See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Sunday, May 20, 2012

This is very good...



What Radical Gays Really Want. - Bonchamps
Since “gay marriage” is all the rage, especially since Biden and Obama decided to make public statements on the matter, it is virtually all I have been hearing about in my own online networks. Debates are raging, friendships are being tested, hostility is everywhere. One thing emerges out of this chaos more clearly than anything else: the gay agenda, which I define as a radical political program with the aim of legitimizing homosexuality in all spheres of human existence, is based on the hysterical repetition of outrageous lies. It is not unlike the completely fraudulent “war on women”, a war that was supposedly declared when a number of Americans publicly resisted the idea that they ought to pay for other women’s birth control.

In the case of “gay marriage”, the big lie is that there is some desire on the part of conservatives and Christians in this country to actually deny some right, some liberty, some freedom to people who identify themselves and live as homosexuals. As abhorrent, disordered and immoral as I find the “gay lifestyle” to be, the truth is that – and here I speak for virtually every conservative Christian I know or have read – we really are not the least bit interested in micro-managing the sex-lives of our fellow citizens. We have absolutely no desire to have uniformed gendarmes kick in your bedroom doors to make sure no acts of sodomy are taking place in the middle of the night. The only thing more repugnant to me than such acts would be the prospect of becoming comfortable with the sort of routine invasions of personal privacy that would be required to ensure that no one was living out their life as a homosexual.

To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of “heterosexuals” who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on. Not every sin can or should be a matter for the state to concern itself with, and we are content to let God judge in these matters; but no sin, and this brings us closer to the main point here, can ever be called a virtue, no evil can ever be called a good, by any Christian with a conscience, or by any citizen who cares about the integrity of society. - Bonchamps
It is a long, beautifully written, articulate post - and I completely agree.  I believe it is just the right attitude.  Mark Shea links to the piece as well, and also agrees.  I say that because I came across Shea's post first.  Shea highlights a certain point I think is especially important for every one to note,  Bonchamps makes that point here:
You can live as you want, engage in whatever sort of contracts you like, conduct any sort of ceremonies you please. But there is one thing you cannot have, and it is the one thing you seek through this radical political agenda, these hysterical protests and complaints about Christians: our approval. - Bonchamps
That's it!  Approval.  Not just tolerance.  Not simply acceptance.  But full-blown approval.  The agenda is all about approval - and it is exactly that which the Christian can never give.  There may come a time when the approval is forcibly demanded - thus it is important for the Christian to understand, such approval is not theirs to give.

From Mark Shea:
Yep. That’s exactly what this is about: Narcissism (and homosexuality and narcissism are like peas and carrots) rankles under the awareness of the immovable disapproval of those who know that homosex is disordered and who know what marriage actually is. The hope of the radical homosexual is that somehow that approval can be forced. When it becomes clear that it can’t be, and the might of the state is made available to enact vengeance on the intransigent, it will be, unless God somehow intervenes.

And even if persecution and punishment for failure to approve are meted out, the approval will not be given, because homosex is a sin and gay “marriage” is an ontological impossibility and a good number of people will never back down on those facts.

It’s ironic really. The draconian demand for approval that cannot settle for mere tolerance shows that, at some level, that the gay “marriage” movement which holds Christians in such deep contempt hungers–with the hunger of a child eager to hear a word of praise from her Father–to hear praise from exactly the people that movement claims to despise. And above all, it seems to me that this, in turn, demonstrates that such folk hunger to hear a word of love and welcome from God (as do we all).

We Christians, it seems to me, need to find a way to communicate that the homosexual is loved and welcomed by God–just not the sin of homosex. But that requires that both we and they regard them as something more than their appetites and grasp that they are not identical to or co-terminous with those appetites. - Mark Shea
Seeking approval for coming out and then, for coming in.

Both writers say it well and are in agreement with Catholic teaching - it accords with my personal point of view and perception as well.  I would just add another consideration to the discussion.  The seeking for approval doesn't usually automatically dissolve or go away at conversion - not for the ssa any more than it does for the former prostitute, profligate, or prodigal.  It is not uncommon for the recovering ssa person to continue to desire an inordinate degree of approval - only now as a ssa/gay Catholic back in communion with Catholic teaching - still ssa, and sometimes still needy. 

I often bring this subject up in my posts because there is a natural tendency to expect immediate and total acceptance and approval by every one - considering "all heaven rejoices over one repentant sinner."  So it is not unusual for some  converts to continue to want to be the center of attention.  Some may crave the admiration, or approval of fellow Catholics, and some even expect to be regarded as the authority on same sex issues everyone needs to consult.  Some want to be best friends with non-ssa men who just aren't interested in ssa emotional problems and sexual struggles, and frankly, just aren't comfortable with someone who always needs to reference it.  I know some readers will object to what I say here - my apologies - but it is something to watch out for.

"For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ." - Philippians 2:21
Whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss because of Christ.  More than that, I consider everything as loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith to know him and the power of his resurrection and (the) sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. - 3 Philippians 7-11
 Seek your praise from God.

What does the Church teach? Link:

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Unions, Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith

36 comments:

  1. Terry Nelson: "To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care."

    Well Terry if you don't care, why are you carrying on so much about gay marriage in this blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert - I write about it so much because the state of Minnesota will be voting on a Marriage Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman this coming November. As a citizen of Minnesota I think it is important to stress that the only true marriage is between a man and a woman, and in conscience, it is the only mariage I can approve.

      The Catholic Church asks that Catholics defend authetic marriage, thus I am 'carrying on' about so-called gay marriage on this blog.

      Delete
    2. Robert - just to add to that:

      10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.- CDF, Considerations

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

      Delete
  2. Mark Shea said:
    "We Christians, it seems to me, need to find a way to communicate that the homosexual is loved and welcomed by God–just not the sin of homosex."

    He could start by no longer referring to homosexuals as 'brown shirts'
    By way of setting this good Christian example he speaks of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Shadow - I know many people take issue with Mark Shea's tone at times, however when he refers to gay brownshirts he is referring to radical homosexual activists who seek to impose gay marriage through legislation and or attacks against religious freedom. Otherwise he is very sympathetic to people with ssa, especially those who seek to reform their lives. Otherwise, he has no interest in dictating how they should live their lives. he recently did a post on that subject and was insulted and condemned by numerous Catholic bloggers for doing so.

      Delete
    2. Shadow - Terry is right. He uses the term "brown shirts" to ironically refer to bullies like Dan Savage - the kind of people who use force, coercion, and legislation to shut down and attack anyone who does not enthusiastically applaud gay sex as equal to actual sex, or anyone who doesn't enthusiastically believe in reinventing marriage to include things it never, ever has.

      He is also right in dying that Shea shows great sympathy to homosexual people. He also decided recently (and wrongly, I think) to stop referring to to the gay bullies as "brownshirts" - but that is in fact exactly what they are.

      Delete
    3. "saying" not "dying".

      And almost every advocate of gay marriage I have met believes it is going to be the governments duty to force this "equality" via early education and curbing religious freedom. I have not met a supporter of gay marriage (most of my friends) who do not also think it was right of the government of Massachuchsetts the put the Church in a position to either shutting down adoption services or accepting the gay lifestyle, or that the UK government is right to persecute people who believe in the Churchs teaching on sexuality, or do not think it is right for certain states and nations to abolish motherhood and fatherhood as legal categories.

      This is not about tolerance, but hating and hurting anyone who is not "sufficiently evolved" as to think gay sex is an unmitigated good equal in all ways to actual sex. Brownshirts indeed.

      Delete
  3. Robert Zacher: "Why are you carrying on so much?"

    Well, Robert, first of all, it is that you "brown shirts" are telling us what we must believe, what we can say, and most important, you are teaching your program to our children in our schools.

    Second of all, you engage in blackmail, extortion, vandalism and violence to enforce your narcissistic beliefs. Just like brown shirts of old.

    Third of all, that you will lie or engage in any activity deemed necessary to achieve your goals.

    Fourth of all, that you pervert, among other things, the English language by making up new meanings for perfectly good words.

    Fifth of all, that you are killing yourselves with your sexual activities and you deny that. That’s why “pride” is such an important part of your program (to take your mind off of your death defying activities).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shadowlands: Read my reply to Zacher

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr Marshall, In your response to Mr Zacher (whom you presume to be homosexual) you are a true master of generalistion, and all the illogicality involved.

    As for Shadowlands, she is a faithful Catholic and her post - unlike yours - speaks of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parepidemos - I know Mr. Marshall, he is a gentleman and a staunch defender of Catholic teaching. His tone may be gruff at times, but that is the nature of the written comment. Given the space he could back up his comments with data he has researched. He is speaking about, not unlike Mark Shea and the brown shirt references, gay activists who happen to be very active in Minnesota at this time.

      Like Shadowlands, Ray too is a faithful Catholic. He is a generous servant of God.

      Delete
    2. Terry, Unlike you, I do not know Mr Marshall personally, but his rampant generalisations above are unacceptable. If he had written "some homosexuals..." or even "militant homosexuals..." that would have been both accurate and permissable, but he did not and thus I take issue.

      Benedict XVI is also a faithful Catholic and generous servant of God; he clearly expresses what Catholicism believes - but he does so with unfailing charity. I believe that we must do the same, especially when speaking to, or about, those who do not share that teaching. Mr Marshall, in the situation concerned, failed dismally in this respect. His response to Mr Zacher was rude and personal rather than "gruff" (a delightful word I haven't heard in a long time...I must find a suitable occasion for its use)

      Delete
    3. Parepidemos, I apologize for the tone - you are absolutely correct that the Holy Father would be much more charitable - your comment is an excellent reminder. Thank you.

      Delete
  6. Well carry on folks.

    I'm not going to argue with any of you.

    As with some other blogs, I visit here to to see what current conservative Roman Catholics are howling about. The noise is here is so often about sex and sexual ethics that I asked my simple question above.

    Dear me! In response to my question there is the post from 'Ray Marshall', above, which which Terry may term "gruff," but which I find objectively slanderous if he is applying his heated rhetoric me, personally. That is, conveniently for him, not clear, however.

    'Ray Marshall', may be what Terry Nelson calls, "... a faithful Catholic. He is a generous servant of God," But despite any "nature of written comment," to which Terry refers, where I come from, Marshall would be termed a hot head and no gentleman.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And buy the way, dear friends ...

    Yes, I am familiar with what the Roman Catholic church teaches, especially in the USA. In that regard I did NOT ask to have a chorus of self-appointed web blog preachers mount their bully pulpits and shake their fingers at me about conservative Catholic views, 'Ray Marshall' included.

    It seems that only Terry properly answered my question. It's about the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. I'm also aware of that issue, too. I live on the MN border, and I can read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert, my apologies. Thanks for commenting when you do.

      Delete
  8. A couple of points.

    1)The gay activists are loud but very much a minority. They come to the forefront when something like what is happening in MN occurs. The press seems to find them. Most gays just want to live their lives outside the spot light.

    2)Most of my gay friends and accquaintances are ambivalent to religion at best and could give a rat's a** what religions or religious people think. I have one friend who is a an active practicing Catholic and attends a local parish that is very welcoming to gays. Any other friends who I have who are practicing attend (Protestant) churches that are welcoming to gay people. That being said, I find most gays don't care if churches accept or perform marriages for them, and I would say want only legal recognition through the civil government. Any gay couples who I know who have been married have done so with a JP or judge. It is legal in my state, btw.

    3)Finally: I've never met one like who Ray lumps us together with at his 5:09 AM post. An I resent that he paints me with such a broad brush.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amen. Very good indeed, clarifying and refreshing. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Father - I felt the original post by Bonchamps was very well stated.

      Delete
  10. very good post, terry. thanks for illustrating this. i've seen this in my own life, particularly when i was proudly gay & outside the church; the hatred i felt for my family & the church in general was just hurt feelings over a deep wound - and the strong desire/need to be loved and felt like i was loved. indeed i was loved, but it did not *feel* like it, and so i rejected it. it did not seem like love to me at the time for the church not to approve of something over which i had no control (my ssa orientation) and seemed so natural.

    and later, when i came back to the church and embraced Her teachings on chastity over time, still needing that affirmation and acceptance and often not getting it. it took a long time to realize that gee, i'm really *not* that special. and after that initial shock (lol) and embarrassment, am now grateful. it's liberating in a way to know that other persons (not just gay, ssa, what have you) really do struggle in much the same way as i, and with many other things, too (alcohol, food, OCD, etc).

    i still find that little boy within, craving the approval/love/acceptance of a man (which is entirely natural and good - it just went haywire and off the rails at some point & never got properly filled). i seek fulfillment in my friendships (properly ordered) and within my family and to a certain degree within the church, and am cognizant not to place unreal expectations on any one person; knowing only Jesus can (and will) be my ultimate Friend and Healer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment thread is proof-positive that what most of my non-churched gay friends believe is true: many Christians "say" one thing ("we love sinners, we just don't like your sin, but we *love love love* you"), but in reality, when it comes down to it, it's an amalgam of unresolved personal issues, ignorance, and outright malice.

    No wonder it's so damned hard to "stand in the gap," so to speak. When I tell my friends that the Church is open, it's not as bad as what they think- look at me- no wonder they don't believe me.

    Tone down the rhetoric, or I PROMISE you- you will lose an entire generation, at least- that is, if the shameful continuing abuse scandal doesn't accomplish that first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By way of introduction:

      "Well, Robert, first of all, it is that you "brown shirts" are telling us what we must believe, what we can say, and most important, you are teaching your program to our children in our schools.

      Second of all, you engage in blackmail, extortion, vandalism and violence to enforce your narcissistic beliefs. Just like brown shirts of old.

      Third of all, that you will lie or engage in any activity deemed necessary to achieve your goals.

      Fourth of all, that you pervert, among other things, the English language by making up new meanings for perfectly good words.

      Fifth of all, that you are killing yourselves with your sexual activities and you deny that. That’s why “pride” is such an important part of your program (to take your mind off of your death defying activities)."

      Delete
    2. Thom, please tell me that gay activists are not doing exactly the things mentioned, or that such things are not already eing done in tge name of "equality."

      It doesn't matter if most gays just want to get left alone - the strong-arm activists WILL force their views down everyone else's throats, as they already do.

      And it's not just gays - most of my non-gay friends absolutely support gay marriage. And they truly believe that the issue is important enough that the state should force organizations who do not accept it to withdraw to the margins - Catholic adoption agencies and schools, or even churches that rent out their facilities for events. Furthermore, and even scarier, they believe it is the duty of the state to teach "equality" on issues of sex, so that children can be free of "indoctrination" by their parents, and that schools that do not teach "equality" should be treated by law as exactly the same as schools that teach that blacks are and inferior race or that Jews are the enemy.

      So maybe it's good thy lots of Catholic schools hardly teach Catholic doctrine anyway.

      Delete
    3. Thom - I returned to the Church when I was young and I knew at the time what church people thought - I returned to the Person of Christ. With all due respect, I don't think young people are turned away for the reasons you suggest.

      Delete
    4. "If the Church is true, all in her is true; he who admits not the one, believes not the other."

      - Blessed Anna Katerina Emmerick

      Delete
    5. The problem is that many people think it is "abuse" to say that gay sex is a sin.

      It is, and if people feel that's abusive, that's their problem, not the church's.

      Delete
  12. Terry Nelson writes : "we really are not the least bit interested in micro-managing the sex-lives of our fellow citizens. We have absolutely no desire to have uniformed gendarmes kick in your bedroom doors to make sure no acts of sodomy are taking place in the middle of the night."

    It depends on what is meant by interest. The state has an interest in a right ordered society.

    On a prudential level it is true that the state is not interested. Just as the state can allow red light districts to exist or not prosecute adulterers. But it's not because the doesn't have the authority to punish those who commit evils.

    As it stands, it would cause more harm than good punish sodomites, just as it would cause more harm than good to punish adulterers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't originate that statement - I copied it from Bonchamps post. I think the author was discussing individual's private space. The police have more to do than patrol private dwellings - which would really be unconstitutional in the first place.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the correction.

      At the state level it is not unconstitutional.

      Second, even if some state did have it as unconstitutional that would not effect the argument because the standard of whether a law in this context is just or not is subject to a higher authority than a democratic vote.

      As to whether the police have more to do, that would fall under prudence, not under whether or not the state has the authority. Search and seizure laws are prudential.

      My only point is we cannot throw out our Catholic understanding right ordered society which is what the quote did.

      Delete
  13. Wow. If only you'd put a typo in the headline you'd have so many more comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! I saw the same cartoon.

      Delete
  14. As someone who used to identify as a homosexual, I'm glad the Church teaches what it teaches. If not, I would not be where I am - filled with the joy which only comes from the Holy Spirit and the peace that comes from Christ: "My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you." John 14:27

    Nobody said one's conversion would be easy. "In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world." I think the fight for acceptance from the gay community is a collective psychological projection borne out of dissatisfaction, frustration, and emptiness brought about by sin and the soul's desire for liberation in Christ. Sometimes, it doesn't even have to be in the form of a 'fight', it could come in the need to outshine others in clothes, academic achievement, sexual conquests, wit, humour, drugs, alcohol, etc. Which goes to show that the 'gay' problem is something all humans face, SSA or not: conversion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks - very good points.

      Delete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.