Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Pope Francis vs. Gender Ideology

Pope Francis sits next Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, president of the Polish bishops conference, during a meeting with Poland's bishops at the cathedral in Krakow, Poland, July 27. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Pope Francis vs. Gender Ideology | Robert R. Reilly | Catholic World Report

In the end, reality always wins. An old saying has it that: God always forgives; man sometimes; Nature never.

In Krakow with the Polish bishops two weeks ago, Pope Francis declared that, “We are experiencing a moment of the annihilation of man as the image of God.” He specifically included within this defacement “[the ideology of] ‘gender’”. He was clearly outraged that, “Today children – children! – are taught in school that everyone can choose his or her sex…And this terrible!”

Then he quoted Benedict XVI, who had said to him recently: “Holiness, this is the age of sin against God the Creator.” Francis’ response was that, “He is very perceptive. God created man and woman; God created the world in a certain way… and we are doing the exact opposite.”

Pope Francis is right to use the word “ideology” to define this “exact opposite.” The whole point of ideology is the transformation of reality. It seeks not to understand things, but to change them. A second or false reality is set up parallel to reality, which it then attempts to extinguish. At a certain stage, the destruction becomes literal, as was seen in the Gnostic Nazi and Communist enterprises of the 20^thcentury. Scores of millions were killed in order to institute the faux realities of a race-based theory of history or a class-based theory of history.

The entire LGBT movement is similarly ideological as a gender-based theory of history, if evidently less destructive—though its denial of reality has cost the lives of scores of thousands of homosexuals and others due to HIV-AIDS and other physical ailments attendant to homosexual behavior. Aside from disease and death, how does the “gay” movement express the unreality of the “exact opposite”?

Consider what happens in an actively sexual homosexual relationship, in which sodomy is generally typical. In it, one man behaves toward another man as if that other man were a woman. The other man willingly pretends that he is a woman.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

"A Revolutionary Attraction": On Pope Francis and the wounded warriors of the Sexual Revolution

"A Revolutionary Attraction | Stephen Adubato | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

On Pope Francis’ vision of the field hospital for the wounded warriors of the Sexual Revolution

Americans have been living in an historical moment during which their existential awareness of what it means to be human has been drastically altered. Many of these changes are the consequence of a more extensive series of shifts in approaches to questions of morality, society, and work which began at the dawn of the Modern Era. A significant road marker in the trajectory of the Modern Era’s legacy was the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. This watershed moment in history has left such an indelible mark on the collective psyche of our society that it has made its way into the American legal system; this has been most recently attested to by the Supreme Court’s decision to adjust the legal definition of marriage so that this institution would be extended to couples of the same sex.

The Sexual Revolution stands in a truly provoking position beside the Catholic Church—it provokes all people in contemporary society to ask what is at stake in their lives, and what will most adequately satisfy their needs and desires. The fundamental vocation of all members of the Body of Christ is to respond to the true needs of all people of the world. This has been re-emphasized through the brilliance of a new light which has been cast by the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy. Our Holy Father Pope Francis asks us to continue our work of evangelization with a heightened awareness of our Lord’s tender embrace of sinners, with a renewed remembrance of his gaze of mercy. Francis calls the Church to be “a field hospital after the battle.”¹ What does it mean for the baptized to be doctors, nurses, and caretakers in the aftermath of the battle that has been waged by the Sexual Revolution? To propose a worldview that is often characterized as being archaic and even hateful in our modern milieu would require us to approach this task with great attention and nuance. Our anxiety in front of a seemingly Herculean task ought to find consolation in the witnesses of numerous faithful Christians in the Middle East who are facing persecution at the hands of the Islamic State. Their willingness to die for the sake of the Faith is not born of a devotion to a political or moral ideology, but rather of an awareness of the true nature of reality and of humanity; which are contingent upon, and thus meaningless without, the Incarnation of God through his Son, Jesus Christ. It is here that we must begin to respond to the invitation that is the Jubilee Year of Mercy that we respond to the needs of a world so severely impacted by the aftermath of the Sexual Revolution: a witness by an exceptionally fulfilled humanity, born of a life lived for the sake of “Another.”

In order to better understand the essential foundations of the Sexual Revolution, it emerged, in part, as a reaction to a mode of expressing human sexuality that was increasingly accused of being “repressive” and “meaningless.” A largely “puritanical” moral worldview was accused of having reduced the human person’s horizon of freedom and fulfillment. The sexual revolutionaries wanted a way out of this restrictiveness. Supported by scientific and psychological evidence that aimed to prove that sexual repression caused damage to the human person, they defended a “free” expression of sexuality that rejected any moral implications: “sexuality is a pleasurable experience and nothing but that… The therapeutic task consisted in changing the neurotic character into a genital character, and in replacing moral regulation by self-regulation.”² The Sexual Revolution was preparing to ring in a new era of utopia. The hearts of these revolutionaries longed for this moment after what they perceived to be a period of drought brought on by puritanical legalism, and a reductive definition of the human person. These revolutionaries responded to their thirsty hearts’ fundamental need for liberation by devising a moral worldview (or lack thereof) which corresponded to the need generated by a puritanical proposal of an incomplete, and ultimately repressive, moral worldview.

What does the proposal of the revolutionaries have in common with the proposal of the Church?

Continue reading on the HPR website.

Two Years Among the Liberal Theologians

St. Ignatius Gate entrance at Boston College (Photo: Boston_Starbucks_Rebel / Wikipedia)

Two Years Among the Liberal Theologians | Dorothy Cummings McLean | Catholic World Report

The brain-blowing combination of asserting that what is not Catholic teaching is somehow Catholic teaching and then shrieking like a frightened schoolgirl when the word "heresy" is uttered is what the American Catholic/Jesuit theological academy is all about

Once, I was a theologian.

But, to tell you the truth, as a believing Catholic who seeks to understand what it is she believes, I am still a theologian. I was taught this on the first day of my "Method in Theology" class in Toronto, and it wrote itself permanently on my heart. All believing Catholics who seek to understand what it is they believe are Catholic theologians, which means that Ross Douthat is a Catholic theologian. His academic critics are ... academics. Some of them may be Catholic theologians, but I wouldn't assume that—especially not if they got their training at Boston College.

"Own your heresy" tweeted Douthat, and Father James Martin, SJ seemed to throw up his hands in holy horror. Oh, how irresponsible! Oh, how potentially damaging to a career! Oh, how the CDF will swoop down like a wolf upon the fold. Except it won't, and it almost never does—and they're too busy packing up Monsignor Charamsa's office right now anyway.

The brain-blowing combination of asserting that what is not Catholic teaching is somehow Catholic teaching and then shrieking like a frightened schoolgirl when the word "heresy" is uttered is what the American Catholic/Jesuit theological academy is all about, and I should know. I was in it for two of the most miserable years of my life.

As the Affair Douthat unfolds, I keep attaching faces to the names I hadn't heard or seen for many years. One of them belongs to an active homosexual who brought his boyfriend along on the departmental retreat and shared a room with him. Another belongs to an active unmarried heterosexual who brought his girlfriend along on the departmental retreat and shared a room with her. They were both very pleasant and cheerful men. I liked them very much—which does not erase the facts that they did not believe the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning sexual morality and that today they are professional Catholic theologians.

Boston College. It's been ten years since I first turned up for "Accepted Students Day", and eight years since I left with my professional hopes in tatters, but the very name still plunges me into depression. The contrast between the loving, thoughtful environment of my Canadian theologate and the neurotic, boastful, overrated, double-faced snake pit that was the Boston College theology department transformed me from one of the "rock stars" of my Canadian college—successfully juggling coursework and three jobs, graduating magna cum laude—into a hysterical wreck, unable to read print.

Saint Ignatius of Loyola composed a prayer that begins, "Take, Lord, my liberty, my understanding, my entire will". In the post-Vatican II era it was set to a jolly tune, and I had sung it blithely in Toronto without the slightest clue what losing one's understanding might mean. In my case it meant forcing myself, in agony, to make the little black marks on the page make sense and then exploding in fury when the document before me was merely some speculative nonsense about a "Markian" community that may or may not have existed. "Might", "should", "it could be": the weasel words of academia.

I had worked enormously hard to get to Boston College—three years of busting my brain and non-stop reading, writing, volunteering, ministry placements, jobs—and I had loved it. When I got the phone call on February 24, 2005 telling me I had been accepted for the Boston College PhD program in theology, my heart ached with joy. My life—I was still a single woman then—was finally on track: I would finish my PhD, get a job in a Jesuit college, walk forever in the groves of academe, well paid, serving God doing what I loved best.

Reality slapped me in the face when I arrived for "Accepted Students Day"—April 1, I believe. April Fool's Day.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Pre-Synod Conference unites Cardinals and men and women living with homosexual tendencies

Living the Truth in Love conference and resource event  to be held Oct 2 in Rome, Italy

For More Information:
Lisa Wheeler
Carmel Communications
1-866-777-2313, ext. 700
[email protected]

NORWALK, CT, and SAN FRANCISCO, Sep. 9, 2015 – Courage International and Ignatius Press announce their first Rome conference to address the pastoral needs of men and women who experience homosexual tendencies. Living the Truth in Love is a conference and resource event, which will be held October 2, just before the start of the Ordinary Synod on the Family at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (“The Angelicum”) in Rome, Italy.
 
The theme of the conference will be “The Ways of True Love—Pastoral Approaches to Welcome and Accompany those Living with Homosexual Tendencies.”
 
The conference will feature Cardinal Robert Sarah, Cardinal George Pell, Monsignor Livio Melina, as well as experts such as Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Timothy Lock, a clinical psychologist; and Dr. Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute. A panel discussion will be held featuring the real life testimonies of faithful Catholics living the reality of homosexuality in their everyday lives.  
 
Resources will be available to conference attendees, particularly a collection of books recently released by several of the participants, including Cardinal Robert Sarah and Cardinal George Pell. A press event will take place in conjunction with the conference for members of the media.
 
The event will take place just days before the opening of the Ordinary Synod on the Family that begins at the Vatican on October 4 and extends through October 25. The conference offers a response to the important question before the Synod regarding how the Church should give pastoral care to persons with homosexual tendencies and their families.
 
The conference approaches homosexuality not as a cultural or political issue of the day (without forgetting that it is so), but rather as a personal reality in the life of individual men and women. The speakers will address the complex reality of homosexual tendencies through the lenses of the empirical and social sciences, the personal experience of homosexuality, the testimony of Sacred Scripture, as well as Sacred Tradition—the bi-millenial wisdom of the Catholic Church.
 
Conference organizers intend the event and its resources to help those responsible for pastoral ministry to better understand each of these dimensions and to be better equipped to welcome and accompany men and women with homosexual tendencies, and ultimately to help them find the fullness of joy in their journey with and to Christ.
 
Fr. Paul Check, Executive Director of Courage International, explains that the Living the Truth in Love conference distinguishes itself from other conferences by offering a fuller and more precise understanding of the human person. “Through His Church, Christ invites everyone to the abundant life (Jn 10:10).  He offers His mercy (‘neither do I condemn you’), and then He calls us to conversion of heart (‘now go and sin no more’), and He gives us the grace to make this possible. In the Gospel, Jesus not only offers his compassion but He also calls us to conversion because He knows we will only be truly joyful and fulfilled when we live as He created us to be.”
 
“So many of the current approaches to homosexuality do not include this fuller perspective of the human person,” said Check. “Rather they seem to limit themselves to ‘acceptance’ without recognizing Jesus’ call to conversion. And they defend a ‘right’ to sexual intimacy, but they do acknowledge God’s design for marriage to which Jesus Himself refers in Matthew 19.”  
 
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., Founder and Editor of Ignatius Press adds: “Genuine compassion and mercy require that we support all those who desire to live authentic Christian discipleship. We are pleased to join with Courage not only in holding this conference, but also in providing a range of pastoral and personal resources that will provide practical guidance long after the conference—and the synod—are over.”
 
This event is open to the public. Registration is free but lunch is included for an additional fee. Those interested in registering can visit www.TruthandLove.com.
 
Media representatives can acquire press credentials to attend the conference and press event and arrange interviews with conference speakers and panelists or a Courage or Ignatius Press spokesperson by contacting Lisa Wheeler of Carmel Communications, [email protected] or 1-866-777-2313, ext. 700.

Public Order, Identity, and the Church

(us.fotolia.com | oily)

Public Order, Identity, and the Church | James Kalb | CWR

Like the rest of liberal modernity, the current understanding of identity won’t last because it’s ultimately irrational and self-defeating

The age of Jenner, Obergefell, and #BlackLivesMatter puts issues of identity at the center of public life. As Catholics and citizens we need to understand what that means.

Personal identity orients us in the world. As such, it has both individual and social functions. It enables us to order our lives by telling us what we are and how we fit into the world. And it greatly eases social functioning by telling people how they connect to institutions and what they owe them.

For a Catholic his identity includes Catholicism—his membership in the Church and orientation toward God and the world. It also includes his sex, state in life as married, ordained, or vowed, and basic family connections such as parentage. We can’t rightly abandon such things, they are fundamental to who we are, and they determine our most basic relationships and duties, thereby supporting the Church and the natural family as fundamental social institutions.

Other aspects of identity are less basic and more dependent on social conditions. More distant family relationships and the cultural networks into which we are born, for example, are less important today than in the past. Instead of relying on them for learning how to live and dealing with the practical problems of life, people rely on markets, bureaucracies, formal education, and mass culture. If Pete Muldoon goes to Harvard, people identify him more as a Harvard man and someone of his generation than as Irish and a Muldoon. They think those things account for more of his social position and how he acts.

Many people have come to view traditional dimensions of identity as irrational and oppressive and want their suppression: to give weight to family is seen as snobbish, and to do so with inherited cultural community is thought racist and therefore downright evil. That view contrasts with a more traditional Catholic view that sees traditional connections as valuable within limits.

The reason for wanting to suppress such things is that promoting some elements of identity means suppressing others.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

New: "Living the Truth in Love: Pastoral Approaches to Same-Sex Attraction:

Now available from Ignatius Press:

Living the Truth in Love: Pastoral Approaches to Same-Sex Attraction

by Janet E. Smith and Fr. Paul Check

Available end of August 2015.

Living the Truth in Love grew out of the desire to provide answers to the questions posed for the Synod on Marriage called by Pope Francis:

• How can the Christian community give pastoral attention to families with persons with same-sex attraction?

• While avoiding any unjust discrimination, how can the Church give such persons pastoral care in light of the Gospel?

• How can God's will be proposed to them in their situation?

People who want to be instruments of Christ's love to those who experience same-sex attraction (SSA) seek guidance on how best to do so. They need to listen to the stories of those who experience SSA and the stories of those who have accompanied them on their journeys. They also need to ground their responses in a genuine Christian understanding of the human person and of human sexuality.

This volume includes essays that lay out the Christian view of the human person and of human sexuality, essays that challenge the bifurcation of sexualities into "heterosexual" and "homosexual".  Topics include an explanation of the meaning of the word "disorder", a discussion of the therapeutic power of friendship, and an application of Saint John Paul II’s personalism to the question of same-sex attraction.  Psychologists and counselors explain various ways of affirming those who experience SSA and of leading them to experience the power of Christ’s healing love. Several of those who experience SSA tell their touching and inspiring stories.

Janet E. Smith, Ph.D., holds the Father Michael McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. Father Paul Check is the Executive Director of Courage International.

"This is a deeply serious response to Pope Francis' call to the Church to engage the crisis of the family in all its dimensions and a critically important contribution to one of the great pastoral challenges facing the New Evangelization." 
— George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

"This book involves a large number of talented authors who engage both head and heart in the best tradition of Catholic pastoral theology."
— Helen Alvaré, Professor of Law, George Mason University

"I salute the distinguished authors of this important volume. I salute them not only for their wisdom but also for their bravery. It is a bravery born of love."
— Robert P. George,McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

"The Church has a positive message for people who live with same-sex attraction, which comes through clearly in these pages and from many different perspectives. For many people this book can be life-changing. For those who serve in the Church’s ministry, it will be indispensable."
— Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.

"Living the Truth in Love is a courageous, sincere, and timely book that seeks to help those with same-sex attraction and all of us who love them with the powerful medicine of the Gospel, the psychological sciences, and the inspiring witness of those with SSA who are living chaste, loving, joy-filled, Christian lives."
— Sean Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston

Exclusive Sneak Peak Into One Of Our Most Important Fall Titles!

An Exclusive Sneak Peak Into One Of Our Most Important Upcoming Titles! Coming August 2015! Living the Truth in Love Edited by Janet Smith and Fr. Paul Check Softcover, 360 pages, $24.95 Living the Truth in Love grew out of the desire to provide answers to the questions posed for the Synod on Marriage called by Pope Francis: How can the Christian community give pastoral attention to families with persons with same-sex attraction? While avoiding any unjust discrimination, how can the Church give such persons pastoral care in light of the Gospel? How can God's will be proposed to them in their situation? "Living the Truth in Love is a courageous, sincere, and timely book..." — Sean Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston   "...For many people this book can be life-changing. For those who serve in the Church’s ministry, it will be indispensable." — Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C. "This is a deeply serious response to Pope Francis' call to the Church to engage the crisis of the family in all its dimensions and a critically important contribution to one of the great pastoral challenges facing the New Evangelization." — George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center Don't Miss This Important Upcoming Conference Featuring Speakers -- Janet Smith and Fr. Paul Check Welcoming and Accompanying Our Brothers and Sisters with Same-Sex Attraction ------------------------ August 10-12, 2015 Inn at St. John’s, Plymouth, Michigan   An international conference to designed for bishops, priests, religious, school superintendents, diocesan personnel who minister to those with same-sex attraction and for all those who want to be welcoming and to accompany those who have SSA.   For more details see the flyer or visit www.couragerc.org Copyright © 2015 Ignatius Press, All rights reserved. Share Tweet Forward

The Church and the “New Normal”

An opponent of same-sex marriage protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 18.(CNS photo/Carlos Barria, Reuters)

The Church and the “New Normal” | George Weigel | CWR

The marriage battle was lost in the culture long before it was lost in the courts

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage decision, these sober thoughts occur:

(1) The Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS] has rendered a decision that puts the Court at odds with the Constitution, with reason, and with biblical religion.

(2) SCOTUS has gotten it wrong before. It got it wrong on race in Dred Scott and it repeated the mistake in Plessy vs. Ferguson (which upheld segregated public facilities). It got it wrong by concocting a constitutional “right” to abortion-on-demand in Roe vs. Wade and doubled-down on that mistake by getting it wrong on abortion again in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood. Now SCOTUS has gotten it wrong on marriage. There are remedies to SCOTUS getting it wrong; one of them is a careful re-examination, during the 2016 campaign, of the theory of “judicial supremacy,” which holds that the Constitution means whatever a majority of the Court says it means.

(3) The marriage battle was lost in the culture long before it was lost in the courts.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Failing to Make the Moral Case for Marriage

Failing to Make the Moral Case for Marriage | Robert R. Reilly | CWR

The retreat to the position of defending religious freedom means that the issue of the immorality of sodomy and other homosexual acts has been abandoned—both in and out of court

Why have the pro-natural family forces been losing in court? Intentionally or not, Judge Richard Posner explained the reason in a 7th Circuit Court ruling (Sept. 4, 2014), in which he decided against the Indiana and Wisconsin laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman:

"The state [Wisconsin] does not mention Justice Alito’s invocation [in the Windsor case] of a moral case against same-sex marriage, when he states in his dissent that ‘others explain the basis for the institution in more philosophical terms. They argue that marriage is essentially the solemnizing of a comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing new life, even if it does not always do so.’ [US v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2718 (2013).] That is a moral argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The state does not mention the argument because as we said, it mounts no moral arguments against same-sex marriage.” [Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648, 669 (7^th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).]

While Justice Alito recognizes that there is a moral argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals, it was not only the State of Wisconsin that failed to make such a case. Neither have the States of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee in Obergefell, the decisive case now before the US Supreme Court. I believe that this is one of the key reasons that the pro-natural family position has been losing in most of the cases thus far.

With the moral foundation missing, an air of unreality pervades the federal court system. Let us see how unreal by looking at a couple of examples. When invalidating Oregon’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (May 19, 2014), US District Judge Michael McShane wrote in his opinion,

“I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these [same-sex] plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure.” [Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1147 (D. Or. 2014).]

This is an extraordinary remark. What Judge McShane calls “gender and sexuality” is the only means by which families are generated. Since families come from parents, you cannot look past parents and still have a family -- because there would be no family there. Homosexual acts cannot generate families; therefore, their “families” cannot be the same. If there are children present, we may be sure that both parents of the children are not present in that family. That is a lot to look past.

In Virginia, US District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen voided as unconstitutional that part of the Virginia state constitution and the Code of Virginia that define marriage as between one man and one woman. Ineptly, she began her decision on February 13, 2014, by confusing the basic texts of the American Founding (since corrected by her). She apparently thought that the phrase “all men are created equal” comes from the Constitution. It is, of course, perhaps the single most famous line in the Declaration of Independence. Judge Wright Allen appealed to this principle to endorse same-sex marriage on behalf of two lesbian and homosexual couples who brought suit against Virginia.

Why did Virginia have laws against unnatural marriage in the first place?

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Gnosticism vs. The Incarnation: The Ancient Battle Renewed

“Temptation of Jesus Christ” (1901-03) by Ilya Repin [WikiArt.org]

Gnosticism vs. The Incarnation: The Ancient Battle Renewed | John B. Buescher | CWR

The contemporary sexual revolution is thoroughly Gnostic, attacking the institution of marriage, thwarting the conception of children, and denying the differences between men and women

There is a tale, whose threads are too long to unravel here, of the meanderings of an idea through history—the idea that, as Nicolas Gómez-Davila parsed it, man is “a god imprisoned in the dull inertia of his flesh, or a god who elevates matter as his cry of victory.” This is the “knowledge” of both the old and the new Gnostics: We are not who we think we are, but gods imprisoned in matter. And knowing that we are gods is the condition for freedom, for it is only our wills that keep us from rising up divine.

If man is a god, then his essence is a will, exercised in purely unrestricted freedom. His sovereignty is expressed gratuitously. That sovereign will must be identical in everyone (or else it is not sovereign), and everything else about individuals exists as mere accidents, signs, or externalities. Indeed such things are impediments to which our wills are shackled.

The ancient form of the tale includes these basic propositions:

The prison in which we are shackled is matter. Yet matter does not matter. It is a dream into which we were born, and in which our spirits serve time in blind darkness, until death, or emancipation.

The creator of this world of matter was demented or malevolent. He is not the One who is the source of our spirit and our freedom.

Being born into this world is our problem. Exiting this world is the solution. Our bodies—and all the things that derive from being embodied and being pinned down into particularity—are features of our prison. That is most especially true of the most basic particularity of our bodies: the division into male and female. It is the primordial cleft, which ramifies throughout all other distinctions. In our highest form, we are androgynous.

Acting upon the sexual distinction, therefore, is the most basic sin. Above all, conceiving and bringing children into this fallen world of matter merely traps their free spirits and consigns them to bondage. When born, everyone has been conceived in the sin of his parents and is clothed in the prison uniform of his signifying flesh.

The ancient Gnostic responded by avoiding the generation of children. Some of them became extreme ascetics and totally celibate and even sacramentalized their fasting unto death. But some of them became “free spirits” who flouted all sexual taboos and customs—upon which the world’s prison bars were built—and engaged in every sort of sexual irregularity. It demonstrated the Gnostics’ contempt for the deep distinctions and features of the material world and how they were living purely in the spirit, and no longer bound by the world. It was a sign of contradiction to the fallen world, and was, in itself, a way to arise out of it, ringing the changes on what that world held to be sin, entering into it, but without being caught in it, and thereby wearing it out, exploding it from the inside, deconstructing it, turning the sexual act into something that would not result in the conception of children. Such acts too, for the Gnostic, could be sacramental.

Sexual activity engaged in by the unenlightened followed the logic of the prison world and resulted in its continuation into succeeding generations. Sexual activity that might be engaged in by the enlightened was done to arouse the “spirit,” but then to turn it to a purely spiritual purpose and away from the generation of children. The strategy was the uncoupling of the act from its worldly consequence, the generation of children.

At the very heart of this was the determination to undermine the foundation of this prison world. Whether the strategy was one of extreme asceticism or extreme licentiousness, the point was the same—the defeat of the material world by the freed spirit, whose essence was its own divine, sovereign will, unencumbered by any consequences that were not the expressions of its free choice.

The Current Gnosticism

This Gnostic logic underlies our contemporary sexual revolution, including the sacramentalizing of same-sex activities, the attack on traditional marriage, the evaluation of procreation as mere breeding, the treating of pregnancy as an unhealthy state that should be annulled or healed, the offering of contraception as a means to avoid that state, the evaluation of abortion as a way to avoid the supreme sin of bringing into the unwelcoming world a soul that would be marked with the sign of its iniquitous conception, and the offering of assistance—as a kindness—to those who would freely choose to end their lives.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Pretty Little Lies: The Idolness of Bruce Jenner

"The Adoration of the Golden Calf" (L'Adoration du Veau d'or) by Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665) [WikiArt.org]

Pretty Little Lies: On the Idolness of Bruce Jenner | Lauren Enk Mann | CWR 

Both Jenner and the adoring media are falling prey to one of the oldest, gravest sins: idolatry, the worshiping of false gods which we ourselves have crafted

By now, the hubbub over Bruce Jenner's Vanity Fair cover has reached most ears. And eyes. After extensive surgery and hormone treatment, with the aid of heavy makeup and Photoshop, Jenner posed in a corset as "Caitlyn" for Vanity Fair's exclusive 22-page article on his transition from a man to a woman.  

Effusive praise for "Caitlyn" Jenner flooded the internet following the cover's debut—a reaction symptomatic of society's default approach to the human person. The reaction stands squarely on a decades-long foundation of practices that deny the God-given meaning of human sexuality, from divorce and contraception to porn and the social acceptance of gay "marriage". There is no inherent human nature that you could mar or offend by doing these things, says the world. 

But why is our society so gullible in the face of such lies? It is said that the devil can appear as an angel of light—he is, after all, the father of lies. And Bruce Jenner is living a colossal lie. But because he looks glamorous doing it, he is heaped with praise as media echo chambers resound with affirmations of his "courage."

Lies are ugly things, but the point of a lie is to hide its true face; lies don't seem ugly, but attractive and appealing. They steal the looks of something good—beauty, compassion, or happiness—and mimic it, relying on a deceptive veneer to win us over. 

This devilish tactic is one reason the world so easily swallows grave moral errors. 

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

How Same-Sex Marriage Won Out in Ireland

How Same-Sex Marriage Won Out in Ireland | Michael Kelly | CWR

Intense pressure from political and cultural elites, together with millions of dollars in foreign funding, resulted in a victory for gay rights activists in the majority-Catholic country.

Ireland, once dubbed “the most Catholic country in the world” by the future Pope Paul VI, has become the first country in the world to adopt same-sex marriage by means of a popular vote.

For months, opinion polls had been consistent is showing huge levels of support for the constitutional amendment to re-define marriage.

On the day, 62 percent of people voted “yes” for same-sex marriage. It was not the absolute landslide pundits had predicted, but it was an emphatic rejection of the traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman.

David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute and de facto leader of the “no” campaign, was magnanimous, conceding defeat just over an hour after the counting of votes began and the pattern was clear.

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin described the result as a “social revolution.”

“We [the Church] have to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities,” Archbishop Martin said. “We won’t begin again with a sense of renewal, with a sense of denial.”

The archbishop—a former Vatican diplomat who has headed Ireland’s largest diocese for more than a decade—had been criticized during the campaign by some for being too timid in presenting the Church’s teaching on marriage. In the final days, he did take to the airwaves to make a plea for a “no” vote. However, he angered some “no” campaigners for refusing to say Catholics ought to vote “no.”

The bishop of Elphin, Kevin Doran, was among the most vocal opponents of the redefinition of marriage in the Irish hierarchy. He led a robust campaign and frequently engaged in media debates in an attempt to have the proposal defeated.

Responding to the result, he said: “The outcome of the marriage referendum is clear and decisive.”

Bishop Doran got to the heart of why the “yes” campaign proved so convincing in the end. “It seems that many people voted ‘yes’ as a way of showing their acceptance and their love for friends and family members who are gay,” he said.

“Large numbers obviously believed that they could vote ‘yes’ without in any way undermining marriage.”

How has it happened that a country in which 84 percent of people describe themselves as Catholic has become the first state in the world to enact same-sex marriage by means of a popular vote?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The New Gnosticism of the Homosexual Movement

(Graphic: us.fotolia.com | Rawpixel)

The New Gnosticism of the Homosexual Movement | Robert R. Reilly | CWR

Success for the homosexual dream requires the obliteration of the real and the removal of those who insist on the existence of reality

Ideas that are not true are dangerous to our souls and to our polities, whether we like it or not.” — Rev. James V. Schall, SJ

If Eric Voegelin (1901-85) were alive today, I think that he would see the homosexual movement as a form of Gnosticism—a spiritually pathological, magical reconstruction of reality, or of a “second reality.” Voegelin wrote that, “All gnostic movements are involved in the project of abolishing the constitution of being, with its origin in divine, transcendent being…”ⁱ Does this seem too extreme a charge to bring against the homosexual movement? As I will attempt to show, this is not about some sexual peccadillo that we can wink at and push off into a corner—it is a lie about humanity itself. Lesbian advocate Paula Ettelbrick proclaimed that, “transforming the very fabric of society… [and] radically reordering society’s view of reality” is the goal of the homosexual movement. This is typical Gnostic rhetoric about constructing a substitute reality.

Voegelin said that, “Gnosticism… has produced something like the counterprinciples to the principles of existence; and, insofar as these principles determine an image of reality for the masses of the faithful, it has created a dream world that itself is a social force of the first importance in motivating attitudes and actions…”ⁱⁱ Such counter principles are active and evident in every aspect of the promotion of the homosexual cause. And we have seen the power of its social force as it moved against the religious freedom protection law in Indiana. As a society we have moved from the point where the rationalization for homosexual misbehavior has been accepted as normative to the point where that rationalization will now be imposed and enforced, legally and by social forces at large, on everyone. If you speak out about this, you most likely will lose your job or your business and, most certainly, your social standing. You may be sued. You will become an embarrassment. These have become new forms of censorship, with a strong dose of self-censorship already at play. “This movement,” libertarian journalist John Stossel said, “has moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

Voegelin analyzed the Nazi movement as a form of Gnosticism. I do not think it is a stretch to point to Nazi Germany in 1935 as an analogy to current events and their similarly Gnostic nature. That is when the Nuremberg Laws were passed, stripping Jews of their German citizenship and forbidding marriage between non-Jews and Jews. No doubt, there were still many fine and upstanding people in Germany at the time, including many Catholics, but from then on they had to keep their mouths shut about the Nazi racial superiority teachings because they were state law. I am sure there were many people opposed to the race theory of history who said to themselves, as people do today regarding homosexual “marriage,” ‘well, this is a losing issue. Let’s leave it alone and move on.’ They were probably too frightened to consider what they were moving on to, just as people today avoid thinking about the consequences of the complete denial of reality involved in homosexual “marriage.” Anyone who thinks that we are involved in a denial of reality any less profound than that of 1935 Germany is kidding themselves. Success for the homosexual dream requires the obliteration of the real and the removal of those who insist on the existence of reality.

Gnosticism does not accept the evidence of reality. It is not a matter of what Gnostics do not know, but of what they refuse to acknowledge.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The Reign of Gay and the RFRA: Round-up and Reflections

The Reign of Gay and the RFRA: Round-up and Reflections | Carl E. Olson  | CWR blog

A dizzying but rewarding "Carl's Cuts" tour through the madness of the past couple of weeks

• A year ago today, I posted what was probably my most controversial editorial: "Welcome to the Reign of 'Gay'". With that in mind, it seems fitting that my first "Carl's Cuts" in several months takes a look at recent controversies over the spreading Reign.

• I first read about Indiana's Senate Bill 101—aka, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—via a sports news feed on my iPhone. The headline referenced "Indiana's anti-gay law", but the article did not explain what the law actually stated. Instead, it had quotes from sports commentators gravely uttering banalities and clichés—something, admittedly, they do constantly in their daily work—that also shed no light on the RFRA. Charles Barkley, the Round Mound of Unprofound, stated: "America's always had a racial problem. Now we have a homophobic problem. Any form of discrimination, you have to check it." Any, Chuck? Even discrimination against child molesters, KKK members, and looters? Barkley's logic here is about as sound as the defense he used to never play while starring in the NBA.

• The first dozen news articles I looked at online also managed to say little or absolutely nothing about the contents of the RFRA, and so I finally looked up the actual law and read it. At that point, having seen the approach taken by various "news outlets", I knew the usual Reign of Gay tactics were already in place:

1). Emote: The use of passion, anger, and outrage is a tried-and-true way of obscuring details and pushing people to make a knee-jerk judgment based on sentiment, not sober, sane thought.

2). Demonize: Insist the law in question is "anti-gay" and then hammer home the point that those who wrote it and voted for it are haters, pure and simple.

3). Harangue and Insult: Don't argue the actual points in question, but immediate threaten to boycott. Call people names, preferably "bigots" and "homophobes". (One Reuters blogger, to his credit, wrote, "On the LGBT side, it’s time to stop calling religious people bigots and homophobes." Good luck with that.) Talk endlessly—often in 140 grammar-challenged characters or less—about people "loving each other", an example of such being Hillary Clinton's March 26th tweet: "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love." (Personally, I find it a bit comical to be lectured on the nature of love by either Bill or Hillary Clinton.)

• President Obama, in his speech at Easter Prayer Breakfast yesterday at the White House, went off script for a moment and said:

On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned. But that's a topic for another day.

Goodness, whatever or whoever could he be talking about? Tis a mystery. But keep in mind that even before he famously "evolved" on the matter of "gay marriage," Obama had made it clear that any sort of opposition to the Reign of Gay would not, in the long run, be tolerated. In a 2009 address at a "LGBT Pride Month Reception" at the White House, he said:

Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made.  There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop.  And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted.  And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking. ...

So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality.  (Applause.)  We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love. ...

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open.  For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.

Not yet. Ah, the inevitability of being on the right side of history and all that clichéd nonsense. Which is not to deny, of course, that many Americans really, really like clichéd nonsense—super sized and with extra whip cream, please!

• As many conservative (that is, not mainstream) news outlets explained, in varying detail, the RFRA was very similar to the 1993 law passed by Hillary's soulmate, former President Bill Clinton.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Clueless protesters in San Francisco prove Archbishop Cordileone's point

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, right, with Jesuit Father Paul J. Fitzgerald, in an October 2014 photo. (CNS photo/Shawn P. Calhoun, courtesy University of San Francisco)

Clueless protesters in San Francisco prove Archbishop Cordileone's point

The fact is, there is no contradiction or conflict between Jesus Christ, His Church, the teachings of Pope Francis, and the actions of Abp. Cordileone

A wise woman, commenting on the increasingly irrational ways of the post-Christian world, notes:

It is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality, unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology. It is a lie to say that dogma does not matter; it matters enormously. It is fatal to let people suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is vitally necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a rational explanation of the universe. It is hopeless to offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic aspiration of a simple and consoling kind; it is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, steeped in a drastic and uncompromising realism. And it is fatal to imagine that everybody knows quite well what Christianity is and needs only a little encouragement to practice it. The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the Church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ. ... Theologically this country is at present is in a state of utter chaos established in the name of religious toleration and rapidly degenerating into flight from reason and the death of hope.

Considering the events of just the past few days here in the United States, it's hard to argue with her. However, the essayist, novelist, playwright, and translator Dorothy L. Sayers wrote those words in 1949, in England, and with an eye toward the Anglican Communion, to which she belonged. But, if anything, her essay, "Creed or Chaos?" (see The Whimsical Christian: 18 Essays), is more timely than ever—a searing (and often sarcastic) indictment of a Christianity that is ignorant, sentimental, and thoroughly secularized. I have in mind here those who protested yesterday in San Francisco, demanding that Abp. Salvatore Cordileone cease being a Catholic bishop and instead become a capitulating sentimentalist, like those in the emotional, moralizing crowd:

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Confusion in Ireland as 'Marriage Equality' Referendum Approaches

Couple at sunset on Irish Cliffs of Moher [Photo: us.fotolia.com | © Patryk Kosmider]

Confusion in Ireland as 'Marriage Equality' Referendum Approaches | Michael Kelly | CWR

Changes in ambiguous wording, tepid warnings from Catholic bishops, and deep concerns about children are part of the tense lead-up to May 22nd vote

Just two months before a May 22^nd 'Marriage Equality' referendum, many commentators predict Ireland will become the first country in the world to insert a constitutional amendment permitting civil marriage between two people of the same gender.

A distinctive feature of Irish democracy has been frequent recourse to constitutional referendums. May’s referendum will be the 35th time voters have been asked to amend the constitution in less than 80 years. The origin of this state of affairs may partly be traced to the unhappy split in the 1920s over a treaty with Britain, which led to a civil war after it was narrowly passed by a parliamentary majority. Prime Minister Éamon de Valera, who framed the 1937 constitution, felt strongly that future decisions on fundamental questions required more than a simple parliamentary majority.

Misleading polls?

Opinion polls currently predict that 77% of voters will back the constitutional redefinition of marriage while 22% of people say they will vote ‘no’. However, opinion polls on constitutional questions are notoriously unreliable in Ireland.

In 2013, for example, a referendum on children’s rights – which enshrined individual rights for minors in the constitution and granted the state greater powers to intervene in families – was just narrowly passed. An opinion poll had said just 4% of voters would oppose the motion, on polling day a significant 42% of citizens decided to vote against the children’s rights amendment.

There’s also the fact that many of those saying they are inclined to vote in favor of same-sex marriage have reservations.

According to John Downing, a political commentator and former government adviser, much of the apparent support for same-sex marriage in opinion polls is soft and many voters are not entirely convinced.

Only 59% of those who said they will vote ‘yes’ said they strongly held that opinion. The other 18% were more tentative about their voting intention. The pollsters also asked further questions about matters related to the issue of gay marriage. One-third of those prepared to vote ‘yes’ said they had reservations about gay couples adopting children.

Those who said they would vote ‘yes’ were further asked if they had reservations about the concept of the same-sex marriage referendum. In this case, 42% said they had reservations about the idea of the referendum.

When the question is a simple yes/no on whether the voter intends to support same-sex marriage the results are strongly in favor of a ‘yes’. However, when a series of more detailed questions are put into the mix, this number falls eventually to 44%.

Confused wording, last-minute changes

The Government’s ‘yes’ campaign has also been criticized by legal experts after Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald was forced to make a last-minute change to the proposed wording after fears the move could inadvertently ban traditional marriage.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Quo Vadis Matrimonium?

© kelly marken - Fotolia.com

Quo Vadis Matrimonium? | Benjamin J. Vail | CWR

Where things stand, and where they may be headed, in the same-sex marriage debate.

The year 2014 saw important changes in attitudes and policy in the US regarding marriage and the so-called “same-sex marriage” (SSM) debate. In this article, I would like to bring readers up-to-date on some recent developments, and help Catholics understand their own position better, by summarizing some important philosophical arguments used by traditionalists and by the proponents of SSM. In spiritual warfare as in politics it is helpful to know your adversary, after all.

We begin with an update on recent developments in marriage policy and culture, and then review the history of the debate, introduce some of the important philosophical principles that characterize the different camps, and conclude with a few thoughts on where it’s all headed. We focus on the writings of well-known academic advocates representing the two positions: affirming SSM, Professor John Corvino of Wayne State University, and affirming a traditionalist view, Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, and his coauthors Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson.

The on-going marriage debate

The reason SSM is so controversial is because it is not just an abstract policy debate, but a highly personal issue, and a moral question. The opposing viewpoints are animated by what could be described as completely different world views. On the one hand, those who advocate SSM typically adhere to a social constructionist view of marriage. In other words, they see marriage as a product of culture and subject to change. For those who defend what is called the “conjugal” view, the definition of marriage is not a malleable construct but an expression, or consequence, of natural law. In the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage, Corvino explains that this definitional debate “…is one of those areas where each side tends to see its position as not merely correct, but obvious. Marriage-equality opponents say that marriage has been male-female pretty much forever, and you can’t just change the meaning of words at will. Marriage-equality advocates say that marriage is an evolving legal and social institution, and if the law and society recognize same-sex couples as married, then they are in fact married” (p. 27).

Pro-SSM author Jonathan Rauch traces the origin of the SSM debate to May 1970, when a homosexual couple applied for (and were denied) a marriage license in Minnesota.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The Fundamental Good of Complementarity

(CNS photo/Daniel Karmann, EPA)

The Fundamental Good of Complementarity | John Paul Shimek | Catholic World Report

Dr. Helen Alvaré on why understanding the complementary relationship between man and woman is vital to understanding God and true love.

understanding the complementary relationship between the man and the woman is key to helping us understand the identity of God, God’s relationship with his people, and how we are to love one another.

John Paul Shimek

With multiple degrees in theology and law, and experience with a vast spectrum of public forum issues Professor Helen M. Alvaré is one of the leading Catholic voices in the United States on pro-life issues, marriage and the family, and the role and mission of the laity.

At George Mason University School of Law, Dr. Alvaré teaches Family Law, Law and Religion, and Property Law. She has published on a wide variety of matters concerning marriage, family, parenting, and the First Amendment religion clauses. Outside the classroom, she is a consultant to ABC News on women in the Catholic Church, religion in the public square, and the papacy. Her expertise in these fields has been lauded by the Holy See. Since 2008, she has been a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Laity at the Vatican. Previously, she served the National Conference of Catholic Bishops as the Director of Planning and Information for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.

This past November, she served as the Vatican’s media representative for Humanum, a three-day international inter-religious colloquium on the complementarity of man and woman, held in Rome and sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and
 the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. Although the conference participants returned home long ago now, and other Church-related news is filling the airwaves, the Humanum conference set a course for future intra-ecclesial (and, indeed, extra-ecclesial) discussions about issues at the forefront of today’s culture. The conference hall might have emptied out several weeks ago, but the fruit that will come of this conference is only beginning to ripen.

Dr. Alvaré recently spoke to CWR about her experience at the Humanum conference and its impact on future discussions of marriage and family.

CWR: Professor Alvaré, it is a real honor to have this chance to talk about Humanum, the international conference held at the Vatican between November 17-19, 2014. First of all, what was the conference about and what are the planners and participants hoping comes from it?

Dr. Alvaré: The Humanum conference was an attempt to engage the world in a serious consideration of the foundational good that is the relationship between the man and the woman. As I wrote in America [after the conference], we think we talk about men and woman all the time, but we are usually just peering into their sex lives or talking about their problems with relationship formation or dissolution. The fundamental good of their complementary union is too rarely considered.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the other Vatican offices hosting the conference hope to surface ways of thinking about and expressing this relationship that effectively convey both its natural and divine significance to observers world-wide. The movies and the papers and the video-talks are intended to have a long shelf life.

CWR: Later this year, high-ranking churchmen will once again gather in Rome for the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The theme of their meeting will be the “Vocation and Mission of the Christian Family in the Church and the Contemporary World.” Some of the prelates who chaired sessions of the Humanum conference will be there for that synod. While the Humanum conference was independent of the synodal path, will it help to keep the conversation going?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Normality Is Not Hatred

People wave banners as they demonstrate against France's planned legalization of same-sex marriage in Paris in April 17, 2013. (CNS photo/Benoit Tessier, Reuters)

Normality Is Not Hatred | James Kalb | CWR

Today’s politics has no place for legitimate authority based on higher standards, so power must base itself on Choice, otherwise known as the Triumph of the Will

Very recently the view that homosexuality is entirely normal has become not only widespread but compulsory in secular public discussion.

Leaders of thought tell us the change has been part of a general deepening of moral insight and improvement in the art of living. The older outlook oppressed millions out of fear, bigotry, and ignorance. We have learned better now, except for a few haters and dimbulbs who need to be re-educated or else shamed and shut up until death frees the world from their presence.

Many Catholic clergy, theologians, and ordinary believers more or less agree. We have been wrong, and if we don’t get with the program and accept the world’s guidance we’ll become irrelevant and vanish except for a few weirdoes no one sensible would want to associate with.

Such or allied views have led to very high level suggestions that the Church “accept and value” the homosexual orientation and ramp up opposition to “unjust discrimination,” which now seems to include suggestions that there is something wrong with homosexuality. So any statement of the general objection to the orientation, that it is objectively disordered, is now to be out of bounds. Inconsistent doctrine is to be treated as a hangover from the past to be dealt with in such a way as to neutralize it and effectively make it disappear.

To exacerbate the problem, most of those attached to the traditional view have difficulty arguing for it effectively. It seems plainly right to them, but why it is right cannot be stated in the terms on which public discussion is now carried on, which treat equal preference satisfaction as the highest good. The traditional view therefore comes to seem an irrational prejudice.

Still, the issue doesn’t go away. The older view continues to have distinguished proponents, and the vehement reactions to doubters suggests that supporters of the new view are conscious of a certain weakness in their position. Is something being overlooked? Can a sudden and total change of longstanding deeply-rooted understandings be trusted?

The change looks very much like an attempt to invert reality, an effort that once started becomes all-consuming and requires an ever more comprehensive system of lying to maintain. And the demands of correct thought are indeed becoming ever more far-reaching. Insistence that a relationship between two men is a marriage if they say the necessary vows has been followed by insistence that the men immediately become women if they announce they have. And that demand has been accompanied by attempts in the schools and elsewhere to get rid of indications of grammatical gender and other inflammatory expressions when dealing with children.

These supposed advances have been led not by saints and sages but by ideological activists, media propagandists, and other dubious characters. Supporters claim to speak for the “marginalized,” but are preferentially found among the rich, powerful, and well-placed, who evidently speak for themselves and those to whom they feel an affinity.

In that respect the movement is typical of modern politics, which promises liberation but delivers new forms of domination. The problem is basic.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

CRUX's "spirituality columnist" slanders orthodox Catholics as "bigots"

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:

Continue reading on the CWR blog.