From the combox:
Yes, this is one of the devil's tactics too. I was reminded of it when Richard Ballard gave me a copy of the Episcopal Church's newspaper. They were embarking on yet another 'Study of Human Sexuality.' This was the exact ploy I experienced in the Anglican Church. They will talk and talk and talk and talk and produce study after study until they 'convince' people. In fact all the 'studies' are simply different and more extravagant ways of lying. Who was it who said, "Distrust anyone who attempts to make a simple truth complicated." I always perked up my ears when I heard an Anglican theologian, bishop or priest saying with a patronizing smile, "Ah, yes, but it's not quite as easy as that now is it?" or "Truth is rarely black and white is it?"
G.K.Chesterton's quip, "The object of having an open mind is eventually to close it upon something." He might have said (and probably did) that a mind that is alway open must eventually be empty. I doubt very much whether we have discovered anything 'new' about human sexuality at all. What could we discover that we did not already know? In the area of homosexuality no one really seems to know for sure much more about the complicated genesis of the condition than they ever did. Theories abound, but no one is certain. Likewise with all the other bogus 'discoveries'. The only thing different about human sexuality from our grandparents generation is that they were discreet, modest and ashamed of their decadent desires and bad behavior. We are the opposite.
7 comments:
A sad but very true post! When I was at a pilgrimage site in France last year a very kind but direct German priest asked me why there were so many homosexual Church of England vicars? How does a Catholic woman, or any one else for that matter. answer that? Makes a point about how things are perceived though and it is rather sad. Praying Minneapolis will be spared this fate.
I have been exposed to so much of this rubbish that I should not be surprised when it is served up for the next round of 'debate', but I always am. I am stunned at the sheer arrogance of the assumption that this enlightened age has a wisdom that trumps every expression of moral wisdom before this century.
As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, Tradition is really a form of humility. It means we don't subscribe to the arrogant 'oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about' (I think that was how the quote went).
Do we really imagine that the arguments for homosexual acts have changed so much since Rome and Corinth in Paul's time or the many times since?
Sadly, one of my family members is homosexual. I love him so much, but he is very angry at me because I refused to go to his "wedding". My family members were angry too because they think that I convinced my mom not to go. A priest had told my mom that it was okay to go. I asked my mom " What is the Lord telling you?" She knew in her heart that she couldn't go either. My family thought I was "unloving". My mom and I offered our suffering over this up. I pray the Lord will heal him.
Thanks for posting this. I suppose I should add a disclaimer that I bear no malice toward the ELCA, but am in fact grateful for the time there because it is doubtful that I would have converted to Catholicism without having been baptised in the Lutheran church first. It is disheartening watching secular-progressive ideology choke the life out of every major denomination and makes me think that poem should be changed to begin, "First they came for the Episcopalians..."
Thank you for you testimony Mary. We need to spread the correct teaching on this because there are many Catholics, even ones as far away from dissent as one can get, that are tempted to punt on the issue of homosexual "marriage" by suggesting that the secular state get out of the business of marriage altogether and/or simply call everything "civil unions."
I think all Catholics should familiarize themselves with the CDF's document, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons In short, it says that the secular governments have an obligation to protect marriage in the classic sense and that attempts at word games like "civil unions" won't cut it. Also, the language in this document is very similar to Evangelium Vitae's about opposing abortion when it talks about how our opposition to it must be clear and unequivocal to the point of civil disobedience if necessary. There is no way around it, the traditional sense of marriage as man and woman exclusively is one of those hills we have be prepared to die on.
The short (and secular) counter-argument is this: Marriage is not for the benefit of the partners. It is for the benefit and protection of the children that come naturally to them. A homosexual union cannot naturally have children, so it does not deserve the same benefits and protections.
Way back in my personal B.C. history, I lived a few years in that milieu of New Orleans where homosexuals outnumber the heterosexuals, and I was closely acquainted with many. The lifestyle, the philosophical posture, the personal motivations--all of it is very familiar to me.
Even though that was B.C., and I had no religious convictions on the topic, I had a fairly sound functioning intelligence--which told me then that all of this is made-up nonesense. I have since encountered no reason to alter my view on the subject.
People don't "become" homosexual, nor do they "discover" homosexuality in themselves. It is not an "orientation." It's a lifestyle. And it's a choice. People have personal reasons for making that choice or adopting that lifestyle, but those reasons do not include irresistible I-can't-help-it--It's-what-I-am. The reasons vary, but not widely. The most innocent motivation is that it can be an option for those who are unable or unwilling to mature emotionally--and consequently--sexually, though they may be quite mature in all other ways. One often finds such persons charming, almost like children. For these people, it's pure choice, though the choice is compensatory. Sometimes they don't even know it's compensatory. In their relationships with each other, they are often not so charmingly childish--jealous, given to pouts, etc.
There is an exceptional motive, however, that is the I-can't-help-it kind, and it's not what most people think (genetics, etc.). It's the addictive nature of perversion. Anyone who's ever been closely associated with an addict of any kind knows the agony of its slavery. And for some reason, people forget: perversion is an addiction. These are the tragic figures who sink into a lifestyle of sexual depravity, homosexual in expression. These are the only ones who "can't help it." And like all addicts, they are pitiable.
Post a Comment