In all seriousness, Michael is one of the kindest, most good-hearted men you'll ever know, with a heart of gold; I know him and some of his closest friends, and can vouch for this. Of course, Mark Shea likes to call me a "shill" for Voris (but considering Cdl Raymond Burke also fully supports Voris's apostolate, I guess he would also fit within Shea's definition of "shill"--LOL).
I also wanted to tell Terry that I appreciate his honesty here--I know you've been a critic of Voris in the past, but have the objectivity to at least appreciate the accuracy of what he says and admit some of the troubling aspects of Selmys's response.
I tried to listen to one of Voris' shows when he interviewed Father Z about the next pope, prior to the election of then-Cardinal Bergoglio. I was immediately turned off in the opening minutes by how many times he blamed his production company for technical problems. I have no respect for people who are so quick to throw others under the bus. It may be a small detail to some, but not to me. It has to do with character. The guy is not my cup of tea. Joyce
It's not his production company--it's BlogTalkRadio.com (the same server I use to host my own radio shows) and it is not always the most reliable or advanced as far as online radio streaming.
Being Catholic is difficult, naturally. On the one hand, it is true that most if not a majority of homosexual acts are done by persons who are not fully aware of their gravity or sinfulness. A person who commits a homosexual act is indeed committing a gravely disordered act. So that fulfills step one of a mortal sin. But unless that person knows it is sinful and or does not freely consent to it, the act cannot be considered a mortal sin. In other words, they are not bound for Hell at that point. Now a person who does know the gravity of the acts and consents against his or her conscience (even if not fully formed) freely and without compulsion or coercion is likely committing a mortal sin. It is best to err on the side of caution and seek forgiveness and repentance if one's conscience has been violated in such a manner. This is how I operate and someone would know if they asked me. Would I say that it is my truth and not their's? No. I would say that I think it is true for everyone. If pressed, I would say it is because I am Catholic. Sure reason, natural law, and other philosophical arguments can be made. But arguments will not lead to conversion. Conversion leads to conversion. Every. Single. Day.
Yes, we Catholics must tell the truth about human sexuality and other matters. But we must do so prudently and lovingly as well. Never striking, but never yielding either. Turning the other cheek means just that - to stand one's ground but not to attack back. There are times when prayer is our only refuge - our only means of conversion. There are other times when a person honestly seeks our opinion on homosexuality, and we then must seek the courage and ability to speak it clearly, lovingly, and truthfully. It is not a weapon, but rather a vehicle for salvation. We don't treat our cars as weapons when they are meant to simply bring us where we want to go.
But it is a minefield. I love moral theology, but it is not for the faint of heart. Emotions must sometimes be checked. You cannot rely on the gut instinct, for that is human and we are speaking of things divine.
I always have to remember that this world will not be perfect. I need to stay close to Christ for my own iniquities. I need to try and help others find Him so they can do the same. I cannot change an active homosexual. Christ can. But to do so, I may need to introduce the two of them, and then let Him do His work.
What does this mean on a practical level? Such as when faced with persons who identify as homosexuals and admit they commit the acts? I love them as children of God. Do I love their pride in their acts? Do I love the acts? No. I'm not called to love acts. I'm called to love persons. I am not called to love identities or orientations. I am called to love persons. I seek to introduce them to Christ. They reject it often, but really, what else do I have aside from Him? Science and philosophy will only go so far. Ultimately their conscience must be lit and strengthened in the presence of the Logos. Only then will they want to stop the acts that I cannot accept as good.
Because you posted it on Melinda's post which I link to so I decided it fit better there.
I don't know you but you have left comments as if you know me. Therefore, when you use your real name - your comments run a better chance of staying online.
Ok, now I understand and thank you. No, I do not know you personally, but I am in your diocese, so I feel a connection. I apologize for the anonymous handle, but its important to me right now. I'm trying to work out how to deal with this issue in a faithfully Catholic manner and I see you and Melinda as helpful in that regard.
I was totally turned off reading her blog when I got to Fr. Sparks article being used as an authority. Fr. Sparks has blasphemed Mary, has violated every Vatican guideline in his graphic and explicit sex ed books which include describing homosexual acts, etc. I'll take Mike Voris any day over a woman who uses somebody like Richard Sparks as an authority. Here's a blog post I did on Richard Sparks if anyone is interested. http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2010/09/fr-sparks-to-scandalize-catholics-in.html
Mary Ann - there are things that trouble me as well - I don't know if it's important for me to run down the list she made point by point, but the Sparks reference is troubling for me as well.
Michael Voris' style is one thing - his content quite another. His reference material, though dated at times, remains accurate. Likewise there is that Polish priests research - there are a lot of dots one can connect.
Over the last few decades, the educational system - Catholic and public - has done an excellent job of teaching tolerance, acceptance and equality, which probably explains why today we are so close to general 'approval' of homosexual acts.
Thanks, Terry, I don't know anything about Melinda, but I think I'll do a little research to see where she is coming from. And I have no problem with a the "chauvinism" of Western culture. You would think from revisionist, feminist history that white European men added nothing to the culture. It's hard these days to sort out fact from fiction between homosexual revisionists, feminist revisionist, Marxist revisionists, etc. -- which is why I like to read primary sources.
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.
At least someone is standing up to that bully.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on--Michael's a big softie! A bit rough around the edges at times, but some of us appreciate that! ;)
DeleteIn all seriousness, Michael is one of the kindest, most good-hearted men you'll ever know, with a heart of gold; I know him and some of his closest friends, and can vouch for this. Of course, Mark Shea likes to call me a "shill" for Voris (but considering Cdl Raymond Burke also fully supports Voris's apostolate, I guess he would also fit within Shea's definition of "shill"--LOL).
DeleteI also wanted to tell Terry that I appreciate his honesty here--I know you've been a critic of Voris in the past, but have the objectivity to at least appreciate the accuracy of what he says and admit some of the troubling aspects of Selmys's response.
Christine is a well known Voris shill. Just saying.
DeleteI tried to listen to one of Voris' shows when he interviewed Father Z about the next pope, prior to the election of then-Cardinal Bergoglio. I was immediately turned off in the opening minutes by how many times he blamed his production company for technical problems. I have no respect for people who are so quick to throw others under the bus. It may be a small detail to some, but not to me. It has to do with character. The guy is not my cup of tea. Joyce
ReplyDeleteIt's not his production company--it's BlogTalkRadio.com (the same server I use to host my own radio shows) and it is not always the most reliable or advanced as far as online radio streaming.
DeleteThis is a three-ring circus.
ReplyDeletePlease God, just let me perform the corporal and spiritual works of mercy; just let me empty bed pans.
Frank - best comment ever. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBeing Catholic is difficult, naturally. On the one hand, it is true that most if not a majority of homosexual acts are done by persons who are not fully aware of their gravity or sinfulness. A person who commits a homosexual act is indeed committing a gravely disordered act. So that fulfills step one of a mortal sin. But unless that person knows it is sinful and or does not freely consent to it, the act cannot be considered a mortal sin. In other words, they are not bound for Hell at that point. Now a person who does know the gravity of the acts and consents against his or her conscience (even if not fully formed) freely and without compulsion or coercion is likely committing a mortal sin. It is best to err on the side of caution and seek forgiveness and repentance if one's conscience has been violated in such a manner. This is how I operate and someone would know if they asked me. Would I say that it is my truth and not their's? No. I would say that I think it is true for everyone. If pressed, I would say it is because I am Catholic. Sure reason, natural law, and other philosophical arguments can be made. But arguments will not lead to conversion. Conversion leads to conversion. Every. Single. Day.
ReplyDeleteYes, we Catholics must tell the truth about human sexuality and other matters. But we must do so prudently and lovingly as well. Never striking, but never yielding either. Turning the other cheek means just that - to stand one's ground but not to attack back. There are times when prayer is our only refuge - our only means of conversion. There are other times when a person honestly seeks our opinion on homosexuality, and we then must seek the courage and ability to speak it clearly, lovingly, and truthfully. It is not a weapon, but rather a vehicle for salvation. We don't treat our cars as weapons when they are meant to simply bring us where we want to go.
But it is a minefield. I love moral theology, but it is not for the faint of heart. Emotions must sometimes be checked. You cannot rely on the gut instinct, for that is human and we are speaking of things divine.
I always have to remember that this world will not be perfect. I need to stay close to Christ for my own iniquities. I need to try and help others find Him so they can do the same. I cannot change an active homosexual. Christ can. But to do so, I may need to introduce the two of them, and then let Him do His work.
What does this mean on a practical level? Such as when faced with persons who identify as homosexuals and admit they commit the acts? I love them as children of God. Do I love their pride in their acts? Do I love the acts? No. I'm not called to love acts. I'm called to love persons. I am not called to love identities or orientations. I am called to love persons. I seek to introduce them to Christ. They reject it often, but really, what else do I have aside from Him? Science and philosophy will only go so far. Ultimately their conscience must be lit and strengthened in the presence of the Logos. Only then will they want to stop the acts that I cannot accept as good.
Why is my post gone, Terry?
ReplyDeleteBecause you posted it on Melinda's post which I link to so I decided it fit better there.
ReplyDeleteI don't know you but you have left comments as if you know me. Therefore, when you use your real name - your comments run a better chance of staying online.
I edit comments here.
Ok, now I understand and thank you. No, I do not know you personally, but I am in your diocese, so I feel a connection. I apologize for the anonymous handle, but its important to me right now. I'm trying to work out how to deal with this issue in a faithfully Catholic manner and I see you and Melinda as helpful in that regard.
ReplyDeleteI was totally turned off reading her blog when I got to Fr. Sparks article being used as an authority. Fr. Sparks has blasphemed Mary, has violated every Vatican guideline in his graphic and explicit sex ed books which include describing homosexual acts, etc. I'll take Mike Voris any day over a woman who uses somebody like Richard Sparks as an authority. Here's a blog post I did on Richard Sparks if anyone is interested. http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2010/09/fr-sparks-to-scandalize-catholics-in.html
ReplyDeleteJericho - thanks for explaining - I can accept that. My apologies, and feel free to comment whenever you like. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMary Ann - there are things that trouble me as well - I don't know if it's important for me to run down the list she made point by point, but the Sparks reference is troubling for me as well.
ReplyDeleteMichael Voris' style is one thing - his content quite another. His reference material, though dated at times, remains accurate. Likewise there is that Polish priests research - there are a lot of dots one can connect.
Over the last few decades, the educational system - Catholic and public - has done an excellent job of teaching tolerance, acceptance and equality, which probably explains why today we are so close to general 'approval' of homosexual acts.
Hi Terry -- Melinda has done a lot to help on this issue, but I'm afraid she's gonna crash & burn. My thoughts ... http://www.fightingirishthomas.com/2013/04/melindas-list-selmys-forty-ways-to-love.html
ReplyDeleteKeep fighting the good fight.
Tom - I'll check it out - thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tom - yes - that is supposed to be Voris.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Terry, I don't know anything about Melinda, but I think I'll do a little research to see where she is coming from. And I have no problem with a the "chauvinism" of Western culture. You would think from revisionist, feminist history that white European men added nothing to the culture. It's hard these days to sort out fact from fiction between homosexual revisionists, feminist revisionist, Marxist revisionists, etc. -- which is why I like to read primary sources.
ReplyDelete