... Laurie Higgins, cultural analyst for the Illinois Family Institute, writes:'With all due respect to Cardinal Francis George, I think his apology is misguided and his reasoning troubling:'His primary justification or at least his public justification was that his analogy was hurtful. I wonder if he would publicly state that homosexual acts are 'abominable.' Surely, that would be 'hurtful' to those who identify as homosexual, and yet that's how Scripture characterizes them.'The notion that the presence of hurt feelings means that Cardinal George has done something wrong suggests that the ethical legitimacy of public speech is determined by the subjective response of hearers. But consistently applied, that principle would prohibit all expressions of moral propositions.'Although it's unpleasant to say something that results in hurt feelings and at times hurt feelings result from our sinful words, sometimes "hurt" or bad feelings result from an encounter with truth.'Anyone who bothered to read his original comments knows that he did not suggest that all homosexuals are 'like members of the Klan.' His comments were about 'some' homosexual activists. ...'I understand why non-Christians have lost sight of how profoundly wrong homosexual acts are, but when followers of Christ have so little spiritual discernment and so much theological ignorance, society is in deep trouble.'Homosexual activists as an organized public movement do not preach violence or engage in violence, but many express hatred. I have been on the receiving end of multiple hair-curling epithets and death wishes.'In addition, the effort to teach little children in our government schools, subsidized with public dollars, that this sin is good is an unconscionably evil act. Homosexuality is so serious a sin that it puts people at risk of eternal separation from a Holy God, and we're teaching children in school that it's morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Most of us are so desensitized or inured to the wickedness (if I may use this somewhat archaic term) of homosexual acts and so spiritually obtuse that the evil of teaching children that wrong is right doesn't even register on our moral barometer.'Moreover, homosexual activists seek to prohibit parents from opting their children out of such teaching. I can't think of a group that seeks such an egregious and arrogant usurpation of parental rights.'I agree that the analogy was inflammatory and that the point that homosexual activism is becoming increasingly hateful, aggressive, and tyrannical could have been made without it. Cardinal George could have said that some homosexual activists discriminate based on religion; that some activists hate people who hold orthodox theological beliefs on homosexuality; that some employ hateful and obscene rhetoric; that some march in the streets violating public decency laws and promoting evil ideas; that some seek to diminish other people's fundamental constitutionally protected liberties; and that some seek to use public schools to promulgate their philosophical, moral, and political beliefs about homosexuality. All of this may be hurtful to hear, but it is not unethical to say.'What I wish Cardinal George had said was that homosexual acts are soul-destroying acts that are 'detestable' in God's eyes and that the parade is a tragic, offensive event that shouldn't take place on any day in any neighborhood. It is not an act of love to affirm or appear to affirm that which God condemns.'(Cardinal George should not use the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian.' Those terms do not merely denote same-sex attraction and volitional acts. They connote biological determinism, immutability, and an inherent morality. What other groups would Cardinal George choose to identify by their disordered inclinations and freely chosen sinful acts? Rhetoric matters.)'
Ghastly error.I mean, his ghastly error was to apologise for remarks that others intentionally misconstrued.He should have refused to apologise and if badgered by the press and the sodomites (is there a difference?) he should have rhetorically lowered the boom in describing how the evils of sodomy have ruint the church and are dragging (inescapable pun) souls down into Hell.
wonder what you think of JP2's apologies to the Jews
Good question, Anonymous. While I can speak only for myself, I think that JPII's apologizing was all pretty much misguided. One of the great virtues of Wojtyla (JPII) was his empathy and sensitivity for others. The flip side of that virtue is the weakness and vice of imprudence. This imprudence, coupled with laudable intentions, is what lay beneath not only all of his apologies for the presumptive "sins of the Church," but his willingness to kiss the Qur'an, indulge pagans at Assisi, and all the other "generous" gestures he made at the expense of confusing the multitudes.His apologies to the Jews are no different: well-motivated but singularly misguided. It's the same sentiment that lies behind the insane "affirmative action" that has ended up promoting negative racism in American inner cities.My two bits, anyway
The post V2 Popes are the first in history since Peter to go to Synagogues to apologise rather than to preach Jesus and conversion. For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. Was the goal of seeking peace with our ancient enemies worth the cost of keeping silent in the Synagogues about Jesus and conversion?I want to be clear that I am not judging Pope Blessed John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom are suns of orthopraxis when compared to the flint strike of my sorry sinful life; but, it does to seem reasonable to raise the question given that Holy Mother Church is the Ark of Salvation and so it only seems to be Common Sense to tell the Jews they must come aboard. Pronto.
Annonymous routinely "wonders." Its not a trolling game, but quite close. I think he is Irish.
Post a Comment