on parade

By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 09, 2008

Rome was the scene of another gay pride parade on Saturday. It was over-reported, as usual, the sympathies of journalists and editors having overmastered their professional objectivity. As usual, hatred and ridicule of the Church was a chief theme of the festivities, which the media treated with amused indulgence.

By what may seem historical accident, as other defenders of Judeo-Christian morality fade into the inert secular background, the Catholic Church assumes a more prominent combatant role in the culture wars. There is no new belligerence on the Church's part; simply by standing pat and holding on to those moral truths she once shared with Protestants and Jews (and indeed many pagans), her position as a nay-sayer becomes progressively more isolated -- and as it becomes more isolated it becomes more obnoxious to the innovators. These innovators would have us believe they've been singled out for ill-treatment by the Church; in fact they're projecting their own antagonism onto the figure that persists in standing in their way.

To be gay, inter alia, is to be anti-Catholic, just as to be pro-abortion is to be anti-Catholic. The conflict is a matter of first principles, and no amount of lawyering can effect a reconciliation. True, there are gays and pro-aborts who also claim to be Catholic, but the gentlest questioning reveals they're using "Catholic" in some distorted private sense. The non-stop shriek of rage that serves as the obbligato for the "pride" and "choice" parades is a more candid expression of conviction (we're talking about declarations, not appetites) than those furry op-eds pretending to seek a co-existence treaty between Catholic teaching and its negation.

The upshot is that, while the image of Benedict as a reptilian horned Hitler may be dismaying to Catholics, it's an indication that the pope is doing his job and that the Church over which he presides is doing hers. It means the players are in position. Were it to happen that your local transgendered performance artist (and his spiritual director) ceased to hang the pope in effigy, then you'd have cause for concern.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 20 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Jun. 16, 2008 3:04 PM ET USA

    Andy, that is correct (that much is what everyone agrees on). But the point that I was trying to make is that we've fallen into the habit of talking in leftist terms when it comes to homosexuality-what the left would call "gay" is what I think to be a perverse mythical creature (and one by nature opposed to the Catholic idea of God), and so I intentionally always make a point to demonstrate a very simple fact: there is no such thing as a "homosexual" person. Nor vampires. Sinners, however...

  • Posted by: - Jun. 14, 2008 7:31 PM ET USA

    Dear Novus, I do understand your point; thank you for the clarification. I reckon that chaste men and women who have homosexual tendencies are not anti-Catholic, but those who are unchaste and seek to have their relations recognized as normal and natural are anti-Catholic. Am I understanding you rightly?

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2008 2:31 PM ET USA

    Woody, I also understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, too. Christ came to call sinners-if we're not sinners we don't need Him, right? Though this is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE ARGUMENT, I will ask again to look at it from another point of view. Aren't all sins anti-Catholic? When we sin, don't we sin against God, and against God's Church, and against God's people? We're not Catholic BECAUSE we sin, but because we FIGHT sin. Any chance you'd be willing to give me a hand here, Unc Di?

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2008 2:19 PM ET USA

    Unum, I see what you're saying, and I even agree with you. I'm not saying that inclinations are sins, but I am saying that they arise as a natural part of an inclination to sin that we are now all born with as a result of Original Sin. Look at it this way (i don't remember who said this-these aren't my words): "there's no such thing as a homosexual person, but there are heterosexual people with homosexual tendencies." In that sense, to claim to be homosexual is to be anti-Catholic.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2008 6:32 AM ET USA

    And I will defend the alternative view. Is to be a thief anti-Catholic? Is to lie to be anti-Catholic? Is to miss Mass to be anti-Catholic? Christ came to call sinners - and that means all of us!

  • Posted by: - Jun. 10, 2008 5:39 PM ET USA

    Novus, You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I don't believe the teaching of the Church supports calling others sinners or anti-Catholic because they have sinful inclinations that they do not act on. If sinful inclinations are indeed sins, then I suspect most of us need to spend some time in a confessional. By the way, I did not intend to imply, nor do I believe, that homosexuality is a natural condition.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 10, 2008 2:11 PM ET USA

    I will defend the words of Diogenes: "To be gay...is to be anti-Catholic." The distinction that a couple of you mentioned also seems to imply, just by making the distinction, that homosexuality is a natural condition. I argue that it is not a natural condition. I am convinced that this sinful inclination does not come from what they call "sexual orientation", but actually comes from concupiscence. The inclination is just a perversion of what is the truth - that we are ALL heterosexual.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 10, 2008 12:38 PM ET USA

    I wonder how many gays realize that the reptilian caricature of Holy Father they parade in order to excite loathing and derision is really a self-portrait.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 10, 2008 1:07 AM ET USA

    Jesus said it best: "If they hate you, remember, they hated me first" Diogenes is right: if they DIDN'T mock the pope in effigy, we'd have something to worry about. And the other commentators are right: they should be mocking ALL our bishops, not just the pope, not just Burke.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 7:38 PM ET USA

    Unum said: "To be a sexually active homosexual is to be a sinner". But, then, we are all sinners, and we are not all anti-Catholic. But, we don't have sin-pride parades do we? Even seen a gay pride parade? The ones here in California directly attack the Catholic Church with the gays dressed up as nuns doing horible things.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 6:25 PM ET USA

    Dear Unum, I concur. If we ignore that distinction, then we ignore that "[t]his inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial" (CCC ยง2358). The thrust of Diogenes' essay, though, is correct.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 5:49 PM ET USA

    First, let's stop calling these folks "gay." Homosexual practitioners are sad, often clinically depressed. Let's not contribute to the further redefinition of what was once a wonderfully descriptive word. Second, let's call things what they are. Sodomy is sexual abuse, no matter the age or gender of the persons involved. It doesn't matter if it's consensual. It's abuse. Period.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 5:36 PM ET USA

    I take it, Diogenes, that, when you say "To be gay . . . is to be anti-Catholic," your choice of 'gay' is deliberate. By 'gay,' I take you to mean someone who proclaims that his active homosexual lifestyle is morally licit. As the Church teaches, however, merely having a homosexual orientation is not, perforce, to be anti-Catholic. There are many who have such an orientation who struggle to live and, with God's Grace, succeed in living chaste, good Catholic lives.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 5:12 PM ET USA

    Novus744, I have difficulty getting my mind around "To be gay is to be anti-Catholic". As the hetero father of 4, I can see "To be a sexually active homosexual is to be a sinner". But, then, we are all sinners, and we are not all anti-Catholic.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 3:31 PM ET USA

    Shrink has a point, though: When the local bishops become the point men in opposing the evils in their dioceses, as Burke has, and become vilified in their turn by the local yokels, only then may we say that the whole Church, and not just the Holy Father, are doing their part. Otherwise, it'll still be 'business as usual' for the stalwarts of the USCCB.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 1:58 PM ET USA

    Perhaps then, Shrink, it might be understood in the sense that the Church could be doing worse. "To be gay is to be anti-Catholic". I've never heard it said so simply and truthfully. And yet, even Church psychologists insist on maintaining the political view that we "have to love homosexuals as persons", with the implication that homosexuality is a natural thing, which has been completely accepted in society, and by many in the Church hierarchy. Diogenes, we need more like you!

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 1:48 PM ET USA

    I have yet to find any reasonable justification for calling such demonstrations of disgusting excess GAY PRIDE. What have such creatures to be "proud" of?

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 10:35 AM ET USA

    Good post DD. The heretics are focusing on Benedict because he is the truth and the light.They will never protest at Georgetown or Holy Cross because the Jesuit leadership in those institutions are in lockstep with them.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 7:57 AM ET USA

    Well said, Diogenes! Hear, hear!

  • Posted by: - Jun. 09, 2008 7:33 AM ET USA

    "...and that the Church over which he presides is doing hers." You lost me on this one point. The parade was in Rome, hence the effigy of Benedict. Let the effigy of Cdl George show in the Chicago parade and I can be confident that the gay hatred is directed at the Church and not just at the Papacy. Does anyone remember seeing an effigy or Bernardin, Levada, Weakland, or Mahoney?