CRUX's "spirituality columnist" slanders orthodox Catholics as "bigots" | Carl E. Olson | CWR blog
Margery Eagan "prays" that Francis will get rid of "anti-gay bigots". Here are 6 problems with her "arguments".
"Not only is it wrong to take the life of another, but it is also wrong to bestow the poison of anger upon him, strike him with slander, and speak ill of him." — Pope Francis, Angelus, Feb. 16, 2014
Margery Eagan, the "spirituality columnist" for the CRUX site, recently wrote a column, "My prayer: That Francis prevails over the bigots within the Church" (Oct 21), in which she uses a broad and sloppy brush to attack those Catholics who, in short, uphold Church teaching regarding the true nature of homosexual inclinations ("objectively disordered"—CCC, 2358) and homosexual acts ("grave depravity"—CCC, 2357). What is especially interesting to me are two things: the faulty assumptions and misleading arguments she uses and the apparent (if tacit) approval of the hierarchy at CRUX.
First, the assumptions and "arguments:
1). That the controversy over the passage in the "Relatio post disceptationem" was about being nice to homosexuals: "Nothing like the prospect of the Catholic Church 'welcoming' gays to cause hysteria in conservative ranks." This is nonsense. The problem was with the fuzzy language in the midsession repport suggesting that having an inclination toward homosexuality was somehow a positive and morally good thing:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? ... Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.
If we are to "value" the homosexual orientation, then what to do with the teaching that such inclination is disordered? Ignore it? Cut it out? If so, should we also expect to rexamine Church teaching about adultery and fornication? Pornography, masturbation, and cohabitation? And what of polygamy and those who might have an orientation to a "swinging" lifestyle? What gifts might such people bring into the Church solely because of their orientations? No reasonable person denies that every sinner has gifts and abilities. What puzzled and upset so many was the suggestion that the flawed orientation and even sinful actions somehow provide gifts and graces.
2). That there are only two possible approaches to those identifying as homosexual: complete and total acceptance of the orientation and lifestyle (that is, a celebration of the Reign of Gay), or homophobic hatred, bigotry, and intolerance on every level and in ever possible way. This is clearly the intention of Eagan's cherrypicking of certain anti-homosexual comments, as if comboxes are equal to the thoughtful and principled approaches to the topic that good Catholics have written. But, of course, this is how the Reign of Gay works: either bow and celebrate, or be damned to the darkened fringes of society. The truly Catholic option is the one that so many (although not all) homosexuals despise: love the sinner, hate the sin. Eagan, however, will have none of it.
3). The sloppy attempt to equate homosexuality with a morally upright cause: