home for whom?
By Diogenes (articles ) | May 21, 2005
A brief look at history -- from slavery to the "march of tears" of our Native American sisters and brothers to the grape strikes in California -- reminds us that God's work is always hampered when human beings are afraid of differences in each other. A new ministry with gay and lesbian persons will push open even further the door to promoting understanding and compassion among all of us. It will open the door to "home" for many who are an important part of who we are, and to a segment of our family that has been apart from us for too long. ...
Please pray for this ministry. Participate in the work of welcoming the entire family into the home which is our Church, where all are embraced by God's unconditional love. Let us all dare to love as God loves.
Think of the middle-aged guy in the blue jacket who occupies the pew adjoining yours at Mass. Do you know the aberrations of his private desire? Do you know whether he has a weakness toward kleptomania? Do you know whether he struggles with an addiction to painkillers, or whether he has a family history of alcoholism that makes him prey to mood swings? Do you know the vagaries of his sexual libido, what thoughts are in transit through his mind at night as he drops off to sleep? Do you know his vulnerabilities to temptation that he brings before God in prayer?
You don't know. He's just the guy in the blue jacket. You "welcome" him in the same sense that he "welcomes" you -- i.e., not by paying attention to one another but by worshiping God in the universal Church God's Son founded. Except in the general sense that he, like you, is a penitent sinner in need of grace, you don't care about his desires. Further, unless he goes out of his way to tell you otherwise, you assume he believes what the Church proposes for belief. Even if he hides a problem with kleptomania, it never occurs to you to wonder whether he accepts Christian doctrine on property rights. Why should it?
Steib's analogy is malign. No one screens Mass-goers at the church door to weed out secret necrophiles, or kleptomaniacs, or misogynists, or homosexuals. Those homosexuals who have chosen -- chosen -- to present themselves to Catholics as gays are by that very fact setting themselves in opposition to Catholic teaching. It is false to state or imply that Catholics (including, be it noted, orthodox homosexual Catholics) who resist the Church's acceptance of gays are motivated by bigotry, of the same stamp as those who wished to exclude blacks. What Steib proposes as a "welcome home" is in fact a capitulation in the matter of Catholic doctrine. It is sexual Vichyism masquerading as charity.
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: Brad -
May. 23, 2005 10:01 PM ET USA
Some Bishops have moved from ignoring Christ (pushing environmental issues) to opposing Christ (supporing the homosexual agenda that preys on children in attempts to ruin them).
Posted by: -
May. 23, 2005 7:53 AM ET USA
There's no more certain way to outrage blacks in this country than to compare their long enslavement with the homosexual's strident demands for approval. I no longer call my own diocese "Catholic," but rather our Bishop's "Gay and Lesbian (and Transgender, etc) Outreach Program." Meetings weekly, with song and dance and fellowship that can last into the next day.
Posted by: Sterling -
May. 23, 2005 12:48 AM ET USA
These people who talk about showing "love" and "inclusion" to those who are not struggling against their homosexual tendencies are so hypocritical. If the guy in the blue windbrealer next to you is having homosexual "lovers," his chances of dying before age 40 are great. You tell your kids not to drink and drive, you don't say the church should be inclusive of drunk drivers. You love your kids, so you tell them drunk driving is wrong. What's hard to understand about this?
Posted by: -
May. 22, 2005 5:54 PM ET USA
It is worse than malign...it is indignation purloined from a just cause against racism and custom-fitted to the gay agenda, and a frontal assault (from the Bishop's office, no less!) on those racial, ethnic and cultural minorities who have stubbornly resisted this perverse identification with homosexual activists as "fellows in persecution".
Posted by: Heathcliff -
May. 22, 2005 9:28 AM ET USA
Your analysis is right on target, and I hope bishops like Steib get the point. I have never been asked about my heterosexual inclination at the church door and hope I never will be. As you say, homosexuals aren't asked about theirs either. It's this in-your-face attitude of so many of them that is irritating and totally unnecessary.
Posted by: -
May. 21, 2005 5:05 PM ET USA
Why doesn't anyone ever look at the practical side of the immorality of homosexuality? Let's say that the Church starts opening its doors to homosexuals and excusing them...would anyone question the safety of receiving the Eucharist or shaking hands, or sharing holy water fonts with men who practice a behavior that opens the door for transmittable diseases? Would it be fair to expose the vulnerable....the young, the sick, and the elderly to this risk? Will any of our doctors speak up?
Posted by: -
May. 21, 2005 4:55 PM ET USA
Well put, Uncle Di. I think that Thomas Wolfe might also describe this sexual Vichyism as old-fashioned Mau-Mauing.
Posted by: Gil125 -
May. 21, 2005 4:46 PM ET USA
Careful, Diogenes. You may be in trouble with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when the new Prefect takes over.