toward a more inclusive ministry
By Diogenes (articles ) | Sep 16, 2003
Those familiar with gay propagandist John Boswell's technique will recognize the moves. You start with the preposterous claim that Christian opposition to sodomy reflected an inherited Purity Code -- i.e., Israeli xenophobia bolstered by a yuck factor. To this historical falsehood you add an exegetical distortion, viz., that Jesus was a dewy-eyed poet of the sentimental Left, concerned for social justice and benignly indulgent toward all sins except those of patriarchal authority. Finally you paint homosexuality as a sublimely arbitrary and innocent matter of taste (like a taste for black currants) and gay Catholics as dutiful defenders of the Faith, puzzled and hurt that some are suspicious of their good will. From here on the article writes itself:
The exclusion of homosexuals from ministry, however, is not on the basis of behaviour, but on the basis of public relationships that suggest homosexual practice. Indeed, some candidates universally praised for their zeal, spiritual depth and theological solidity have been excluded from ministry because they were open about gay relationships.
Universally praised for zeal, spiritual depth and theological solidity? And those the gays who didn't make the cut? Then we're forced to the conclusion that the 400+ priests who have died from AIDS (in the U.S. alone) must have been IV drug users who couldn't afford the Clorox.
It would be a pity if the churches came to focus too narrowly on the areas covered by the purity code. Ultimately Christ’s way of life must commend itself by its attractiveness. In the Gospels, the most powerful threats to it are not rooted in sex but in greed, power and violence.
"If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out." An unpromising approach to commendation-by-attractiveness. Perhaps He who instituted Christ's way of life lacked the benefits of a Jesuit education.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our April expenses ($33,095 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Fatimabeliever -
Sep. 20, 2003 6:15 PM ET USA
Shouldn't our one Catholic voice in uniformity be shouting: "What part of, `Thou shalt not" do you not understand? Why should we allow you to think it is okay for you to offend Him? God doesn't deserve that from anyone!"
Posted by: -
Sep. 16, 2003 3:46 PM ET USA
The homosexual clergy need not worry - Call to Action is on the case! Their upcoming convention will address the 'Vatican abuse of Gays and Lesbians' by - of course - Marianne Duddy. Additionally, Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Paul Morrissey will lead an interactive session on the scandalous issue of the 'Scapegoating of Gay Priests'. I don't think St. Paul was invited and probably won't even get a mention...
Posted by: AveMaria580 -
Sep. 16, 2003 2:40 PM ET USA
There is so much nonsense and illogic in so many of these articles that it becomes tiresome and time consuming to ennumerate each one. Dietary laws and sexual are discrete categories. The laws that apply to one cannot be made to apply to the other. How do people get to the point of this kind of irrationality?
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Sep. 16, 2003 2:07 PM ET USA
This kind of sentimental nonsensical dissent is distressing at a time when morality is under attack from "Liberal" forces woldwide. In the areas of faith and morals, the Church must speak with one united voice. No one is forced to remain a Catholic, but if one does remain so, then they have an obligation to speak in agreement with Church doctrine. Also, Christ addressed the evils of immoral sex on numerous occasions...so I don't know what this Jesuit is reading? Perhaps, the Hellwig Gospels?