B
BTNYC
Guest
I love a lively discussion. I love lively, passionate discourse at social gatherings and on online forums. I’m particularly gratified that, in the latter case, no one can throw their drink in my face in the heat of the moment. This is my first thread on CAF, so please don’t mind if I just dive right into it:
There is a disturbing trend among Catholics in the west – cleric and layman alike – toward granting certain tenets of the homosexual agenda, even while combatting it… even before the dialogue has commenced.
For one thing, note how lamentably widespread (even among Catholics) use of the term “gay” is… And I don’t mean in the all-purpose adolescent pejorative sense that the homosexual agenda is currently campaigning against. I mean in the sense of phrases like “gay marriage” or “gay rights,” or simply referring to homosexuals en masse as “gays.” This term, which started as a vague if overly charitable euphemism for homosexuality when discussing the subject in polite company, has since been adopted by the homosexual agenda as the standard nomenclature for a lifestyle that is anything but “gay,” in the original sense of the word. And yet I hear Catholics using this term all the time – even good Catholics who oppose homosexuality – largely because the popular culture saturates us with it.
Worse, there’s a creeping tendency for use of the especially loaded acronym “LGBT” (or”LGBTQ”). This term, which is of particularly recent vintage, and has become a corporate logo of sorts for the homosexual agenda, is being used with increasing frequency in Catholic publications, online forums, and academic discourse.
No wonder then, that we even find Catholics making the most fatal concession of all in this most crucial moral debate – tacit (and sometimes explicit) affirmation of the existence of the completely invented “evil” of “homophobia.” This totally fictitious, fallacious, fraudulent term, which first saw print in the pages of the pornographic publication ”Screw Magazine,” is the homosexual agenda’s most potent weapon; an argument-stopping pejorative used to damn well-reasoned intellectual and moral opposition to homosexuality (and even the very natural and wholesome revulsion inherent in most people at the idea of homosexual acts) out of the discussion altogether. It is a Scarlet Letter that marks the opposition as irrationally fearful bigots who do not deserve even to be heard.
He who controls the language controls the debate. Lexical concessions to the homosexualist movement inevitably trickle down into praxis. And in much Catholic pastoral language here in the west, the subject of homosexuality as sin is gingerly danced around for fear of causing insult. Concessions are made left and right to the feelings of homosexuals. Good, holy priests like Father Marcel Guarnizo are punished for rightly withholding the Blessed Sacrament from bold, anti-Catholic homosexual activists and agitators seeking to use God’s most sacred Gift as a cudgel against the Church in furtherance of their wicked agenda. And we are repeatedly admonished to be mindful of the terrible burden that the homosexual must bear in his or her call to live chastely as a faithful Catholic.
Now I don’t deny for a minute that a person afflicted with sexual attraction to members of his or her own sex has a cross to bear in living his or her life chastely… I’m simply saying that their cross is not one whit greater or heavier than that of any other faithful Catholic struggling against the evils of this sexually sick age. Homosexuals certainly do have a heavy cross to bear… And so do people addicted to pornography. So do chronic masturbators. So do pedophiles. So do bestialists. So do the many countless other poor souls afflicted with intrinsically disordered inclinations to grave sexual sins. The only difference between these groups and homosexuals? A good PR department. Bestialists, pedophiles, and chronic masturbators don’t have TV shows, films and popular songs and books painting a sympathetic portrait of them as an oft-persecuted, frequently martyred minority on the canvas of the western zeitgeist by a very powerful, very well-funded, very sinister agenda… Not yet, anyway.
And that gets to the heart of the matter – the most fundamentally wrong concession to make in this debate is to that concept which is the homosexual agenda’s raison d’etre: The notion that a person’s sexual proclivities and inclinations are a defining, ontologically rooted aspect of the person’s very self. This is a most pernicious error that seeks to relativize heterosexuality as just one “sexual orientation,” just one color in the “rainbow” of sexual “orientations,” no better or worse than homosexuality. This is a demonically widespread presumption held by many people consciously or unconsciously. It obfuscates the simple, once universally understood truth that the ONLY sexual “orientation” is procreative heterosexuality. “God created man… He created them male and female; and He blessed them.” That is the only ontological truth with respect to sexuality. All else is sexual DISorientation. And yet when we use terms like “gay” with regard to homosexuals, when we speak of “the LGBT community,” and single homosexuals out as a group deserving of particular compassion over and above sufferers of other intrinsically disordered inclinations, we are tacitly endorsing this very central tenet of the homosexual agenda.
(contined below)
There is a disturbing trend among Catholics in the west – cleric and layman alike – toward granting certain tenets of the homosexual agenda, even while combatting it… even before the dialogue has commenced.
For one thing, note how lamentably widespread (even among Catholics) use of the term “gay” is… And I don’t mean in the all-purpose adolescent pejorative sense that the homosexual agenda is currently campaigning against. I mean in the sense of phrases like “gay marriage” or “gay rights,” or simply referring to homosexuals en masse as “gays.” This term, which started as a vague if overly charitable euphemism for homosexuality when discussing the subject in polite company, has since been adopted by the homosexual agenda as the standard nomenclature for a lifestyle that is anything but “gay,” in the original sense of the word. And yet I hear Catholics using this term all the time – even good Catholics who oppose homosexuality – largely because the popular culture saturates us with it.
Worse, there’s a creeping tendency for use of the especially loaded acronym “LGBT” (or”LGBTQ”). This term, which is of particularly recent vintage, and has become a corporate logo of sorts for the homosexual agenda, is being used with increasing frequency in Catholic publications, online forums, and academic discourse.
No wonder then, that we even find Catholics making the most fatal concession of all in this most crucial moral debate – tacit (and sometimes explicit) affirmation of the existence of the completely invented “evil” of “homophobia.” This totally fictitious, fallacious, fraudulent term, which first saw print in the pages of the pornographic publication ”Screw Magazine,” is the homosexual agenda’s most potent weapon; an argument-stopping pejorative used to damn well-reasoned intellectual and moral opposition to homosexuality (and even the very natural and wholesome revulsion inherent in most people at the idea of homosexual acts) out of the discussion altogether. It is a Scarlet Letter that marks the opposition as irrationally fearful bigots who do not deserve even to be heard.
He who controls the language controls the debate. Lexical concessions to the homosexualist movement inevitably trickle down into praxis. And in much Catholic pastoral language here in the west, the subject of homosexuality as sin is gingerly danced around for fear of causing insult. Concessions are made left and right to the feelings of homosexuals. Good, holy priests like Father Marcel Guarnizo are punished for rightly withholding the Blessed Sacrament from bold, anti-Catholic homosexual activists and agitators seeking to use God’s most sacred Gift as a cudgel against the Church in furtherance of their wicked agenda. And we are repeatedly admonished to be mindful of the terrible burden that the homosexual must bear in his or her call to live chastely as a faithful Catholic.
Now I don’t deny for a minute that a person afflicted with sexual attraction to members of his or her own sex has a cross to bear in living his or her life chastely… I’m simply saying that their cross is not one whit greater or heavier than that of any other faithful Catholic struggling against the evils of this sexually sick age. Homosexuals certainly do have a heavy cross to bear… And so do people addicted to pornography. So do chronic masturbators. So do pedophiles. So do bestialists. So do the many countless other poor souls afflicted with intrinsically disordered inclinations to grave sexual sins. The only difference between these groups and homosexuals? A good PR department. Bestialists, pedophiles, and chronic masturbators don’t have TV shows, films and popular songs and books painting a sympathetic portrait of them as an oft-persecuted, frequently martyred minority on the canvas of the western zeitgeist by a very powerful, very well-funded, very sinister agenda… Not yet, anyway.
And that gets to the heart of the matter – the most fundamentally wrong concession to make in this debate is to that concept which is the homosexual agenda’s raison d’etre: The notion that a person’s sexual proclivities and inclinations are a defining, ontologically rooted aspect of the person’s very self. This is a most pernicious error that seeks to relativize heterosexuality as just one “sexual orientation,” just one color in the “rainbow” of sexual “orientations,” no better or worse than homosexuality. This is a demonically widespread presumption held by many people consciously or unconsciously. It obfuscates the simple, once universally understood truth that the ONLY sexual “orientation” is procreative heterosexuality. “God created man… He created them male and female; and He blessed them.” That is the only ontological truth with respect to sexuality. All else is sexual DISorientation. And yet when we use terms like “gay” with regard to homosexuals, when we speak of “the LGBT community,” and single homosexuals out as a group deserving of particular compassion over and above sufferers of other intrinsically disordered inclinations, we are tacitly endorsing this very central tenet of the homosexual agenda.
(contined below)
