From a friendly reader concerning the following comments - with her editorial:
DB: 3:16 PMwell let's take 'em all out back and beat the shit out of 'em. [projection? anger? unresolved issues? etc. Is this really what the post and others communicated? Or is this a projection channelling through a clouded lens causing misguided thoughts, misdirected anger?] right?!SSA and striving to leave chastely, [Q. are those who identify themselves as those 'striving to [live] chastely, 'visible' speaking-out and our in public union with the Pope against the actions of their militantly gay activist, and/or loud mouth supporters?] and or militantly gay. right? [Again, why the 'grouping' in his mind; it is not in my mind or many I speak to about gay activism. Secondly, I believe if there was a ground swell of ss-attracted individuals speak in defense of the church's teachings and condemning the behavior of their fellow ss-attracted brothers and sisters and the joy of knowing a loving God, there might come peace in their souls and grace for strength. I just don't understand this type of rebuttal that drips with unjust accusations.]
because that's what you all mean, isn't it. [insert a ???] "they" are all the same. [Well, NO. Are they? But that 'no' won't make one bit of difference, will it?]
DB - you meant 'live' chastely, I know - others may not.
What you say is true. [What 'truth' is he speaking? Is he not committing the say 'stereo-typing' that he is accusing "what you all" are thinking privately? Dang, is there no end to this type of dialogue?] I've been trying to write a post about that,[?] but I'm having trouble piecing it together.
Hang in there.
Sounds like code, huh? LOL!
It's not. DB is a faithful Catholic - he lives chastely and is a member of Courage. My posts may unnerve him, and others - especially when I write about not admitting ssa men to seminary or ordination. If you detect frustration, that could be one reason why.
What I believe he is concerned with is what appears to be a blanket condemnation of ssa people - faithful or not. I have written about this stuff before. Recall the Canadian guys who were prohibited from lectoring at Mass because they lived together and people knew they were ssa - though they confessed their friendship was chaste - no sex - platonic. (My post on that here.) My friend and others experience suspicions by fellow Catholics as well. It is something I would like to write about but do not know how to put it together.
Every week there seems to be reported anti-homosexual news from religious sources. Granted the press presents it that way, but people are conditioned to receive it that way as well. For instance, the USCCB recently opposed immigration policies because they include ss partners. At first glance/hearing, it appears to be an apparent rejection of ssa persons. Likewise the recent statements from Cordileone and the Archbishop of the Military, rejecting proposals to allow ss couples to have the same benefits normal married military receive - such as cohabiting - at first glance these matters appear to be unjust discrimination against ssa persons.
The reason for that perception is that people are going through life, making and changing laws and policies based on emotion and 'natural' affection/sexual preferences. Mortal sin is no longer considered evil. It's all about the dominance or dictatorship of relativism which has taken over the culture. The Church offers clear teaching on the subject of ss marriage and sexuality, which is ignored or mitigated by priests and prelates and faithful - not just progressives either - who have friends or relatives who are ssa, have partners, live good lives, want a family, and so on. Therefore the natural man sees no problem with allowing ss benefits - for those who opt for them - even though the Church says ss marriage is to be opposed at every level/stage of its incursion into society.
Taking a breath.
So - in reality what appears to be discrimination - really is - but it is just, since mortal sin can never be approved. Therefore the USCCB policy, as well as the Military Archbishop's policy is necessary to avoid giving any semblance of approval to unnatural marriage, for the common good of society, the preservation of marriage and the family.
SSA people with one foot in the culture and one foot in the Church have difficulty accepting that. They have difficulty accepting that ssa men should not be admitted to seminary and ordination. They experience God's mercy and know they are forgiven, but they can't understand how or why they should be rejected. And their un-catechized families and loved ones understand even less.
It's a difficult truth.
I think when DB says, "that's what you all mean, isn't it" - he's expressing his frustration with dealing with these things. He experiences himself as an outsider at times - and that is simply what he expresses. Many ssa men feel the same way - people seem to expect them to be healed cured and straightened out - it doesn't work that way. The perception is the Church hates gay people - and that is often reinforced by very conservative religious people. Readers of this blog think I'm the same way - that I'm condemning them as well. I'm not. My trouble is that I cannot formulate an adequate defense except to quote Church teaching. Yet Church teaching gets watered down and turned on its head by gay-is-good-opponents, and even by pious ssa monks and priests.
I don't care about them - I care about ssa people who want to live according to Catholic teaching, even those who fell away in and through the hostility of the sanctimonious. By acknowledging that I know what they are talking about, that I know their frustration, does not mean I am compromising Church teaching. Far from it.
Finally, what he says is true - it is. There are really mean, nasty Catholics out there who really hate ssa people. Some of them have blogs. Likewise, there are gay clergy who want to maintain the status quo and keep the country club open. James Martin, S.J. is right, gay priests should come out so we all know who's zooming who.
Does this help?
[My trouble putting it together is that for publication now days it seems I need a PhD in order to have any credibility, as well as to have every single word, thought and idea, footnoted with links to studies and research verifying my claims. I don't have the PC vocabulary - just the nerve - which someone accused me of recently - so maybe I should just publish this reply?]
There. I just did.
Duck and cover.