA are targeting young boys. They want to lower the age of consent to 12-13 or to get rid of it completely. Even Planned Parenthood is distributing condoms to older elementary school kids. Kids should know that sodomy is a sin and to report someone to the authorities if they attempt to sodomize them.

  • cm

    Thank Fr.Taylor for all your constant daily work to support our knowledge and understanding of our Faith, and how to be in the world of today- how to live and show ourselves without fear, and with courage, to hopefully enlighten others with joy. I feel that ‘PCism’ was carefully created to be like a snake in the grass and to silence good and allow evil to shout and stampede.. Enough, before i sound most un Christian! But thank you again for this daily uplift you give. Caroline Minto. St.Mary Mags Mortlake, London Uk

    • I haven’t been “Fr Taylor” since my Anglican days. Please call me Taylor or Dr M.

      • Mary Irene

        You are not a Catholic priest now?

  • This is why many leave the Church. It waters down the Faith to the extent that it is hard to believe that God is any different from the culture of death. It makes it difficult to be proud of being catholic. It is always better when parents have higher expectations for their children. Then children have higher expectations for their parents and so both sides are inspired to grow and be more prepared to overcome difficulties in the near future. This takes us to the strength to the strength of the to live or die in the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My sincere opinion. God bless!

  • John Germain

    This happened at the hands of ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) It is the same group that gave us the Mass translations that St. JP II insisted be revised to be more literal with the official Latin text. St. John Paul II also wrote a document as a guide for translations (Liturgiam authenticam) and he had to appoint a separate commission (Vox Clara) to oversee ICEL because of their constant refusal to follow the guiding document. All that has happened since Vatican II which the council never did, never intended, and was still being attempted by pope Benedict XVI to fix is still not repaired. This whole topic could fill a very large book that would show why the church is in it’s sad state now. If Catholics new the whole story, the “new mass” would look a lot different and be much more reverent. It would be a mass that reflected the true intent of Sacrosanctum concilium, a mass that is a beautiful blending of the ordinary form and the extraordinary form, a mass that would unite the church and truly be the source and summit of Catholic teaching. There will be no true unity in the church until the ordinary form of the “source and summit” is totally repaired! Knowing the truth of all the proceedings that took place following the end of the second Vatican council would drive most Catholics back to the extraordinary form of mass.

    • Joe Ser

      I hear my deacon and priests changing to inclusive language on the fly while the faithful are reading what is in the pews. It is all agenda driven.

    • I agree. Sacrosanctum Concilium was mostly ignored in the last 50 years. It’s truly sad. We should ask for the prayers of St John Paul II and St John XXIII!

    • sw85

      Is it just an issue of the translation? Does the Latin lectionary not also lack this verse? If the latter, ICEL is not to blame.

      • John Germain

        ICEL translated not only the mass, but also the lectionary, and there is a publishing company in Chicago that worked with them that published the hymnals, prayer books etc. as I said their is so much to this that is all tied together, it is deep, and it would take a very large book to cover it all. There are many small books that cover individual aspects of this, but no book to my knowledge that covers it all. I have been following it from Catholic books, magazines, newspapers, on-line, and official church documents etc. for more than 45 years now. I can tell you that we have now is still not what the magisterium wanted, but a compromise. The resistance to fully implement Vatican II as written in it’s documents is still strong, but not as much as it was in the 70’s and 80’s. But to answer your question directly, yes, the mass using 1965 missal also uses the 1965 lectionary. I have a question for all the “Latin mass haters” out there; If when you die and arrive at the gates of heaven, peering in, see that they are singing Gregorian chant and praying the Latin mass, would you refuse to enter?

  • Ines

    absolutely, the truth should be told as it is without shame even if that gets us (church) in trouble, better to be troubled by men and not by God. After all the church’s job is to proclaim the truth to instill change in hearts in minds and that cannot be accomplish if we are afraid to offend others.

  • Ana Maria Pocasangre

    Yes! We cannot commit the sin of adding or removing words from Holy Scripture. Also, the Church has to proclaim the truth. If we do not tell sinners they are wrong, how can we (sinners) repent and change our life styles?

    What can we do to make this revision happen yesterday!!!

  • James Bond

    Yes, by all means revise the lectionary to include the passage on homosexual behavior. It’s God’s word!

  • william mcintosh

    Good Work Taylor Marshall-expose this insidiousness-EXPOSE THE LAVENDER MAFIA!!!

    • Wait and watch. They will strike back. They are very petty.

      • Gallibus

        They are also very organized, connected, well funded and determined. See the exposed Plan of Free Masonry to infiltrate and destroy the Church from the inside on the catholicbooksanddevotions com site. It is very revealing – also what Our Lady said about 666 in another article on that site as extracted from a message to Fr Gobbi.

  • Gloria Hensley

    Definitely should put those words of Spiritual inspiration in the lectionary. Jesus inspired it through the Holy Spirit to be written. If it wasn’t that important Jesus wouldn’t have put it in the Holy Scriptures. If the Catholic Church is going to remove what Jesus said, then the Catholic Church is going to guilty of what the Word says in Revelations: 22:19 . . .And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy , God will take away from him his share in the Tree of Life and in the holy City”. The ‘book’ may be explicitly for the Book of Revelations – but could also extend to the whole of God’s Word. I am a revert and have come to know and love and cherish my Catholic faith – but to change the Word of God – to leave out that which Jesus determined to make known – to me sounds VERY dangerous.

    • John Germain

      No “s” on the book of “revelation” it’s singular!

  • susan thurman

    Again, just another thing changing for the worse in todays world. I thought the Bible states not to change the words of the Bible. This speaks a lot for the Catholic church. It is getting where I don’t tell anyone where I go to church anymore. I broke from the Episcopal church because of them condoning homosexuality and joined the Catholic church…..gosh, do I have to go church searching again.

    • Gallibus

      Use your discernment and disregard those who fall away from the truth. The Catholic Church is still, and will always be, the channel of God’s Grace to us but it is target number one for satan.

  • Ed Graveline

    Absolutely it should be included. Especially in light of today’s cultural morass where if you deny publicly gay marriage, you can be fined, slandered or imprisoned.

    • Gallibus

      It is time to put these corrupt politicians in jail!

  • Lori S

    Yes, all of scripture should be included. Who is responsible for writing the lectionaries? I’m disgusted with my church. I’m sick of compromise, I’m sick of sappy, cutesy homilies that say nothing. God forgive us. How am I supposed to have faith in church teaching, the infallibility of the pope, the magisterium when this nonsense is going on?

    • Joe Ser

      In addition, our children have suffered and many have left.

      • I know. it is so sad. We need to pray and reach out to our young people in a big way!

        • Joe Ser

          For years my wife and I taught our children right and wrong. Rarely did we hear the clergy speak clearly on this. Our children think, mom and dad =out of touch, even the Priest is not telling us this. We need courageous priests who will help us not undermine us.

    • We laypeople need to create communities to support each other. That’s what I’m trying to do here on this site and with New Saint Thomas Institute.

  • joe cole

    it came to my thoughts that in the story of the prodigal son, the father told the eldest son, “everything I have is yours”. it appears to me that we who keep all things in our hearts, will keep all that our Father has given to us. preserve the liturgy, preserve the faith.

  • Simon Brown

    Is the problem here that we share the lectionaries with other churches, many of whom accommodating the culture on the subject of homosexuality. It is the “common lectionary”. At the risk of reversing that ecumenical project, perhaps we should pull ourselves out of it and be true to our own way. Altering scripture is almost always the signal of heresy.

    • Not quite – they are different things. The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) used by a few Protestant communions is actually based on our post-Vatican II lectionary, not the other way around.

      • Simon Brown

        Oh oh…

  • mphard

    So, as I see it,they didn’t take it out of the New Testament, and still hold that homosexual acts are sinful.And this removal of the passage from the lectionary does not prohibit the priest from teaching the full Catholic doctrine.So….In keeping with the teaching that we are to treat homosexual people with respect and dignity they chose not to focus on this omitted verse.

    i think the bottom line is it doesn’t matter who you are, but sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful.Heterosexual or homosexual.And homosexual marriage doesn’t even enter the equation.

    Now,I am going to ask a question.Not to challenge any teaching, but because I realy don’t know the answer.What if”if” homosexuality is not ” unnatural”.What if this propensity is a normal variation of human genetics.Perhaps it is a anthropologic adaptation to overpopulation.( I am making this up,strictly hypotheticalIt certainly has existed for as long as we have been writing about the human race.We have not found a gene per se, but have have found some genes that may be assoxiated with this behavior.What if Paul, who looked at this behavior as unnatural did so because it was the prevailing belief of human history.He certainly isn’t going to see it as anything else,at his point in time.

    to summarize, my question is,what will the church do with this teaching if it is determined not to be “unnatural”.

    • Joe Ser

      We should look to God’s design of the body and reproductive system. If it not functioning as designed it is because of original sin as we live in a fallen world. Same for marriage. God designed it between one man and one woman.

    • There is “natural prelapsarian” (pre fall) and “natural postlapsarian” (post-fall).

      The body’s response to HIV is a “natural” response post-fall – but that doesn’t mean HIV is natural.

      Likewise, an 11 year old girl will begin mensing early if she lives with a non-biological step-father (scientific fact). This is a ” postlapsarian natural” response but not something in the ideal nature of prelapsarian nature before original sin.

    • Mary Irene

      Could it be that priests fear consequences if they preached the fullness?

      (Which of course, Christ commanded His Apostles to “Be not afraid.”)

  • VeilOfTiers

    Am I correct in assuming that these verses still remain in the readings for Mass in the Extraordinary Form? In Latin, yes…but a Mass-goer should have a missal or propers for the day with a translation. (Not meaning to open a rabbit hole about the TLM…)

    • No, Rom. 1:26-32 is not in the EF Missal. The only parts of the first five chapters of Romans that are read in the EF are 1:1-6 (Christmas Eve) and 5:1-5 (Ember Sat Pentecost)!

  • Collin Babcock

    Are we really ready to allow secularism dictate out faith. This sounds like the “pick and choose” Scott Hahn spoke about regarding his former church before converting to Catholicism. And if the lectionary actually differs from the Scripture, doesn’t that open us up to more criticism in that we say one thing in one place and something else in another place. Maybe we would be open to changing the catechism too. I think we should be consistent and stand up for what we believe and include this missing scripture in the lectionary.

    • Joe Ser

      The lay people have to hold their feet to the fire.

      The lectionary also prefers the short version of St Paul.

  • Patti Day

    Yes, it should never have been omitted. This shows the direction progressives want to take the Church.

  • magdaleni

    This is very serious if this was taken out of the lectionary.
    Who did this? Is this one particular publisher? Or the NCCB?
    Too ,much latitude and discretion to “liturgists” who may believe a deviant form of the faith.

    • Joe Ser

      My bet is certain priests will make sure the lectionary of their liking will be the one in the Church. Within a few miles there are different ones being used.

  • mphard

    Wouldn’t it be helpful that the lectionery merely reflects that sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful?Paul is merely indicating that it is natral law to use our reproductive systems for,well for reproduction.Not for entertainment or stress relief.All of humanJewish history at the time of St Paul understood that homosexuall acts were not Kosher.He had to preach to the Greeks,who had different concepts on that subject.He had to tell them that they were sinful.I know our church differentiates between homosexual preference anf acts.

    • Joe Ser

      The lectionary should be faithful to the original intent.

  • Debra

    I’m displeased to know that those verses listed above are not included in the lectionary. This can’t be right. We believe that the Bible is the Lord’s teaching. We should heed by all that He is teaching. Since when does political correctness supersede the direct teaching of God. I am disappointed.

    • It should be added into the Lectionary as soon as possible. Shall make an appeal to Pope Francis?

  • Joycey

    Homosexuality – both male and female – is NOT natural. Homosexual acts are disordered and against God’s natural laws. Homosexuals are called to be chaste.

    Saint Catherine of Siena, the great 14th century religious mystic, transmitted the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the sin of homosexuality, which contaminated some of the clergy in her time, the Renaissance.

    Referring to sacred ministers who committed this sin, He told her:

    “They [the homosexuals] not only fail from resisting the weakness [of fallen human nature] …. but they do even worse when they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but is disgusting even to the devils themselves whom these depraved creatures have chosen as their lords.

    For Me this sin against nature is so abominable that for it alone five cities were destroyed by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear their iniquity ….

    It is disgusting to the devils not because evil displeases them or because they find pleasure in good, but rather because their nature is angelic and flees upon seeing such a repulsive sin being committed. For while certainly it is the devil that first strikes the sinner with the poisoned arrow of concupiscence, nonetheless when a man actually carries out such a sinful act, the devil goes away.”

    (St. Catherine of Siena, El diálogo,
    in Obras de Santa Catalina de Siena, Madrid: BAC, 1991, p. 292)

    • Saint Hildegaard of Bingen (Doctor of the Church, AD 1098 – 17 September 1179) also spoke of lesbianism being practiced in Catholic women’s convents in the 11th and 12th century. Human nature is the same today as it was then and in Saint Paul’s era.

      Homosexuality has been perennially condemned by the Catholic Church and by her Saints. For bishops today to ignore this teaching is a crime against the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.

  • Tobit

    I am in RCIA and am also gay. I have also been celibate for going on 5 years, and plan to never go back to gay culture or a relationship. I don’t like gay culture, and it made me unhappy for 20+ years.
    The main reason I want to get baptized and accepted into the Catholic church is that my mother recently died and I want all my personal sins (of which there are many) washed away. I believe the Catholic church has all the tools so I can at least go to purgatory, or even heaven when I die. The rest of my family are die-hard atheists so RCIA is an interesting trip to say the least.
    However, I really think the traditionalists need to stop harping on gay people. I disagree that homosexuality is objectively disordered, and find it very concerning that nowhere in the Catechism can I find a similar phrase about other types of sin. Even child molesters are not called objectively disordered. What is up with that?
    Whether the lectionary has the words for what many of you consider the “worst” sin I simply don’t care. In the Bible it also says that those who jip their workers from a fair wage is a sin that cries out to heaven. But, I never see anything about that. So keep on keeping on denigrating gay people, but just know that it keeps a lot of people from joining the church. Just my two cents.

    • Joycey

      My condolences on your mother dying recently.

      Now, you are very much mistaken re homosexuality. It is unnatural, and against God’s law. I think you know that deep down which is why you have turned you back on the immoral homosexual lifestyle and intend to remain celibate and chaste. You are making the correct decision and I wish you the very best in your endeavours. God Bless and may the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Mother protect and guide you under Her Mantle of Purity. +

    • May your mother rest in peace and may you feel the tidal wave of Love and Divine Mercy from Christ in the Church!

      In my post above I noted that all those other sins listed by Paul are also sinful and unnatural. I have also heard sermons on not jipping workers of their wages. I’ve also written blog posts about not depriving workers, and how it’s a sin that cries to Heaven.

      Just because I or someone else calls homosexual acts sinful doesn’t mean that we ignore the other sins. It’s a common strategy to condemn anyone who speaks out against homosexual acts as a “hypocrite.” It is assumed that we just don’t care above divorce, premarital sex, usury, fair wages, or outreach to the poor.

      I think if you followed us around or monitored our check books, you’d be surprised. While I sin and make mistakes, I try to be faithful to Christ in every area – as do millions of others across this planet.

  • Jim Anderson

    Something must be done to correct this. You don’t tamper with God’s written word and get away with it. Saint Jerome, pray for us!

  • Joe Ser

    Tweet and share this post to everyone you know. Tweet your Bishop.

  • Ann Rewind

    This should not surprise us. It is evident now, given the scandal of homosexual men entering the seminaries decades ago, (known in the 1940’s but nothing was done…) that some of them would end up as bishops, which might explain why the bishops did little or nothing to stop these men, until the money ran out from lawsuits! Shame on them. And they influenced the revision of the Sacred Books…Yes, these verses need to be restored.

  • Ce Gzz

    It is systematic…wipe out the N.O. Liturgy so it is “friendly” with all sinners, and more so with those who won’t repent and convert.

  • Christina Pax

    If Catholics want to become protestants, then Catholics might as well pridefully and heretically alter the scriptures. If Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God, then shame on anyone messing with His Word. I find the removal or altering of the scriptures a most disgusting crime. The Catholic Church needs to be concerned with the salvation of souls, and the Truth must never be assaulted.

  • Dalia Morr Nino

    Jesus said: “heaven and earth will pass, but my words shall never disappear.”

    In Romans 1:26-32 Paul spoke about “unnatural relations. ”
    We can’t just omit that. No matter how unfair it is for us. It’s what’s fair in God’s eyes. And He is the just, merciful and fair forever.

    • Joe Ser

      Might as well eliminate the troublesome OT passages too.

      Scrub it all clean and the atheists will love it.

  • Kay Priddy

    Absolutely, it should be reinstated!

  • Janie Harris

    If it should be included anytime, it should have been this year with the Supreme court ruling. I just got off the phone with Magnificat. Anyone who wants to ask about the “whys”, it has to be in writing. Here is the address”
    Magnificat USA
    Attn. Editorial Dept.
    PO Box 834
    Yonkers, NY 10702

    • In defense of Magnificat – they did not omit it. They are simply following the authorized lectionary of the Catholic Church.

  • WhyDoYouCare

    Isn’t this the same thing Luther did with his German bible? It is coming to that, methinks….Soon they will propose a revision of the Bible itself or just produce a version without the “trouble” verses.

    God help his children….A lot to judge.

  • Anita Schulkers

    Instruction to the faithful needs to include all of the verses in Romans 1 not just those parts that will not offend. We are living in times when we do not want to know the truth. The truth will give us freedom. Why stay in the darkness except to promote Satan’s agenda. His is to seek and destroy. God Have mercy on the souls of those clerics who will not give the total truth to their congregation. God will be the judge of all.

  • Put this back into the lectionary….we sheep are being badly catechized and our souls are in dire, mortal risk ending us in perdition!! Our Bishops are keep us in the mode of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”, and they will lose their souls for it!!

  • Mary Dee Goettsche

    It’s hard to imagine that we are being fed “cafeteria style” Christianity, where we can pick & choose what scriptures we will listen to, and not be fed the entire message from our Lord!!!!!

  • kaysandee

    Yes, it should be included and emphasized in teaching the faithful. This kind of deception is why we are bleeding youth at such an alarming rate. And if this blatant omission is being foisted upon us, what other additions or omissions are we being “conditioned” with?

  • CL

    I strongly believe that the omitted verses should be included in the lectionary. The question now is what should we do? More than ever, our priest should be courageous
    in the pulpit. There are so many Catholics that
    are confused about the teachings of the Catholic Church and the priest are not doing anything about it!

  • Mary Dee Goettsche

    This is NOT true Catholicism!!!!!!!

  • richard ruesch

    another prime example of the evilness of our times…..woe to those who manipulate God’s will that all men shall know the truth and His ways. stay with the Traditional Latin Mass as celebrated by the FSSP or SSPX priests; their orders are and will remain as Traditionalists.

  • sw85

    This is not the least of the problems with the reformed lectionary. Scrap it altogether, I say — the bulk of the old one had been in continuous use since the time of Gregory the Great for Heaven’s sake!

  • It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that Rom. 1:26-32 *never* occur in the readings of the 1962 Missal either, so talk of “omission” or “cutting out” is perhaps a little over-the-top in this particular instance.

    I think that a lot of people are misinformed about the post-Vatican II lectionary. There seems to be this idea floating around that, since the Council, we read pretty much the whole Bible (or at least the whole NT) at Mass. This is not, and has never been, true; neither was it the aim of those who designed the post-Vatican II lectionary. It would take a seven-year cycle, perhaps longer, to read the whole Bible at Mass, and a three-year cycle is problematic enough in terms of becoming familiar with the readings at Mass! (Incidentally, this is one of the many reasons I prefer the single-year lectionary cycle of the EF.)

    For the record, Rom. 1:26-32 is by no means the only bit of Romans that is not read at Mass in the OF. In the Sunday and weekday cycles of readings, Romans is read:

    a) in the three-year Sunday cycle, on the 1st (A), 2nd (A), and 4th (A & B) Sundays of Advent; 1st (A & C), 2nd (B), 3rd (A) and 5th (A) Sundays of Lent; Easter Vigil (A, B & C); Pentecost (Vigil: A, B & C; also optionally during the day in Year C); Trinity Sunday (B & C); 9th-24th (A) Sundays of Ordinary Time.
    b) in the two-year weekday cycle, during weeks 28-31 of Ordinary Time in Year I.

    The parts of Romans that are not covered by these days are substantial: 1:8-15, 26-32; 2:12-29; 3:1-20, 31; 4:9-12, 14-15; 5:20a; 6:1-2; 7:1-17, 25b; 8:31a; 9:6-33; 10:1-7, 14-21; 11:2b-10, 16-24; 12:3-4, 16b-21; 13:1-7, 14b; 14:1-6, 13-23; 15:1-3, 10-13, 22-33; 16:1-2, 10-15, 17-21. (A few of these parts are used in the propers and commons of saints, Votive Masses, Masses for Various Needs & Occasions, etc., but the vast majority of readings for these sorts of Masses are optional.)

    Personally, I’m more concerned about readings that are in the 1962 Missal but are not used or shortened (deliberately?) in the post-Vatican II lectionary. An example would be 1 Cor. 11:23-29 for Corpus Christi in the 1962 Missal, shortened to 11:23-26 (Year C) in the Ordinary Form and thereby omitting the consequences of receiving communion unworthily.

    • Matthew,

      Excellent information. Is there an online resource to help us gather the helpful information that you compiled? Is there a Lectionary lexicon or something like that?

      • (I think my previous comment may have got lost because of hyperlinks, so this time I’m not including them – which means people will have to use their internet search engine of choice to find the following!)

        There are a few resources available to facilitate this sort of study. I run a blog called “Lectionary Study Aids” that has a number of freely-available resources and other material to aid people in their own study of the Catholic lectionaries. I also blog occasionally over at New Liturgical Movement on the lectionary and other related liturgical matters.

        Fr Felix Just maintains a website that has various lists and tables of the readings in the Ordinary Form lectionary – an internet search for “Fr Felix Just lectionary” should bring up his site in the search results.

        Finally, Corpus Christi Watershed has a PDF of the Ordo Lectionum Missae (1981, 2nd edition), which contains the entire order of readings for the Ordinary Form: Sundays, weekdays, commons and propers of saints, ritual Masses, votive Masses, etc. A search for “corpus christi watershed ordo lectionum pdf” should bring that up.

  • J.Christopher

    at this juncture I think it would be a very good idea

  • Daniel

    Same post I just put on Facebook: This is why I always insist on the longer forms of the readings when I preside. Granted, there is no option for this example but that is why I ensure my Verbum program has the scripture passage up when I prepare-so I can mention the omitted bits.

  • Steve Atchley

    We live in scandalous times. The laity are empowered to correct the clergy in such matters. I have eight children. My wife and I have formed them according to true church teaching. One has strayed and we pray daily for her re-conversion to the truth. Hold fast to the Holy Father in Rome and pray for the salvation of our bishops, whose souls are in grave peril. God will not be scorned forever, but will make His holy will manifest in due time. Meanwhile, offer it up. Steve Atchley

  • Dr. Matt

    I’ve heard a variety of exegeses of this passage. Progressive exegesis emphasizes that Paul is speaking specifically of those people who “gave up” or “exchanged natural relations” for unnatural, not necessarily those that were born with same-sex attraction from the beginning. Contextually, he was condemning those married persons committing “homosexual adultery.” Might be good to address this perspective in order help us have a balanced dialogue.

    • Stephanie

      There is no proof that anyone was born with same-sex attraction. But even if they were, the Bible always condemns homosexual activity, and the Church has always interpreted it as such. That is the problem with the Protestant heresy, each person interprets the Bible to suit their feelings or agendas, without regard to tradition about what the passages actually mean. Sadly, the Protestant heresy has also crept into Catholic circles, and many Catholics are doing the same thing.

  • Toni Pesson


  • Susan Peterson

    Scripture is Scripture. We should read all of it and deal with what God is trying to tell us, not hide from the difficult parts.

  • Fleurdelis8


  • disqus_LssQQVkvlX

    I am not a theologian, nor college educated, but I have read and studied scripture and facilitate scripture studies. There is awesome material out there and highly articulate defenders of the faith! These passages are difficult to preach on at Mass with children, as are the ones about any sexual sin. I don’t know why they are not included, but they are not the only ones. There are other choices of reading within the brackets or not, ie: women being submissive to their husbands is optional. But please, please remember! Our priests are frequently attacked for what they do and what they don’t do, according to the opinions of opinionated people. If you want change, encourage, support, pray for discernment and offer many, many prayers for our priests! We can never assume they are already taken care of because they are priests! They need tremendous amounts of prayer and we need to offer sacrifices and prayer for them! Am I correct in believing that the Bishops conferences do not carry the weight of the teachings of the Magisterium? And yes we have had pretty manipulative translators of the scriptural mass readings in this country, but some things are improving. PRAY, DISCERN, seek the Heart of the Lord! We act on our faith and maybe some are called to examine this to bear more fruit.

  • That is the best rebuttal I’ve ever read for when members of the LGTBQ ‘community’ or its band of Leftie apologists, ask that often-asked ludicrous question, “Where does it say in the Bible that God says homosexuality is a sin?”

    Most people quote Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. There’s nothing wrong with quoting Leviticus but it’s too easily dismissed by the ignorant LGTBQs and their apologists under their misconception of it being outdated and irrelevant due to being in the Old Testament.

  • Larry Peterson

    ABSOLUTELY! Romans 1: 26-32 defines what is Church teaching. It is also upheld in the Cathechism. I pray a schism is not in the making.

  • Celesta

    God Bless You for telling the truth. I agree with what you say. God Help us.

  • ejose

    It must be, if the Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ is still to exist for the salvation of souls. But as to why Romans 1:26-32 is omitted, this Church, which is floating on the waters called Vatican II, is no longer interested to save those souls whom St. Paul says: “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” The words “God gave them up”: what a horrible statement! It is no different from that whom God gave up: Lucifer, the bearer of Light. And so he is now what he is: a demon in perpetual torture. Logically, since God gave up these people, they will eventually fall into that state where Lucifer is, the one who was the first to be given up by God. And, in removing such intended-for-salvation statement of St. Paul (Rom 1:26-32), this 2nd-Vaticanic church is clearly no longer interested to save those souls; rather, such removal is tantamount to letting, or encouraging, them to be in that state for which God gave them up. With plain common sense, it is now conspicuous that this 2nd-Vaticanic church has relinquished the role which Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wrought for His Church, i.e., as God’s instrument for salvation. This church is serving the “word” of the world, and no longer serving the “Word” of the Lord.

  • Richard Finn

    Homosexuality was considered to be against the law, was considered to represent abnormal sexual expression until some time in the 1970’s. During those years, law enforcement, and the courts, became so overwhelmed with other serious breakage of the law, especially that due to illegal drug use, that it became a nuisance to have to deal with charges related to homosexuality. Also Psychiatry, which had considered homosexual activity to be aberrant, gave up, as no form of psychiatric therapy was successful in treating the disorder or changing the behavior of men and women so affected. So the psychiatrists eliminated homosexuality from their list of psychiatric illness. If the last Lectionary was composed in 1971, at that time there was little need to include Rm 26-32, as “everyone” considered homosexuality a perversion. So why include verses with which everyone agreed and might cause questions from children that parents would find difficult to explain, especially to the very young. Now all that is changed. We are told by authorities in government and Medicine that anyone’s expression of sexuality is a personal matter and should not be the concern of others. Since that has become the prevailing attitude, the homosexuals have become more blatant and demanding that everyone should consider their life style as normal, that they be afforded certain rights and privileges which were not available to them, even finally the right to marry. This has been followed by some religions even accepting fully that practicing homosexuals can assume leadership positions and even have valid marriages. In our society this of course will soon be followed by valid divorces, allowing serial marriages among homosexuals, just as is occurring in the heterosexual population. This only shows that once sin is allowed, just how far the effects can go. I believe that in light of what has occurred, that yes Rm 26-32 should be added to our Lectionary, and should be used as a basis for instruction from the pulpit.

    • Brett Page

      “We are told by authorities in government and Medicine that anyone’s expression of sexuality is a personal matter and should not be the concern of others”. No we’re not. No one in government or medicine is, for example, saying that sexual relations with children is acceptable. Or that having it off with the neighbour’s poodle is OK. What medicine and psychiatry is saying is that people are born homosexual in the same way people are born with cleft palettes or one leg. Thy have no choice about how they are wired when born. No one is seriously saying, are they, that a straight man suddenly has an irresistible urge to have sex with another man and ‘chooses’ a lifestyle accordingly. No one is seriously saying that, are they?

      • Richard Finn

        Certainly beastiality and pedophilia are not considered normal sexual behavior by any one or any authority. I really did not consider those when I gave my response. Not everyone in Medicine, or even Psychiatry totally agree with the concept that homosexuality is inborn, that is, genetically determined. If you recall Freud’s hypothesis, he stated that on the way to development of an adult there is a homosexual phase for most humans. To what degree it is expressed may vary, but that it is universal. He further postulated that heterosexual relationship was the mature sexual behavior. Of course much of Freud’s ideas have been abandoned in today’s Psychiatry. However I am still not certain that his ideas were completely wrong.

  • disqus_LKB2A2Hf3X

    Include the omitted words or passages. We don’t want a nice reading, we want to be both challenged and comforted.

  • DianeVa

    Absolutely! It must be revised to include the entire passage from Romans. I never understood how the Lectionary is formulated as it is. Even if the passage is placed in there so often the priests ignore it and preach on something else or there is a stewardship homily. It is like the Protestants skipping over the Bread of Life Discourse John 6:60-66.

  • Eduardo

    Yes, revise the Lectionary.

  • Jared Clark

    Personally, I’d love to see a new lectionary that takes the EF readings as its foundations and adds a first reading on Sundays and other solemnities (I imagine that the OF doesn’t remove a Gospel reading from the EF, so you should hypothetically be able to cross-reference the two lectionaries as a means of choosing the first reading). I get the idea of reading more of the Bible in Mass (though when we substitute hymns for propers, as most parishes do in the OF, I think we probably get more from the EF), but does that good outweigh the consistency of the Mass year-to-year?

    Plus, it’d solve this problem and every other example in the lectionary

  • Spinmamma

    I find it very disturbing to learn these versus have been omitted from the readings. Doesn’t the Bible itself teach that the wicked find God’s word offensive?

    • Kim Bo

      I would like to know which prelate(s) removed the passage in the 1962 Lectionary? Vatican 2 began in October 1962 under Montini (Paul VI). Roncalli (John XXIII) laid the groundwork for Vat 2 and died in September 1962. So what is the publication date of the 1962 Lectionary? Anyone know? Was it one of the first things to come out of Vat 2? Or is it unrelated to Vat 2?

  • Ned

    Re, 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.

    Dont recall the irish bishops quoting the above to the irish people before they went and voted to make same sex marriage legal in ireland

  • Kimberly Rogers May

    The Catholic Church needs to focus more on being “correct” rather than politically correct” . Gods word does not need to be edited.

  • Denise Turchiano

    It must be revised . The church is already suffering from many evil things. I can assure you that I have no issue with leaving the church if this nonsense continues.

  • Amy Wasko

    I believe the Lectionary should be revised to include the bible as written. Yes it is uncomfortable to hear. But there are a lot of truths in the bible that hit too close to home and make us squirm. WE ARE SINNERS! EVERY LAST ONE OF US! I do not choose the same sins you do, but I’m still equal with you in our ability to sin! The reading should be exactly as it is in the bible…and the PRIEST’S job, then would be to explain the reading, should it not? That is an opportunity for him to explain that we don’t hate homosexuals any more than we hate any other person who chooses to sin (AKA: everyone else on the planet, including ourselves) Just because something is popular and everyone is doing it, doesn’t make it right. That’s the hard part of being a truth bearer. Omitting those verses only makes it look as if the Catholic church does not agree with God that this is a sin, and introduces a questioning attitude toward the leaders of the church: What else have they changed about God’s word?

  • Jan

    Yes, I agree that everything that Jesus taught should be included in our lectionary. Moral truth is truth for all, however unpleasant or disagreeable it may be for some. The re-writers of the new lectionary were misguided by social pressures to omit it. We must stand firm in our conviction that the Bible is Holy-Spirit inspired and contains passages that are critical to our faith as Catholics. Let’s not hide behind “political correctness.”

  • RufusChoate

    One of my more interesting cultural-moral theology faultlines in my parish experience was a pair of Priests who were obsessed with ending the death penalty to the exclusion of all else except for a precursory allusion to Abortion.

    During the debate over Homosexual Counterfeit marriage they were completely silent

    With a little research, I discovered that State, where this parish was located in New England, had a 376 year history of applying the death penalty and “barbarously” managed to only execute 137 convicted murderers. The last person executed was Michael Bruce Ross (murdered and raped 8 women) who repented his sins was received into the Church and died a Benedictine Oblate.

    Oddly enough this very same State allows the murder of 140 unborn children without judicial review every two days since 1973 and thinks Homosexuality is a perfectly fine lifestyle worthy of a life commitment. .

    Even if the scripture was changed the truth would still not be taught by these types of Priests and Laity.

  • I am not Spartacus

    Sodomites are naturally subversive and they will sedulously strive to remove, excise, or explain away any rule, rubric, teaching, discipline, praxis ,which opposes their preferred vice and the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has erred wildly and severely by continuing to admit sodomites into seminaries and until the Church returns to Tradition and refuses to accept sodomites into Seminaries (and if any sneak through to refuse them al contact with adolescent males and refuse them any positions of authority) it will be constrained to not only routinely apologise for the sexual crimes it allows queer clergy to commit, it will forever be faced with subversion from within.

  • Oh my God. The Catholic Church is already ripping the Bible, and with the most important of her theologians, St. Paul.

  • BXVI

    It has always bothered me, too, that VERY OFTEN the Mass readings omit verses without using elipses (i.e., …) in the Missal, Missalette, Lectionary, etc. to show that material has been omitted.

    I understand the need to omit material to present a concise and easily understandable point from Scripture but it seems almost dishonest to not reflect that material is omitted. Today’s reading from Romans is a chopped up hodgepodge: 5:12, 15b, 17-19, 20b-21. Was it really necessary to omit 15a, 16, and 20a? Why? And if they are going to chop it up the they really should include the elipses in the text.

    Personally, I would be in favor of reading much longer passages of Scripture in the Mass. It’s the only Bible “reading” many people ever do.

  • Faustina11


  • James Rosa

    Yes! But will they put it back in? Probably not! How can I lead anyone to the truth when the truth is not being taught at mass??? The SSPX has no problem teaching the Catholic faith!

  • Salvatore Buttaci

    What an insidious plague is modern man’s respect for and concurrence with whatever is considered to be socially and politically correct! Why is the Catholic Church omitting Biblical passages inspired by the Holy Spirit? Not to offend those who consider the sinlessness of homosexuality? Sins remain sins; they don’t in time morph into accepted behavior. Yes, we must love all people, even homosexuals, but that does not mean we should accept their unnatural practices as okay. They are not.

    • Brett Page

      Yes, indeed friend. We must include all the Biblical passages referring to the sinfulness of homosexuality. The ones that Jesus uttered, especially. It’ s unlikely God would have walked amongst man in the form of Jesus and not hit the high notes He intended us to receive. Perhaps you could refer us to them.

  • Mary Meza

    Please, restore all that has been lost in the Holy Sacrifice and bring back the Tridentine Mass with all of its Truth for all of the Church.

  • Kelly

    Rom. 1:26-32 was never in any lectionary. So it certainly wasn’t “removed.” Before 1969, the lectionary was in each Sunday mass, not a separate lectionary. In 1970, the Church added 6 times the amount of Scripture to compose a lectionary that would include weekdays also. So the question has never been what should we remove, since nothing has been taken out, ever. The question was always “what should we include?” Rom. 1:26-32 was never included because other verses were selected at the leading of Holy Spirit, and they couldn’t include many other meaningful verses (Rom. 6:1-11 for one)

  • Jennifer Marasco Mann

    It should be included. God’s word is the same yesterday, today and always. God’s word does not change just because man deems something “in style” or “out of style” — permissible or not permissible — politically incorrect or politically correct. It’s troubling that we cannot speak about this. God’s word is true!! Sometimes the truth hurts. You can’t pick what you want to believe. It’s all of God’s word or none. We need honesty and courage in this day of mass apostasy.
    Blessings my friends!
    Cincinnati, Ohio

  • Robert Messa

    In our faith, part of the beauty of it is that we do not believe that scripture alone is the basis of our faith and teaching. The Church, specifically the Magisterium is as much inspired by the Holy Spirit as is Sacred Scripture. I trust the movement of the Spirit in our Church and it’s decisions. “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”, which we pray with the Creed means to me that I believe the Holy Spirit guides us through the Church as much as through Sacred Scripture. The spirit of this comment seems to complain that the Church is not reading all of the scripture passages in the Lectionary that the person who posted this believes should be read. It is fine to complain, but not openly chastise the Church and attribute motives that are neither promulgated by the Church nor believed by the Church. Such discussions are not fruitful toward the salvation of souls as they question the importance of the Sacred Tradition of the Church and authority of the Magisterium.


    Bring the Traditional Latin Mass back to its true place in the Church and we won’t have these problems. All you have to do is compare the 1962 Missal to the current Mass to see that many,mary prayers and Psalms were deleted and/or omitted. They tried (and are still trying) to fix/change/innovate something that was already perfect.

  • Ruthie Guidry

    Absolutely Yes! It is the Word and rule of God. Although this is written in our hearts, it needs to be reiterated because of the society we live in. God’s people need to hear and read the Word of God to realize this is sinful and unnatural. With society announcing 24/7 that homosexuality is acceptable the Roman Catholic Church has a responsibility to a God’s people to remind them of the truth. Acceptance of homosexuality is a lie straight from the mouth of Satan!

  • Ruthie Guidry

    If the Church would start changing the Truth as it is risen, we can expect another split in the Church.

  • Adrian Johnson

    Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it”(also Deuteronomy 12:32). The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).

    Proverbs 30:6 “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” .

    Revelation 22:18-19 states: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Book”

  • catholicguy

    Just avoid the Novus Ordo if possible at all costs. It presents a truncated faith. People may take issue with this but, it’s manifestly evident that the New Mass is dangerous to the formation of one’s faith.

  • Barbara

    Of course it should be put back. The better question would be: why was it taken out? I mean specifically. However, if we went back to the traditional Mass this would be moot. Find one. Go.

  • Stef

    Even though many (and non disputed) verses in the bible (including that fellow Jesus) constantly and unambiguously tell us to give up greed and self-interest for a more compassionate and inclusive way of life this constantly gets ignored by wealthy and non-inclusive church people in favour of squabbling over what other people do in the bedroom (there are also sayings of Jesus that might be pertinent to the idea of judging others). How about as a church we actually follow the readings that ARE in the lectionary, then when we have at least done that we can wonder how else to perfect ourselves hmmm?

  • Jade m

    Yes. No one is allowed to cut off any part of the bible…not even the pope. It should be restored in the Lectionary.

  • carlzilla

    We are now in the time where the lay people, led by the Holy Spirit and our Holy Blessed Mother, must become the vigilant shepherds of our Catholic faith against the wolves of the social justice (communist) movement.

  • antny

    As Pope Paul VI claimed “…The smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican…”

  • Lidia Landon Michael

    I think this article infers an agenda that isn’t there, that these verses were removed because of some sort of support for the Homosexual act. Until someone can tell us how picking the passages works, who decides this, etc I think it’s all speculation. The thing is , we never hear the juicy parts of the Song of Solomon at mass, do we? As a mother of six, I can see how presenting topics that are so blatantly sexual in nature would be imprudent to read at mass. I don’t want my kids introduced to these topics until they are mature enough to understand them.

  • Hans Novel

    Y E S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Charlie500

    Matthew 23:13 Woe to you teachers of the law. You shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter and prevent others from entering.

  • johnnyjj

    It has been my finding that the Catholic church in America is the least Christian of all the mainstream Christian religions. More socialists in the Catholic church than the others. Just look at all the supposed Catholic politicians. It is no wonder when you look at all the left wing priests and bishops. I need to find a good conservative Protestant church to attend.

  • Julian Sage

    These verses need to not be ommited ! Our Faith needs to be proclaimed courageously and not hidden – between the lines , kind of fashion . We need to wrote letters to each of our Ordinaries to make it known that we are to maintain our love for ALL Holy Scripture for teaching , correction and refutation and it is WORTHY to be heard from the ambos and from the devoted Homilists that are faithfully teaching right living in Christ. Let’s continue to pray for our Shepards to be Faithful to Jesus in His Church, in season and out of season. Lectionary use is what prompts so much more that can come from liturgies in communion with Rome. We should remind all that this public ommiting of anti homosexual behavioral scripture and preaching ,needs to be changed as soon as possible for the sake of the salvation of souls. God bless Dr. Marshalls work ! Thank you.

  • JustAnOldBear

    Wow, this is a very powerful passage. I was told about this passage about 15 years ago, but forgot where in Romans it existed. I don’t want to personally condemn people who are homosexual. But they must be warned of their impending doom if they persist on acting on their lustful desires. Thanks Taylor!

  • Mary Gelner

    Pope Benedict gave a homily at his inaugural Mass that warned about the dangers of Modernism, Liberalism, and Relativism. This and many things going on in our Beloved Catholic Faith/Church falls into this heretical belief system! Your OK I’m OK Universalism of the New World Order has taken over the hearts and souls of our Magestirium and I believe that even includes Cardinals and the Pope!!!!!!! May God have Mercy on us!!!!!

  • Mary Gelner

    My St Joseph Edition Bible from 1963 contains these verses but the bible I bought in 1990 has a different verbiage with a watered down interpretation. The New World Order was involved even then!

  • Mary Gelner

    I think that our church leaders in their Quest for ecumenical solidarity has jumped on the train of Liberalism and Relativism!

  • Aloysius Gonzaga

    … this is another reason to question the ongoing relevance of the Novus Ordo Missae. A Missal that excludes scripture based on political correctness is not worthy of our Church..

  • Barbaranne

    The Catholic Church has gone the way of the world instead of vice versa. People now risk losing their souls.

  • Edward Delahoussaye

    God is going to punish mankind for all the errors taught in His Church,going to Mass is like going to a political correct speech.

  • Mainer

    It is very relevant to contemporary history and signs of the times indicating the return of the LIVING GOD JESUS CHRIST. GOD CALL HOMOSEXUALITY AN ABOMINATION.

  • DaleJohn

    The fruit of removing verses from the scriptures and teachings is the removing of chapters and books from the scriptures and teachings and then you must ask yourself, “what shall we do with the rest of the books and teachings?” That is what Marten Luther did and asked. What shall we do with the rest.

  • me3123

    This is exactly why I go to the Latin Mass

  • maymi

    This makes it crystal clear the practice of homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. If the Church does not reinstate the complete passage, how can it fight something intrinsically evil? It is akin to condoning the practice. A group of courageous Bishops…we need you to do something..PLEASE!!!

  • Kim Bo

    I would like to know which prelate(s) removed the passage in the 1962 Lectionary? Vatican 2 began in October 1962 under Montini (Paul VI). Roncalli (John XXIII) laid the groundwork for Vat 2 and died in September 1962. So what is the publication date of the 1962 Lectionary? Anyone know? Was it one of the first things to come out of Vat 2? Or is it unrelated to Vat 2?

    • Just to clear up a few things in your comment:

      1) St John XXIII announced Vatican II in 1959, and was pope during the first session (Oct-Dec 1962). He died in June 1963 (*not* Sept 1962!), before the second session of the Council. Bl. Paul VI was then elected pope and presided over the three remaining sessions.

      2) By “1962 Lectionary”, I presume you are referring to the post-Vatican II lectionary rather than the readings in the 1962 Missal (now known as the Extraordinary Form). Work on this lectionary officially began in 1964, and ended in 1969 with its publication as “Ordo Lectionum Missae”. A second edition was published in 1981, which added readings for new votive Masses and Masses for various needs, gave some more options for ritual Masses, etc., and it is this edition currently in use at Ordinary Form Masses. The Sunday and weekday cycles of the first and second editions are virtually identical.

      3) It is not accurate to say that Rom. 1:26-32 was “removed” from the post-Vatican II lectionary, since it is not in the 1962 Missal’s readings, and, to the best of my knowledge, has never been part of any lectionary.

      • Kim Bo

        Hey thanks for the info, Matt. I glean what I can from different sites on the net. It is, perhaps, a sometimes inaccurate education.

  • paul becke

    Utterly, utterly scandalous. How has this passed the attention of popes? Or, God forbid, been condoned by them?

  • Gallibus

    Catholics have been ‘dumbed down’.

  • klea

    One word: ICEL

    • ICEL are not actually responsible for this. Group 11 of the Consilium, the body set up in 1964 by Paul VI to reform the liturgy, was responsible for the post-Vatican II lectionary first published in 1969 (with a second edition issued in 1981).

  • Kim Bo

    So does anyone know if this passage was part of any pre-Vat 2 missal? I would really like to know. I could go to the local sede chapel and ask the priest about this. I guess he would know.

    • Rom. 1:26-32 is *not* in the 1962 Missal, nor is it, to the best of my knowledge, in any other lectionary or Missal prior to 1962.

      The parts of Romans that are in the 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary Form) are as follows: 1:1-6; 5:1-5; 6:3-11, 19-23; 7:22-25; 8:12-23, 35-39; 10:10-18; 11:33-36; 12:1-21; 13:11-14a; 14:7-12; 15:4-13. Bear in mind that the readings used in the 1962 Missal are (with the exception of later feasts and saints’ days) correspond with the 1570 Missal issued after the Council of Trent. The 1570 Missal is itself dependent on the 13th century Franciscan Missal (Missale Romano-Seraphicum), and this order of readings can be traced back to at least the 9th century.

      FYI, of the parts of Romans read in the 1962 Missal, the following passages are used on Sundays: 6:3-11 (6th Sun aft Pent); 6:19-23 (7th Sun aft Pent); 8:12-17 (8th Sun aft Pent); 8:18-23 (4th Sun aft Pent); 11:33-36 (Trinity Sun); 12:6-16a (2nd Sun aft Epiphany); 12:16b-21 (3rd Sun aft Epiphany); 13:8-10 (4th Sun aft Epiphany); 13:11-14a (1st Sun Advent); 15:4-13 (2nd Sun Advent).

  • Kansas_Girl

    The New American Bible’s footnote on the story of the destruction of Sodom states that the sin of Sodom was that of inhospitality. Nothing at all is mentioned about homosexual acts. I was absolutely shocked to read that footnote. It doesn’t surprise me to learn that Paul’s strong language against homosexual acts was removed from the lectionary. It also wouldn’t surprise me to learn that those responsible for the footnote or the lectionary omissions were active homosexuals.

  • MoonRiver

    Maybe they have learned from the child abuse crisis unlike you – you moron. Sitting there with that smug gob – writing meaningless crap

    I could argue the texts here but can’t be arsed. It’s people like you would have me despair of Catholicism totally.

    THANK GOD I am not an American. From the trash we are subjected to on a daily basis on the internet from US and on US ‘Catholicism’ – Russia is not the one ‘spreading errors’ – you lot are and do. And I am not talking about the homos.

    You are a judgmental hypocrite.

    Could it even or ever register in that pea sized, neanderthal brain cell of yours that a child might be sitting listening in the congregation – and what you would have her/him listen to – what that could do to that child ?

    Na you don’t. Cause you know sweet FA about real family. If you came near a child of our large and large extended family I’d use that green tie to wring your neck.

    Real family stick together – nomatter what. Blood is thicker than water.

    A real Irish Catholic from a VERY large family.

    We fight for real family and real family make real Church.

    Cit with your scapegoating – crucifying Christ all over.

    Less time with your judgement and more on your knees in real prayer.

  • johnny warry

    God’s Word is God’s Word, whether I agree with it or not, whether it offends me or not. My task, with God’s help, is to live His Word.

  • a pena

    this is a classic case of verse 18 same chap. The wrath of oGod is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness
    Isn’t this suppression?

  • LeeTimmer

    Sorry, folks, but this is what Vatican II was designed to do. Drip, drip, drip…

  • Moses

    If I recall, NOT ONE WORD SHOULD BE CHANGED! Jesus words..
    Let’s all change the Bible , and see where it goes?

  • Marcia Brown Castro

    I go to a church that does the Tridentine Mass. We use the 1962 Daily Missal so none of our readings have been changed!

  • Sharon

    This is disgraceful and just who is responsible? More to the point, how do we, the laity, fix this?

  • disqus_KXqeZMikzj


  • Peter D. Bové

    I find it difficult to have to comment on this whatsoever. There is no discussion needed. To have removed it in the first place is blasphemy!

  • miriam33ad

    most definitely. we must hear all of God’s word, not just what is politically correct. the truth hurts sometimes.

  • Brenda Baietto


  • soporatus sum

    To be clear, the “Old” Lectionary in the pre-Vatican 2 Missal also did not contain the passage in Romans. As far as I know, any priest who wants to can preach on Rom 1:26ff. But why? Why put such imaginations into the mind of all the people? Anyway, even though the New 3-year Lectionary contains much more than the old 1-year Missal, it still has to leave about 30% of the NT and 85% of the OT. That is, the Lectionary is not the Bible. Bibles are readily available for individual or group study. I think that is where such topics are best considered.

  • PalaceGuard

    “…verses that might be deemed offensive have been omitted from our liturgical celebrations…” On whose authority? Certainly not that of the One who said that not a jot nor a tittle of the law would be changed. Pray for our bishops, for our own sakes as well as for theirs.

  • Brett Page

    I’m interested in any verse, parable or other recorded statement of Jesus that relates to homosexuality and which has been excised from the lectionary. Good luck finding one. The fact is, he spoke very little about matters sexual but lots about matters associated with social justice. Like sharing our wealth with others, including the undeserving. Not too much talk here about that inconvenient exhortation from The Lord. Why? Because sharing our wealth involves personal sacrifice. Why, it may even mean supporting health care reform which benefits the ‘least of my brothers’. Holding anti-homosexual positions does not. It’s the easy path. Which is why the religious right embraces it and why the young are leaving in their droves.