Tag Archives: homosexuality

Do not be conformed to this world

By Augustinus

One of the greatest temptations for the church and indeed for any Christian is to adopt the morals of the surrounding world instead of adhering to the divine law. When the whole world is saying you must burn incense to the emperor as that is what all right-minded people do; then there is strong temptation to do just that. When you look around and all of the best people, the decent, humane, citizens are burning the incense, then you ask yourself why can’t I and my church do the right thing and do the same? When upright, compassionate, right-thinking, civilized, forward-thinking, progressive, decent, smiling people are burning incense to the emperor, then there is a strong temptation for you to do so as well. When all of the leaders, all of the cultural leaders of the country say you must burn incense to the emperor or be seen as an anti-social, hate-monger, then there is a strong temptation to “burn the incense”..

After all, who wants to be seen as judgmental, backward-looking, retrogressive, hate-filled, condemnatory, indecent, uncivilized resisters to the simple act of burning the incense? How can one resist these decent humane people when they argue that morals have progressed beyond old testament superstitions? They point out that scriptures did not condemn slavery and yet the whole world now sees slavery as a gross immorality! Clearly, humanity can progress morally over the centuries and sometimes it must do so without the support of the divine law as evidenced by scripture.

Scripture, tradition, church fathers, church councils, doctors of the church, popes and saints alike have all condemned active homosexuality (the orientation is a different matter as that is not chosen by the afflicted individual) and none of these authorities have unequivocally condemned slavery (St Patrick was an exception). Yet the modern world celebrates homosexuality and condemns slavery. Members of the church from the Pope down to the laity in the pews wish that things were different. But the record is clear. What the church has historically condemned is now practiced as a liberatory virtue by the modern world. Something has to give. Should divine law bend to the sensibilities of modern bourgeoisie in their celebration of the sexual revolution? Or should the Church LEAD the modern world in observance of divine law?

The church is going through a phase where it wants to be liked by the modern world. The current Pope and much of the hierarchy and certainly most of the laity in the pews basically agrees with the modern world regarding the moral status of the sexual revolution. Masturbation is not really a vice, Homosexuality is not an intrinsic evil. Divorce is OK under many circumstances. Sex outside marriage is not always bad, in fact it is natural and OK.  Virginity and chastity are weird and anti-life. Married and homosexual priests are OK (especially when they are both homosexual and married!). Abortion is both virtuous and life enhancing. In fact it is a human right!

The church is in crisis partly because it wants to be loved by the right-thinking cultural leaders of our time all of whom have bought into the values of the sexual revolution. Unfortunately for the current Pope and the coterie of bourgeois bishops he has surrounded himself with, the church has to deal with the long record of scripture, councils, popes, doctors, theologians etc all condemning what the modern world praises.

I myself find some good in some aspects of the sexual revolution and much good in modernity itself (see my articles on Vatican II in this blog) but I despise the leaders of the church who would have the church kowtow, virtue-signal, apologize,  bow and scrape to the bourgeois cultured-despisers of religion in the modern world who are demanding and indeed shrieking that ALL must “burn the incense” or be considered retrogressive hate-mongers..

The Church Must Do What?!!???

By Allan Gillis

I think if my deceased grandparents were alive today – they’d probably think the world was near it’s end!    We’re sort of like frogs that are being slowly boiled in the pan of ever-warming water!

boiling frog
Is FRANKIE really, I mean – is he really serious???

In our own most orthodox and politically-neutral (I’m gagging as I write)  catholic [small “c” intended] journal from Archidioecesis Bostoniensis today we find a report that Frankie-The-Hippie-Pope has spoken “off the cuff” again  –  on a continuing thread in his new authoritative form of magisterial teaching: AIRPLANE INTERVIEWS WITH JOURNALISTS!!!


The Boston Pilot reports on Frankie’s loquacious fumblings:

“Pope Francis says Church must accompany gays, not discriminate”

I am curious – why, in the Catholic world – why all the attention focused on sexual perverts these days?  I don’t get it.   They represent less than 2% of the frickin’ population nationally!  Gallup even published a story just a year ago about how “Americans are greatly over-estimating the percentage of gays and lesbians in the U.S.”.   I mean, what gives here?

How ’bout this Frankie…   try it – just once.  Try telling the world – no, try warning the world; that homosexual acts are sins that cry from Heaven for vengeance.  THAT is the compassionate thing to do Your Holiness!

I sometimes wonder – is Frankie just continuing his quest for  “The Most Hippest, Coolest Pope Evah”  Award?


“Spotlight”? Filled with Malice and Hiding the Deep Causes of the Abuse Crisis

Brought to you from the great Rorate Caeli blog

by Allan Gillis

Opinions and Customs

Juan Manuel de Prada
ABC (Madrid)
February 28, 2016 (excerpts)
American cinema has stopped being memorable for a long while; yet, as it happens with dead stars that once shone greatly, it produces once in a while sparks that keep alive the illusion of its power. Many of the films that were nominated for the Oscars this year were but subproducts created to smooth the way for the social engineering designed by Globalism, according to the formula established by Rousseau: “Correct the opinions of men, and their customs will be purified by themselves.”
Therefore, for example, among the nominated pictures we found apologias for homosexuality (“Carol”) and transsexualism (“The Danish Girl”); but it is each time rarer to find (outside the cinema strictly made for popcorn accompaniment) films that do not provide, in rude or subtle form, a large ration of globalist swill.
Among the most acclaimed pictures of this year was, for instance, “Spotlight”, a film lacking in artistic talent that claims to be an aseptic denunciation of the pedophile practices among the Catholic clergy, through the recreation of a journalistic investigation in the diocese of Boston. The picture has such a “neutral” feel that it has been praised by Zombie Catholicism; however, it is filled with malice, which include the seraphic portrayal of characters (not a single one of the journalists professes not a single milligram of dislike for the Church!) and argumentative spins that are calculatedly malicious, such as the intervention of an “expert” who assures that one fourth of all priests are always, in statistical fatalism, pedophiles.

Moreover, “Spotlight” does not establish (what a surprise!) any connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, neither does it notice that, in many American dioceses, there were wicked bishops who, in order to form their own clique, systematically rejected every seminarian who showed the slightest sign of virility.

Please visit their website at rorate-caeli.BlogSpot.com
Oh!, and in case you’re wondering what the deep cause of the abuse crisis is…?
It was and is rampant and unchecked (and even often encouraged) HOMOSEXUALITY in the ranks of the seminaries after Vatican II…   there, I said it.  Wasn’t the sexual revolution a wonderful thing?  My own son is afraid of letting his own toddlers out to play without “hyper-supervision” in his own fenced in backyard!  The other day my wife asks me about the way it was when we were kids…and why or how did it change from back then? I answered: “Love the one you’re with” became the mantra of the sixties.  So frightening and so sad.  Ever seen photos of a Gay Pride parade?  Pretty scary stuff!

Homosexuality and the Church

By Augustinus

Homosexuality and the Church Crisis

Few would deny that homosexuality, same sex marriage and gay priests have been front and center issues that exemplify the embittered debates at the center of the crisis in the church since the 1960s to the present day. The “sexual liberation” of the 1960s unleashed a torrent of new groups from feminists to homosexuals to transgendered individuals, who claimed that they were persecuted in the past and that they would no longer tolerate such persecution in the future. All the major churches had up until then viewed homosexuality as a sin expressly condemned by scripture. But as these victim groups began to organize politically and articulate arguments for their full acceptance into the church, many protestant groups began to do so. But traditionalists within these protestant groups found this a complete betrayal of the Christian revelation. The debates soon spread to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions and have become acute points of dissension within the church today. Liberals within the church want to claim that homosexuality and other non traditional sexual orientations are not sins at all while traditionalists ask how we can blithely throw out 2000 years of scripture and tradition on these issue just to accommodate sinful people who claim they have been victimized? Aren’t we merely bending to the world’s priorities and abandoning Christ just to be popular in the modern world?

The homosexuality wars in the church are both a symptom and cause of the church crisis in the modern age. Traditionalists claim that not only is there no scriptural foundation for justification of homosexuality (never mind same sex unions), scripture expressly condemns it. So-called progressives within the church on the other hand argue that scripture demands interpretation and that history is the struggle of oppressed minorities to come into full communion with the rest of the society and church. In short traditionalists argue that redefining homosexuality as NOT a sin would be a corruption of church doctrine and tradition while progressives argue that ending persecution of homosexuals by redefining homosexuality as NOT a sin represents a valid development of Christ’s teaching of full inclusion of the “other” into the church.

Who is right? How does a conscientious Christian think through these complex issues. The Catholic magisterium would say “listen to us—we decide—the laity follow and obey period.” But even the magisterium needs to consult with experts, the laity and the rest of the church on matters dividing the faithful. How does one decide what is valid in terms of development of doctrine versus what is a corruption of church doctrine?

Protestants by and large argue that valid development only occurs when the new doctrine represents a clear logical unfolding or implication of something present in scripture. Despite this seemingly clear criterion for valid development recall that it has been Protestant churches who have taken the first steps in welcoming homosexuals, same sex unions, female clergy and so on.

But is that criterion an adequate or valid one to use in assessing whether a new development in church doctrine is valid or not? Take the case of the development of the trinitarian doctrine formulated in the first several ecumenical councils in the first few centuries of the Church. While the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are certainly mentioned in the New testament gospels there is no reason to suppose that they compose a trinity of 3 persons and one God. More parsimonious interpretations of those mentions would simply claim that the terms merely refer to differing modes human experience of the one God or differing ways of expressing one experience and so on. The strict monotheism of first century Jews would have militated against arguing for Trinitarian positions on the Godhead. That is one reason why it took centuries for the Trinitarian interpretation to win out over all the other more common sensical interpretations of these mentions of the names of the god experiences in the New Testament.

Clearly, then one cannot arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity by merely reading the gospels and following out logical implications of whatever it is you read there. The logical implications of gospel texts are literally endless. Constraints are needed in order to limit endless and destructive interpretations of these texts.

Where do these constraints come from? The orthodox and Catholic communions say they come from tradition which includes the magisterium and debates at Church councils. Tradition also includes input from the laity in the form of popular forms of piety as well as social, cultural and political influences.

While the addition of tradition to help gauge genuine doctrinal development helps it does not help very much. Tradition too can be interpreted in endless ways and the influence of popular and social forces are often inimical to the Christian revelation.

In the 19th century several theologians began to formulate tests for assessing whether a given doctrinal development was valid or a corruption of church doctrine. In particular Cardinal Newman argued that “There is no corruption if it (a doctrinal development) retains one and the same type (when compared to the earlier doctrine that serves as the origin of the new doctrine), the same principles, the same organization; if its beginnings anticipate its subsequent phases, and its later phenomena protect and subserve its earlier; if it has a power of assimilation and revival, and a vigorous action from first to last.” (Newman, 1845, Essay on development of Christin Doctrine, p171)

If we use Newman’s tests to assess whether the new doctrine “homosexuality is not a sin” is a corruption OR a valid development of Christina doctrine I think we just get more muddled. All of Newman’s tests depend on the original reference doctrine one starts with. If we start with literal reading of scripture then the original reference doctrine would have to be homosexuality is a sin. The “development homosexuality is NOT a sin” then does NOT retain one and the same type, organization and so as the original doctrine nor does it protect and subserve the original doctrine. In fact the new doctrine literally overturns the older one.

If on the other hand we start with a different base doctrine perhaps the doctrine of “Love your neighbor as yourself” then Newman’s tests on “homosexuality is not a sin” are no so clear. If I place myself in the shoes of my homosexual neighbor he has undergone severe affliction and condemnation simply because of his sexual orientation. This neighbor has never acted on his sexual orientation. Instead he became a catholic priest and is universally acclaimed a saint by those that know him. Except for his sexual orientation and his views that homosexuality is not a sin he is an exemplary man of the Church. He has single handedly kept alive the Latin mass at his parish, has served as hospital chaplain for decades, and has written very militant catholic apologetics. He opposes same sex marriage nut not same sex unions. He opposes marriage for priests and female ordination. He was decorated for bravery when a young combat solider in the Viet Nam war and has since then stridently supported all branches of the US military. He describes himself as a traditional catholic and a political conservative.

Extrapolating from the Christian doctrine of Love thy neighbor as oneself…does this man’s views that same sex attraction and unions (not marriage) are not sinful pass Newman tests? Including same sex attraction and unions in the family of acceptable practices in the church appears to be congruent with the original doctrine and certainly preserves and protects that original doctrine and so forth. But again this just proves that Newman’s tests depend entirely on the reference or base doctrine you use as the standard from which develop occurs.

We need something better.

One possibility that the modern age gives us is scientific input. Perhaps we can consult the science on homosexuality in order to assess whether or not it is a sin.

There are lots of papers on homosexuality because male homosexuality in particular is a puzzle. Given that male homosexuals rarely have many (or indeed any) children, the phenomena of homosexuality should disappear from the gene pool. But obviously homosexuality has not disappeared. Scientists therefore infer that it must be conferring some kind of genetic advantage to relatives of the homosexuals. The best evidence to date that that is indeed the case comes from studies of Camperio Ciani’s group in Italy. They (see Francesca Iemmola Æ Andrea Camperio Ciani Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:393–399 DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6 New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line) have demonstrated via several studies of the genetics of families with homosexual members that the average fecundity of the female relatives in the maternal BUT NOT THE PATERNAL line of homosexuals, was increased relative to families without homosexual members. In other words having a homosexual in the family significantly increases the chances that women vs the men in the extended family will have large numbers of offspring! Homosexuality might therefore be seen as one more strategy in the eternal battle of the sexes to immortalize their respective genetic legacies.

Even if these studies and data are replicated and later confirmed do they help us decide whether or not homosexuality is a sin? Obviously not. The data certainly are interesting but they are silent on the central question which of course is a theological question.

So where does this leave us? Biblical literalism cannot decide on whether homosexuality is a sin. Catholic and Orthodox traditionalism can’t do the job either. Nor can Newman’s tests or recent science tell us whether homosexuality is a sin.

I suggest that to intelligently debate the issue of homosexuality we need to start with an agreed upon definition of sin. That will be the subject of another post.