Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up!
This is not to “mock” any church goers, should Professor Jacobson at www.legalinsurrecton.blogspot.com wonder about my humorous tone. It’s just the way I am. And I think the Catholic Church is just fine, mostly, except, well, on one thing. I do wonder at what this man, the Catholic Archbishop who spoke on Don’t Ask, Do lie, er, Don’t Tell, says, or what he means. So I shall endeavor to “debate” him, as www.iowntheworld.com says they like to do on this gay thing. Though in absentia, for he’s not here to rebut, and I’m sorry for that. I would love the opportunity, I truly would. It’s a long post, for the Archbishop wrote at some length himself, and only a line by line exposition of the matter might explain it.
“In a response to a request from the Chiefs of Chaplains of the Armed Forces I communicated some considerations and concerns regarding the proposal to change the existing legislation regarding persons with a homosexual orientation in the military.” So starts the Catholic Archbishop’s teachings. Which does seek to enshrine in law a demand to lie. And I had been told by other Catholic clergy that to lie is a great sin. So I’m told to both Lie and Don’t Lie by the same organization. And I’m conflicted about when might be the best time to do one or the other. Well, what does the good man say, in his communication?
“ The teaching of the Catholic Church is clearly expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2357 (I guess this is the article number of the provision) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
Well, nothing is so clearly expressed as a Catechism that admits it has no earthly clue as to what they’re talking about. They are making a decision about a group of people based on things largely unexplained? Yes, well, I suppose that’s the problem, no one wants to explain it. Except us, of course, and we have clearly expressed genesis: We’re natural by God’s grace. Beats us why, really. Still, we know we are. And we can’t help it if you don’t believe it.
But I would think that with the enormous resources of the Catholic Hospital system they might well spend a few bucks to find explanation for what they know is largely unexplained, especially since, as they say, it’s been around for quite some time everywhere. Strange how that 5% keeps showing up, eh? But surely now, if the Catholic Church can admit it has existed through the centuries than all blame can be removed from modern culture in causing any psychological genesis of gay folks, no? Would that be a fair assumption? And surely we’re not caused by the mainstream media or Liberalism or even the modern “homosexual agenda” as so amply expressed by the fine straight folks at the Family Research/Focus/Protection organizations which abound. We were around long before all this crud came up, and I sincerely believe the Church’s teaching on this bit of the largely unexplained thing in our midst.
Though what exactly is “taken a great variety of forms”? Does that mean that gay folks, say in South America in 1700 did “it” differently than gay folks in 1400’s Italy, which did it differently again from say, gay folks in Paris in the year 800, or in Japan in 1200, or perhaps in China in 2000 BC, or maybe it was in Egypt in 5000 BC? Did the body parts move or something? Change shape? Well, my good man, the only thing that’s taken a great variety of forms is how any given culture dealt with the gay people whose psychological genesis is largely unknown. Why, certain societies didn’t seem to think it was psychological at all.
Fortunately, there’s a fall back: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140” — except that there’s not much mentioned in the Bible about gay folks, seems we were left out. No commandments, no words of Jesus, no psalms complaining about us, no definitive words whatsoever. And we’re vaguely lumped in with not eating pork or shellfish and wearing cotton-wool blends, and stoning to death divorcees, and anyone who works on Sundays, all of which society has expunged from the “grave depravity” list and managed to survive to tell the tale.
He goes on to say: “tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Well, maybe his tradition, sure. But tradition, say in Rome or Greece prior to the coming of the Catholic Church, didn’t think gayness was intrinsically disordered, and seemed to rather delight in the prospect. Surely the gay armies of Sparta and the gay Olympians of Athens didn’t think it was intrinsically disordered whatsoever. Nor did the folks in Pompeii’s emporiums. And the American Indians more or less thought it fine as berdaches or shamans of some sort, and rather mysteriously mystical at that.
“They are contrary to the natural law.” Yah, I guess, but if you say some person has a psychological genesis problem that is largely unexplained how can you be so sure? And if the same percentage keeps being churned out by society after society, time after time, all over this earth, seems pretty natural to me. But I’m biased, I’m told. Weird nature? Sure I can agree. Odd nature? Sure, why not. I’d even accept “not everyone’s favorite part of nature.” You know, like cockroaches or something. But surely, after so many centuries, in a great variety of forms, in so many divers societies, something largely unexplained can be accepted as natural by now, no? I mean, how can something so consistently occurring in nature be against “natural law”?
“They close the sexual act to the gift of life.” Well, yes, it does, no doubt about that. We have a point of agreement there, good. So what? It is true that 95% of the people, largely explained, do keep gifting life, which is good. Have at it folks! But it is also true, obviously, objectively, in reality, that some 5% of the people, largely unexplained, do not wish to gift life. It’s a screw up, I’m sure. Something perhaps in central processing in nature’s Gift of Life department. Now, why don’t you all go try to move it into the largely explained column by figuring out the psychological genesis you think exists? Or better, look at the brain wiring itself. You know, what with a Y half from dad and a X half from mom, something got crossed in the big hug at conception? I’m no scientist, however.
Though I’d bet evolution, which I will stipulate that God did create and launch, intelligently even, (Somebody caused something to explode, no? It’s largely unexplained, too.) did have a perfectly fine reason to remove us from this cycle. My contention, from careful observation at many a gay bar and parade is that we’re the runts of the litter. Somehow I don’t think you want our genes to pass on, do you? And every so often, though at an amazingly constant rate worldwide, some poor boy gets jinxed and is the runt of the brood. But still, rather naturally a part of it.
Gladly, he tells us: “They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.” We might not proceed from, but I assure you we proceed to a quite genuine affective complementarity. I’ll spare you the details, use your imagination, but we do enjoy, and we’re not faking it, either.
“Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Well, yes, I’m sure, that a largely unexplained thing should never be approved. But one wonders, if the thing be explained, will approval be reconsidered?
“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.”
No it’s not, now is it. Oddly though, and quite explainable, in a natural law sort of way, it’s that just 5% or so of the whole are constantly given genesis of a largely unexplained nature. It’s right there, in the 106 boys born for every 100 girls syndrome that all the ‘good healthy approved sex leading to the gift of life’ produces. The 100 who are approved, and the six who are largely unexplained, but not approved, for we’re not part of nature’s law, I guess. How natural law goes against nature is not clearly expressed by these remarks of the Archbishop, so I cannot respond.
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered (geez, before we were “intrinsically”so, now it’s objectively, what’s the difference? He doesn’t say,) constitutes for most of them a trial.” Well, no, it’s not a trial to be gay. It’s so natural we can’t even think straight, and still we function just fine. We even know what to do before we ever do it, when we’re real young, which is why we go seeking out others who might be so inclined when we get a little older, and we find them among the Six. The trial, dear sir, oh and the tribulations, too, are handed out by good Archbishops who will not approve the reality, largely unexplained of course, that six boys out of 106 are born not really wanting to get down to the icky business of giving life. Weird, eh? Yet – consistent! Almost unnaturally so, as the good man says.
“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Well, you can’t very well tell me I’m objectively & intrinsically disordered, and what I do is a grave depravity, and is contrary to natural law, and is largely unexplained, and not approved, and then say what this sentence says. Can you? Well, he did. But it just makes no sense. I mean, really, how can you respect disorder, depravity and unapproved things? I know that it’s said that holding two contradictory positions on a thing is the sign of intelligence or something, but this takes the cake.
“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Yes, unjust being the operative word. Now, based on the objectively disordered et al bit it seems there’s “just” discrimination which is just fine. So, no, don’t do “unjust” discrimination, only the “just” kind. And that “just” kind has been clearly expressed by the approved & explained towards the unapproved & largely unexplained for quite some time.
“These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, ….” Hey, wait a minute – if it’s against natural law, how on earth or in Heaven can we called to fulfill God’s will? Apparently, God’s will is that, well, I’ll say it again, six of every 100 boys is largely unexplainable. And God did will, I guess, a rather fine hospital system, which though hasn’t seen the necessity to really largely or small-ly explain the genesis of us by any means, psychological or otherwise. And where in the Bible is this bit of called to fulfill the will of God? I’m most intrigued by the possible existence of such passages in the Word of God. It might hold me in good stead.
“… if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Once again, the only difficulties we encounter from our condition is that we are not accepted as Christians and receive just discrimination because we’re objectively disordered and largely unexplained as to why we might be around over the centuries in different societies. It’s not us who’s having difficulties with our condition, oh no. It’s you all. You’re the ones with the difficulties, your Eminence. Apropos to your comments, no gay guy is going to jump out of the fox hole screaming like a little sissy that he got cooties or something from the next gay guy come along to help defend the nation. No, it’s a he-man hetero who gets “homosexual panic” attacks. Now, that’s a largely unexplainable psychological issue indeed.
“2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Well, were does it say that in the Good Book, or anywhere other than here? Called to Chastity? Like, forever? Really? Man, that’s unfair, for sure. We’re told to be chaste by many. And admonished by this good man to be chaste indeed, because we’re largely unexplained, of course. But called to chastity? By whom, pray tell? By God? Can’t be, for aren’t we against God’s natural law?
“By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, ….” Uh huh. I fail to grasp how I can both be objectively disordered for largely unexplained reasons and then I’m supposed to all of a sudden teach myself to self master my inner freedom by simply never doing what I was called by God not to do. This line is definitely largely unexplainable.
“… at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” There’s a sacrament for us? I did not know that. Still, if only they’d let us into church to speak about the issue prayer might be conducted towards this goal. But you can’t tell folks “don’t come in,” and then say we would not. And then, say, too, that though I’m objectively disordered and gravely depraved and not part of natural law, that I can still find any level of Christian perfection. One would think the first few items on the list would preclude the latter. Can I truly be both Christian perfect and objectively disordered at the same time? Boy, that’s going to be a tough one in theology class. One would think you’d have to make some order out of the largely unexplained stuff before one even attempts a stride toward perfection.
“Consequently, those with a homosexual orientation can expect respect and treatment worthy of their human dignity.” And we have indeed come to expect such treatment. Though with the man here himself saying we’re objectively disordered and against natural law and prone to grave depravity for reasons largely unexplained, I’d say we’re pretty darn low on the “human dignity” scale, ya’ think?. From the treatment we’ve received in the past (oh yes, it’s getting better, too, don’t forget) I’d say we were treated exactly as you thought our worth was, which was zip, nada, zilch, or less. We might be worth a plug nickel today, and we’re thankful for that small accommodation, I assure you. And who knows, maybe our value and human dignity will rise as we continue to explain the unexplainable.
“The prohibitions regarding sexual harassment and intimidation refer just as much to homosexuals as to anyone else.” Well, I’d say that it’s pretty intimidating to have to argue with the entire Catholic Church on this largely unexplained matter. But I’m game. Though I’d say the good man does not follow his own advice in the intimidation department when he says I’m objectively disordered and do grave depravity.
“However, unions between individuals of the same gender resembling marriage will not be accepted or blessed by Catholic chaplains.” I have no problem with this, and I swear now on pain of perjury or something, that I will not ask any Catholic chaplain to accept my unions or bless them. Heavens no, that’s freedom of religion. On the other hand, if I find a chaplain of some other faith which does accept and bless my unions, then that’s freedom of religion. But for the Catholics to say to the government that their view of the matter should be followed and not my church’s view, well then, that leans towards the establishment of one religion over another. That might be the way they do it in Europe, but it’s not the American way.
“Furthermore no restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted.” Not a problem. Teach away, by all means. What you might be able to teach about something that is largely unexplained by your own admission, I don’t know. It’s not my business. I do, though, without limitation, respect your right to teach to anyone you wish on something you admit you know nothing about, without a doubt. Why they might take the lesson, I don’t know. It’s also not my business. Except when that teaching brings about “just” discrimination and a law preventing my preacher accepting such unions, for I believe he has a better explanation of my genesis than you do, for yours is, as you say, largely unexplained.
“First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion must be respected.” Absolutely, and so do my First Amendment rights and such need be respected. Ah, but they are not! And that’s the rub isn’t it?
“This means that Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation, but can never condone—even silently—homosexual behavior.” Well, you sure don’t condone silently when you publicly say I’m objectively disordered, that’s for sure. But yah, it’s your church, do as you wish.
Then the good man concludes — “For years, those struggling with alcoholism have benefitted from Alcoholics Anonymous. Like homosexuality, there is rarely a cure. There is a control through a process, which is guarded by absolute secrecy. It is an equivalent to Don’t ask don’t tell. The process has worked well for some time without the charge that it is discriminatory.”
And all I can say, is well, bumfuddle. I’m like an alcoholic? Sure, sure. Drunk with happiness, I guess. Pour me another, bartender. I wonder when the next Alcoholics Pride parade is?
Meanwhile, I recall quite clearly, a little genesis of my own. Way before I ever had a cocktail, or either. Or had heard any word or description for or against my condition which I did not even know I had. And without much time for unexplainable psychological genesis to take hold, I suppose. I, as an 8 year old, climbed up onto a lifeguard stand at Jones Beach, Long Island, and clearly expressed my desire to take a much closer gander at the Speedo clad lifeguard. I gave him a mighty fine hello as I attempted my own exploratory & in training TSA pat down maneuver. He, of course, thought it was a bit disordered, and largely unexplained, and so took me to my parents. What else does one do with such an 8 year old? Oddly, I’m exactly 5% of the whole of the boys in my generation in my extended family. And they did not put me through trials over my, um, condition. Though they did tease me every time I was brought down from the lifeguard stand. Something about K-I-S-S-I-N-G and trees, I think.
And by the sixth or seventh time that summer of this little bit of precocious flirting for largely unexplained reasons, everyone around pretty much concluded, “Well, there’s another one.” And I haven’t shut up about it since.
- Posted in: Uncategorized