Sunday, April 12, 2015

Helpful after the fact

"Interview With a Christian" (New York Times, April 4, 2015), in which Ross Douthat interviews himself about Indiana's religious freedom laws -- thoughtful and helpful as nearly always.

[Hat tip to JM]


6 comments:








Raider Fan

said...


But yes, the evidence that homosexuality isn’t chosen — along with basic humanity — should inspire repentance for cruelties visited on gay people by their churches.

Cue the Rolling Stones singing Sympathy for the Devil for if we must repent for what we did to sodomites - what'n'hell did we do? - then we must also repent of what we have done to rapists...

http://takimag.com/article/rape_cultureor_rape_dna_jim_goad#axzz3XDWrsIGG

O, and as an aside, when do the sodomites ever apologise to the Church for its behavior or repent of their behavior that resulted in the faithful's money being spent on defending/paying for the sins of the sodomites who had secreted themselves within the priesthood so they could have access to innocent adolescent males.

The sexual interest of sodomites is directed at young adolescent males - especially those who are in their latency period.

As for pure pederasts, the sodomites are over-represented within that group but modern conservatives just fall all over themselves asking forgiveness from those involved in one of the four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance.

Just imagine apologising/repentimg what the church has done to those who commit the other three sins to give your own self some idea of how absurd such a suggestion is





Pertinacious Papist

said...

R.F.,

Yeah, I found that sentence problematic too:

But yes, the evidence that homosexuality isn’t chosen — along with basic humanity — should inspire repentance for cruelties visited on gay people by their churches.

"Homosexuality" is ambiguous here. Does he mean disposition? (In that case he's at least partly right.) Does he mean active SSA life-style choice? (In that case he's not.) The most we can say is that there is a genetic predisposition involving the confluence of a number of ambient factors. There is abolutely no such thing as a "gay gene" based on current science.

Furthermore, what does he mean by "cruelties visited on gay people by their churches"? Proclamation of Church moral teaching condemning sodomy? In that case, it's not cruelty but a spiritual work of mercy. Abusive slurs by Christians? But then, these are condemned by the Church itself and can only be condemned as acts inconsistent with her teaching.





JM

said...

I think Douthat's motivation is the history of degrees of stigmatization people even *struggling* with SSA have often experienced in Christian circles.

A balance seems impossible, since you do not want to make sin seem seem casual or OK. On the other hand, if such folks are so traumatized by the community attitude that they cannot even share their struggle, we create problems. I have heard a few stories of parents disowning kids... even if I have seen far more instances of parents condoning their kids bad wrong choices.

But one truth is people who struggle with this have not necessarily courted or asked for it, and it is an isolating disorder. Imagine if you hit adulthood suddenly plaguing with relentless same-sex temptations. A lousy situation, not one helped by people assuming you are just a lech.

Having said all all that, the bad old days of mean and judgmental priests and nuns must have been real, but don't seem like the defining experience that should be shaping our response. Fat to many gay bishops, priests, and cantors already get the sympathetic wink from their Catholic communities, if not affirmation.





Raider Fan

said...

Dear Doc. You are always kinder and more generous than is Raider Fan but the columnist seems to be speaking about active sodomites given the rest of his remarks.

If one keeps giving ground to the homosexualisation of America there comes a point at which one is a sapper of their own moral ground and one falls into a sinkhole of his own doing.

Don't get me wrong,there is much to admire in many of his columns but why can't we atavistic bastids get us a young rebarbative traditionalist who could rhetorically mix it up with these mendacious and malign miscreants?

Is there any way we could take a collection for Ralph for some miracle youth restorative drugs?

I'd pay to read what he had to say had he access to the public bully pulpit :)





Charles

said...

" ... bad old days ..."

Let's see ... the "bad old days" would have included those under the Mosaic theocracy where it was a capital crime (Lev. 20:13); New Testament times, when St. Paul said that homosexuals could not inherit eternal life; the ancient Church, in which St. John Chrysostom argued that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading they constitute a kind of punishment in themselves; the Middle Ages, when Saint Peter Damian wrote his Liber Gomorrhianus condemning homosexuality as a diabolical abomination; the Renaissance, during which the Fifth Lateran Council decreed that any priest caught in the vice of homosexuality must be stripped of his clerical order, and Pius V declared that any priest caught in the vice of homosexuality should be delivered to the secular authority to be condemned to death.

Now, by contrast, some princes (should I say "queens") of the Church want us to appreciate the unique "gifts" that homosexuals have to offer the Church community, and we don't dare "judge" a homosexual for his acts of sodomy.





JM

said...

Well, in the bad days, people caught in adultery res well, in the bad days, people caught in adultery wete stoned. I am no fan of liberal versions of development of doctrine, and I certainly believe in the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality. But to suggest that the colonist is endorsing active homosexuals is saying something that is simply not there. As a just in the compassion for those who struggle with same-sex desires is a sellout seems to simply give ammunition to put princesses Mercy Mercy Mercy propaganda