The Tolerance Disconnect
Oct 12, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
In last week’s episode of the hit TV series Glee, the acerbic cheerleading instructor Sue Sylvester revealed to her Down Syndrome-afflicted sister that she stopped believing in God because of the way she, the sister, had been treated by people who saw her as “less than perfect.”
“You were perfect in my eyes,” Sylvester said.
“God doesn’t make mistakes. That’s what I believe,” the sister replied.
That wasn’t a bad answer, but a better one might have been, “I was perfect in God’s eyes, too.”
We live in an era where very few people with Down Syndrome are being welcomed into the world. Some studies suggest that perhaps 90 percent of extra-chromosome babies are aborted by parents fearful of both the challenges and societal “discomforts” that they and their babies will face.
We also live in an era where gay teenage boys and straight teenage girls commit suicide in alarming numbers due to rampant bullying. Bullies, either because they are deficient in recognizing their own God-created uniqueness, or too frightened to own it, inflict sheer hell upon the “others” around them—those vulnerable people who, for one reason or another, cannot easily reside in the increasingly brittle “norms” established within generations, cultures, neighborhoods, or even classrooms, and who cannot, or simply will not, hide their “otherness.”
The recent, tragic, suicides of eighteen-year-old Tyler Clementi and fifteen-year-old Phoebe Prince—both bullied beyond their endurance by contemporaries, both unable or unwilling to admit into their confidence an authoritative person who might have helped—have generated a great deal of ink about bullying and how to combat it. We hear that children must be more emphatically taught “tolerance and kindness,” and that awareness must be raised.
That’s all well and good, but it bears mentioning that this generation of teenagers has been raised on near-daily lessons in tolerance and “everyone is specialness” from their first Sesame Street episode to their Senior Proms; there is a disconnect, somewhere, between theory and practice, and that disconnect is a killer.
Part of the disconnect is a society-wide inability to walk that tolerance talk. Everyone pays lip-service to the Golden Rule, but it is easy to find an intolerant anti-Catholic bigot on Huffington Post, and MSNBC or an anti-secularist one on Free Republic.com or Fox News. Our decades-long grounding in Political Correctness allows anyone to proclaim their noble, “tolerant” instincts while huddled in insulated enclaves where the limits of their tolerance are made all too plain, extending only to the like-minded.
Children and young people are not stupid. If they encounter a teacher, or a preacher, talking love and acceptance in one breath and then bad-mouthing the impolitic “other” of their own prejudices (and they do) they will reject the talk, and find their own “other” to speak against, jeer at and hate.
Throughout history, the humanly-thus-imperfectly administered Catholic Church has made its share of errors—some deep and grievous—but in her savior and saints she has also been the institution most willing to take risks, and to suffer, in order to be the voice, the hands, the feet, the eyes, the ears, and the mouth of Christ, the only and True Tolerator, the man of sorrows, acquainted with grief and despised, the Necessary Other who gives dignity to every cast-aside, displaced, socially-unfit “other” in every age.
I wonder if the Church, currently led by a courageous man with a tender heart, will have to do something daring in order to save our imperfect “others” from being shredded in utero, save our vulnerable, sensitive “others” from destroying themselves, save our bullies from the confused fear that resides behind their vicious aggression.
I wonder if her bishops and religious leaders will, for example, have to acknowledge with loving support the numerous celibate homosexual priests who, throughout history and still today, serve her faithfully, courageously, and with great joy. Such an acknowledgment could go a long way repairing that disconnect that keeps everyone talking about tolerance while walking away from it.
It would speak to the value of the human person as he is created; it would reinforce the church’s own teaching that the homosexual inclination is not in-and-of-itself sinful; in a sex-saturated culture where “gay” has become in some minds synonymous with “promiscuous” and both heterosexual and homosexual couples see no particular value in chastity, it would present the radical counter-narrative.
Most importantly, such an acknowledgment would be call of olly-olly-oxen free for the church herself. Battered by the revelations of the past decade, poorly served by past psychological studies suggesting that child abusers could be “cured” and therefore distrustful of more recent findings that homosexuals are no more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexuals, the church has reflexively pulled the curtains over a number of her priests, and in doing so, she has hidden the idea of “acceptable otherness” from a flock that is sorely in need to see some of it.
It is a self-protective move—and given the way the church is portrayed in media, a somewhat understandable one—but in making it, the church is being dishonest. Worse, she is contradicting the message—the very consoling and urgently needed message—that we are created perfect in God’s eyes, and therefore must be acceptable to each other, no matter the extra-chromosome, or the physical imperfection, or the “other” way of feeling and looking and being.
A generation in turmoil needs to hear it. A church that survives by the grace of the Holy Spirit needs to breathe it.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
10.12.2010 | 2:13am
Don Roberto says:
(1) Respectfully, an "inclination" is sinful if it is objectively wrong and self-perpetuated, e.g., if the "inclined" allows himself to devote attention to it, playing over inappropriate fantasies in his mind or acting them out. Self-scourging may be called for. Only the sinner can decide whether to "pluck out his eye." But leaving it in, i.e., continuing to perpetuate the sinful inclination, is the road to lasting death.
(2) Again, with the greatetst of respect for my betters, it seems to me that some sins are not pardonable. "Better that he who leads one of these little ones astray shoud cast himself into the sea." A priest or anyone "to whom much has been given" is especially culpable for his sins. Jesus gave Peter the power to loose and to bind: The Church's mistake has been to feel the latter should never be used.
(2) Again, with the greatetst of respect for my betters, it seems to me that some sins are not pardonable. "Better that he who leads one of these little ones astray shoud cast himself into the sea." A priest or anyone "to whom much has been given" is especially culpable for his sins. Jesus gave Peter the power to loose and to bind: The Church's mistake has been to feel the latter should never be used.
10.12.2010 | 10:07am
Steve says:
Nice article, Elizabeth.
It's sad how all of this bullying talk almost makes me nostalgic for my days being bullied, where my bullier and I would square off in the school hallway, throw some awkward punches, and separate. But somehow, for kids of all stripes, the world seems so much tougher, more coarse. And all this with the talk of tolerance which has grown exponentially since I was in high school, a mere fifteen years ago.
It's sad how all of this bullying talk almost makes me nostalgic for my days being bullied, where my bullier and I would square off in the school hallway, throw some awkward punches, and separate. But somehow, for kids of all stripes, the world seems so much tougher, more coarse. And all this with the talk of tolerance which has grown exponentially since I was in high school, a mere fifteen years ago.
10.12.2010 | 11:04am
Jeanne Grunert says:
As usual you hit a point I'd not considered before: that this generation, so steeped in "I'm okay - you're okay" stuff, where everyone is a winner, sex information is distributed in elementary school classes....is also the generation where bullying has driven peers to suicide. Bullies existed throughout time. Why now, why these children?
10.12.2010 | 11:06am
Matthew Hummel says:
I note that school shootings came in after "Conflict Resolution." As the younger brother of a man with autism, I remember bullying of that sort. Also, the sort one engenders for doing better academically. There is something to be said for awkward squaring off. And for bullies being punished for transgressing not just against the victim, but against the rules.
I cannot see the logic in loosing one's faith because others are mean. Perhaps because one's prayer's for healing were not answered. Perhaps because one questions the type of Deity who was asleep at the switch when this occurred. But anger at others' inability to see what you see in a sibling leads one not to loss of faith but to the conclusion that the world has more than it's fair share of [insert FT approved term of opprobrium here].
I cannot see the logic in loosing one's faith because others are mean. Perhaps because one's prayer's for healing were not answered. Perhaps because one questions the type of Deity who was asleep at the switch when this occurred. But anger at others' inability to see what you see in a sibling leads one not to loss of faith but to the conclusion that the world has more than it's fair share of [insert FT approved term of opprobrium here].
10.12.2010 | 11:45am
GlennB says:
Feelings, desires and inclinations matter. Christ came to rescue us from the "desires of deceit" and to renew us so that God becomes more and more "desirable" and what we once greatly desired that was sinful, becomes more and more detestable. We struggle against evil desires, longing for the day when we will be completely set free from sin and death, awaiting the consummation of our salvation. A thief becomes generous rather than greedy. It is not just what we do outwardly that exposes us as sinners. Jesus goes to the "heart" of the matter, when for example he talks about adultery being more than just actually engaging in illicit intercourse. And we are told to "love" the truth, not just do it. We are told to do things "eagerly" and not be content with cold indifferent "doing our duty." Yes, love is more than feelings, but it is not less than feelings either. When we cannot serve with joy, we should cry out for God to renew our hearts, and to restore to us "the joy of our salvation." There is a such thing as "evil desires." But we legalistic sinners, like Pharisees, always focus on the outwardness of things. Better theology would say that there are both heterosexual inclinations (desires) and homosexual inclinations (desires) that place us in the need of God's forgiveness and grace. Easy for a heterosexual with adulterous inclinations to excuse him or herself and only concern her or himself with homosexual sin. So, while homosexual inclinations are sinful, they are not the only inclinations that place us in need of God's transforming power. There is more to sexual sin and sinful sexual inclinations than homosexual ones. A person who is honest with their own "evil inclinations" is more likely to be "tolerant" of someone with different sinful inclinations. But let's not promote the notion that inclinations don't matter. They do, and the best of our theological tradition and Scriptural exegesis re-iterate what Christ taught about it not just being what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him, but the very evil desires that reside in his heart.
10.12.2010 | 11:56am
Mandy P. says:
Jeanne Grunert says:
As usual you hit a point I'd not considered before: that this generation, so steeped in "I'm okay - you're okay" stuff, where everyone is a winner, sex information is distributed in elementary school classes....is also the generation where bullying has driven peers to suicide. Bullies existed throughout time. Why now, why these children?
Simple. We've delegated the responsibility of raising our children to the schools, the state, Sesame Street, etc. We live in a society where everyone is self-centered to an extreme, and that's considered acceptable and even encouraged.
As to Elizabeth's point: I don't think we've been as bombarded with messages of "tolerance" so much as messages of "unconditional acceptance". We, as a society, seem to have leaped past the tolerance part- where you may or may not like the lifestyle or choices or whatnot of someone else, but you must remain respectful of that person and treat them humanely- and are trying to force people to accept everyone's choices as right and normal. We've made it a forbidden thing for people to love the sinner while not approving of the sin itself. The messages we are receiving are that you must accept and rabidly approve of the sin or else you obviously hate the person committing the sin. And the message-givers have labeled that as "tolerance".
Our children have been told that if people don't warmly embrace their lifestyle then they are victims of hate. It is therefore no surprise that they- many of whom are missing their parents as a result of their (the parents') own selfish pursuits- are unable to cope when people are vocally disapproving of their actions.
There is no excuse for how the two examples Mrs. Scalia cited were treated. That being said, if parents were doing their jobs and we would stop with the ridiculous messages, I believe we would have less of the horrendous type of bullying we've seen in recent years, and children who would be able to better cope when bullying inevitable occurs.
As usual you hit a point I'd not considered before: that this generation, so steeped in "I'm okay - you're okay" stuff, where everyone is a winner, sex information is distributed in elementary school classes....is also the generation where bullying has driven peers to suicide. Bullies existed throughout time. Why now, why these children?
Simple. We've delegated the responsibility of raising our children to the schools, the state, Sesame Street, etc. We live in a society where everyone is self-centered to an extreme, and that's considered acceptable and even encouraged.
As to Elizabeth's point: I don't think we've been as bombarded with messages of "tolerance" so much as messages of "unconditional acceptance". We, as a society, seem to have leaped past the tolerance part- where you may or may not like the lifestyle or choices or whatnot of someone else, but you must remain respectful of that person and treat them humanely- and are trying to force people to accept everyone's choices as right and normal. We've made it a forbidden thing for people to love the sinner while not approving of the sin itself. The messages we are receiving are that you must accept and rabidly approve of the sin or else you obviously hate the person committing the sin. And the message-givers have labeled that as "tolerance".
Our children have been told that if people don't warmly embrace their lifestyle then they are victims of hate. It is therefore no surprise that they- many of whom are missing their parents as a result of their (the parents') own selfish pursuits- are unable to cope when people are vocally disapproving of their actions.
There is no excuse for how the two examples Mrs. Scalia cited were treated. That being said, if parents were doing their jobs and we would stop with the ridiculous messages, I believe we would have less of the horrendous type of bullying we've seen in recent years, and children who would be able to better cope when bullying inevitable occurs.
10.12.2010 | 12:02pm
Tim says:
Can you direct me to the study/data that shows homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals? Thanks
10.12.2010 | 12:02pm
Sophia Mason says:
"I wonder if her bishops and religious leaders will . . . support the numerous celibate homosexual priests who . . . serve her faithfully, courageously, and with great joy. . . It would speak to the value of the human person as he is created; it would reinforce the church’s own teaching that the homosexual inclination is not in-and-of-itself sinful; in a sex-saturated culture where “gay” has become in some minds synonymous with “promiscuous” and both heterosexual and homosexual couples see no particular value in chastity, it would present the radical counter-narrative."
I seriously question this passage. I am not sure that we know what it means to be gay--and I mean that in the strictest sense. What it feels like to be gay, to be bullied, etc.--is a question worth asking, but not, I think, the most important one. We can all relate to being an abused minority to some degree (if only because we've all experienced a little childhood bullying!).
But when we say "so-and-so is gay" or that there are "numerous celibate homosexual priests" what do we really mean? We've seen several definitions of homosexuality. Is someone gay because they have sex with persons of the same sex? Because they want to have sex with them? Because they find them attractive? Is being gay a gene, or a habit, or something of both (like allergies that can be turned on or off)? Is it a mental illness, like depression?
Until we have an answer from science, I think it might be more prudent for the Church not to allow men who call themselves "gay" (whatever we think that means) into the ministry. When Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae he didn't know the Pill could cause abortion--he opposed the Pill on other, very good grounds. But if he had in fact supported the Pill, the Church would have found itself years later in the incontrovertible position of being opposed to abortion, but having sanctioned the use of an abortificant. I would hate to think that we might today sanction homosexual tendencies only to find that they are, after all, more eradicable and more voluntary than we suspect.
I seriously question this passage. I am not sure that we know what it means to be gay--and I mean that in the strictest sense. What it feels like to be gay, to be bullied, etc.--is a question worth asking, but not, I think, the most important one. We can all relate to being an abused minority to some degree (if only because we've all experienced a little childhood bullying!).
But when we say "so-and-so is gay" or that there are "numerous celibate homosexual priests" what do we really mean? We've seen several definitions of homosexuality. Is someone gay because they have sex with persons of the same sex? Because they want to have sex with them? Because they find them attractive? Is being gay a gene, or a habit, or something of both (like allergies that can be turned on or off)? Is it a mental illness, like depression?
Until we have an answer from science, I think it might be more prudent for the Church not to allow men who call themselves "gay" (whatever we think that means) into the ministry. When Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae he didn't know the Pill could cause abortion--he opposed the Pill on other, very good grounds. But if he had in fact supported the Pill, the Church would have found itself years later in the incontrovertible position of being opposed to abortion, but having sanctioned the use of an abortificant. I would hate to think that we might today sanction homosexual tendencies only to find that they are, after all, more eradicable and more voluntary than we suspect.
10.12.2010 | 12:12pm
Mandy P. says:
I also want to address Mrs. Scalia's suggestions for the Church. I think they are very worthy of consideration and would be a very loving gesture. However, I don't think they would do much good. Large swaths of the homosexual community are not looking for tolerance- they are looking for that unconditional acceptance and a blessing of the lifestyle as normal and even a societal good. The idea that a homosexual should deny him or herself physical pleasure and romance is very offensive to many who have those proclivities.
10.12.2010 | 12:17pm
Mike M. says:
Matthew Hummel has it right. Why lose one's fath each time that misfortune knocks at the door? God has made us free and that includes a capacity for resilience which needs constant tending.
10.12.2010 | 12:51pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Tim, you can take a look at the preliminary findings of the John Jay study initiated by the USCCB here: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/18/new-catholic-sex-abuse-findings-gay-priests-not-the-problem/ The full study is meant to be completed and released later this year or early next year, but as I said, the bishops have been burned by psychologists before, so they have good reason (IMHO) to respond to any psychological study with a raised eyebrow before proceeding with caution.
10.12.2010 | 12:51pm
Gail F says:
Tim: Many studies show that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. Pedophilia is a disorder characterized by being sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children of either sex (it's the youth that matters, not the gender). You are perhaps confused because the vast majority of people abused by priests have been young men, and many homosexual men are attracted to very young men -- but not to children. People tend to lump these things together but they are very different.
I think Elizabeth has a great point. Surely there are many celibate priests who have homosexual attractions, and they must be feeling particularly hated these days. I think that not allowing these men to become priests is a terrible idea -- there's a lot of conflicting evidence about what causes people to be gay, and a lot of differences of opinions about whether or not sexual acts of all sorts or normal or abnormal, but as far as I know there is NO evidence that attraction for people of the same sex is irresistible, any more than there is that attraction for people of the opposite sex is irresistible. One injustice doesn't fix another one.
I think Elizabeth has a great point. Surely there are many celibate priests who have homosexual attractions, and they must be feeling particularly hated these days. I think that not allowing these men to become priests is a terrible idea -- there's a lot of conflicting evidence about what causes people to be gay, and a lot of differences of opinions about whether or not sexual acts of all sorts or normal or abnormal, but as far as I know there is NO evidence that attraction for people of the same sex is irresistible, any more than there is that attraction for people of the opposite sex is irresistible. One injustice doesn't fix another one.
10.12.2010 | 1:24pm
Maria V. says:
Many of the readers here are familiar with the article by David B.Hart -'Theodicy and the tsunami' , how evil is a reality in our fallen world ..thus indirectly reminding us of the need for warfare - of the spiritual type .
We are made with the thirst to know perfection in everything but the source of that is not us ; we , who had been perfect when created are damaged at many levels and our efforts are there to be perfect again , our anguish that we are not ...and The One , source of all beauty and perfection, who came to be one with His children so that in His infinte love and mercy and merits , our weaknesses and wickedness can disappear , like in the miracle of The Resurrection ..and thus giving us the unity of hearts and trust to bring the weakness and neediness of the other too , to Him ...thus the bond of compassion and power of interceding , united with the army of heaven ...with the expectant faith for miracles ...
such is what our children need to be trained for ... early on ...and the lessons are not that far away - enough time in The Word ..esp. listened to in teh contxt of The lIturgy , which in itself is healing ...enough focus on what happens in the lives of God's people often eneough , even at miraculous levels ....just like Joshua bringing down strongholds ...esp. of hatred , to be replaced with compassion ..and trust that our God of one impossibilties .. the promise - 'the least in The Kingdom , is greater ..'
Such would be the power our priests too hopefully would witness . how enemy effects were courageously defeated ...and set free , to let the Spirit of God have dominion , in all areas !
We are very blessed in The Church , to have the arsenals and the army ...we have to use our freedom , to also know how powerful and pervasive the enemy is and be willing to persevere ...to prevent ...may be good studies that demonstrate how young couples taking certain spiritual precautions , even use of sacrarmentals such as the St.Benedect medal all have a role ...and every occasion of illness also dealt with as an occasion of spiritual warfare , even for generational healing !
The sorrow of not being perefect may be a need, to bring in enough fire !
We are made with the thirst to know perfection in everything but the source of that is not us ; we , who had been perfect when created are damaged at many levels and our efforts are there to be perfect again , our anguish that we are not ...and The One , source of all beauty and perfection, who came to be one with His children so that in His infinte love and mercy and merits , our weaknesses and wickedness can disappear , like in the miracle of The Resurrection ..and thus giving us the unity of hearts and trust to bring the weakness and neediness of the other too , to Him ...thus the bond of compassion and power of interceding , united with the army of heaven ...with the expectant faith for miracles ...
such is what our children need to be trained for ... early on ...and the lessons are not that far away - enough time in The Word ..esp. listened to in teh contxt of The lIturgy , which in itself is healing ...enough focus on what happens in the lives of God's people often eneough , even at miraculous levels ....just like Joshua bringing down strongholds ...esp. of hatred , to be replaced with compassion ..and trust that our God of one impossibilties .. the promise - 'the least in The Kingdom , is greater ..'
Such would be the power our priests too hopefully would witness . how enemy effects were courageously defeated ...and set free , to let the Spirit of God have dominion , in all areas !
We are very blessed in The Church , to have the arsenals and the army ...we have to use our freedom , to also know how powerful and pervasive the enemy is and be willing to persevere ...to prevent ...may be good studies that demonstrate how young couples taking certain spiritual precautions , even use of sacrarmentals such as the St.Benedect medal all have a role ...and every occasion of illness also dealt with as an occasion of spiritual warfare , even for generational healing !
The sorrow of not being perefect may be a need, to bring in enough fire !
10.12.2010 | 2:00pm
Patrick says:
A very interesting, thought-provoking article. Being part of the generation that was over-saturated with the message that everyone was special, I have a thought:
There is nothing wrong with the statement and belief that everyone is special--it is a true and beautiful fact. The problem (in my opinion) is that this isn't the message that is being received. The message that we are getting is that everyone is special in the same way. For example, everyone gets trophies whether they win or lose. Losing a game doesn't make you not special, but it certainly doesn't merit receiving a trophy. In other words, the message we are receiving is that everyone is the same, and that is, simply put, a big fat lie. In fact, it is contrary to the statement that everyone is special.
We aren't taught that our uniqueness makes us special, we are taught that our specialness makes us the same. Therefore, when people see someone who is obviously different, it means they are not special.
I hope what I've said makes sense. It's a little convoluted, just like the message that my generation has been given--which I believe contributes to the bullying that we see.
There is nothing wrong with the statement and belief that everyone is special--it is a true and beautiful fact. The problem (in my opinion) is that this isn't the message that is being received. The message that we are getting is that everyone is special in the same way. For example, everyone gets trophies whether they win or lose. Losing a game doesn't make you not special, but it certainly doesn't merit receiving a trophy. In other words, the message we are receiving is that everyone is the same, and that is, simply put, a big fat lie. In fact, it is contrary to the statement that everyone is special.
We aren't taught that our uniqueness makes us special, we are taught that our specialness makes us the same. Therefore, when people see someone who is obviously different, it means they are not special.
I hope what I've said makes sense. It's a little convoluted, just like the message that my generation has been given--which I believe contributes to the bullying that we see.
10.12.2010 | 2:10pm
Dianne says:
The group of people who are crying "tolerance" the loudest (the left) are the least tolerant. They are a sick bunch of hypocrits, and they are raising sick children. In their mind, it is too religious and uncool to teach the kind of principles taught to us by Jesus, so their children grow up lost and angry because they have not been taught the boundaries and lessons of correct behavior to survive in society.
10.12.2010 | 2:53pm
Frank P says:
With respect, I wouldn't say that God created us "perfect". Perfect means complete. That we are not. God created us good (as Genesis reveals). And, only God is perfect. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate your article or the sense of what you are communicating. I do. What I also do is split hairs.
10.12.2010 | 3:07pm
Bob G says:
A very politically correct article. Everyone is born perfect in God’s eyes, eh? So much for original sin. Sounds like Joyce Rupp. What she probably meant is that God loves no one any less because of their so-called defects.
“homosexuals are no more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexuals.” So what? The sex-abuse controversy was about homosexuality, not pedophilia. And homosexuals appear to be more inclined to homosexuality than are heterosexuals.
“homosexuals are no more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexuals.” So what? The sex-abuse controversy was about homosexuality, not pedophilia. And homosexuals appear to be more inclined to homosexuality than are heterosexuals.
10.12.2010 | 3:34pm
Tim says:
Elizabeth--Thanks for the reference. Not much data there, however
Gail--I'm not confused, only seeking information.Volume of studies isn't relevant, only quality studies help one find the right answer
Gail--I'm not confused, only seeking information.Volume of studies isn't relevant, only quality studies help one find the right answer
10.12.2010 | 3:44pm
JeffH says:
"that we are created perfect in God’s eyes, and therefore must be acceptable to each other"
Humans are not created perfect in God's eyes. We are created in God's image. Perfectly created does not me with out flaws. Perfectly created means that we a loved 100% by God even though we have flaws, imperfections, gene that are missing... Why are we made with Flaws?? So that we can treat others like ourselves. Flawed people should be humble. God wants us to know that God is God and we are created, flawed people and 100% love by God. We are created by God in the perfect sense in that God is 100% fine with what God has created and has a plan to make us new again with a second creation. We will be remade with new Body, Mind and what ever else God needs to fix to make us "perfect". Resurrection has a purpose and it will be come fully know at a later time.
Humans are not created perfect in God's eyes. We are created in God's image. Perfectly created does not me with out flaws. Perfectly created means that we a loved 100% by God even though we have flaws, imperfections, gene that are missing... Why are we made with Flaws?? So that we can treat others like ourselves. Flawed people should be humble. God wants us to know that God is God and we are created, flawed people and 100% love by God. We are created by God in the perfect sense in that God is 100% fine with what God has created and has a plan to make us new again with a second creation. We will be remade with new Body, Mind and what ever else God needs to fix to make us "perfect". Resurrection has a purpose and it will be come fully know at a later time.
10.12.2010 | 3:58pm
Charles says:
There are undoubtedly more than a few good priests out there who have homosexual inclinations, who recognize these inclinations as disordered, and who live faithful lives of celibate chastity. Before the Church makes a policy of allowing men with such inclinations into seminaries or religious orders, however, surely more questions would have to be asked. For example, what effect would this have on the communal life of a seminary or religious house? Is living in such a community an imprudent moral risk for men with such inclinations? (The fact that men and women religious do not live in coed houses would seem to be relevant here.) Would such men be able or likely to form normal friendships with other men (both homosexual and heterosexual)?
As of right now, the Vatican has (de jure) debarred men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies from entering seminary:
.
Of course, this begs the question of what "deep-seated" means. Some such distinction would seem to be necessary, however, since we wouldn't want to say that a couple of fleeting experiences or fantasies makes someone "homosexual."
A relevant section of the above-cited document points to just some of the complexities involved in this issue:
"Such persons, in fact, [i.e., those with deep-seated homosexual inclinations] find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate."
As of right now, the Vatican has (de jure) debarred men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies from entering seminary:
.
Of course, this begs the question of what "deep-seated" means. Some such distinction would seem to be necessary, however, since we wouldn't want to say that a couple of fleeting experiences or fantasies makes someone "homosexual."
A relevant section of the above-cited document points to just some of the complexities involved in this issue:
"Such persons, in fact, [i.e., those with deep-seated homosexual inclinations] find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate."
10.12.2010 | 4:00pm
Evan's mom says:
An interesting critique of the show and your point is well taken. However, as the mother and advocate of a child with Down syndrome, it was hard for me to read thru your commentary. It would have held been easier if you had done a just a little more research.
First, it's "Down syndrome" not "Down Syndrome." Also, you may want to research using person-first language when referring to individuals with Down syndrome or any other disabilities. Jean is not Sue's "Down syndrome sister." She is Sue's sister who has Down syndrome, or Sue's sister who is living with Down syndrome. Further, individuals with Down syndrome are not "afflicted by" nor do they "suffer from" anything (that type of language helps to fuel the fears you mentioned for perspective parents). Individuals with Down syndrome lead productive lives and add value to their community. They go to school, most graduate from high school, some have college degrees, even up to Masters. Some live independently, drive cars, play sports, are artists and musicians, have jobs, get married and even occasionally have children of their own.
Honestly, to a parent of a child with Down syndrome or to a self-advocate (an adult with Down syndrome) reading your blog, it could appear that you yourself may not be as "tolerant" of individuals with Down syndrome as you believe you might be.
It is true that the termination rate for babies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down sydrome is high. However, a big part of the reason that choice is made is due to perspective parents being given misinformation (sometimes by the very doctors they trust) and by the perpetuation of myths and half-truths about the abilities and potential of individuals with Down syndrome.
I would also offer that those who have never faced certain difficult decisions (termination, adoption, institutionalization) have no idea how they would react until they are indeed faced with that decision. I would go further to say perspective parents who have made certain decisions did not make them lightly, nor did they just move on the next day like nothing happened. It is something they continue to live with, and it affects them deeply, especially every time they see a child with Down syndrome flourishing.
It's time to move beyond "tolerance" and into respect and acceptance of all. The "Church" begins within. It is not a physical building or a body of doctrine. It is us humbling ourselves to God and to those we share his Blessings with. The Church does not judge, but walks the walk itself. Stop looking outward and pointing the finger. Look inward; lead others to faith by your example, by the life YOU live.
First, it's "Down syndrome" not "Down Syndrome." Also, you may want to research using person-first language when referring to individuals with Down syndrome or any other disabilities. Jean is not Sue's "Down syndrome sister." She is Sue's sister who has Down syndrome, or Sue's sister who is living with Down syndrome. Further, individuals with Down syndrome are not "afflicted by" nor do they "suffer from" anything (that type of language helps to fuel the fears you mentioned for perspective parents). Individuals with Down syndrome lead productive lives and add value to their community. They go to school, most graduate from high school, some have college degrees, even up to Masters. Some live independently, drive cars, play sports, are artists and musicians, have jobs, get married and even occasionally have children of their own.
Honestly, to a parent of a child with Down syndrome or to a self-advocate (an adult with Down syndrome) reading your blog, it could appear that you yourself may not be as "tolerant" of individuals with Down syndrome as you believe you might be.
It is true that the termination rate for babies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down sydrome is high. However, a big part of the reason that choice is made is due to perspective parents being given misinformation (sometimes by the very doctors they trust) and by the perpetuation of myths and half-truths about the abilities and potential of individuals with Down syndrome.
I would also offer that those who have never faced certain difficult decisions (termination, adoption, institutionalization) have no idea how they would react until they are indeed faced with that decision. I would go further to say perspective parents who have made certain decisions did not make them lightly, nor did they just move on the next day like nothing happened. It is something they continue to live with, and it affects them deeply, especially every time they see a child with Down syndrome flourishing.
It's time to move beyond "tolerance" and into respect and acceptance of all. The "Church" begins within. It is not a physical building or a body of doctrine. It is us humbling ourselves to God and to those we share his Blessings with. The Church does not judge, but walks the walk itself. Stop looking outward and pointing the finger. Look inward; lead others to faith by your example, by the life YOU live.
10.12.2010 | 4:21pm
Marymargaret says:
Just anecdotally the bullies in the schoolyard I have been acquainted with from my experience being a parent are the same kids being raised with no religious faith affiliation whatsoever. I am not making a sweeping conclusion here but it is intriguing, the connection between, the absence of a traditional moral code at home and the inclination to be abusive or harassing towards others. The schools may attempt to teach tolerance but can only do so much where there is no foundation from the home. The prevailing attitude of permissiveness in all things lest a child grow up without that coveted self esteem and self confidence at others' expense has superseded the fairly innocuous message of Sesame Street. Parents who refuse to say "no" to their child for fear of inhibiting them or interfering with their self confidence are a dime a dozen, and they mean well, they want their child to get ahead. They don't know how to discipline appropriately (simple boundaries, not yelling) and it shows. It is a horrendous canard to imply that Christian values somehow translate into more bullying. I think we should be zeroing in on precisely the opposite, how being raised in a moral vacuum with only the sex-saturated culture to provide the framework for childhood and adolescence, produces more aggression and harassment. This article hits the nail right on the head in what produces a nation of hypocrites. It is not Christianity. It is a society that bases itself on the right to kill in the womb. How can we look our children in the eye and tell them no to whatever when we do, whatever...it is the "whatever" generation that has internalized the violence of a culture that kills its own under the law.
10.12.2010 | 4:26pm
Christine says:
I have another idea. If we were, as Catholics, to learn the faith and let the world know about what we really believe, we would not have to "out" homosexual priests, which I believe would be very dangerous to the lives of these priests. If we “out” a Priest who is gay and he suffers for this inclination to sin in which he is not indulging, the reason he would be martyred would not be because of his Catholic faith, but because he experiences and does not act upon his homosexual inclinations.
For this reason, outing a gay priest would be akin to outing a priest who had any other sinful inclination, say for instance, a recovering thief, alcoholic or drug addict, or a Priest who was sexually promiscuous with women before entering the Priesthood. A Priest’s job is hard enough without adding in this new and dangerous dimension of revealing to all his personal inclinations that could potentially lead him to sin.
However, if we as Catholics were educated as to what is truly sinful, and then passed the information along to others, there might be some understanding of what we hold true. Some people, as they have throughout time, will find our way of life unacceptable, but others may perceive through the Truth, that the Catholic Church does indeed hold more truth than Its opposition to abortion and the homosexual act. The Body of Christ has been far too silent on these matters, as well as the fact that although we all sin, God forgives us if we come to him with a contrite heart in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
For this reason, outing a gay priest would be akin to outing a priest who had any other sinful inclination, say for instance, a recovering thief, alcoholic or drug addict, or a Priest who was sexually promiscuous with women before entering the Priesthood. A Priest’s job is hard enough without adding in this new and dangerous dimension of revealing to all his personal inclinations that could potentially lead him to sin.
However, if we as Catholics were educated as to what is truly sinful, and then passed the information along to others, there might be some understanding of what we hold true. Some people, as they have throughout time, will find our way of life unacceptable, but others may perceive through the Truth, that the Catholic Church does indeed hold more truth than Its opposition to abortion and the homosexual act. The Body of Christ has been far too silent on these matters, as well as the fact that although we all sin, God forgives us if we come to him with a contrite heart in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
10.12.2010 | 4:27pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
"Perfect in God's eyes" is not supposed to mean "without flaws" or "free from sin." I'm kind of amazed that so many people took that meaning from it. "Perfect in God's eyes" (at least to me) is part and parcel of "loved into being." People with Down Syndrome are, I believe, "perfect" in God's eyes, because His intention created them that way. Likewise, the rest of us, for all of our imperfections, tendencies, flaws and so forth, "perfect" in God's creative eyes of his own intention. But clearly not to each other.
Our creation is not imperfect; original sin, however, does play a role in the difficulties we encounter in how we live our lives, and the choices we make. Precisely why we needed a savior, to teach us how to love and live.
Our creation is not imperfect; original sin, however, does play a role in the difficulties we encounter in how we live our lives, and the choices we make. Precisely why we needed a savior, to teach us how to love and live.
10.12.2010 | 4:35pm
Michael says:
"I wonder if her bishops and religious leaders will, for example, have to acknowledge with loving support the numerous celibate homosexual priests who, throughout history and still today, serve her faithfully, courageously, and with great joy... It would speak to the value of the human person as he is created; it would reinforce the church’s own teaching that the homosexual inclination is not in-and-of-itself sinful..."
The inclination is not sinful, but it is unnatural, is it not? To be clear, I am not using the word "unnatural" in a pejorative sense. I just mean that the inclination goes against man's created nature and, as such, represents a vitiation of that nature. It is, as the Catechism says, an objectively disordered inclination. When you speak of "the human person as he is created", that sounds like you mean that some people are just created with homosexual inclinations, that such inclinations are part of their created nature. But isn't this inclination, just like every other form of concupiscence, an evil, a result of the Fall? Something merely to be borne with for a time?
What if the Church were publicly to "acknowledge" the ministry of men who are inclined to commit larceny, as opposed to all the other types of sin? I mean, to single out the larceny-inclined and to say, "Thank you for your service, men inclined to larceny. You were created this way, and it is a mysterious gift to the Church, and something that we think is good for us, as long as you don't actually commit larceny." How could she escape the accusation that she is condoning, if not larceny, then at least the inclination to larceny? And to do so would be to encourage those so inclined to dally in temptation, and that is a form of scandal.
Saying "God wants me to be this way" is a little different from saying "God allows me to be tempted but gives me the strength to resist". Those who resist temptation are to be lauded, but isn't that what is already done, at least in principle?
The idea current in popular culture is that some people are just gay, that being gay is part of their essential being. Isn't this part of what the Church has to reject? It goes against the Church's teachings on the nature of man. And if the "acknowledgement" that you describe is something more or other than what the Church is already doing--however badly--then I don't understand how she can "acknowledge" the ministry of homosexual priests as such without undermining her opposition to the popular idea on this issue.
I write all of this as someone with his own unnatural inclinations, who hopes to be freed of them in Purgatory if not sooner...
The inclination is not sinful, but it is unnatural, is it not? To be clear, I am not using the word "unnatural" in a pejorative sense. I just mean that the inclination goes against man's created nature and, as such, represents a vitiation of that nature. It is, as the Catechism says, an objectively disordered inclination. When you speak of "the human person as he is created", that sounds like you mean that some people are just created with homosexual inclinations, that such inclinations are part of their created nature. But isn't this inclination, just like every other form of concupiscence, an evil, a result of the Fall? Something merely to be borne with for a time?
What if the Church were publicly to "acknowledge" the ministry of men who are inclined to commit larceny, as opposed to all the other types of sin? I mean, to single out the larceny-inclined and to say, "Thank you for your service, men inclined to larceny. You were created this way, and it is a mysterious gift to the Church, and something that we think is good for us, as long as you don't actually commit larceny." How could she escape the accusation that she is condoning, if not larceny, then at least the inclination to larceny? And to do so would be to encourage those so inclined to dally in temptation, and that is a form of scandal.
Saying "God wants me to be this way" is a little different from saying "God allows me to be tempted but gives me the strength to resist". Those who resist temptation are to be lauded, but isn't that what is already done, at least in principle?
The idea current in popular culture is that some people are just gay, that being gay is part of their essential being. Isn't this part of what the Church has to reject? It goes against the Church's teachings on the nature of man. And if the "acknowledgement" that you describe is something more or other than what the Church is already doing--however badly--then I don't understand how she can "acknowledge" the ministry of homosexual priests as such without undermining her opposition to the popular idea on this issue.
I write all of this as someone with his own unnatural inclinations, who hopes to be freed of them in Purgatory if not sooner...
10.12.2010 | 4:42pm
Darel says:
"In contrast to the marked individualism of earlier American society, Tocqueville saw uniformity, conformity and a drab sameness as the characteristics of modern democracy. Originally, men sought freedom to break off the brutal chains of inequality fashioned by the monarchies and aristocracies of old. But 'as the conditions of men become equal amongst a people, individuals seems of less, and society of greater, importance.' Increasingly, then, men in democracies put a premium upon equality and sameness rather than upon difference, and soon they become intolerant of the very freedom to be different." -- Richard D. Heffner, "Introduction" in Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
Not a theological, but rather a sociological and political, statement.
Not a theological, but rather a sociological and political, statement.
10.12.2010 | 5:11pm
Bob says:
The question about bullying that keeps coming up is “Why now?”. There have always been bullies, but why now are some of the victims finding the only solution to this torture is suicide. As a teacher, I suggest it has to do with where our young people find their identity. In previous generations, teenagers certainly looked to their peer group to learn certain social cues and for acceptance. But their primary identity was rooted in their family. It was the family that they had dinner with every night, the family they went on vacation with, the family they went to church with. So even if a teenager was socially awkward, he or she still had the supportive environment of a family to let him or her know that they were of worth and value. Now, I find as a teacher, that far too many teenagers are excessively involved in the lives of one another and that family life for them really doesn’t exist. They don’t eat meals with their families, they spend all their free time with friends (even vacationing with them), and they live and die by what their friends say. Social media simply intensifies these already unhealthy connections. The more well-adjusted students I have are those with a strong family unit; you see the whole family out together at restaurants, at school events, and you can tell they are a cohesive unit.
10.12.2010 | 8:27pm
Dorcas says:
I second what has been said about priest being made extremely vulnerable by even a benevolent and supportive 'outin' of their inclinations. In addition to all the other risks and stresses it would subject those priests to, it could also very possibly set them up for false accusations. These days priests are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, and even then may have had their lives and vocation severely tested and perhaps damaged. Leave well enough alone...it is powerful enough to see good men serving others without sexuality being a prominent aspect of their lives. Sexuality should be private, in any case. Furthermore, who says that Catholic priests are any kind of significant societal role models, these days? As stated above, many if not most bullies are "raised" (if you can call it that) in faith-less households.
10.12.2010 | 8:38pm
Thomas S says:
You want the Church to make some grand statemnt acknowledging the existence of celibate homosexuals in the clergy? Do you really think this would be fair to the countless straight priests whoa re already battered over the past decade and under constant suspicion? You have to know a venemous and hostile media would have a field day with such a statement by the Church. And you can be damn sure it would only encourage them and, by extension, the toxic culture to intensify the drumbeat for the Church to cave on the homosexual agenda.
And why in the world would such priests even want such an acknowledgement by the Church? The way you're talking about them indicates they IDENTIFY with their temptations. If they do identify with it, then they shouldn't have been ordained. And if they don't identify with it, then it would be incredibly insulting and patronizing to force the identification with a condescending pat on the head.
On a side note, I'm not sure why you trot out the red herring (do herrings trot?) that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. The scandal of the past decade has so very little to do with pedophilia. You must know it has almost everything to do with homosexuals abusing pubescent boys.
And why in the world would such priests even want such an acknowledgement by the Church? The way you're talking about them indicates they IDENTIFY with their temptations. If they do identify with it, then they shouldn't have been ordained. And if they don't identify with it, then it would be incredibly insulting and patronizing to force the identification with a condescending pat on the head.
On a side note, I'm not sure why you trot out the red herring (do herrings trot?) that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. The scandal of the past decade has so very little to do with pedophilia. You must know it has almost everything to do with homosexuals abusing pubescent boys.
10.12.2010 | 8:43pm
Mark VA says:
Ms. Scalia writes:
"... that we are created perfect in God’s eyes, and therefore must be acceptable to each other, no matter the extra-chromosome, or the physical imperfection, or the “other” way of feeling and looking and being."
I'm somewhat confused by what I see as certain meanderings in this article. Isolating the issue of homosexuality from the other two variables mentioned above, are we still advocating tolerance, or have we now crossed into promotion of unconditional acceptance of behaviours?
While it goes without saying that the "extra chromosome" and "physical imperfection" conditions fall under unconditional acceptance, are we then being encouraged to conclude that the acceptance of the "other way of feeling" should likewise be unconditional? Or should the "other way of feeling" fall under the umbrella of well defined toleration? And where do poly-amory and polygamy fall on the "other way of feeling" acceptance (or tolerance) spectrum?
"... that we are created perfect in God’s eyes, and therefore must be acceptable to each other, no matter the extra-chromosome, or the physical imperfection, or the “other” way of feeling and looking and being."
I'm somewhat confused by what I see as certain meanderings in this article. Isolating the issue of homosexuality from the other two variables mentioned above, are we still advocating tolerance, or have we now crossed into promotion of unconditional acceptance of behaviours?
While it goes without saying that the "extra chromosome" and "physical imperfection" conditions fall under unconditional acceptance, are we then being encouraged to conclude that the acceptance of the "other way of feeling" should likewise be unconditional? Or should the "other way of feeling" fall under the umbrella of well defined toleration? And where do poly-amory and polygamy fall on the "other way of feeling" acceptance (or tolerance) spectrum?
10.12.2010 | 9:29pm
Justin Legault says:
The argument offered is confused and confusing. It conflates moral perfection, physical perfection, and our lovability to God. God is not tolerant of sin, except in the sense that he is patient in waiting for the sinner to come to repentence; nontheless, he expects us to strive for moral perfection ("Be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect." "Strive to enter by the narrow gate." "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees..." etc.), with his help (if you, who are evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give you the Holy Spirit). That God gave the life of his only Son to wash away our sins speaks not only of his love, but of how intolerable it is to God that those he love should remain in sin. God does not regard physical imperfection, which like death, is itself a consequence of sin, as anything to be celebrated. Jesus healed the blind, the deaf, the mute, the lame, the paralyzed. He did NOT say "Three cheers for your differences." All these infirmities will be healed for everyone in heaven. But for all our sins, and all our physical imperfections, God loves us now, as we are. And we are called to do the same--to love each other, not to tolerate each other.
10.12.2010 | 11:33pm
patricksarsfield says:
I agree with the positions stated in Thomas S's 5:38 PM comment. Ms. Scalia's points are confused and would probably lead to even more confusion were they followed.
In truth, we don't need to try to figure out God's mind on this matter; He told us how He wanted us to treat one another. God certainly wants us to accept one another, but I do not know that that is because He deems us "perfect" (God only knows whether He does or not). If Ms. Scalia could point to some bit of Scripture or Tradition revealing that God deems us perfect, I would be enlightened. God certainly deemed the Earth "good" but He also clearly has not liked some of the things we have done.
Yet, whether God thinks us perfect or not, He has commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. I know I am not perfect, so I should be able to love even an imperfect neighbor as myself. That is all I need to know. I will let God judge my fellow human beings. Not my job.
In truth, we don't need to try to figure out God's mind on this matter; He told us how He wanted us to treat one another. God certainly wants us to accept one another, but I do not know that that is because He deems us "perfect" (God only knows whether He does or not). If Ms. Scalia could point to some bit of Scripture or Tradition revealing that God deems us perfect, I would be enlightened. God certainly deemed the Earth "good" but He also clearly has not liked some of the things we have done.
Yet, whether God thinks us perfect or not, He has commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. I know I am not perfect, so I should be able to love even an imperfect neighbor as myself. That is all I need to know. I will let God judge my fellow human beings. Not my job.
10.13.2010 | 12:55am
Alisha says:
Just a quick note on Glee - I saw its recent "religious" episode. While it was definitely sentimental and not thelogically very deep, it was not as simplistic as I had feared.
Moreover, apparently the show's writer plans to introduce a Christian character - because as he told TV guide:
"We've taken a couple jabs at the right wing this year, so what I want to do with this character is have someone who Christian kids and parents can recognize and say, 'Oh, look - I'm represented there, too!' If we're trying to form a world of inclusiveness, we've got to include that point of view as well."
Curious to see how they will do.
Meanwhile - thank you for this article. I'm so sick and tired of people minimizing the impact of bullying.
Moreover, apparently the show's writer plans to introduce a Christian character - because as he told TV guide:
"We've taken a couple jabs at the right wing this year, so what I want to do with this character is have someone who Christian kids and parents can recognize and say, 'Oh, look - I'm represented there, too!' If we're trying to form a world of inclusiveness, we've got to include that point of view as well."
Curious to see how they will do.
Meanwhile - thank you for this article. I'm so sick and tired of people minimizing the impact of bullying.
10.13.2010 | 3:56am
ENOUGH ROPE says:
When the public school monopoly is broken, and Judeo-Christian values are returned to public as well as many private schools, then Christ's teaching to "Love one another as I have loved you" should be the replacement for "Everybody is special." The teaching has the authority and example of God. As belief and practice of agape love by parents, teachers, administrators, and students permeates society, then many social pathologies will decline. Too idealistic, too hard to do? Ideas about truth, goodness, and beauty matter, and they can change minds to do what's right. There are many examples in everyday life of people and students who love one another as He loved us, but those stories don't make the nightly news.
Until the Catholic Church knows much more about the propensities of homosexuals, it is prudent to forbid homosexuals from becoming priests. Would you suggest that a recovering alcoholic seek employment as a wine taster in a winery or as a brew master in a brewery?
Until the Catholic Church knows much more about the propensities of homosexuals, it is prudent to forbid homosexuals from becoming priests. Would you suggest that a recovering alcoholic seek employment as a wine taster in a winery or as a brew master in a brewery?
10.13.2010 | 8:23am
Austin Ruse says:
At a time when the enemies of the Church are using the spate of tragic youth suicides to attack the Church's teaching on homosexuality, it is unhelpful at best that Elizabeth Scalia in her own way piles on. It is at times like these that faithful Catholics should gather around the Church, to defend her and explain to our various audiences the what and why of this teaching.
10.13.2010 | 10:52am
Ronald King says:
Elizabeth, Thank you for having the courage to speak out about such a sensitive subject. It is critical that the Church be open and transparent at this time. Defensiveness is weakness and fear that inhibits and distorts truth. Love is open and vulnerable with a consistent receptivity to understanding criticisms as revelations to be understood as a means to how we can love more deeply rather than supporting tradition that appears to support the bigotry and hatred of others.
10.13.2010 | 3:33pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ms. Scalia writes in her 10-12 1:27 PM reply:
""Perfect in God's eyes" is not supposed to mean "without flaws" or "free from sin." I'm kind of amazed that so many people took that meaning from it."
So "perfect" may not be perfect. Confusing at best.
It is unfortunate that Ms. Scalia chose a formulation used by gay activists to argue for the appropriateness of homosexual conduct. NYC City Council President Christine Quinn (a gay activist, in addition to a city official) used that "perfect" formulation in her discussion about homosexuals with WABC's "Religion on the Line" hosts (a Rabbi and a Catholic Deacon) just this past Sunday Morning.
In all events, as I noted before, it is inappropriate for Ms Scalia (or any of us) to presume what is going on in God's mind. After all, His ways are so far above ours that our conclusions about perfection may not be His conclusions. Suffice it to say that God commands us to judge not lest we be judged, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, whether they are perfect or not in His mind.
""Perfect in God's eyes" is not supposed to mean "without flaws" or "free from sin." I'm kind of amazed that so many people took that meaning from it."
So "perfect" may not be perfect. Confusing at best.
It is unfortunate that Ms. Scalia chose a formulation used by gay activists to argue for the appropriateness of homosexual conduct. NYC City Council President Christine Quinn (a gay activist, in addition to a city official) used that "perfect" formulation in her discussion about homosexuals with WABC's "Religion on the Line" hosts (a Rabbi and a Catholic Deacon) just this past Sunday Morning.
In all events, as I noted before, it is inappropriate for Ms Scalia (or any of us) to presume what is going on in God's mind. After all, His ways are so far above ours that our conclusions about perfection may not be His conclusions. Suffice it to say that God commands us to judge not lest we be judged, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, whether they are perfect or not in His mind.
10.13.2010 | 4:27pm
Artaban says:
I'd just like to point out that most of the time people quote the "judge not lest ye be judged", it's to take it completely out of context and try and twist it into some form of moral relativism--something Jesus was most definitely not suggesting.
Interestingly, the full passage shows quite clearly that Jesus knows we WILL make judgments ("judge not, lest ye be judged, for the measure by which you judge others will be measured out to you"). Indeed judgment is in the very nature of being human. It cannot be avoided at all, and exactly for that reason it is important to develop PROPER judgment (i.e. God's judgments).
Interestingly, the full passage shows quite clearly that Jesus knows we WILL make judgments ("judge not, lest ye be judged, for the measure by which you judge others will be measured out to you"). Indeed judgment is in the very nature of being human. It cannot be avoided at all, and exactly for that reason it is important to develop PROPER judgment (i.e. God's judgments).
10.13.2010 | 5:04pm
Donna Bethell says:
The Church's prohibition on ordaining men with deep-seated homosexual inclinations far predates the sexual abuse scandal. It is not concerned primarily with how a homosexual priest might misbehave, although that must be considered, but with the candidate's fitness for ordination, that is, the moral, psychological, and emotional maturity of the candidate.
Homosexuality is a grave disorder. If it persists a candidate is simply lacking in the healthy spiritual fitness required for ordination. There are other psychological and moral disorders that could disqualify, but there are no lobbying groups (yet) for pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs, or, emphatically, pedophiles.
If indeed there are homosexual priests who are faithful to their vows and maturing spiritually, then we pray that God will bless them and continue to grant the graces that have enabled them to be faithful. But that is no reason to ask the Church to forgo her duty to administer the Sacraments prudently and justly by ordaining men who are suffering an objective disorder.
Homosexuality is a grave disorder. If it persists a candidate is simply lacking in the healthy spiritual fitness required for ordination. There are other psychological and moral disorders that could disqualify, but there are no lobbying groups (yet) for pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs, or, emphatically, pedophiles.
If indeed there are homosexual priests who are faithful to their vows and maturing spiritually, then we pray that God will bless them and continue to grant the graces that have enabled them to be faithful. But that is no reason to ask the Church to forgo her duty to administer the Sacraments prudently and justly by ordaining men who are suffering an objective disorder.
10.13.2010 | 5:55pm
pdn Michael says:
Thanks to several who questioned the necessity of bringing "pedophilia" into the debate. I seem to recall more than one very (as usual) succinct RJN piece in FT contending that, given the ages of most victims, most of the scandal data pointed to unwelcome homosexual advances and acts rather than pedophilia. And bringing out a nuanced "acceptance" of homosexual tendencies? What good, really, would it do? How could it help but confuse the message that the Catholic (and the Eastern Orthodox for that matter) Church needs to send to a culture that ALREADY insists homosexuality and its various agendas is OK?
10.13.2010 | 9:16pm
Tony Esolen says:
On pedophilia:
Male homosexuals constitute about 2 or 3 percent of the male population. If a given homosexual were no more likely than a given heterosexual to abuse children, then the overwhelming majority of abused children would be girls. But that is not true. In the priest scandal, the overwhelming majority of abused children were boys.
What the homosexualist propagandists have done is to fold several statistics together in order to come to the desired result. Now, when most people think of the risk that Mr. A would pose to children, they are thinking of their own, and not his. That is, incest is a very different category from that of other forms of sexual abuse of children. It's simple: if I know that I am not abusing my own children (I am speaking as the father here), then the ONLY thing I am really interested in is the likelihood that the fellow over there will abuse my children. Most acts of incest are father-daughter; and of course, there are far, far more opportunities for those acts than for others. When they are ruled out -- and I rightly rule them out when I am considering danger to my own children -- then we get something completely different.
Ruling them out, then, and supposing that a given homosexual is no more likely to abuse a child -- or a teenager! -- than is a given heterosexual, we should expect some forty or so times as many victims of extrafamilial sexual abuse to be girls than boys. Gosh, I'd have thought that the priest scandal alone would give the lie to that one!
You see, we are confusing several sorts of probability here. The operative question is not, given a child abused by someone outside the nuclear family, was that child abused by a homosexual or a heterosexual? It is, given a homosexual or a heterosexual, which is more likely to abuse a child?
Homosexual males have been hurt badly along their way to developing a natural masculine identity. They tend to revisit the scenes of that hurt; they exhibit, for instance, what anyone else would see as an astonishingly adolescent fetish for their body parts. This helps explain why, everywhere that we find tolerance for male homosexuality, we find boys as the object of their attention. I could point to countless references in literature for boys as sexual objects for homosexually "oriented" men, in Lucretius, Petronius, Martial, Virgil, Callimachus, Marlowe, Rochester ...
Another thought experiment: if homosexuals were no more likely to abuse boys than heterosexuals are to abuse girls, then we should see overwhelmingly that child pornography is of girls, not boys. But we do not see that. Somehow, a very tiny percentage of the population is responsible for a regular deluge of lewd pictures of boys.
Male homosexuals constitute about 2 or 3 percent of the male population. If a given homosexual were no more likely than a given heterosexual to abuse children, then the overwhelming majority of abused children would be girls. But that is not true. In the priest scandal, the overwhelming majority of abused children were boys.
What the homosexualist propagandists have done is to fold several statistics together in order to come to the desired result. Now, when most people think of the risk that Mr. A would pose to children, they are thinking of their own, and not his. That is, incest is a very different category from that of other forms of sexual abuse of children. It's simple: if I know that I am not abusing my own children (I am speaking as the father here), then the ONLY thing I am really interested in is the likelihood that the fellow over there will abuse my children. Most acts of incest are father-daughter; and of course, there are far, far more opportunities for those acts than for others. When they are ruled out -- and I rightly rule them out when I am considering danger to my own children -- then we get something completely different.
Ruling them out, then, and supposing that a given homosexual is no more likely to abuse a child -- or a teenager! -- than is a given heterosexual, we should expect some forty or so times as many victims of extrafamilial sexual abuse to be girls than boys. Gosh, I'd have thought that the priest scandal alone would give the lie to that one!
You see, we are confusing several sorts of probability here. The operative question is not, given a child abused by someone outside the nuclear family, was that child abused by a homosexual or a heterosexual? It is, given a homosexual or a heterosexual, which is more likely to abuse a child?
Homosexual males have been hurt badly along their way to developing a natural masculine identity. They tend to revisit the scenes of that hurt; they exhibit, for instance, what anyone else would see as an astonishingly adolescent fetish for their body parts. This helps explain why, everywhere that we find tolerance for male homosexuality, we find boys as the object of their attention. I could point to countless references in literature for boys as sexual objects for homosexually "oriented" men, in Lucretius, Petronius, Martial, Virgil, Callimachus, Marlowe, Rochester ...
Another thought experiment: if homosexuals were no more likely to abuse boys than heterosexuals are to abuse girls, then we should see overwhelmingly that child pornography is of girls, not boys. But we do not see that. Somehow, a very tiny percentage of the population is responsible for a regular deluge of lewd pictures of boys.
10.14.2010 | 2:07am
Rod Blaine says:
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3uu5ujUMDY
Summarised by conservative bloggatrix Cassie Fiano http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/06/if-you-cant-play-tennis-you-arent-a-person/ as "If you can't play tennis, you're not a human being". Presumably this means a pregnant woman shouldn't be able to go on maternity leave (or seek any other accommodations to make her life easier while pregnant) at any point before the baby magically materialises in her birth canal. Because that bowling ball in your stomach can't register to vote – duh. And if it can't vote, you can kill it with legal impunity - duh. Well, not if it's an ex-felon or an undocumented immigrant, obviously, but otherwise it's no-brainer logic... right?
And while on the topic of people who can't play tennis... brilliant but disabled physics genius Stephen Hawking has conclusively proven there is no God, apparently: http://www.slate.com/id/2269908/.
Summarised by conservative bloggatrix Cassie Fiano http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/06/if-you-cant-play-tennis-you-arent-a-person/ as "If you can't play tennis, you're not a human being". Presumably this means a pregnant woman shouldn't be able to go on maternity leave (or seek any other accommodations to make her life easier while pregnant) at any point before the baby magically materialises in her birth canal. Because that bowling ball in your stomach can't register to vote – duh. And if it can't vote, you can kill it with legal impunity - duh. Well, not if it's an ex-felon or an undocumented immigrant, obviously, but otherwise it's no-brainer logic... right?
And while on the topic of people who can't play tennis... brilliant but disabled physics genius Stephen Hawking has conclusively proven there is no God, apparently: http://www.slate.com/id/2269908/.
10.14.2010 | 4:22pm
Joseph Yungk says:
I was raised to believe my feelings were a scourge that would land me in hell and render me undeserving of any love or compassion. About 90% of my schoolmates and my entire family learned the same lessons.
The church says I have a moral disorder and can't have a complete life, should not have the same rights, (the actually repeatedly contradict themselves on this one), the church gives every reason for children to feel they are worthless and others that same reason to abuse them.
I've attempted to talk to my parents and the Archdiocese of Hartford, they do not want to hear it.
This is not Christian, it's cruel, plain and simple.
Yet, I was molested by my 17y/o brother during this time, further confusing me, my parents don't want to hear about that either.
My life was continuous abuse, either verbal, sexual, moral or psychological through puberty and early adolescence, and the catholic church wants to just keep this the same, despite endemic suicides and gang beatings and rape.
The church says I have a moral disorder and can't have a complete life, should not have the same rights, (the actually repeatedly contradict themselves on this one), the church gives every reason for children to feel they are worthless and others that same reason to abuse them.
I've attempted to talk to my parents and the Archdiocese of Hartford, they do not want to hear it.
This is not Christian, it's cruel, plain and simple.
Yet, I was molested by my 17y/o brother during this time, further confusing me, my parents don't want to hear about that either.
My life was continuous abuse, either verbal, sexual, moral or psychological through puberty and early adolescence, and the catholic church wants to just keep this the same, despite endemic suicides and gang beatings and rape.
10.14.2010 | 4:37pm
Ronald King says:
Tolerance is a virtue to be used to communicate with an unknown other and to help us love more deeply and consequently free us from our destructive narcissistic belief systems.
10.14.2010 | 11:48pm
Dan McGuire says:
“I wonder if her bishops and religious leaders will, for example, have to acknowledge with loving support the numerous celibate homosexual priests who, throughout history and still today, serve her faithfully, courageously, and with great joy.”
Great – so this is the bold move the age calls for. If I:m a bishop (and I’m not; I am a theologian); and I think this might be the way to go, what do I do? Well, certainly I am aware of a handful (or more) of my priests who suffer from same sex attraction. Which among them are heroically faithful to their vows (and their basic catechism) to the extent I would want to hold them up as exemplars for the new age?
Perhaps I should take a closer look at their personal lives to be sure that I don’t lionize someone who turns out to be a garden variety pervert. And exactly how would this part work? I am at a Catholic college where the only priest is openly living with another man and not acting as a priest (no Mass or confessions…of course no distinctive dress). Do I have to ascertain what actually may transpire in the bedroom? Maybe the guy he is living with is under another conceivable rationale?
Before you celebrate the sexual deviant but courageous as exemplars; make sure they are actually exemplars and not simply deviant.
Great – so this is the bold move the age calls for. If I:m a bishop (and I’m not; I am a theologian); and I think this might be the way to go, what do I do? Well, certainly I am aware of a handful (or more) of my priests who suffer from same sex attraction. Which among them are heroically faithful to their vows (and their basic catechism) to the extent I would want to hold them up as exemplars for the new age?
Perhaps I should take a closer look at their personal lives to be sure that I don’t lionize someone who turns out to be a garden variety pervert. And exactly how would this part work? I am at a Catholic college where the only priest is openly living with another man and not acting as a priest (no Mass or confessions…of course no distinctive dress). Do I have to ascertain what actually may transpire in the bedroom? Maybe the guy he is living with is under another conceivable rationale?
Before you celebrate the sexual deviant but courageous as exemplars; make sure they are actually exemplars and not simply deviant.
10.15.2010 | 12:19am
patricksarsfield says:
Artaban states:
"Interestingly, the full passage shows quite clearly that Jesus knows we WILL make judgments ("judge not, lest ye be judged, for the measure by which you judge others will be measured out to you"). Indeed judgment is in the very nature of being human. It cannot be avoided at all, and exactly for that reason it is important to develop PROPER judgment (i.e. God's judgments). "
He knows we'll sin too. Yet some people claim we are "perfect" in His eyes.
In truth, Jesus was not making an untrue or superfluous statement when He warned us not to judge. To the contrary, it is unnecessary and entirely preesumptuous for mere humans to judge whether other people are "perfect" in God's eyes. He'd be the only judge of that. We need to heed His commandments, not try to figure out how He will judge others.
"Interestingly, the full passage shows quite clearly that Jesus knows we WILL make judgments ("judge not, lest ye be judged, for the measure by which you judge others will be measured out to you"). Indeed judgment is in the very nature of being human. It cannot be avoided at all, and exactly for that reason it is important to develop PROPER judgment (i.e. God's judgments). "
He knows we'll sin too. Yet some people claim we are "perfect" in His eyes.
In truth, Jesus was not making an untrue or superfluous statement when He warned us not to judge. To the contrary, it is unnecessary and entirely preesumptuous for mere humans to judge whether other people are "perfect" in God's eyes. He'd be the only judge of that. We need to heed His commandments, not try to figure out how He will judge others.
10.15.2010 | 11:26am
Dr. Curt Schmidt says:
The last time I checked, most adolescents became aware of their sexual orientation at the time of puberty. They discovered that they were attracted to persons of the opposite sex -- and in a small percentage of cases, about 10% to 15%, discovered that they were attracted to persons of the same sex.
In a world where so much opprobrium was heaped on persons who were
"queer," with frequent doses of bullying added for good measure, I know of almost no one who, looking at that landscape, made a conscious choice to
prefer being gay. Rather they found they "were" gay, and had no choice in the matter.
It seems to me that if a person is thus gay in terms of the way he or she was created, then it is hard to conclude that they are not acting according to their nature - which has always been one of the central criteria for judging whether acts are sinful or not sinful. If it was in the nature of the gay people I know to not have homosexual inclinations, they would be the first to avoid them. But you cannot avoid something that is part of you, no matter how much you try.
I'm sure this won't get printed, because it exculpates people who are truly homosexual from being so. But we'll all see each other in God's kingdom,
and I'm willing to bet that gay people who have led good lives will be right there with us.
In a world where so much opprobrium was heaped on persons who were
"queer," with frequent doses of bullying added for good measure, I know of almost no one who, looking at that landscape, made a conscious choice to
prefer being gay. Rather they found they "were" gay, and had no choice in the matter.
It seems to me that if a person is thus gay in terms of the way he or she was created, then it is hard to conclude that they are not acting according to their nature - which has always been one of the central criteria for judging whether acts are sinful or not sinful. If it was in the nature of the gay people I know to not have homosexual inclinations, they would be the first to avoid them. But you cannot avoid something that is part of you, no matter how much you try.
I'm sure this won't get printed, because it exculpates people who are truly homosexual from being so. But we'll all see each other in God's kingdom,
and I'm willing to bet that gay people who have led good lives will be right there with us.
10.15.2010 | 8:18pm
Christine says:
Dr. Schmidt,
I believe that you are not taking into account all of the psychosocial issues that may have occurred in the years before an adolescent who identifies him/herself as homosexual.
The last time I checked, things that happen to a person during their developing years absolutely affects their behaviors and preferences as young adults, so your argument that a person who identifies as homosexual after puberty did was created "gay". What you are positing would be akin to noticing an antique wooden chair at an antique that was painted blue and assuming, simply because the paint is weathered and has been on the chair for many years, that it was always painted blue, when it could have previously been stained or even painted another color.
I am also sure that some homosexuals will be in heaven. We are all given our crosses to bear. God determines who ends up in heaven, and He will sort out who lives with Him by His Mercy. In his Mercy, he will judge us by our love, the crosses we bore, and the decisions we made while carrying our crosses.
I believe that you are not taking into account all of the psychosocial issues that may have occurred in the years before an adolescent who identifies him/herself as homosexual.
The last time I checked, things that happen to a person during their developing years absolutely affects their behaviors and preferences as young adults, so your argument that a person who identifies as homosexual after puberty did was created "gay". What you are positing would be akin to noticing an antique wooden chair at an antique that was painted blue and assuming, simply because the paint is weathered and has been on the chair for many years, that it was always painted blue, when it could have previously been stained or even painted another color.
I am also sure that some homosexuals will be in heaven. We are all given our crosses to bear. God determines who ends up in heaven, and He will sort out who lives with Him by His Mercy. In his Mercy, he will judge us by our love, the crosses we bore, and the decisions we made while carrying our crosses.
10.17.2010 | 7:56pm
MarkF says:
Elizabeth,
I'm on the front lines in the spiritual battle with homosexuality. I was caught up in it for over thirty years. I've seen what it does to good people. Let me be clear...homosexuality is far worse than anyone wants to believe.
It starts out at roughly the same place as any promiscuous, secular couple is at. But it goes down hill at a slow but steady rate. By age 45 or so, any active homosexual will be caught up in either drugs, alcohol, depression, massively twisted kink (including extreme violence, degradation and physical abuse), rampant promiscuity and pornography. The one most dedicated to it will be implacable haters of God. Some are consumed with hatred for the normal and healthy.
I've known many "gay" men who have sole custody of their teenage sons. All, without exception, all either have sex with their own teenage son or openly talk about wanting to.
When I talk about this, I find that few are ready to accept it. Most are so taken in my the brittle facade that most homosexual present to the public, or they're swayed by the propaganda from the media, which is relentless.
There may be some priests with same-sex attraction that are able to control themselves around teenage boys. But is it worth the risk of more sexual abuse?
My advice Elizabeth...talk to your brother. He knows what homosexuality is all about from his counseling of those of us who have been touched by it.
Right now, I feel overwhelmed by the need I see in all my friends. The need is not just the same need for Christ that all have, but it is a need for healing that anyone, no matter how jaded, could recognize.
Homosexuality has come out of the closet. What now needs to come out is what homosexuality really looks like, and that ain't pretty.
I'm on the front lines in the spiritual battle with homosexuality. I was caught up in it for over thirty years. I've seen what it does to good people. Let me be clear...homosexuality is far worse than anyone wants to believe.
It starts out at roughly the same place as any promiscuous, secular couple is at. But it goes down hill at a slow but steady rate. By age 45 or so, any active homosexual will be caught up in either drugs, alcohol, depression, massively twisted kink (including extreme violence, degradation and physical abuse), rampant promiscuity and pornography. The one most dedicated to it will be implacable haters of God. Some are consumed with hatred for the normal and healthy.
I've known many "gay" men who have sole custody of their teenage sons. All, without exception, all either have sex with their own teenage son or openly talk about wanting to.
When I talk about this, I find that few are ready to accept it. Most are so taken in my the brittle facade that most homosexual present to the public, or they're swayed by the propaganda from the media, which is relentless.
There may be some priests with same-sex attraction that are able to control themselves around teenage boys. But is it worth the risk of more sexual abuse?
My advice Elizabeth...talk to your brother. He knows what homosexuality is all about from his counseling of those of us who have been touched by it.
Right now, I feel overwhelmed by the need I see in all my friends. The need is not just the same need for Christ that all have, but it is a need for healing that anyone, no matter how jaded, could recognize.
Homosexuality has come out of the closet. What now needs to come out is what homosexuality really looks like, and that ain't pretty.
10.18.2010 | 12:52am
Rosemary Bray McNatt says:
Hi Elizabeth--
I'm glad I got to read your blog today; I'm in a completely different place theologically, but it gave me a lot to think about just the same. I found two comments especially interesting: first, from Patrick, who I think nails the issue about being special in the same way--
"There is nothing wrong with the statement and belief that everyone is special--it is a true and beautiful fact. The problem (in my opinion) is that this isn't the message that is being received....We aren't taught that our uniqueness makes us special, we are taught that our specialness makes us the same. Therefore, when people see someone who is obviously different, it means they are not special."
Second, I found MarkF's comments very sad, and mostly very different from my own experience of the gay and lesbian singles, couples and families in my congregation and elsewhere. Those who come to me for counseling struggle with the same things my other folks are dealing with. Some of them have struggled with unhealthy sexual patterns, just as my straight members have struggled. Some are struggling with raising their children; some are dealing with aging parents; some have lost lifetime partners and find themselves alone for the first time in decades. Some have found the love of their lives and struggle to figure out how to protect themselves without the security of marriage.
As you might have guessed, I minister in a completely different world than that of my previous Catholic upbringing. I regard it as part of my ministry to make sure that people know that they are deeply loved by God, and that they can be part of a community on this earth that loves them too. You have probably also gathered by now that there isn't a conservative bone in my body, but there are conservatives in my life that I love very much--most notably, my brother. Thanks for a provocative read.
I'm glad I got to read your blog today; I'm in a completely different place theologically, but it gave me a lot to think about just the same. I found two comments especially interesting: first, from Patrick, who I think nails the issue about being special in the same way--
"There is nothing wrong with the statement and belief that everyone is special--it is a true and beautiful fact. The problem (in my opinion) is that this isn't the message that is being received....We aren't taught that our uniqueness makes us special, we are taught that our specialness makes us the same. Therefore, when people see someone who is obviously different, it means they are not special."
Second, I found MarkF's comments very sad, and mostly very different from my own experience of the gay and lesbian singles, couples and families in my congregation and elsewhere. Those who come to me for counseling struggle with the same things my other folks are dealing with. Some of them have struggled with unhealthy sexual patterns, just as my straight members have struggled. Some are struggling with raising their children; some are dealing with aging parents; some have lost lifetime partners and find themselves alone for the first time in decades. Some have found the love of their lives and struggle to figure out how to protect themselves without the security of marriage.
As you might have guessed, I minister in a completely different world than that of my previous Catholic upbringing. I regard it as part of my ministry to make sure that people know that they are deeply loved by God, and that they can be part of a community on this earth that loves them too. You have probably also gathered by now that there isn't a conservative bone in my body, but there are conservatives in my life that I love very much--most notably, my brother. Thanks for a provocative read.
10.19.2010 | 7:50pm
MarkF says:
Rosemary,
They don't want you to see what homosexuality really is about. It's that simple. I know people like that too. No one would suspect what is going on because they hide it so well. Or worse, they don't bring it up in counseling because to them it's normal and they don't want to give it up. I see it from the inside. You see it from the outside and refuse to see what you don't want to see. I deal with the real world. I deal with people whose lives are in chaos and that chaos is first and foremost their own homosexuality. You can't tame it. You can't make it normal and nice.
I'm afraid that you prefer to deal with illusions and support your own ideology that supports and condones evil. Also there's the real chance that you are doing a lot of your own covering up.
God does not warn us about things that are not a danger to us. He doesn't give us commandments merely for the sake of our blind obedience. But then again, you've replaced his commandments with your own.
Also I find it hard to fathom that anyone can question close to 2,000 years of Christian wisdom. How can you feel that you're more wise that St. Augustine, who knew full well what a culture dominated by homosexuality looked like? There is nothing new under the sun, yet you pretend that there is this new and reformed homosexuality. There isn't.
You don't know one thing about homosexuality.
They don't want you to see what homosexuality really is about. It's that simple. I know people like that too. No one would suspect what is going on because they hide it so well. Or worse, they don't bring it up in counseling because to them it's normal and they don't want to give it up. I see it from the inside. You see it from the outside and refuse to see what you don't want to see. I deal with the real world. I deal with people whose lives are in chaos and that chaos is first and foremost their own homosexuality. You can't tame it. You can't make it normal and nice.
I'm afraid that you prefer to deal with illusions and support your own ideology that supports and condones evil. Also there's the real chance that you are doing a lot of your own covering up.
God does not warn us about things that are not a danger to us. He doesn't give us commandments merely for the sake of our blind obedience. But then again, you've replaced his commandments with your own.
Also I find it hard to fathom that anyone can question close to 2,000 years of Christian wisdom. How can you feel that you're more wise that St. Augustine, who knew full well what a culture dominated by homosexuality looked like? There is nothing new under the sun, yet you pretend that there is this new and reformed homosexuality. There isn't.
You don't know one thing about homosexuality.
10.19.2010 | 8:03pm
MarkF says:
Let me give you one example. I know a guy. He's the most beloved person I've ever met - especially by people who don't know him well. He belongs to a formerly Christian Episcopal group. Everyone loves him - at a distance. Once I saw him send out over 400 Christmas cards. He probably has close to 1,000 friends. A few know about his homosexuality but they don't see it. They know about it as a matter of fact but from the outside. A few may have seen one of his boyfriends, the one he pretends is his "one and only." All looks fine, a guy with a job, lots of friends and one boyfriend.
The reality is that he only achieves sexual satisfaction from vandalism, specifically vandalism involving breaking glass. He is into being urinated on, beaten up, hurt and worse. He spends countless hours on the internet and engaging in phone sex. He lies to those he meets about everything - his name, job, where he went to school, everything. He tells me "I hurt the people who are closest to me" and he's not kidding. He's ruined the lives of many good men and woman. His "lover" knows little if anything about this.
I know dozens of men just like him who are trapped by the evil that comes from homosexuality. You see the guy in the sweater at church. I see them at night when they're being honest about who they really are.
The reality is that he only achieves sexual satisfaction from vandalism, specifically vandalism involving breaking glass. He is into being urinated on, beaten up, hurt and worse. He spends countless hours on the internet and engaging in phone sex. He lies to those he meets about everything - his name, job, where he went to school, everything. He tells me "I hurt the people who are closest to me" and he's not kidding. He's ruined the lives of many good men and woman. His "lover" knows little if anything about this.
I know dozens of men just like him who are trapped by the evil that comes from homosexuality. You see the guy in the sweater at church. I see them at night when they're being honest about who they really are.
10.20.2010 | 6:40pm
James says:
Mark F: I'm not sure what your point is. Only gays have a "secret life"? How many scandals have we heard of where married heterosexuals are visiting prostitutes and snorting coke? I know three women who were molested by their biological father (who was, incidentally, also a "pillar of the community"). Divorce and pornography are just as rampant in the Christian evangelical community as outside of it.
Sorry, your generalizations just aren't valid.
Sorry, your generalizations just aren't valid.
10.20.2010 | 7:26pm
MarkF says:
James,
Why were almost no little girls molested by these bad priests? Why does 4% of the population (men with SSA) account for 1/3 of all molestation cases?
Where are the straight men in this country who got AIDS from a woman?
If heterosexuality is the same thing as heterosexuality, then you go hang out in certain restrooms for an afternoon.
Take a look at any famous homosexual - Lindsay Lohan, George Michael (now in jail), Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, Boy George - all an amalgamation of drugs, weirdness, mental and legal problems.
Last year's December issue of the Advocate listed the top ten gay deaths last year...three out of ten were suicides. These were all "out" people.
UCLA found that over half of all homosexuals seek out mental health care.
Nothing human is foreign to any of us. Everyone has problems to one extent or the other. But homosexuality is the royal road to problems in this life. I lived it for thirty years. I still see it in my friends.
I used to counsel "gay" people who were coming out. Not a single one complained about "discrimination." All complained about how screwed up "gay" life was.
You can chose to live in a dream world. I can't help you with that. I also don't buy your feigned ignorance.
Why were almost no little girls molested by these bad priests? Why does 4% of the population (men with SSA) account for 1/3 of all molestation cases?
Where are the straight men in this country who got AIDS from a woman?
If heterosexuality is the same thing as heterosexuality, then you go hang out in certain restrooms for an afternoon.
Take a look at any famous homosexual - Lindsay Lohan, George Michael (now in jail), Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, Boy George - all an amalgamation of drugs, weirdness, mental and legal problems.
Last year's December issue of the Advocate listed the top ten gay deaths last year...three out of ten were suicides. These were all "out" people.
UCLA found that over half of all homosexuals seek out mental health care.
Nothing human is foreign to any of us. Everyone has problems to one extent or the other. But homosexuality is the royal road to problems in this life. I lived it for thirty years. I still see it in my friends.
I used to counsel "gay" people who were coming out. Not a single one complained about "discrimination." All complained about how screwed up "gay" life was.
You can chose to live in a dream world. I can't help you with that. I also don't buy your feigned ignorance.
11.26.2010 | 2:15am
q2612a Dyan says:
Honestly, to a parent of a child with Down syndrome or to a self-advocate (an adult with Down syndrome) reading your blog, it could appear that you yourself may not be as "tolerant" of individuals with Down syndrome as you believe you might be. It seems to me that if a person is thus gay in terms of the way he or she was created, then it is hard to conclude that they are not acting according to their nature - which has always been one of the central criteria for judging whether acts are sinful or not sinful. If it was in the nature of the gay people I know to not have homosexual inclinations, they would be the first to avoid them. But you cannot avoid something that is part of you, no matter how much you try.
12.4.2010 | 10:50am
Espey Rashida says:
Tolerance is a virtue to be used to communicate with an unknown other and to help us love more deeply and consequently free us from our destructive narcissistic belief systems. A very politically correct article. Everyone is born perfect in Gods eyes, eh? So much for original sin. Sounds like Joyce Rupp. What she probably meant is that God loves no one any less because of their so-called defects.
Well, that would make perfect sense, because after all it's the god-believing folks who are pushing for the legal right to abort babies with Down Syndrome because they would be "less than perfect"...
I wouldn't normally look to "Glee" as my arbiter of ethical reasoning, but given that (eg) the Puffington Host is currently hawking a side-slapping video which reasons that "(a) it would be dumb to make a pregnant woman play doubles against herself at the tennis court, so (b) therefore, if you kill or harm a foetus, you're not really killing or harming a person", "Glee" stands up pretty well by comparison.