The fact that you weren’t gay does not mean it wasn’t homophobia. People use derogatory terms for those that they either don’t like, or those of whom they are afraid…
snip/
Dear Bradski,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
You are, I feel, dear friend, reading far too much into the venomous name-calling, unkind though it may be, that some adolecents are wont to dish out to one another, often quite thoughtlessly. They are simply using any verbal abuse that they think will wound the feelings of another and be the occasion of emotional distress. This is wrong, of course, and undoubtedly can be the cause of much anguish and, where possible, those that use such virulent abuse should be hauled over the coals. However, as bad as it is, the majority do not often intend what we adults might intend when and if we use abusive epithets.
When I was in my early teens, dear friend, I was in a children’s home where it was very much survival of the fittest and where there were your resident bullies. Now because I was very softly spoken and of a diffident disposition I was continually picked-on and often called a ‘poof’ (a British derogatory term for a male homosexual). However, at that time I was unaware of the precise meaning of the word and even if my peers knew its true meaning, I do not for one moment think their use of it implied anything respecting my actual sexual proclivity. It was a case of boys being horrible little boys and using a word that they thought would wound my feelings. What wounded my feelings the most, however, was not their use of the word ‘poof’ but their unkindness and unacceptance of me as person. Having said that, I met one of these ‘bullies’ a few years ago and he is now a jolly decent chap and happily married, as I am myself. We spoke about how that children’s home was a harsh environment back in 1972-73 and that everybody was busy surviving it the best way they knew how, which sadly often meant ganging up on other boys, whose faces did not fit. You will never change this unkind streak in human nature, especially among youth, I am afraid.
Whether men hold to the authority of bible or the Church, dear friend, they do, even in their fallen estate, have an ethical intuition that certain behaviour’s are wrong because they are deemed to be unnatural. Thus we percieve that the natural sex companion for a human is another human and not an animal. By the same parity of reasoning, dear friend, the same applies to homosexual acts of depravity. The natural sex companion for a man is a woman, and the natural sex companion for a woman is a man. Thus people have a corresponding intuition regarding homosexuality that they do about bestiality,
vis-a-vis, that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Therefore, it it perfectly reasonable to appeal to bestaility, by way of analogy, to demonstrate that homosexual aberrant acts are as unnatural as bestiality and as intrinsically disordered.
It is quite true, dear friend, that a militant homosexual activism has done much to indoctrinate Western culture into erroneously thinking that homosexual vice is nothing more than a so called alternative lifestyle choice or an ‘interesting variant’. Moreover, it is also true that there are liberal Catholic dissidents who strongly disagree with their own Chrurch’s stance on homosexual acts of depravity. However, it should be observed that these dissidents, however large their number may be, do not speak for the Magisterium and therefore they need not be listened to by the faithful. Moreover, even if the Pope alone believed that homosexual conduct was sinful and intrinsically disordered, he alone would be right and the entire world wrong. One is a majority with the Lord and as a dear friend of mine, now departed this life, was wont to say, “God’s truth will always prove correct no matter who questions or challenges it”.
Sadly, many Catholics today (even some who would identify as conservative as touching faith and morals) are going out of their way to ingratiate themselves with homosexuals so as to win their affections and respect. Sometimes, dear friend, it almost seems that they are embarrassed by and feel the need to apologise for their Church’s teaching, which they see to think is unduly harsh in its wording an jolly uncompromising. This is misguided sentimental thinking for the Church must be unyeilding and cannot mince its words when it involves a grevious sin and a violation of the natural law. Indeed, those who wifully continue to indulge in homosexual acts of depravity and remain impenitent risk eternal damnation in Hell. In the present climate, where modern man has become deeply suspicious of the whole concept of punishment for wrongdoing, this may sound like stern penny farthing theology. Nevertheless, it is the truth and the urgent need of the hour is for there to be more full blooded homilies and popular religious books on everlasting punishment and the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Perhaps this is what it will take to arouse us from our spiritual indifference and lethargy. A healthy dose of teaching on eternal punishment can act as a great deterrent for keeping sinful humanity on the straight and narrow path that leads to everlasting life. Unfortunately, intellectual attitudes were changed when Darwin and Freud posed the question whether a man was really responsible for his sins. However, teaching on eternal punishment was never overtly repudiated, and neither could it be being a cardinal doctrine of the faith, but quietly buried.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
But I wholeheartedly support your enjoyment of lively discussion.
