Mass. Catholic journal withdraws gay devil column

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dale_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dale_M

Guest
The oldest Roman Catholic newspaper in the United States has retracted an opinion column suggesting the devil may be responsible for gay attraction.
Click to expand...
The column, which appeared Friday in the Archdiocese of Boston’s official newspaper, The Pilot, was titled “Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction.” It was written by Daniel Avila, an associate director for policy and research for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Click to expand...
In the column, Avila says “the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.”
Click to expand...
news.yahoo.com/mass-catholic-journal-withdraws-gay-devil-column-013637161.html;_ylt=AjE.CNvdg98vFnyyOIOoAEQ7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTQzdTA0ZW5iBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBVU1NGIFJlbGlnaW9uU1NGBHBrZwM2ZjA4YzIxZC1iZjFlLTNjYTQtYTgwZS0zZjViYmUzODQ0YTAEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDN2E1ZDIwODAtMDYxYy0xMWUxLWJkZmItMmY2OGJkNWFmYjky;_ylg=X3oDMTFwc3ZuNThtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw–;_ylv=3

A spokesman for the archdiocese said that Avila is passionate about his faith, but that this time maybe he got a little too passionate.
 
Dale_M said:
.
Click to expand...
There are simples explanation as a short-circuit on the education of the kid. Since Freud, we know that what happens in childhood may have reflexes in the whole life.

And with today’s messy families, it is more than easy to have short-circuits and more than that…
 
There is a traditional Catholic prayer of deliverance which lists homosexuality among evil spirits—along with sexual perversion, incest, pedophilia, lesbianism, pornography, adultery, masturbation, and, interestingly, homophobia: scripturecatholic.com/dprayers.pdf
 
And it was pulled for what reason? Nevermind, it was the USCCB again.
 
Here is the author’s retraction/apology:

“Statements made in my column, ‘Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction’ of October 28, do not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The teaching of Sacred Scripture and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and have inviolable dignity. Likewise, the Church proclaims the sanctity of marriage as the permanent, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman. The Church opposes, as I do too, all unjust discrimination and the violence against persons that unjust discrimination inspires. I deeply apologize for the hurt and confusion that this column has caused.”

Note, he doesn’t really admit to being theologically inaccurate, he simply apologizes for not seeking permission and for the confusion that resulted.

Of course, since the original piece is no longer there, it makes it difficult for any of us to really comment on it.
 
No one wants to be persecuted for the Truth anymore. If you do, some are quickly to reprimand them. St Paul is very clear what will happen to cowards. We have giving in to evil for too long and dont know now, how to get out of it. We cant even speak of God and HIs Church nowhere. Does anybody see anything wrong here? God commanded His people to preach the Gospel to everyone but we can no longer do that.
 
Ok when I first read this I was outraged that they were compromising on the truth. However upon reading the original article and a Deacon’s analysis of it I believe there was just grounds for some to misinterpret the article into saying that God made them sinners rather than God made them in his image and likeness. I believe a better reasoning should have been given for the removal of the article and the assertion of most of its validity.

In addition I say a superb article by Patrick Madrid on homosexuality in the same journal that really slams homosexuality, so I don’t think that mere liberalism was the only reason for the original articles removal.

Kind of one of those if you make a stand make sure you are 100% in the right, where the possibility for misinterpretation may have been present in the article.
 
wisdomseeker said:
No one wants to be persecuted for the Truth anymore. If you do, some are quickly to reprimand them. St Paul is very clear what will happen to cowards. We have giving in to evil for too long and dont know now, how to get out of it. We cant even speak of God and HIs Church nowhere. Does anybody see anything wrong here? God commanded His people to preach the Gospel to everyone but we can no longer do that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s really the issue. The issue is that the author made the claim that homosexuality was the result of evil spirits at work in the lives of gay people.

Not having seen the article, I can only speculate, but I don’t really see that as a theological position that is definitely in error (which doesn’t mean that it’s correct either). Nonetheless, I can see why some would consider it insensitive and offensive.

It’s not like the guy wrote an article affirming Church teaching that homosexuality is gravely disordered and they pulled the article for that. That would be not wanting to be persecuted for the truth. This is simply not wanting to add fuel to an already raging fire because of one guy’s theological hypothesis about the origin of same-sex attraction.
 
Would Catholic media ever publish the idea that re-marriage after divorce is due to demonic activity?
 
Joe_5859 said:
I don’t think that’s really the issue. The issue is that the author made the claim that homosexuality was the result of evil spirits at work in the lives of gay people.

Not having seen the article, I can only speculate, but I don’t really see that as a theological position that is definitely in error (which doesn’t mean that it’s correct either). Nonetheless, I can see why some would consider it insensitive and offensive.

It’s not like the guy wrote an article affirming Church teaching that homosexuality is gravely disordered and they pulled the article for that. That would be not wanting to be persecuted for the truth. This is simply not wanting to add fuel to an already raging fire because of one guy’s theological hypothesis about the origin of same-sex attraction.
Click to expand...
I know we all find worldly explanations to everything in our lives. what we dont hear is what God has to say about anything anymore.
 
Joe_5859 said:
It’s not like the guy wrote an article affirming Church teaching that homosexuality is gravely disordered and they pulled the article for that. That would be not wanting to be persecuted for the truth. This is simply not wanting to add fuel to an already raging fire because of one guy’s theological hypothesis about the origin of same-sex attraction.
Click to expand...
👍

Agreed. The newspaper for the archdiocese is not exactly a theological journal. Its mainly read by middle aged people, grandparents, and kids forced to by their Catholic school :D.

Its not exactly the place for risqué theological theories…
 
NewEnglandPries said:
👍

Agreed. The newspaper for the archdiocese is not exactly a theological journal. Its mainly read by middle aged people, grandparents, and kids forced to by their Catholic school :D.

Its not exactly the place for risqué theological theories…
Click to expand...
Hey, hey, hey, when I was in Boston I liked reading the Pilot! 🙂

I also like BCTV, much better than EWTN.
 
Dale_M said:
That is unfortunate, although perhaps necessary. He was policy advisor for the USCCB’s Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. Given the prominence of the same-sex marriage issue, his views on homosexuality and the Devil would be a continual issue of contention and might hamper USCCB efforts to influence public policy.
Click to expand...
It seems a little extreme to me for him to resign over this, but you could be right. It probably would make it more difficult for him to do what the USCCB needs him to do.
 
Thanks to Deacon Greg’s blog, I found the original article for those who are curious:

Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction

It’s not what I expected it to be based on the reporting. It struck me as more of a response to those who argue “God made me this way, so it must be okay” by saying “It wasn’t God that did it…”

Ironically, the story ends with:

“These matters will be addressed in my next column.”

Something tells me that’s one article that won’t see the light of day.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction

It’s not what I expected it to be based on the reporting. It struck me as more of a response to those who argue “God made me this way, so it must be okay” by saying “It wasn’t God that did it…”
Click to expand...
OK, he starts out ok but then he falls into a blatant falsehood. He states as if with authority: “The incidence of finding identical twins with identical same-sex attraction is relatively rare and certainly not anywhere near one hundred percent.”
That is not rare. A simple google search shows that if one identical twin is gay its around a 50% chance that the other twin is gay as well. While he’s correct its not near 100% its almost an outright lie to claim its relatively rare for both identical twins to be homosexual.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
OK, he starts out ok but then he falls into a blatant falsehood. He states as if with authority: “The incidence of finding identical twins with identical same-sex attraction is relatively rare and certainly not anywhere near one hundred percent.”
That is not rare. A simple google search shows that if one identical twin is gay its around a 50% chance that the other twin is gay as well. While he’s correct its not near 100% its almost an outright lie to claim its relatively rare for both identical twins to be homosexual.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed that gloss, too. I guess his point was that, if it was genetic, then the sexual preference amongst identical twins would have a 100% correlation (or at least pretty close). I guess he expected a great amount of leeway with the term “relatively”. :o
 
Joe_5859 said:
Yes, I noticed that gloss, too. I guess his point was that, if it was genetic, then the sexual preference amongst identical twins would have a 100% correlation…
Click to expand...
Not necessarily: genes may predispose someone to certain behaviors, but need not be determinative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top