How Does One Respond to Typical Gay Hype?
He was staying in New York in the residence where I have my own “ digs” ( this current year of 2002). He was preparing to write a biography of a gay priest who was killed in the 9/11 disaster. As an English author and journalist for the BBC, he has written several articles ( and a book ) presenting the Gay Cause in a non-critical and accepting manner.Allegedly, he has attempted to equate the Homosexual “ union” with the ancient Christian atitude on sex and marriage. His American publishers were cashing in on the wave of post 9/11 euphoria.
Personally I thought the publishers acted crassly and pragmatically in their own business behavior.
I had read his new book and found it ( as expected) to be flagrantly pro-gay,almost canonizing this priest, giving him a pass on his rejection of the Church’s view of sexuality. The book made the priest’s ministerial skills
seem eons ahead of the average, work-a-day, unspectacular,unsung, straight man of God. That he was unfortunately killed at the collapse of the World Trade Center became the core and the “everything” of this priest’s character structure. That he was also Gay made him an irresistable bonanza for the gay propagandists. This bias irritated me and was comprehensible only in terms of a gay agenda.
So,being the dinosaur rascal that I am, I suggested that he read my own article on the group called Dignity which is composed of Catholics who reject the Church’s basic teaching on sexuality. Obviously, my article was highly critical of Dignity but with the criticism based solely on the documents of the Faith. The Englishman reacted like a hyperbolic curve. Completely predictable ! I had asked for suggestions to improve my writing style---- This request was practically overlooked. He honed in on the content—almost angrily objecting to my confrontations.
His objections seemed to me to be the same tired old saws I have been dissecting for some years now. Yet, they do represent the strategy of those religious people who strive mightily to have same sex living legitimatized.
The objections ( with the responses from me) were as follows:
1. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality! Therefore, He had no problem with it.He fails to mention that Jesus was a Jew (Neither English nor American or even irish) and as a devout and believing Jew, He was immersed in the whole Jewish position which abhorred same sex behavior. My own Jewish background taught me, for example, that the reason for the Maccabees revolt was to resist the attempted Greek imposition of same sex life style upon Jewish youth. This is repeated time and again in our history. Scriptural and otherwise.
Interestingly enough, the term “ homosexual” stems most probably only from the 19th century and the work of researchers such as Magus Hersfeld. From an operational and descriptive point of view every Jew knew the religious Position. To exempt Jesus, the Son of God, from holding this universal conviction would be almost beyond belief. What an anachronism! Jesus came NOT to annul our ancient teachings but to fulfill them.
The disgust at same sex behavior was a GIVEN in that era.
Further, the “ therefore” in his argument would completely destroy any balance in the world of morals.
This is an example of the “ de-construct” so popular today. Since he really didn’t mention infanticide or
bank robbing, perhaps we could re-construct some kind of acceptable program for such behavior which were previously so rejected.
2.To translate TOEVAH in Lev. 18, as disgusting or abominable before God is fundamentalistic. One cannot attach such adjectives to same sex loving. One can translate the Hebrew word more supportively for gay lifestyles.
This is sheer revisionism wherein the propagandist is willing to sacrifice legitimate scholarship on the altar of the Gay agenda. To seek a softer and more ambiguous translation of an obvious Hebrew word is to “ cop out” from the realities of words. This is DENOTATIVE useage of the word and in the tradition of the Jewish Bible.
3. The World of science has proven that people are BORN gay and the new scripture scholars show that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior.
There is not a single researcher who says that he has definitively demonstrated the genetic,hormonal or anatomical CAUSATION of the psychosexual orientation in human beings. LeVay, Hamer, monozygotic twin studies,commissure brain studies, all, while perfectly legitimate as studies, modestly hold only that there might be indication for further studies in these areas. The New York Times, or Newsweek might highlight their headlines trumpeting that such proof is just around the corner—but one can be reasonably skeptical until and unless such demonstations are forthcoming.Too many competent and reasonable researchers put on the “brakes” to question seriously what many homosexuals would wish to be so. But to state that science has proven that people are born homosexual is a myth. Even Dr. R. Spitzer who wrote much of the original statement of 1973 for the APA ( which removed homosexuality from the list of pathologies) has reversed much of what he had previously believed. In 1977 ( four years after the statement) the magazine HUMAN SEXUALITY conducted a poll among 5,000 psychiarists and found that 69% of the respondents believed that homosexual orientation is disordered or even pathological. The 1973 statement is really a political one and not one of science.
On the other hand, the factor of environment becomes extremely powerful from a correlaton point of view. Bieber,Barnhouse,Hatterer,Van den aardweg,Nicolosi,Socarides,Moberly and hosts of others do point out the very high correlation between SSA and familial factors. This is not causation but correlation. It factors out MOST of the time. In my own extensive work with male homosexuals, I have found –over many years working in this area—that most of the males consistently report a same sex deficit dating back to early life.
As to Biblical vindication—this is absurd. “ Homosexuality” or SSA is mentioned basically five times in scripture
Lev. twice, I Cor., I Tim.,and Romans ( with other possible oblique references) and always pejoratively. The positive theme from Genesis to Revelations is heterosexualmarriage with SSA clearly a deviation and TOEVAH!
Modern PR people try all manner of styles to re write or re read scripture to fit into their own wishes for legitimatized same sex behavior. There are many scripture scholars of real standing who hold that the Sodom story in Genesis is beyond doubt an account of God’s wrath at what we call homosexual behavior. Consult Lynne Boughton, Ruth T. Barnhouse and Msgr Wm Smith for starters.
4. It is only the institution which condemns homosexual behavior and NOT the Catholic Church. The Anglican Church is just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Catholic Church ( and you do not find the condemnations there as you do in the “ Roman”Church)
While this is an awkward and confused statement, it does raise the whole other dimension of how Churches view themselves. Or how we approach the question of ecclesiology. Is there such a situation where Jesus actually founded His own Church and endowed it with His special protection and guidance? ( A “ peculiar” Roman CAtholic self concept) With a complete confidence flowing from centuries of such a history, the Catholic Church—AS A CHURCH---DEFINITIVELY teaches that “ Under no circumstances can they ( sic: homosexual acts) be approved.” # 2357
It is difficult to understand how one could derive from such an OFFICIAL document that it is only some kind of institutional stance and does not represent the attitude of the Church as a whole. The statement is taken from THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Liberia editrice vaticana and bears the Imprimi potest of Card, Ratzinger and the Holy Office of the Catholic church.
The condemnation of any sexual activity outside of lawful marriage is endemic to the history,teaching and struggle of the Catholic Church. To suggest that the Catholic condemnation of homosexual behavior is merely the rigidity of some right wing oddities is as believeable that Hugh Heffner is not a libertine.
5.The Catholic position on such condemnation is not rational but judgmental.
Jesus taught us that we should love the sinner but to hate the sin. No where does one find hatred towards the SSA person in Catholic documents. Simple logic----major premise, minor premise and conclusion make for rational discourse. Wild accusastions without specific pin pointing is really the irrational dimension. We observe the command of the Lord to love everyone but no where do we find the need to accept and legitimatize what we see to be intrinsicially disordered, as the SSA tendency is described in Catholic documents.
Judgments are made on behavior but not on the interior functioning of human beings—for such belongs to God alone. To pretend that we have no strong opinions on what Chist’s own Church teaches to be objectively in disorder from God’s plan would, for us, be hypocrisy. My English friend ( I prefer to refer to him thusly) reacted to the Catholic position not in terms of factual material ( or reason) but emotionally. He reacted in terms of how he FELT towards his many acquaintances in the Gay sub-culture and how he needed to defend them against the onslaughts of Yankee dinosaur Roman priests.
6. Homosexuals become whole by their acceptance ( of their SSA) and practice.The ruthless truth is that most SSA persons are interiorly distressed by their tendency. The Rationalization heard so often: “ Am I happy to be gay! Rah rah rah! Gay is beautiful. Gayness is to be blessed……” is most often covering over a pained and suffering interior. To encourage SSA people to give in to their tendency and enter the “lifestyle” with its self recriminations, its health hazards, its social rejections, its blind alleys, its often rotating partnerships, its rages, its loneliness is to be truly uncaring—even hostile.
The recognition of the presence of the SSA tendency within one’s soul is not to separate from the Lord. This is clearly true as the Church constantly stresses. But to practice what is called Disgusting and abominable before God is to tear one’s very being apart! Anyone who has been “ there “ can attest to the slippery slope---permitting oneself to act out “ just this time” means the real possibility of the scale. It can be sodomy,or mutual masturbation or fellation ( so called blow jobs), porno or cruising or gay bars or tea rooms or the sad frequenting of Mens’ rooms !!!! This is “ wholeness” ? As Bill O’Reilly says: “ Come on!.
As Patrick Carnes insists: “ Don’t call it love.” it is lust and narcissism gone wild. Yet, one must say that the sad search is really a search for intimacy and love. Moberly agrees that it is the right yearning but it is the wrong mode !!
7.God isn’t obsessed with this issue as are some Catholics who are angry and polemical!!!If one believes in the Holy Scripture as the word of GOD and the Tradition of His Church which is His voice on earth ( This is particularly infuriating to the Gay Propagandist) one might reasonably deduce that this IS important to the Lord Who does use the word hated by the Gays---TOEVAH TO DESCRIBE HOW HE VIEWS SAME SEX BEHAVIOR! To the Orthodox believer acceptance and legitimization of homosexual behavior is preliminary to a total moral breakdown. Such a possibility is viewed by Catholics and others as highly undesireable. One cannot leave out the brutal negative effect homosexual mores can have on youth. Just take a look at the 2002 revelations of the priest scandals which were 96%+ homosexual. Is it that those who know the true implications of the gay agenda should lie down meekly and let all their hard earned values be trampled upon and muted?
If such people were not angry and polemical, they would have to be either dead or drugged !!!
8.The English journalist throws in a few little goodies to round out his anger !Wow!!! Why not bring in all the distorted,raging,misfits we can find and insist that they are really pleasing the Lord regardless what Scripture or the experience of history say? ( Contact A. Toynbee and his hypothesis that sexual distortions such as homosexuality were always linked to the decline of all cultures and civilizations)
In the interests of Charity, I opt not to respond to the Dignity allegation. Let us leave that to the Lord!!!!!!
Cardinal Newman and George Patton and maybe Napoleon!!! Is this a wild, wishful thinking pitch he makes?
These are mostly tired old points the hypist brings out in the hope that he can con the average GI Joe into accepting the destructive agenda of the gay world. Most Americans would die rather than be thought to be unfair and intolerant. WE will blink the eye and turn the other way lest we be seen as prejudiced. Factually, all of us are biased –even if unconsciously. The pretense by the Englishman that he is open and fair and non-judgmental conflicts with his empirical anger when his precious homosexual “ givens” are challenged. He was very angry at me who am a mild, easy going fellow lilke Henry Higgins of the Fair Lady fame. Yet, I did lure him into revealing his real agenda. I had guessed it already but it is fun as well as important to see one’s hunches validated.