Somewhere along the way the dividing line over gay issues picked up and moved. It’s no longer between red and blue states, or left and right wings, but between nature and nurture. Or, to be more precise, between those who believe what the popular culture feels about homosexuality and those who put their faith in the Bible and Church history.
The above paragraph is not a quote, but rather a correction for Ellen Goodman’s opening salvo in her Sullivanesque screed “A Vatican Retreat on Homosexuality.â€
In a brilliant display of cluelessness regarding Christianity (only outdone by Ruth Gledhill), Ms. Goodman attempts through an emotional appeal, to shift the argument away from holy Scripture and established Church polity. Instead, intentional or not, she argues that the Catholic Church is in need of an overhaul by not basing their decisions regarding homosexual seminarians solely on the nature versus nurture argument.
An argument, if followed to its radical extreme would make allowances for advocates of drunkeness, gluttony and sloth. After all, “Americans seem reluctant to condemn people simply for who they are.†So how could we possibly discriminate against whom actively and willingly advocate and/or submit to their genetic and or chemical predispositions to alcoholism, obesity and or laziness?
In a further attempt to shift the terms of the debate to the temporal Goodman throws down the scapegoat card ignoring the impact of a thirty year practice of U.S. Catholic seminaries admitting actively gay Jesuits – without at least mentioning the alarming parallel of sexual abuse cases along that same timeframe – and at least without identifying some other reason or cause for the abuse problem.
All this energy and hyperbole when in fact all that really recently happened was the Vatican extended its prohibition on sexually active priests and seminarians to include homosexuals.
All this beefing along the lines of “what about my needs†when Christian leadership is defined by the compassionate yet convicted, suffering, sacrificial servant – in spite of whatever sin nature afflicts us most; genetic or otherwise.
“… for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” – 1 Timothy 3:4-5
update: If you’re interested in what other Christian bloggers have to say about all this, I’ve compiled a short compendium entitled “Sex in the Seminary.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments }
PC commands we ignore certain facts. The militant homosexual agenda has been quietly working for years to reduce the age of consent for minors. In many states, the age of consent is now 14 years old. According to Richard Sipes, who has studied the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church and who has written a book about it, 6% of Catholic priests have abused children; 4% abused teen aged boys (14-17 years old), while 2% actually abused younger children, most of whom were little girls. These figures starkly show that most of the priest sex abuse in the Catholic Church are perpetrated by homosexuals, not pedophiles. The problems is a homosexual problem. And under the law as it exists today, much of that abuse is not even a crime. Although it would be a horrific breach of trust even without the Christian teaching on the subject.
I don’t want to scapegoat anyone. I myself was abused by a Catholic priest as a teenager and I am female. But if the facts sustain rational discrimination, then the needs and safety of Catholic male teenagers is what must be safeguarded.
I am very frustrated with the denial of the actual problem, which the Vatican has honestly sought to address. Even advocate groups for priest abuse victims continue to condemn the bishops for the sex abuse problem, while in the interests of PC, choose to side step the root cause of the crisis, which the facts show is homosexuality, not pedophilia. The vctim advocacy groups refuse to recognize the problem which is very discouraging to me.
Unbelievable. I’m generally speaking in favour of homosexual rights but even I can see the logical hole in this one. Catholic priests are required to be “celibate”
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=celibate has as definition one “One who abstains from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.”
You can I think entirely reasonably claim that a celibate priesthood is a stupid idea and so on but since the catholic church seems to be keen on celibacy it only seems fair that it should apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
“The public square” in the West has long been guided by the tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have not, historically, bought into “situation ethics” or immodest moral codes.
But now we find ourselves hectored by the shrews of “political correctness” who hypocritically tell us what we must accept and reject and all in the name of “diversity.”
Ellen Goodman and her sorry sorority of elitist sisters and their girly-men tagalongs would drive religion from “the public square” because it might be offensive to the homeless or people who sleep with goats.
For people like Goodman, right and wrong and good and evil are all transitory. They loathe all the little minded people who cleave to moral standards based on the Judeo-Christian heritage.
Goodman could not make a greater ass of herself than to demand that the Pope and Roman Catholic Church get with her program. Shall we consider the Pope and his church goners now that the mighty Goodman has spoken?
Heliotrope,
I could not agree with you more about Ellen Goodman if I tried. She has been irrelevant for years. The only place that would put up with her diatribes is someplace like Boston, someplace that would put up with Teddy Kennedy and JF Kerry. The rest of the country where there are standards that mean something just would not even put her in the newspaper.
It appears that Has Been Hollywood Divas are the most vocal about “social issues”. Those actively making movies don’t have time for such trash.
“Genetic or chemical predispositions” to a variety of vices again diverts blame from the “victim.”
Returning to the Catholic Church’s sex scandal, Ms Goodman is obviously clueless that this IS a HOMOSEXUAL ISSUE – Most of the claims of “abuse” are against homosexual priests – not heterosexual priests. So where is the moral outrage? It’s focused on the Church, not on the gay issue.
Just typical of the nations most far left news papers only good for lining a birdcage with
Everytime I say that nothing the Left does will surprise me, something they do surprises me….
This takes a lot of gall, for someone to stand up to a Church and claim that they are wrong for believing in the bible and holding the congregation to that belief…..
I can just hear her on Judgement Day, ‘Lord, I want to tell you that you are just wrong on the following items….’ this is the point where the ground will split open and swallow her up.
Comments on this entry are closed.