Poor Matthew Shepard

I sincerely mean that.

When I first heard of his story, I felt horror and revulsion and deep sympathy.  I remember praying for him, that he would be saved.  It was a horrible crime.  I pray in the same way for others, such as the Indian woman who had been gang raped, her murderers now condemned to death.  Remember the black man - in Texas, I think - who had been dragged by a truck, and he was decapitated?  likewise, I prayed for the dead soldier whose body had been dragged by Somalis.  Similarly, I prayed for  Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya, brutally murdered in Benghazi.  These savage tortures and murders are distressing.  Murder is especially heinous when the victim's salvation is so uncertain.  I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell, for myself and my brother.

That said, Shepard's murderers were never charged with a hate crime since there was no such statute on the books in Wyoming at the time.  Though public opinion clearly perceived it as a hate crime, some people believed there was more to the story.  Since the conviction of the two perpetrators, many have speculated that drugs were involved and there may have been more to the story than what was told at trial.

The Book of Matt, by Stephen Jiminez

The new book claims to tell the true story of what happened to Matthew Shepard.

But what really happened to Matthew Shepard?
He was beaten, tortured, and killed by one or both of the men now serving life sentences. But it turns out, according to Jiminez, that Shepard was a meth dealer himself and he was friends and sex partners with the man who led in his killing. Indeed, his killer may have killed him because Shepard allegedly came into possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and refused to give it up.
The book also shows that Shepard’s killer was on a five-day meth binge at the time of the killing.
As to be expected, Matthew Shepard Inc. is rallying to denounce the new narrative that his homosexuality had little or nothing to do with his murder. - Source

To be honest, I thought everyone believed that now - at least I was convinced there was not enough evidence to prove the murder was a hate crime - since I had heard most of the other reports not too long after the trial and conviction. 

Gay journalist Aaron Hicklin, writing in The Advocate asks, "How do people sold on one version of history react to being told that the facts are slippery --- that thinking of Shepard’s murder as a hate crime does not mean it was a hate crime? And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?” -ibid

The Brietbart article concludes:

The agenda of the sexual left lives on lies. As we all know now, the back-story that brought us Roe v. Wade was a lie. And here we find the Matthew Shepard story was also a lie.
The sexual left approves of such lies because they get to what they consider to be an underlying truth. The author of The Advocate piece writes, “There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness.”  -ibid

As I said in the beginning, I was moved to pity by the story - not because of Matthew Shepard's sexual identity, but because a kid was brutally tortured, beaten, and left for dead - he died later, a murder victim.  Eternal salvation is so uncertain - God save us from an unprovided death.

Thinking like a Samaritan...

I once did a painting which I titled Matthew Shepard, only to retitle it, Male Figure. Not a few commenters on my art blog expressed disdain for it, as well as the fact I would dare paint him with a halo.  It's unfortunate they misunderstood the image, although it demonstrates why I'm not a successful artist - if I can't convey an  simple idea understandably - I'm not very good.

 My original subject for the painting was St. Sebastian.  While painting the piece - which in fact is more or less simply a study, I received news of an art show.  The curator of the gallery knew of my work and asked me to show what I had in a group show, which also happened to be the inaugural show of his new gallery.  I abandoned work on Sebastian, and decided to call the unfinished piece Matthew Shepard - because he was in the news at the time and the figure's face and hair reminded me of the man - and the figure in its unfinished state,* appeared a little 'scorched'.  I left the halo to suggest the goodness of all men, made in the image and likeness of God - I was not 'canonizing' the poor man. 

I wanted the figure to be viewed as a human being, tied to a fence, left by the roadside, beaten, stripped by robbers - hoping the viewer might recall the parable of the Good Samaritan.  In one sense, the politicization of the murder of Matthew Shepard caused many passers by to look the other way, some even condemning the victim.  No one stopped to help him, to nurse him, to save him - rather they exploited him for their own agendas - and continue to do so today.  Hence the painting isn't really of Matthew at all, but a roadside casualty of violence: a victim of robbery and exploitation; and worse - in death, a victim of political agenda, as well as fear and anger - culminating in hate.

*I never finished the figure - what the viewer sees is pretty much the under painting.  The figure was intended to be clothed in a transparent loin cloth as well.

Self Loathing and the Culturally-correct Gay-elite

Bret Easton Ellis said it first.

And I agree.  Gay has become culturally homogenized.  Now with gay marriage on the books, it's Ozzie and Harriet-ized.  I've said similar things for years - remember, I've been blogging for seven, so I can say that.  When you say that stuff, or level charges of immorality against anything gay - you are automatically labeled 'self-loathing'.  Why?  because gay is so damned good and you better like it. 

Catholic 'gay-elites' spin it a bit differently - but they still spin it. 

So what did Bret Easton Ellis really say?

Novelist and prolix Twitterer Bret Easton Ellis is raising hackles once again by labeling such organizations as GLAAD as "the gatekeepers of politically correct gayness" in a long editorial in Out Magazine. Ellis invited further response to his argument by announcing an AMA ("ask me anything") on Reddit, to be held at noon Pacific time today.

The Out rant, titled "In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves," was prompted in part by the media response to the recent coming out of basketball player Jason Collins, whom Ellis writes is being treated "as some kind of baby panda who needs to be honored and consoled and -- yes -- infantilized."

Ellis goes on to criticize "gay self-patronization in the media," which in his opinion celebrates "the Gay Man as Magical Elf, who whenever he comes out appears before us as some kind of saintly E.T. whose sole purpose is to be put in the position of reminding us only about Tolerance."

At fault, according to Ellis, are organizations that marginalize the gay man "who doesn't want to represent, doesn't want to teach" and who "makes crude jokes about other gays in the media (as straight dudes do of each other constantly)." This, Ellis writes, amounts to "corporate PC fascism." - LATimes
 

Ellis writes a critique and he's called self-loathing.  I simply loath the condition - not the person.

Ellis directs his critique against secular homosexual culture, nevertheless, there really is an emerging PC way of talking about all things gay-ssa amongst 'gay' Catholics - and there really are 'gatekeepers', if you will.  I'm not talking Courage or NARTH people here either.  To be sure, Ellis probably wouldn't agree with any of them, and for sure, he'd never agree with my POV.

What's my point?  Going forward, I want to publish some information a friend sent me regarding science and sexual orientation.  For now, I just want to add a quote from the same resource:

Homosexuality, as a genetic inevitability, has probably been gay activism’s most effective PR initiative in the campaign for equal rights and special protections. Although it is no longer politically correct or fashionable in many circles to say that homosexuals can change, it is scientifically accurate to say so. We are not speaking only of behavioural changes but changes in attraction.

 

The fact is that nothing makes us do anything—neither our genes nor our environment. - Source

 

"Although it is no longer politically correct or fashionable in many circles to say that homosexuals can change, it is scientifically accurate to say so."  I'm convinced it can be spiritually accurate to say so too.

Editor's note:  This comes off sort of 'out of the blue', I'm sure.  How do I make these connections?  Arrive at my conclusions?  I hope I can explain going forward.

In the meantime, my apologies for dwelling on the homosexual issue, I'm more or less responding to the recent developments regarding gay marriage in Minnesota and the initial consequence of cultural approval for homosexual sexual relations and behaviour.

These are the consequences BTW.

With gay marriage approved, homosexual sexual behavior is approved.  Gay Catholics are already talking about living within that reality - in other words, on another level, accepting it, and developing a gay spirituality.  That's huge ladies and gentlemen.  That's huge, moms and dads and teachers and pastors. 

It's huge.

 

Gay Pride: They glory in their shame... No, seriously, they do.

Philadelphia Freedom.  2012

Right in front of kids - the kids are so not all right.

Call me an old fashioned Bible banger, but this disgusts me...

June is gay pride month - even the President celebrates it.  Photos of his guests at the White House giving the finger to former President Reagan's portrait marked the occasion.  Who would want friends like that?

At the reception, Mr. Obama told the attendees that the day is

approaching when gay citizens will enjoy full equality in America.

“We’ll get there because of every man and woman and activist and ally

 who is moving us forward by the force of their moral arguments,

 but more importantly, by the force of their example,” Mr. Obama said.

I know!

So this is gay pride?

Really?

The online definition of gay pride is as follows:

Main Entry:	gay pride
Part of Speech:	n
Definition:	a sense of dignity and satisfaction involved in the public admission of one's homosexuality

In other words, gay people pretty much define gay pride as the antonym of shame. 

St. Paul writes about shame...

"Unfortunately many go about in a way which shows them to be an enemy of the cross of Christ... Their god is their abs and their glory is in their shame." - Philippians 3:19

"Brothers, watch out for those who cause dissension and scandal... Such men serve, not Christ our Lord, but their own bellies, and they deceive the simpleminded with smooth and flattering speech." - Romans 16:17-19

Anyway - that's what comes to my mind whenever I see photos of gay pride parades and entertainment.  The Christian on the other hand, may only boast in Christ and him crucified:

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:14

If you see it another way, may God clarify the difficulty for you. - Philippians 3:15 

A Jesuit asks: Where is the outrage? "Now that the President and Representative Pelosi have brought religion into the realm of the state vis-à-vis the question of marriage and what constitutes marriage..."

Robert John Araujo, S.J.

In response to the President and Nancy Pelosi dragging religion into the issue of Same-Sex Marriage.

Pelosi says: "My religion compels me..."

Jesuit says: "No it doesn't..."

President Obama and Vice President Biden both brought their religious faith/views to bear in their decision making process regarding approval of same sex marriage...

Jesuit says:  "Now that the President and Representative Pelosi have brought religion into the realm of the state vis-à-vis the question of marriage and what constitutes marriage. I wonder if we shall see Americans United for Separation of Church and State launching their latest legal crusade against such unconstitutional establishment, knowing that if Bishop Jenky should not bring religion into public policy issues, why should public officials be permitted to do this without objection?"

In his essay, Fr. Aaujo goes on to address the issue of discrimination, stressing that the Church only bans 'unjust' discrimination.

The first point is that the Church to which she and I belong does not condemn “discrimination of any kind” but, rather, it condemns unjust discrimination. If I interpret her statement correctly, she asserts that the Church is “against discrimination of any kind.” As she says, her religion “compels her” to be “against discrimination of any kind.” But even Rep. Pelosi discriminates, and her discriminations for the most part are probably not unjust—some may even be objectively reasonable and, therefore, perfectly acceptable and be in accordance with American and Christian values. For example, when she chooses a clothing ensemble, by selecting a red, or blue, or tan outfit, she discriminates. When she contrasts the policies and platform of her party and distinguishes them from the opposition party, she discriminates.

Of course, some who claim the office of theologian say that the Church and her bishops are wrong on the issue of same-sex marriage initiatives by opposing them and argue that the Church’s position on this subject is “not really an argument that has theological justification.” [HERE] Really? How remarkably astonishing! What is all the more surprising is that one of the theologians quoted in the link just cited argues that the bishops “are misrepresenting ‘Catholic teaching,’” and are “trying to present their idiosyncratic minority views as the ‘Catholic position,’ and it is not.” To ask again: Really? The justification upon which this person relies seems to be polls as he indicates by referring to “most Catholic theologians”, so if fifty-one percent of the Catholics in this country were ready to bring back slavery or mandatory sterilization of “imbeciles”, would that make the Church’s teachings against these policies additional “idiosyncratic minority” views? Another theologian who is quoted in the previous link claims that the Church’s position on marriage and the institution of civil marriage are distinct (but he fails to acknowledge that Catholic priests and deacons perform marriages which are recognized by the civil authorities), so the Church should declare: “It’s none of our business.” But if it is not any of the Church’s business, why does this Catholic theologian have on or around his office door (at a Catholic university) posters endorsing same-sex marriage? He might argue that this is his personal view. But if it is, why is he, who has influence over the intellectual and moral formation of young Catholics, underscoring his support to his students and anyone else who passes by his office at a Catholic university? Maybe that’s one reason why younger people who claim to be Catholic are increasingly inclined to support same-sex marriage: they haven’t been exposed to reasoned views to the contrary in institutions which claim the moniker “Catholic”. - Finish reading at Mirror of Justice

It's a must read from a priest who knows what he is talking about. 

God love the Jesuits!

H/T Campus Notes and Pewsitter

It's a wrap! Minnesota voters to determine the future of marriage.

Drama at the State Capitol.
.
From MplsStarTribune:

After a long, passionate and solemn debate that lasted deep into the night, the Minnesota House passed a proposed constitutional amendment on Saturday to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.



Voters will decide the question in November 2012. The final vote was 70-62. Four Republicans voted no. Two Democrats voted yes.


"I do not believe it is up to judges or even this body, but it should be up to Minnesotans," said Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, sponsor of the bill. But he said his beliefs are not paramount: "It is not about what I think. It is about what we think as Minnesotans." - Source

And yet gay activists have fought against giving fellow citizens the right to vote on such an amendment.  Isn't that discriminatory? 
.
The discriminating voter.
.
People are so screwed up.  I watched some of the debate on Public Television, as well as the news.  Local news showed the protesters outside the chamber.  Such drama.  A woman weeping that she and her same-sex partner are denied a wedding ceremony.  Homosexual activists claiming discrimination because they want to redefine the institution of marriage and family, while insisting the efforts of their opponents is anti-family.  Added to the drama, lots of Orwellian double speak going on. 
.
Now that the matter will be left up to voters, gay activists are ready for a long, expensive marketing campaign from today until the 2012 vote - politicking on the grounds all sorts of human rights violations and discrimination militates against their emotional cause.  Almost by necessity, activists make a god out of equal rights while dismissing the possibility that some discrimination is good - some is bad.  Unfortunately, neither side seems ready to admit that there exists that 'good discrimination' which is necessary for the common good.  And it is the common good which needs safeguarding. 
.
I read somewhere that to discriminate is to make a decision.  Not all discrimination is equal and some discrimination is necessary and good - the alternative is anarchy which leads to the overthrow and destruction of culture.  Indeed, we are almost there.  So - don't even wince when you are accused of being discriminatory - it's okay - your opponent is too.   

+++

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. - CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Photo credit: Strib.

Military Chaplains face court-martial for 'religious, conscience' objection to homosexual conduct?

Curtailing of religious liberties to be enacted?
.
Can this be true?  And yet they said this could/would never happen.
.
The U.S. Army has officially threatened military chaplains they must either embrace the new openly homosexual military, resign from service, or face court-martial for their "religious, conscience" objections. The Pray In Jesus Name Project has obtained leaked copies (unintended for media disclosure) of a private briefing given to chaplains, threatening them with court-martial unless they compromise their Christian message.
.
Christian Chaplains who speak out against homosexual sin can be accused of "harassment" by homosexuals and face disciplinary action simply for voicing their religious views outside the "context" of their religious ministry.
.
[Chaplains' interpretation: The phrase "vocational reflection" is not-so-subtle code language meaning "reconcile with homosexuality or find another line of work." The phrase "do NOT tolerate harassment" is code language for "don't speak against sin, for ANY reason, or you the Chaplain will be disciplined for quoting the Bible, and the homosexual protected."] - Source

.
“Gay marriage will affect you and you should be concerned. And there’s a lot we can do.” - Bishop Tobin
.
Advocates of gay marriage hope to convince us it just isn't so, insisting legalized same sex marriage will never result in churches being forced to go against their teaching and perform gay weddings or host receptions for same sex couples. 
.
Bishop Tobin, Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island recently warned about the implications the recognition of same-sex “marriage” would have for religious liberty:

.
“We’re familiar with other examples of the gay agenda infringing on religious freedom,” he said, noting how Massachusetts required the Catholic Church to place children for adoption with homosexual couples and how some countries have charged Christian preachers of hate crimes for voicing Christian doctrine about homosexual practices.
.
“Proponents of gay marriage say that the Church won’t be forced to witness such marriages. Don’t believe it,” he said, warning that the Church may be required to admit homosexual couples as sponsors for baptism, to rent its facilities for homosexual wedding receptions, or to hire employees despite their immoral lifestyles.
.
“For simply maintaining its teachings in these and many other possible scenarios, the Church will be accused of bigotry and unlawful discrimination. The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent,” he said. - Source
.
H/T Pewsitters

So there really is no gay agenda?

And the Hate Crimes Bill will not impinge upon Church teaching regarding homosexuality?
.
That is what many homosexual activists want people to believe, while accusing of lying or exaggeration those contending the opposite.  There are grave concerns the federal hate crimes bill - currently before the senate - has the potential to limit freedom of speech and religion.  The bill clearly states that "courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible." (Source)  Opponents to the bill (including the ACLU) are concerned that it's passage would allow that any politician, pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi or imam who teaches or makes statements, based upon their moral traditions - that homosexual acts are disordered, unnatural or immoral - could be found guilty of a federal crime. 
.
Charges of thought crimes have been brought against public figures elsewhere - Europe and Canada  to be specific.  European homosexualists have started to use repressive powers of state to silence expressions of opposition... as implied by British pro-homosexual activist Peter Bradley's e-mail to AFTAH stating, “You are very lucky that you live in the United States as we have laws in the United Kingdom about inciting hatred based on sexual orientation… here you would be imprisoned; and justly so.” - Source 

Under such hate crime legislation - which BTW protects a special group of people who already have the same equal protection under the law as other US citizens - it is entirely likely that church groups and/or religious leaders could face prosecution for inciting hatred if and when an individual act of discrimination or violence perpetrated against a protected group could be blamed upon a specific religious teaching, or even a homily condemning immoral sexual acts, and so on.  After all, it is part of the gay agenda...
.
At least for people like David Bohnett...
 
“We must treat the causes of intolerance and bullying as well as the symptoms of them,” he remarked. “And as we see most often, it is the evangelical and fundamentalist groups that teach homosexuality is a sin, who stand in the way of fairness and equality.


“It’s time to combat head-on the religious organizations that are funding the opposition to marriage equality and safe school legislation.”


Let us make it known, however, that we will challenge those religious leaders and institutions that shamefully and cowardly use the imprimatur of their church and the name of god [sic] and Jesus to promote hatred and bigotry toward lesbians and gay men,” Bohnett declared. “Among our greatest adversaries who actively work against us are the leaders of the Catholic, Mormon, and evangelical churches who seek to deny equal protection for us and for our children.”



“The bible [sic] is all too often used as a weapon against us, quoted and misquoted by those who seek to deny us freedom and equality,” he continued, arguing that children taught that the Bible condemns homosexuality may become “school bullies” and later become the adults who vote “to deny marriage equality.”


“It’s time we raise our children to be independent thinkers and deeply suspicious of bible beating organized religion. We’d be much better off if parents were honest with their children about the hypocrisy of some churches with regard to homosexuality.”

Bohnett then outlined tactics to "counter faith based discrimination,” saying it is an obligation to take “active measures” to create a world “free of bigotry and intolerance.” He advised an “aggressive response” to critics that “confronts lies with facts” and also a “preemptive campaign” that anticipates the arguments of homosexual activists’ opponents and undermines their credibility.


He said activists should speak with friends, family and co-workers about “religious intolerance as one of the main impediments to progress in the march toward full equality for lesbians and gay men and their families.” - David Bohnett, acceptance speech for his GLSEN award, October 9, 2009 Respect Awards
.
Talk about an agenda, or the slippery slope of hate crimes legislation.  Strange twist to the term religious intolerance as well - from my perspective it seems obvious gays are the ones intolerant of Catholic teaching.
.
So anyway:  The Catholic Church is NOT homophopic.
.
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

The Call to Chastity.

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: "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. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359). - Source
.
Links:
Support for Catholics with homosexual inclination:  http://www.couragerc.net/