Commentary
What Does Catholicism Really Teach?
In the hyper-liberal Jesuit magazine America, Presider James Martin asks the musical question;
"I wonder how many Catholics will be celebrating President Obama’s signing of the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law?"
Martin fails to mention that the repeal not only gives legitimacy to what is theologically illegitimate (and flies in the face of the basic mechanics of the human body), but also ignores that in 1999, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared that the homosexual act is an "intrinsic evil".
The theologically questionable Martin was possibly at his Pollyanna best when he was quoted as saying;
"...gays and lesbians who live chastely can lead holy lives, and even strive to become saints. After all, that’s what approaching 'Christian perfection' means: sanctity."
Does Martin honestly believe that men that are sexually attracted to other men are going to join an organization that is overwhelmingly populated by the male of the species, and that the same homosexuals are going to make a conscience decision to be "celibate"?
Martin gives brief lip service to the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, and he went on to say;
"As I see it, the repeal of DADT is not about marriage, or sexual activity, but about something else, and something perhaps more important: simple human dignity."
And amazingly enough, he goes on to conveniently ignore;
The homosexual orientation (“an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,” CCC 2357) is a grave and inherent moral disorder, since the orientation directs the person toward acts of grave depravity. This orientation is contrary to the plan of God for humanity. God never wills a person to be sexually attracted to members of the same gender.
Regardless if Martin considers DADT not to be about legitimatization of a grave moral disorder and depravity, that's exactly what it is.
And as someone who spent most of his adult life in the service of his country, I can attest that it's never a good idea to issue automatic weapons and explosives to depraved individuals who suffer from grave moral disorders.
In Closing...
And the words "depraved" and "grave moral disorders" did not originate with me. As I stated before, that is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Last time I checked, both I and the Catholic Church are guaranteed freedom of belief as well as freedom of speech.
But nonetheless, I'm quite sure that the PC Gestapo and the Lavender Mafia will do everything they can to get this article revoked.
Isn't it strange that liberals are such great proponents of free speech... until someone says something they disagree with?
Oh, and isn't is interesting that the only elected official Martin quotes in his article was Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). The same Sen Wyden who's recieved a 100% rating by NARAL on his pro-abortion voting record.
If you like this article, please click on the SUBSCRIBE button above (it's free) to receive e-mail alerts when a new article is published by this Examiner, or click here to add Kevin's News Portal Page to your favorites.
Comments
This article should really visit the theological (a word brought up quite a bit) virtue of charity.
Also to suggest that this quote: "..gays and lesbians who live chastely can lead holy lives, and even strive to become saints. After all, that’s what approaching 'Christian perfection' means: sanctity." is somehow false or will fail because it is impractical is to deny the virtue of hope and theologically problematic
The author would do well to actually study theology instead of criticizing those who are actual theologians.
Could you please exaplin to me what is 'charitable' about legitimizing one man sloshing his penis about in another man's feces filled colon?
The writer of the above comment do well to actually study Catholic theology instead of criticizing those who actually defend Catholic theology.
Mr. Whiteman:
If you think your post reflects accurately what Catholicism and all of our rich tradition teaches then you are sadly mistaken. You are not actually defending Catholic theology, you are simply ranting on a topic which requires much more than a comment or an article to explicate sufficiently. Instead of calling names, like you did from the very title of this Article, how about learning how to be charitable as we are told by Christ?
Telling me to go learn theology is a laughable comment, because nothing in your post is "theological." At best it simply turns to the CCC, adding nothing new to the discussion.
Just an FYI, I am actually a Catholic theologian.
I couldn't help but notice that you fail to answer my painfully simple question.
No matter how great your attempts at verbal gymnastics, the homosexual act is intrinsically evil, and the homosexual inclination is a grave and inherent moral disorder. Those aren't my words... they're the words of The Church.
If you're an example of a Catholic theologian, that explains why so many slap themselves on the back on what a great job they are doing in the name of inclusivness and moderninity... and all the while the churches empty.
BTW, I give it 50-50 chances that you're Jesuit schooled.
1. I fail to see how a Jesuit education is bad--though I did not receive a Jesuit education. Hmm...seems as you though have overlooked the likes of Marechal, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the late Avery Dulles. Their contribution to Catholic theology is priceless and, to be sure, the quotes you have used from the CCC come from the work of Marechal and his peers.
2. You ask what is so charitable about the homosexual act, but I was not talking about the charity of that act. I was referring to the charity that Christians possess for one another, especially if you are "one of our own" as it were with the Jesuits. If Jesus' words are to remain true, that we should know a tree by its fruits, then the fruits you bear are of no help to Catholicism and the Church as an instrument of God on Earth. You're sowing division and your criticisms are generalized to an entire order whose existence is to serve the Church.
The Jesuits have done a fine job of sowing division without any help from me.
If you consider charity to be accepting and legitimizing what Holy Mother the Church has deemed to be intrinsically evil, that speaks volumes of the type of alleged "theologian" you claim to be.
3. The inherent moral disorder of homosexual inclination cannot be denied as being sinful, though an inclination does not define the sinner. We all have inclinations to sin, but sinfulness comes from the act. If you think an ethics of intention is something to be considered, then please confer what the Church has said about it before moving on to say that inclinations are synonymous with the sin. The three distinct "parts" of an action (good or bad) is the intention, the act, and the circumstance. So what makes the inclination sinful? It is not! It is disordered. The Church is very precise with her use of words, perhaps you should be more aware of what she teaches before giving the world a chance to mock her because of your inadequate understanding of what she teaches.
When did I state that the inclination was in and of itself a sin? I didn't. I strongly sugggest you be more aware of what people actually say before you mock them for your inadequate understanding of what was just said.
BTW, your verbal gymnasitcs win the gold. Your moral relativism perfectly illustrates why The Church is in the state it's in.
Kevin,
respectfully,
while I am in no way defending the above (I would argue graphic) description of a homosexual act, I don't believe it was necessary to describe in such terms in order to debate the issue.
If I were to redefine/ reword Martin's comment to read:
"'...[Men and women with unwanted same sex attractions] who live chastely can lead holy lives, and even strive to become saints. After all, that’s what approaching 'Christian perfection' means: sanctity.'"
I see no Theological problem with this statement as it stands. As it stands it is not condoning homosexual acts/ deliberate unchaste thoughts, but rather expressing a legitimate Theological reality.
The other issues raised seem to be:
1) How should a Catholic view don't ask/ don't tell?
2) Can a person with same sex attractions who desires to live chaste join the military in the view of the CC.
3) If they are permitted to, should they?
I suppose each one of these could be debated and quite frankly I don't have the knowledge of such issues yet to do so.
I think it's important to realize that none of us Catholics posting in here are in any way trying to legitimize homosexuality or homosexual acts, and I don't think any of us would reject what the Church teaches about homosexuality;
Peace 2 both of you!
Nick
@ Kevin,
let me restate/ explainthe first parapragh I wrote:
I meant while I in no way condone such an act as you described (quite the contrary), I was questioning whether or not you should have wrote that. :-(
Nick,
a sinner
Another excellent post, Kevin. Keep defending the truth that the Catholic Church (and increasingly only the Catholic Church) teaches.
Thanks, Don!
wow cant even read your comments because i dont think of things like that.
Not gay dont care
you hiding something Kevin, you gay ?
Ted haggard is in denial too
Oh golly gee, anonymous coward... that's the best you can come up with? By your reckoning, I must secretly be in favor of gutting pregnant women and hacking up their unborn children.
Toddle off, boy. You bore me.
Kevin,
Thank you for your honest and unapologetic expression of homophobia.
Your open hostility and hatred serve as a perfect reminder of the bigotry and ignorance religious superstition demands.
No "Slick". Homophobia isn't correct. Homotaedet more correctly describes my true feelings.
Don't strain you puny brain muscle attempting to translate what homotaedetism is.
I googled "homotaedetism" no entry found. Are you making up words little buddy?
By the way you respond to other readers it is fairly apparent you are intellectually challenged, and must resort to childish name calling.
Nevertheless, I enjoy your angry, childish retorts for they are demonstrative of the emotional and intellectual poverty of those stricken by religious superstition.
You aren't trying hard enough, little sister. Keep trying...
BTW Slick, just to make sure I understand this correctly -- you tried to find something all by yourself just once. Couldn't find it, so then you quit and complained.
How long have you been a Democrat?
@Kevin,
You are indeed homophobic, and both your column and your raving posts afterward illustrate this. All you've done is insult everyone who has posted, rather than present any rational argument. And FYI, I'm a mid-50s Catholic grandma (no, I am not gay) who attended Catholic schools from Kindergarten through graduate school. I daresay I know quite a bit more theology than you, sir, and I can state unequivocally that Jesus, while not rejecting you because he loves AND ACCEPTS all, would certainly not approve of your blatant hatred demonstrated here tonight.
I'm new to the Examiner, so blast my choice to stay anonymous (in the interests of preserving my privacy) if you will. I do not intend to return and respond to your insults which I'm sure are coming. However, I do want to say that if you are the "Catholic" columnist for this "newsletter," then they have certainly chosen poorly. You, sir, are giving a most undeserving black eye to all Catholics. You most definitely do not speak for the majority of us.
*Yawn* Yet another anonymous coward. How typical.
But in the meantime, Awww... now you've just wounded my inner child. Golly gee, imagine my expectations that alleged Catholics such as yourself would actually defend The Church.
Silly me. What was I thinking?
Who let this ignorant imbecile write a column, let alone speak for Catholics on a National level?!
This poor fellow is a sad excuse for a writer, a thinker, and a Catholic.
What a sad and disgraceful spectacle. My sympathy to the lad's mother.
There goes that nasty 1st Amendment again. How dare I.
But nonetheless, in light you so desire to bring my dear departed mother into this, allow me to say that your mother didn't have any complaints.
Must be your Christian charity at work in that little missive, eh?
Well, Kevin, I'm not annonymous and I am an "Examiner in Baltimore". I am also a Catholic (for 60 years). I applaud you right to have freedom of speech in your article.
However, I do disagree with the way you treat your readers! Each is allowed to have the same freedom of expression as you do and should not be belittled because of their views or their need to protect their privacy on this sensitive subject -- again, something that should NOT be belittled here or elsewhere. I hope your readers will review other Examiner's articles and find a receptive place for their views.
I welcome ALL to the Church and pray they find their way to a more acceptable "Christian" lifestyle! Look at our history -- we have many sinners within the Apostles, within the Litany of Saints. Lives can and often do change.
As for "Don't Ask Don't Tell" - I do applaud the change of law. EVERYONE should have the freedom to choose to defend our country and its Constitution regardless of race, religion, nationality OR sexual orientation. AGAIN, may they find their way to their Lord and Savior.
May the Lord hold us all in the palms of His hands and let their be peace and acceptance in the world... for even Jesus shared meals with sinners!
Merry Christmas!
I give as good as I get. Maybe I have bad manners due to my defending The Church. Possibly I am rude when I hear of alleged "Catholics" being in favor of legitimizing a lifestyle that The Church has deemed morally disordered.
Tell you what... if you don't like the way I "treat my readers", possibly it's you that needs to reexamine your own Catholicism.
I question yours. You seem to worship the Constitution more than God and what He has deemed as far as one man having sex with another.
I pray for your conversion to Catholicism.
What is "homophobic" about stating the truth of a situation? What 'dignity" is preserved by allowing openly homosexual folks to serve in the military? Seems the indignity is self-evident--there is nothing dignified about homosexuality. And how is describing the act in graphic clarity less than charitable? I think some people mistake charity for something it is not. The ultimate expression of love is doing everything in your power to get another person into heaven. That is charity--not confirming people in their sins but turning them away from their sins. Peace at any cost does not do anyone any good.
I expect that the repeal of DADT will simply allow homosexuals to challenge every order, every slight, every perceived mistreatment as a civil rights violation, which will completely destroy the integrity of the armed forces.
But hey, if you claim to be Catholic as some of these commenters do, and prize the perceived "right" of soldiers and sailors to have anal sex with one another and brag about it publicly, all in the name of some sort of "charitable" Jesus who accepts everyone [and you can ask the moneychangers in the Temple about that, or perhaps the fellow with the millstone around his neck], then by all means continue to harass Kevin and run him down.
Then maybe you can publish your own column promoting your own particular brand of protestantism and claim it is Catholic. Good luck with that.
Careful TCN,
All that common sense and overt Catholicism will have you branded a "homophobe". Homotaedets UNITE!!
grow up you child
did your boyfriend leave you?
where you an alter boy who was molested?
You afraid to answer anymos
dont worry your not worth my time - whats your name? Gary?
Awwww.... poor baby got slappped down an' don' like it! *pouting* poor, poor baby!!
Toddle off, child. You bore me. *YAWN*
(aka Nicholas Gulda)
@ TCM,
you said
"That is charity--not confirming people in their sins but turning them away from their sins. Peace at any cost does not do anyone any good."
it was I who questioned whether or not Kevin should have used the words he did in the commentary describing the act; you disagree so be it. I was speaking my conscience- it wasn't neccessary IMO.
That being said, I'm not "confirming anybody in their sins", I actually went through trouble to express that.
I also did not want to comment on the issue of DADT because I am admittedly ignorant of Catholic teaching on that ( or if there is a position.)
I also requalified the statement made by Martin and stand by my analysis (not of how Martin would interpret that or whatever I can't speak past the statement and my requalification of it.)
Sorry TCM, I was a non-beleiver who embraced protestantism, who then by the grace of God came into the CC; your charge of protestantism (at least towards me and I would say John too) are a non sequitor.
@ Kevin,
I don't think I was "running you down" just stating my opinion that that didn't need to be said that way (graphically.) I also stated my opinion on the comment by Martin (again just going by the words- I can't speak for his actual views I haven't read them.)
Lord knows I am far from perfect (hence my signature; "a sinner".) Maybe I should have taken the plank out of my own eye first, God can judge, but I was just speaking my conscience and hope you'd remembered that we had had contact in the past and wouldn't have taken it in a bad way.
peace..
Nick
Nick,
I never accused you of "running me down".
As far as my "graphic" description, I wouldn't qualify it that way at all. I've used accepted medical terms. You may be confusing the verbage with the act itself as to what is disgusting.
Look at it this way -- I can type out the words "abortion", or I can type out EXACTLY how an unborn child is literally slaughtered in the womb.
Both are correct, but the latter forces you to think what a disgusting, horrible, un-godly muurder has taken place.
Much like abortion, I have no inclination of sugar-coating the filth that is the homosexual act, or the grave moral dosorder that is its inclination.
May God bless you, Nick. Keep posting.
Charity does require strictness and scolding, but it does not (and, in fact, cannot) call for finger-pointing judgments. Nowhere in my post did I comment on the whole DTDA or even did I mention of my support for homosexuality--for I do not support homosexual activities. My contention was that this article is full of judgment and lacking charity--affronting an entire order which the Church acknowledges to be one of her own flocks.
Recall the words of St. Paul: Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
To embrace the sinner is not the same thing as embracing the sin.
Also these responses from the author and the supporters of the author are riddled with logical fallacies. To name three I have seen: ad hominems (oh my there are plenty of those), red herrings, appeal to emotion.
Also, there is a presupposition that somehow a homosexual man/woman will engage in these activities in the armed forces if they are allowed commitments. This presupposition ignores the fact that an "openly gay" person might be one who recognizes the inherent gravity of the disorder and is thus living out and working out his/her salvation with fear and trembling--by not engaging in the disordered activities.
How difficult is must be for you to utter the simple words, "the homosexual inclination is a grave moral disorder" and "the homosexual act is an intrinsic evil". Those aren't my words, those are the words of the Church. Instead, you you tap dance around the truth and weave as many theological pgrases that you can cherry pick to you don't have to be a real Catholic and make a courageous moral stand in an evil, secular world.
I feel sorry for you.
Kevin,
Thanks for the response; I better understand your reasoning.
Also, I know you didn't accuse me of "running you down" (I should have clarified.) Those were the words of TCN and even then I don't know if they were specifically addressed to me.
OK. last thing brother and I hope I am not coming off judgemental here and please, PLEASE, feel free to come to my column and admonish me (as iron sharpens iron)-- I need it.
My last little thing here is (maybe I'm nitpicking) but some of the commenters could have worded their comments a little nicer. That being said, I would say that some of your responses are unbecoming of the response of a Christian; sorry brother if I'm nitpicking but I hope it helps to serve a greater good; especially that in your ministry.
That being said in no way am I saying that a spade shouldn't be called a spade or am I defending liberalism or any other heresy (I think it's a heresy no?) I think that what I and possibly John are getting at can maybe be summed up in that quote (whose is it St. Francis of Assisi?) that explains that:
one catches more flies with honey than one does with vinegar.
Sorry again if I'm nitpicking, just speaking my conscience, please feel free to do the same to me and I'll "leave you alone" ;-)
Peace, and God bless!
Nick
I understand (and agree) with much you say. But with that said, please know that I have no desire to catch flies! :-)
Two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy are 1. Instruct the ignorant (unknowing) and 2. Admonish the sinner.
The unvarnished, unapologetic truth of The Church needs to be said to the world. Here's the problem -- people don't like to hear what the *need* to hear, but they do enjoy hearing what they *want* to hear.
Maybe it's because Im a retired Marine Master Sergeant, but I tell people the truth. If they don't like it, that's their problem.
Remember, the martyrs didn't water down the Truth of Christ and His Church. And we see how "the world" treated them.
Thanks for posting. Keep coming back.
Kevin
Thanks, Kevin
God Bless!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!