June 02, 2006
Batwoman's Secret Identity
(Michelle Arnold)
Socialite Kathy Kane has a secret. No, not that she's alive after the world thought her dead for a quarter-century. No, not even that she is also known to Gotham City as Batwoman. Now she is ready to let the world in on her secret:
Batwoman is a lesbian.
"Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.
"The 5-foot-10 superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"'We decided to give her a different point of view,' explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. 'We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction.'"
Homosexuality is "a different point of view"? And here I thought that Straight America was supposed to believe that homosexuality was an inalterable genetic trait like skin color and hand dominance. If it's merely a point of view, doesn't that imply that it could change?
Homosexuality: Viewpoint or identity? Someone page The Riddler. We have a conundrum for him to unleash upon Gotham City.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (51)
May 19, 2006
"Good Riddance"
(Jimmy Akin)
I really, really do not like Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. I mean REALLY. (Did I say "really"?)
But in THIS CASE he may have been Arlen the Semi-Friendly Specter.
The issue at hand was whether a constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage" in the United States should receive a floor vote in the Senate.
Specter--and the majority--voted that it should, though he seems opposed to the amendment himself.
He was--at least--willing to let the measure be considered by the broader senate.
Which is what prompted a shouting match between him and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold.
After shouting with Specter, Feingold left the meeting in a huff and Specter pronounced "Good riddance!" on him.
By signalling his opposition to true (i.e., heterosexual) marriage, I can only conclude that Feingold doesn't want to be president of the United States in 2008.
Despite rumors of his current plans to run.
There is no way in hades that the nation will be willing to elect a president who is openly pro-homosexual "marriage" in 2008.
In fact, the nation will say "Good riddance!" to any such candidate.
It's nice to have these things pointed out early.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (11)
March 15, 2006
Honor Thy Progenitor A And Progenitor B
(Michelle Arnold)
That rumbling you hear is the grave-spinning of all of Spain's Catholic kings and queens. Or should they now be called Spain's Progenitor As and Progenitor Bs?
"Spain has taken another step in its journey from conservative to liberal bastion by creating new birth certificates to avoid discrimination against same-sex couples.
"According to an announcement in the Official Bulletin of State 'The expression "father" will be replaced with "Progenitor A," and "mother" will be replaced with "Progenitor B."'
"The head of the national Civil Register, Pilar Blanco-Morales, told the newspaper ABC that the change took account of a new law on same-sex marriages passed by the socialist government in July."
No matter what Spain decides to call fathers and mothers, even legislative fiat won't change the biological fact that two Progenitor As and two Progenitor Bs cannot create a child without the biological material of the opposite Progenitor. In other words, there still must be a Progenitor A and a Progenitor B to make a Baby C.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
The Truce of 2005?
(Jimmy Akin)
Truces are good things. Right?
I mean, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and all that.
Well, while peace is desirable and to be worked toward--as the Church has pointed out so often in recent times--a mere absence of conflict is not sufficient for the kind of peace that is worth having.
Said another way: Some truces are wrong.
Like "the Truce of 1968," in which Pope Paul VI attempted to settle things down after numerous theologians rebelled against the teaching of Humanae Vitae. Rather than disciplining the malefactors, he let them get away with their dissent, and we have been suffering from the effects of that ever since.
Who know? He may have signed Europe's death warrant by confirming it in its downward population growth death spiral.
Now Fr. Richard John Neuhaus worries that we may be facing a new, equally disastrous truce--the "Truce of 2005."
He sees this truce as potentially as decisive for Benedict XVI's papacy as the Truce of 1968 was for Paul VI's papacy.
He writes:
And so it is that we are faced with what may be a defining test of the pontificate of Benedict XVI. As all who know him can attest, he is in personal relations a gentle man and averse to unpleasantness. He cannot relish the prospect of a direct confrontation with major institutions such as the Society of Jesus. Early on in his pontificate, John Paul II made an effort to bring the Jesuits into closer alignment with church teaching and authority, and ended up with little to show for it. As is his custom, the father general of the society, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, remains publicly aloof.
With this pope, as with all popes, there is the fear of schism. That was a great fear in 1968. . . .
In 1968, an effort was made to hold accountable those who are solemnly vowed to the service of the Church. And then Rome caved. We are still living with the unhappy consequences of the Truce of 1968. Of course the Church will survive. We have Our Lord’s promise on that. But no one who cares about this pontificate and the integrity of the Church’s ministry can contemplate with equanimity the consequences of a Truce of 2005.
What is this prospective, fearful Truce of 2005?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (63) | TrackBack
December 09, 2005
NCR: "Sympathetically Yours"
(Michelle Arnold)
The National Catholic Reporter Distorter has sent a note of condolence to homosexual clergy on the occasion of the Vatican instruction about the ordination of homosexuals.
"To all those in positions of leadership in the Roman Catholic church [sic] who also happen to be homosexual, we offer our commiseration and sorrow that once again you have been forced to hear your sexuality, an element intrinsic to your humanity, described as an objective disorder.
"This time the phrase appears in the document with the ridiculously unwieldy title: 'Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders.' In other words, the document on gays and seminaries.
"The description is repugnant, of course, to all those in the church [sic], gay and straight, who understand that homosexuality is, in the overwhelming number of cases, not a chosen orientation but as essential a part of one’s nature as heterosexuality is for others."
(Nod to Envoy Encore for the link.)
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack
October 10, 2005
Gay Blessings From The Church Of Sweden
(Michelle Arnold)
The Church of England has taken it on the chin for its capitulation to the sexual revolution in all of its perverse forms, but it is not the only national church in the process of shrugging off traditional Christian morality. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Sweden is inching closer to offering "blessing ceremonies" to homosexual couples, who profess themselves still dissatisfied at the potential compromise and holding out for "marriage":
"The Church of Sweden has come a step closer to introducing church blessings for gay couples who have signed civil partnership agreements, after a powerful church committee overwhelmingly approved the plans.
"Gay rights group RFSL welcomed the news, but said it would not be satisfied until same-sex couples got the same treatment as their straight counterparts.
"The liturgical committee of the Church Assembly has said that a service of blessing for gay partnerships should be included in the church's official guidelines.
"The final decision will be taken by the full Church Assembly later this month, but the proposal won a large majority on the committee, with twelve out of fifteen members supporting the blessings."
A gay rights activist worries that it will take another generation before the Church of Sweden allows for gay "marriage":
"Gay rights groups have welcomed the announcement, but Sören Andersson, chairman of Sweden's largest gay organisation, RFSL, told The Local that he would have liked the church to have gone further.
"'While I think this is a positive step that they are acknowledging relationships is this way, I think it's sad that they won't offer the same ceremonies to all couples.'
"'It has taken 30 years for us to come this far; I hope it doesn't take another 30 years for us to be offered the same ceremonies.'"
Oh, I don't think he need worry about that. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Church of Sweden cave to the pressure for gay "marriage" within five years.
When Martin Luther and his fellow Reformers stripped northern Europe from the Catholic Church and nationalized the churches in Protestant countries, I wonder if they realized that they would be politicizing religion? History has shown that Caesar is rarely satisfied with his due; without a universal Church led by a supranational pope to keep Caesar in check, the church in a particular country is all too vulnerable to becoming the plaything of Caesar's lobbyists and activists.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
September 27, 2005
Article On Homosexuality & The Priesthood
(Jimmy Akin)
Did an interview a week or so ago with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood.
The reporter seemed open minded and was quite pleasant to speak with. He also quoted me accurately in the main, though a few qualifiers dropped out along the way (for example, I didn't say that a homosexual seeking ordination is running away from something but may be; the same is also true of some heterosexuals seeking ordination).
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack
September 06, 2005
New Seminarian Document Expected Soon
(Jimmy Akin)
Remember that document I was telling you about that is expected to affirm that those with a homosexual orientation are not to be ordained to the priesthood?
CNA is reporting:
The chairman of the U.S. bishops' committee on priestly formation, Bishop John Nienstedt, said the Congregation told him that he could expect the guidelines soon.
This document is about to be issued as Vatican officials are expected to begin their visit of the 229 seminaries, theology schools and institutes in the United States this month [SOURCE].
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
Starbucks' New Quest
(Michelle Arnold)
Trivia for the Day: The coffee chain with a franchise on every corner -- and even a few drive-thrus, one of which I was both stunned and amused to see near my home -- takes its name from the first mate in the Great American Novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville. In the novel, Starbuck tries his best to stop Captain Ahab from pursuing the great white whale, a quest Starbuck apparently realizes is doomed.
Starbuck's namesake now has its own futile quest: To normalize homosexuality by advertising the musings of a homosexual writer on its disposable coffee cups:
"The world’s most famous coffee shop chain has begun a program called 'The Way I See It,' which is a collection of thoughts, opinions and expressions provided by notable figures that now appear on Starbucks coffee cups, according to the chain’s website.
"But one particular quote -- #43 -- blatantly pushes the homosexual agenda. It’s by Armistead Maupin, who wrote 'Tales of the City,' a bestseller-turned-PBS drama advocating the homosexual lifestyle, and it reads:
"'My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life’s too [expletive] short.'"
Aside from wondering what the fictional Starbuck -- or his creator, Herman Melville -- might have thought of his namesake's doomed quest, it occurred to me that it is both sad and utterly appropriate that these "thoughts" are being disseminated on disposable cups destined to be tossed into the nearest litter receptacle once the coffee is gulped down. Rather apropos of the ephemeral nature of false ideologies, isn't it?
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
The Anglican Solution
(Michelle Arnold)
The Church of England has come up with a "Let's try to please everyone!"-solution to the problem of Anglican homosexual clergy and the gay clergy's desire for "marriage." "Okay," sez the Church of England, "You can marry but you must remain celibate continent!"
"The Church of England is to allow gay clergy to enter into civil partnerships but only if they promise to abstain from sex, according to guidance issued yesterday.
"It has been drawn up to clarify the Church's position on the Civil Partnerships Act, which will offer same-sex couples a legal status similar to marriage when it comes into effect on Dec 5.
"In a 'pastoral statement' [scare quotes in the original], the House of Bishops said that clergy would be able to take advantage of the Act, but only if they reassure their bishops that they will uphold Church teaching. Clergy were also told that they should not offer formal services of blessing for couples who had been through a civil partnership ceremony, but they could pray with the couple."
I find it fascinating that a church created because of one man's sexual indiscretions and rationalizations for his immoral behavior has constantly been at the forefront of the liberal Christian "sexual revolution" and the rationalization by some Christians of sexual behavior traditionally recognized to be immoral.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
May 04, 2005
RAINBOW SASHERS: National Day Of Disruption
(Michelle Arnold)
Furious over the election of Pope Benedict XVI, whom they have venomously called a "liar" and an "aggressive homophobe," members of the so-called Rainbow Sash movement -- a calls-itself-Catholic, pro-homosexual movement -- are calling for their members to disrupt Catholic Masses around the United States on the Feast of Pentecost on Sunday, May 15:
"The Rainbow Sash Movement (RSM) with its supporters will be entering Cathedrals and parishes around the nation on Pentecost Sunday, May 15. We are inviting our supporters to join us, and wear the Rainbow Sash as a symbol of dignity and inclusion.
"We continue to call for public dialogue with Cardinal Francis George Vice President of the National Council of Catholic Bishops.
[...]
"We hope that our presence will also counter the lies that Pope Benedict XVI is promoting about our community. We are Catholic, and will raise our voices to speak to the truth of our lives from the pews. We will no longer be silent in the face of this injustice."
Actually, all they will succeed in doing is demonstrating their own irrelevance while profaning the Blessed Sacrament. Stories like this can make it a very difficult trial for orthodox Catholics who know they must separate contempt for the sin from contempt for the sinner.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (57) | TrackBack
January 21, 2005
A Recent E-Mail & Comment
(Jimmy Akin)
I'm about to break my no-names-in-the-main-blog-area rule because a situation has come up down yonder and I want to head off potential confusion.
I'd like to share an e-mail I recently sent to Other Eric, who has told me that he does not have a problem with me blogging from our e-mail exchange. Here goes:
Eric,
I wanted to write and say, first of all, that I feel for the cross you are carrying. We all carry crosses, and the struggle of same-sex attraction is no different. It is a temptation to a different kind of sin than most have, but all struggle with temptation. We all have fallen natures, and God loves and cares for you as much as he does for me or anyone else.
I also wanted to say that I appreciate your thoughtful comments on my blog as you wrestle with this issue, and I understand how insensitive the comments of some may be. I hope that my remarks are better in this regard.
I agree that there comes an age in which the concerns I have expressed on the blog lessen and eventually cease to apply. At some point in their lives, children must come to become aware of the existence of homosexuality and its moral status, because they will certainly run into it as adults. Children cannot be shielded from the realities of life forever. Their parents must prepare them to face not only the good things in life but the bad and tragic things as well. The question is when. This is a decision that I feel is best left up to individual parents, as there is no obvious answer. Since multi-family schools must make a common decision about it that is bound to be inappropriate for some children, as they progress at different rates, I prefer homeschooling situations where each family can make these decisions based on the knowledge, temprament, and unique circumstances of their own children.
I also agree that different individuals with homosexual temptations are different. They are not all outspoken advocates of the gay lifestyle, though many are. The same is true of the children they raise, and this has to be taken into account in the decision to admit the children of such couples into a school.
The situation of a child's parents also have nothing to do with his ability to receive the sacraments as long as he accepts the Catholic faith (including its teaching on moral matters) and otherwise fulfills the requirements for the sacraments.
I want to stress that I view you and all in similar situations as human beings first above all. You may have same-sex attraction temptations, but those are not determinitive of what you are. To tell the truth, I don't even like using "homosexual" as a noun. In a blog post, space restrictions prevent me from using (repeatedly) the phrases that I prefer--"*person* with homosexual temptations" and "*person* with same-sex attraction"--but these phrases better reflect the reality of the situations of individuals struggling with this condition, and I would encourage you to think of yourself, not as a homosexual, but as a *person* who happens to have same-sex temptations.
I've said such things in public before, and would be happy to blog to this effect again, but didn't want to use your e-mail as an occasion of doing so in case you wanted it kept private.
I'm glad that you're getting in touch with David Morrison, and I hope he's able to help you on your journey. Feel free to write me again, and I hope you'll keep reading the blog.
God bless, and take care!
Jimmy Akin
One of the other commenters down yonder noted that Other Eric's e-mail address indicates his sexuality. I posted the following comment in response:
As his e-mail address indicates, Other Eric is a person who has homosexual attractions and who openly describes himself as gay.
He also has interacted respectfully with others on this blog, even though of late we have been discussing issues that one would suppose might pain him and that he might strongly disagree with.
In view of his respectful attitude and willingness to think through these subjects, we owe him the same respect and willingness to think through points he may make.
Just because someone practices the "gay lifestyle" does not mean that he should not be treated with respect and engaged in dialog on important issues, including the Church's teachings regarding homosexuality.
That's what Christ, who died for Other Eric just as much for all of the rest of us, would have us do.
Thanks for understanding.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
January 20, 2005
Gay Parents Threedux: Reader Roundup
(Jimmy Akin)
First, I want to thank everyone who commented in the second of the gay "parents" comment threads. Some of y'all made truly outstanding points while I was at work--so much so that I was tempted not to do a reader roundup, y'all had done such a great job. I'd like to quote and praise you all individually, but then this post would go on for so long that nobody would read it and would miss the praise anyway, so I hope a generic, up-front collective "Kudos!" will do. :-)
Now . . .
Down yonder, readers write:
READER A: So long as the kids' parents agree to keep their sexuality out of the classroom (i.e. only have one of them be seen publicly with the kid on campus), then I don't see where they should be penalized.
I think that we agree here that if the homosexuality of the "parents" was something that could be kept out of the classroom, so that the only child being harmed by knowledge of it was the child in question, then this would fall into the area of a covert sin that does not pose a scandal to the other children in the school. Under those (magical) circumstances, I wouldn't be opposed to letting the kid in the class.
As other readers are about to point out, there are virtually insuperable problems with the idea of keeping this a secret among a class of five year olds. I would add the further point that, so far as I can tell, it seems to be obviously not happening in this school. The homosexuals, so far as I know, are making no secret of their relationship to each other, and the kids are aware of it. (Though if I am wrong on this point, I invite correction from those in a position to know.)
READER B: How could you possibly enforce such a requirement? Would it even be legal for the school to ask the parents to abide by such a requirement. I can just see the ACLU jumping on that one.
Even if the parents aren't seen, as Jimmy points out, the face will come out as part of the natural interactions between children of this age during talk about their 'family'. How do you prevent that? Ask the child to agree to not talk about it?
I don't know if this would be illegal or not. Perhaps some of the Southern Appeal lawyer folk who read the blog could tell us that. I totally agree, however, that even if the parents tried to keep their status a secret, it would fail. Five year olds are nowhere near tight lipped enough to reliably keep something like that to themselves, and they're going to be asking questions about each others mommies that would, even if the kid could keep his second daddy a secret, put him in the proximate occasion of the sin of lying.
READER C: But, the line still has to be drawn somewhere. I mean, is it only gay and nudist parents that cannot have their children attend Catholic schooling? What about divorced and remarried Catholics kids...I could just as easily see one become an apologist for divorce in the classroom as for homosexual activity? Or how about the child who's father is addicted to pornography...couldn't you see a child say, "My daddy looks at pictures like that all the time and mommy says it is OK since he is just looking"? I think I agree with you, Jimmy, but how are we to draw the line here? Or are we just reacting this way because it is a hot button issue while divorce and remarriage is now commonplace (although destructive and scandalous as well)?
I agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and the place I would tend to draw it is: any sin that kids of a particular age shouldn't know about and that would have a high probability of coming to their attention. Homosexual "parents" clearly falls over that line. So does public nudism. So do polygamous relationships (not serial polygamy; I mean the real deal).
I wouldn't put private use of pornography, as tragic as that is, in the same category, or divorce and remarriage without annulment. Those sins are not nearly as likely to come to the attention of the children in the class. If, however, the parents were of a mind to make these sins known to the children of the class (e.g., by bringing pornography to get-to-know-Billy's-father day or complaining at parent-child gatherings about the Church's oppressive annulment requirement that keeps them from really being married in the Church's eyes) then I would put them over the line.
READER D: The presence of a nudist in front of a class of kindergarten-aged children necessarily calls attention to itself in a way that the presence of a homosexual may not. Unless you are prepared to define some physical characteristics that are endemic to homosexuality I fail to see how your analogy can be carried much further.
I agree. The analogy was deliberately more extreme than the homosexual "parents" situation in order to show that there are at least some situations in which the child must have his religious education taken care of in another manner. After establishing that point, it could be argued whether homosexuality is one such situation.
MORE D: Let’s consider another analogy. Suppose we have a child that has been born out of wedlock and is at present only being taken care of by his mother. The situation of a child having no daddy is just as likely to become apparent to the rest of the student body as the case of a child having two. So should this child also be denied admission?
No. The "no daddy" situation is common throughout history. Often fathers get killed or die of an illness or vanish for other reasons that are incomprehensible to young children. It's sad, but it doesn't pose a moral scandal to the kids under most circumstances. The odds of young kids becoming aware that Billy's parents weren't married at the time he was born are low.
READER E (RESPONDING TO READER C): Unfortunately divorce is commonplace and children will likely be exposed to it no matter what the school policy is. Kids likeley can simply no longer be shielded form this (with a 50% divorce rates even among Catholics, it's likely 1/2 the kids in the school have divorced parents). Fortunately, Homosexual Unions are not yet so widespread that this is the case. Children still can be shielded from this and should be. Under what you seem to be saying, because we can't shield the from everything, we shouldn't shield them from anything. Does that seem right? We (and the school in question) should do what we can, all the time realizing that we live in an imperfect world were our ability to do so will be limited by the sinful nature of all and that the lines we attempt to draw won't be perfect.
Excellent point. We cannot allow the facts that we (a) can't shield kids from all dangers and (b) can't draw lines perfectly to deter us from drawing reasonable lines to shield kids from what we can protect them from. Put it another way: Just because I can't keep all dangerous objects away from Billy all the time, that's no reason I shouldn't keep the gun cabinet locked.
READER F: You are going to run across many, many situations you have not already considered here that is going to occur in a school situation with various kids who have various backgrounds. And I am speaking as an educator who has taught in the public school system for 6 years and taught and volunteered in a Catholic school for 3 years. All I can say is homeschooling is now the only option for us.
Reader F, you deserve an "A"! Both the public and Catholic school systems are so problematic that (barring special circumstances) I view homeschooling as the strongly preferred option for my family, should I have one.
READER G: Also, don't leave the "parents" out in the cold. Remember that, "God scourges everyone whom he loves". Use this as a point of instruction to bring *all* of the parents into line with the gospel rather than singling out a parent that lives at the cultural fringe.
Yes, and preaching the gospel to individuals can involve excluding them from the society of the Church in order to awaken them to the dimensions of their sins. This is the point of the penalty of excommunication, for example, and St. Paul is very firm on this in 1 Corinthians. It's a "tough love" approach, but sometimes it is necessary. One harms not only the children in the school but the homosexual "parents" as well if one communicates to them that their behavior is acceptable, or even tolerable, in the Catholic community.
MORE G: Remember that we all have absolute moral freedom. Nothing is preventing these parents, all of them, from changing; nothing but themselves.
I'd be a little careful, here. The homosexual "parents" can certainly split up and lead chaste lives, though they may or may not be able to get shed of their same-sex attractions.
READER D AGAIN: The thing about this case that I find especially galling is the attempt to establish homosexuality as a special sin deserving of unique consequences in a way that other sexual sins are not.
This is not about the sexual activity of the same-sex couple. It can’t be because they have declined to make any public comment and their personal situation is not known. Their apologetical moment came and they declined it. Nevertheless their reticence is still not good enough. After all, they are homosexuals. It’s not about what they do, it’s about what they are.
It isn't about what they are. It isn't even about their private sinful behavior. It's about what they are doing publicly, which is to present themselves to the world as "parents" and try to inject themselves into the life of a school at an age-level where children should not know about these matters and will inevitably learn about them.
Also, as the above indicates, there are other sexual sins that have a similar public dimension (full-time nudity, simultaneous polygamy) that would be similarly problematic, so this isn't singling out homosexuality. Any sin that would pose a scandal to the kids would fall on the other side of the line to my mind.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
January 19, 2005
Gay Parents Redux
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Dear Mr.
AikinAkin (spell it "Aikin" and you won't be able to get to the blog ;-) -With the greatest respect and appreciation for everything that you do for the Catholic Faith and evangelization,
Thanks! I appreciate the compliment!
I respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding the Orange County school that has children with homosexual "parents."
Okay. I operate on the principle that not everybody has to agree with me.
Please keep in mind that I can't remember a time where I have ever previously disagreed with you. Also keep in mind that I am a "conservative" Catholic that attempts to follow the Magisterium teaching completely without exception. I am in avid opposition to same-sex unions or marriage and I have been active in my diocese prodding pastors to speak out against such unions.
Good for you!
Here are my thoughts on what you posted on your blog:
I don't believe you should draw a line on the children because of the sins of their parents - ever. It is not right. It is not just. It sets terrible precedent. It appears exclusive and unwelcoming. It is in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For example, what if one of the children had a parent that had committed murder? That would certainly be number 20 or so on the scale. We could not visit the murderer in prison but refuse to educate his child. You can't compromise the Gospel.
But - you can oppose the compromising of the Gospel by priests, sisters, and Bishops - that is where the problem is - go after the true problem.
I do understand that this situation is different in light of the promotion of the lifestyle by the homosexual couple and that they may be in teaching situations. That is a problem - but it is a separate problem - it has to do with what is being taught, by whom, and how. To me, it is the same problem that liberal, dissenting pastors provide. In both cases, scandal is present and it must be remedied. When I was faced with a severely dissenting pastor, I did not demand alll parishoners that agree with him vehemently leave. I went to the Diocese and strongly made the case for truth being taught.
Once again, good for you.
I also believe in dealing with the problem where it is, but I think that in this case there is a problem not only with those in the Church who do not speak out against homosexuality but also a problem created in the classroom by the situation of having two homosexual "parents" putting a kid in a class of sexual innocents who shouldn't be confronted with the existence of homosexuality at their age.
Let's set the issue of homoexual parents aside and do a thought experiment involving a different and more extreme situation:
Suppose that there are two parents (male and female) who are nudists and who insist on walking around all day long--in public--buck nekkid. Suppose also that they live in Southern California and that the crazy laws of the state permit them to do so (as well as its warm climate). Is it their child's fault that he has parents who are nudists? No. But, whenever he interacts with other children, he's going to have a lot of them asking him about the fact that his parents are nudists.
As a result, he's going to go back to his parents and ask them what to tell the other kids. They'll tell him that being a nudist is an okay thing and that he should tell the other kids that. He thus, little by little, is going to become an apologist for public nudity, even though he may or may not be a nudist himself.
Now this family decides to put their kid in a Catholic school's kindergarten class. What is the school to do? The other kids are going to become aware of the fact that the kid's parents are nudists. They're going to see it when they pick him up from school. They're going to ask questions about his family and, kindergartners being terrible at keeping secrets, this fact is going to come out. The kid will then (a) be picked on and (b) be questioned and (c) respond by launching into nudism apologist mode.
Kids at this age level should not be faced with a knowledge of nudism, much less see people who insist on picking up kids from school while nude (or playing a role taking care of the class while nude). They should not have to deal with a nudist apologist in their midst at this age. They shouldn't at this age even be aware of nudism.
It therefore seems to me that the school would not only be reasonable but required not to admit this kid under these circumstances. The basis for doing this is the fact that the school has to take into account the interests of all its students. It cannot allow the interest of a single student (having a Catholic education) to outweight the interests of all the other students (having a Catholic education and not being exposed to the reality of nudism and nudist apologists).
The thing to do would be to not admit the kid and to arrange for him to get instruction in the Catholic faith through some other means (e.g., private tutoring).
I think that if a school did make the mistake of admitting such a child then the parents who have kids there would be (a) entirely justified in protesting and (b) entirely justified in yanking their kids out of class to prevent them from being exposed to nudists and nudist apologists.
If you're willing to go with me this far (leaving the above described conditions of the thought experiment in place) then it seems you should be willing to admit that there are at least some circumstances (and we can make the above conditions even more extreme if needed; say, nudists who insist on engaging in the marital act in public when they are picking up their kid from school and who are allowed by the state to do this) in which the most prudent thing to do is to not admit the kid to school and to take care of his religious education in another way.
That's not compromising the gospel. It's upholding the gospel by not allowing its message to be watered down for a whole class (or a whole school) by the flagrant scandal of people living in open defiance of basic gospel values.
If you agree to that principle it could be seen as a judgment call as to whether having two homosexual parents fall into that category.
In my opinion, it does.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
August 17, 2004
I *Really* Wish I Had Seen This
(Jimmy Akin)
The following exchange took place on August 5 on Fox News between host Stewart Varney and Disney president Robert Iger. The conversation concerned Disney's new Dream Desk computer for children:
IGER: It's easy to set up, easy to use, compact, it doesn't take much room, and most importantly it has what's called ContentWatch built in.VARNEY: Well, you know, I -- exactly. I mean, in June you have "Gay Days" at your theme parks. You got any 'Gay Days' on the Mickey computer?
IGER: Well, this has built into it all kinds of protective devices that protects the kid, or the child from internet sites that a parent wouldn't deem appropriate. Also, the fact --
VARNEY: Well, you don't protect the kids from "Gay Days" at the theme parks, do you? Why do you have to protect them in the computer?
Fight the Power, Stu!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 12, 2004
California Supreme Court Voids Frisco Gay Marriages
(Jimmy Akin)
YES!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 23, 2004
BISHOP D'ARCY: Homosexuals Should Not Be Ordained
(Jimmy Akin)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 09, 2004
Judge's Ruling Out Of Touch With Reality
(Jimmy Akin)
A Boston judge recently ruled that calling someone a homosexual when he is not does not violate slander or libel laws.
In her ruling she stated:
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community."
That's nuts.
In the interest of furthering the homosexual agenda the judge has relied upon an idiotic theory of jurisprudence that would place judges in the position of philosophers. For her argument to work one would have to assume that judges should decide whether saying something about a person is objectively good or bad. This is not the job of a judge. In a slander or libel case it does not matter what the objective status of an accusation is as long as it is false and would hurt the person it is made against.
Suppose I live in a community that believes being a Martian is a bad thing. Someone then accuses me of being a Martian, when I am not. People in the community then begin to react negatively toward me, refuse me service, deny me jobs, reject doing business with my firm, etc., all because I have been falsely accused of being a Martian. In such circumstances, I should be able to sue the person who falsely accused me of being a Martian in order to get compensation for the harm that the false accusation has done to me and my reputation. It does not matter whether being a Martian is a good, neutral, or bad. The point is that someone falsely accused me of something that has negative effects on me and my reputation due to the way people react to it.
The fact is that in our society people frequently react negatively to calling someone a homosexual. Whether one approves of that or not, it happens, and judges should not prevent people from seeking legal redress of the wrong when they are falsely accused of being homosexual.
This idiot judge's ruling would put judges in the position of adjudicating cases not based on whether a person suffers due to the making of a false charge but on whether the false charge refers to a thing that is objectively bad.
I'm sorry, but determining the objective moral status of something is a job for philosophers and theologians, not Massachusetts judges, regardless of the divine prerogatives they seem to believe they possess.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
May 18, 2004
International Olympic Committee Allows Trans-Gendered Athletes To Compete In Olympics
(Jimmy Akin)
This is wrong for so many reasons.
Interestingly, an (apparently well-known) athlete with a sex change who is quoted in the article agrees that the IOC is mistaken. Points to "her" for honesty!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 06, 2004
Vatican Ambassador Reportedly Makes Mistake
(Jimmy Akin)
A correspondent writes:
"The Guardian" reported that the papal nuncio to Spain, Msgr. Manuel Monteiro de Castro, suggest that that nation should recognize same sex unions although not as marriage!!! Is this true?
I checked out the original Guardian story, and it looks like it's accurate in its main details (though it's phrased in the hostile-to-Catholicism manner that is so blatant in British newspapers).
Still, one would want confirmation from more than one source, so I did some checking and found lots of similar stories, especially in homosexual news sources. However, they're all dependant on The Guardian as a source, so we don't have independent confirmation. I also check some Spanish news sources, but couldn't find anything.
My guess is that the story may be accurate but still too new to have generated enough collateral stories for me to turn them up easily.
I suspect that the pope's spokesman, Navarro-Valls, will get asked about this and we'll have confirmation or disconfirmation soon. Also, if the guy really said what he's reported as saying, there may be disciplinary action.
I'll keep y'all updated as I learn more.
-------
UPDATE!
Thanks to a reader posting in the comments box below, I was able to find a Spanish-language story from Europa Press linked on Amy Welborn's site. Here's a quick translation:
The papal nuncio in Spain, Monsignor Manuel Monteiro de Castro, said today that the legalization of homosexual unions is totally against the doctrine of the Church. With this declaration he forestalled the matter declared by the Alsina Forum of diocesan priests of Gerona, which has been in favor of the legalization of unions of people of the same sex.Shortly after attending the inauguration of the Plenary Assembly of the Episcopal Conference, Monsignor Monteiro told a group of journalists that "homosexual unions are totally contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Such position (the legalization of these unions) is clearly contrary to the position of the Church."
Monsignor Monteiro insisted that the family is constituted by a man and a woman, as is recognized in the Codes of Civil Justice of Spain and the remaining countries of Europe. "Marriage--I emphasize--is between a man and a woman. It is good that other forms of cohabitation are are recognized, but they are not the same thing. That is to say, marriage is to be what it has always been known as marriage and the other forms [of union] are not to have this name." However, the nuncio showed his esteem for these people (the homosexuals), which he said the hierarchy of the Church also tries to help in their spiritual life.
My Spanish is a bit rusty, and I had to render part of the last paragraph a little idiomatically in English, so if anyone can provide a better reading, e-mail me.
This story ambiguates the situation somewhat, as the opening section makes it sound as if the Monsignor was opposed to legal recognition for all homosexual unions. However, note that in the second paragraph the phrase "(the legalization of these unions)" is added by the Europa Press writer. The Monsignor may have been expressing moral opposition to the unions but not legal recognition for them. In the next paragraph the Monsignor is quoted as saying that "It is good that other forms of cohabitation are recognized" (if I have translated correctly) but that they are not the same as marriage.
The new text adds ambiguity, but unfortunately it still is not clear to me that he took a line opposing all legal recognition for homosexual unions. Let's hope that he did and that this will swiftly be established.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
April 19, 2004
Homosexuality in Nature, Part II
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I hope you don't mind me asking you this, but I read on your blog [here] about your debate with that homosexual. Two questions came to mind that I'd really like answered. First, even though animals do things humans shouldn't do, WHY do animals do them? Is homosexual mating between animals a disorder in the creation caused by the Fall?? If not, then there seems to be only one option for Catholics: femininity and masculinity are not inherently attracted to each other. So why did God make them attracted to each other in humans though??There are several questions bundled here, but let me try to unpack them:
- It is not clear the extent to which the Fall of Man affected nature. We know it affected man in a very profound way, but its effects on nature are significantly undetermined. This subject commonly arises in connection with death. We know that human death entered the world through the Fall, but Aquinas states that this did not apply to animals, as lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) were still carnivores before the Fall and therefore killed things. A parallel may be true of homosexual behavior. Among humans it entered the world on account of the Fall, but it may have already been there in animals.
- The basic reason that animals sometimes engage in homosexual behavior is a subset of why animals do all kinds of things that among humans would be immoral. They do all kinds of other things like this, too: Eating their own kind, killing their young, torturing animals they are about to kill, etc. And those are only the tip of the iceberg. Many species also mate indiscriminately, commit rape, take multiple mates, use violence to prevent others from mating, etc.
- The basic reason that animals do these things is that they simply have no moral consciousness. There are varying degrees of consciousness among animals, and these result in different kinds of behavior. For example, one kind of sea slug (at least I think it's a sea slug; I'd have to check) has a very rudimentary behavioral response to other life forms. It follows the rule: "Try to eat it. If you can't eat it, try to mate with it." The slug (or whatever) is simply too dimwitted to make a more fine-grained appraisal of how to interact with other life forms. Other creatures--such as mammals--are more intelligent (including the aforementioned lions and tigers and bears, for example). Mammalian species have a finer-grained set of distinctions they apply to other creatures, but in some species they aren't always capable of reliably distinguishing between members of their own species (or closely related species). This can result in attempts to mate with an individual other than they thought they were mating with.
- Even if an animal did realize that it was trying to mate with a different individual than it usually does, it probably wouldn't care. Animals follow a variant of the rule "If it feels good, do it." Among the higher animals, the rule is more like "If it feels good--and you think you can get away with it--do it." This rule, of itself, is going to result in some homosexual behavior among animals. Some animals will wind up in situations where they experience physical pleasure "mating" with members of their own gender, and this will motivate them to do it. If they think they can get away with it, they will.
- The question is: Why do animals lack moral consciousness? A simple explanation is that they simply aren't smart enough to have it. That's true, but that may not be all of the answer.
- It may be that animals simply are not moral subjects. For an animal not designed to have a moral nature, it's hard for me to think of its acts as moral or immoral. I don't blame a boulder or a tree if it falls on a good guy and kills him. Neither do I praise the boulder or the tree if it falls on a bad guy and kills him. Its "actions" are neither moral nor immoral. They just are. The boulder or tree is simply not a moral subject. It is very tempting to say that the same is true of animals. If so, then they aren't merely blameless for their actions because they are ignorant of their actions' moral dimension. They are blameless because their actions have no moral dimension.
- These questions are interesting to think about, but we don't have definitive answers on them. What we do have definitive answers about is humans: Humans are moral subjects, their actions do have a moral dimension, and the only two circumstances that diminish their culpability for committing wrong actions are lack of knowledge and lack of volition.
- We also know this: Masculinity and femininity are innate in humans, but in some cases there are disorders that can mute these. There can also be homosexual temptations.
- Among humans, these disorders are consequences of the Fall. Regardless of how other species may have ended up with homosexual impulses, God doesn't make people with homosexual temptations or any other kind of temptations. As Scripture states: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (Jas. 1:13-14). Those desires are there because of the Fall.
Secondly, is it right to befriend a active homosexual and try to be on good turns, dialoguing with the person?? In the past I was under the impression that such people are corrupt, so we can't treat them the way we might treat a Protestant in debate. But are active homosexuals really on the same level as serial killers?I'm less certain that I understand everything you're after here, but here goes:
- It's certainly not wrong to befriend a person with homosexual temptations and try to discuss matters with him. In fact, helping him see the problem with acting on his temptations would be a spiritual act of mercy.
- There is a spectrum of gravity among sins, and although homosexual acts and murder are both mortally sinful, the latter is clearly the worse of the two. So no, active homosexuals are not on the same level as serial killers. (If someone told you that they are, he's dead wrong--no pun intended.)
- It's problematic to talk about any individual as "corrupt" in an unqualified manner. We all have flaws, temptations, and sins in our past. Homosexuals may have a different set than most of us, but ultimately we are all sinners.
- We also all share basic human dignity that no amount of sin and corruption can remove. We can commit offenses against our dignity, but we cannot remove it, for God built it into us as an inalienable gift. God loves us all, and Christ died for us all. That is what should be at the center of our minds and be the guiding principle of our approach to those with homosexual temptations or with any other temptation--which is to say, that should be the guiding principle of our approach with everybody
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (4)
April 01, 2004
Curse of the Black Widow
(Jimmy Akin)
Participated in a debate today. It was a tightly-structured panel discussion at Southwestern College here in the San Diego area. The topic was homosexual "marriages," and the participants were me, a law instructor, a psychology instructor, and a lawyer from the ACLU who was also a lesbian. The debate largely turned into a discussion between me and the lawyer lady, with a little input from the others.
It went quite well. The main arguments of both sides got put forward, we had a chance to rejoin each other's arguments, threw in some humor, and got the audience engaged (as illustrated by their applause after telling points were made). I'm going to try to contact the lawyer lady and thank her for a good debate. (She got out of there very quickly after the event.)
In preparing for debates and major interviews, I try to "game out" the discussion ahead of time in my mind. (This can cause problems, because it can leave me awake in bed at 2 a.m. twisting arguments around in my head, but that's an occupational hazard; it's what you have to do to get the job done right.) Today's debate was the first one I've done on homosexual "marriage," and the first occasion I've had to debate homosexuality in a number of years, so for a day or two ahead of time I gave myself a mental workout on the subject.
One of the arguments I was particularly concerned to have a solid, snappy answer for is the claim--which was sure to come up--that homosexuality exists in the animal world and that this makes it "natural" for humans as well. This is an argument that must be convincingly rebutted, because otherwise it undermines the natural law argument against homosexuality, leaving only a religious argument, which in the present, secular public sphere is doomed to fail.
Since it is true that animals do sometimes display homosexual behavior, the obvious rejoinder to the "animals do it too" argument is that just because animals do something, that doesn't mean it's good for humans to do. This answer has the benefit of being true, but stated in that form it has the detriment of being boring. It's not a "grabber," and it smacks too much of your parents saying, "If all the other kids wanted to jump off a bridge, would you jump off too?" That kind of argument probably caused you to stop paying attention when you were a kid, and the same danger presents itself here. It doesn't matter how true the rejoinder is; if it isn't presented in an arresting manner then the audience will stop paying attention and won't take it seriously.
So I ruminated on the charge, and in the wee morning hours, the answer revealed itself to me. I had a good, snappy way of presenting the argument that would grab the audience's attention and force them to take it seriously. Here's what I came up with, and ended up using in the debate:
It's true that some animals do display homosexual behavior, but that doesn't mean that it is morally justified for humans to engage in it.
The audience really responded to this. The black widow line alone got a huge laugh. I think even people on the other side of the issue were laughing. After the point was made, there was a big round of applause in acknowledgement of its force.Black widow spiders try to kill and eat their mates after copulating, but I assume that you're not in favor of that among humans.
Further, in many species copulation amounts to rape. A male will capture and force himself on a female. Or sometimes a group of males will do it. I also assume that you're not in favor of that among human beings.
The fact is that humans, of all the creatures on earth, are rational beings aware of the moral dimension of their actions. For this reason alone (and there are other reasons), you cannot point to the existence of something in the animal kingdom and say that it is therefore justified among humans as well.
There was no judging of the debate and no announcement of the winning side, but after the event a gentleman from the audience came up to me and said that he overheard some in the audience who were in favor of "gay marriage" saying of me "Man, he's killing them (the folks on the other side) with these arguments." Perhaps that was one of the ones they were thinking of. . . . (Shrug.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (2)
