Looking for ammunition to load into the maw of my Internet blunderbuss during a hot discussion, I tripped over this beautiful reflection on chastity.
But ye who have taken the vow already, chasten your bodies more strictly, and suffer not yourselves to loosen the reins of concupiscence even after those things which are permitted; that ye may not only turn away from an unlawful connection, but may despise even a lawful look. Remember, in whichever sex ye are, whether men or women, that ye are leading on earth the life of Angels: "For the Angels are neither given in marriage, nor marry." This shall we be, when we shall have risen again. How much better are ye, who before death begin to be what men will be after the resurrection!winiso code crackIncidentally, the homily of the Good Doctor was effective enough that I trashed my snarky comment and moved on. Dust from my sandals....- St. Augustine, Sermon 82 on the New Testament
Stanley Kurtz at NRO's The Corner tips us off to the current condition of marriage in Canada. "When marriage is redefined," he writes, "other social institutions are likewise transformed."
(W)hen male-female marriage and same-sex marriage become equal in the eyes of the law, treating them differently becomes discrimination. In Canada, "privileging" male-female marriage in any way is now a violation of human rights. According to (Bishop Frederick Henry of the Catholic Diocese of Calgary, Alberta), "Canadians who believe in the historic definition of marriage, who believe that children need a mother and father, are now the legal equivalent of racists."This is what the people of Massachusetts - and the rest of America, if liberals have their way - can expect their Commonwealth doesn't repudiate the insanity of humanity's oldest tradition and God's sacred institution.Today, Canada is combing through its laws and institutions to remove evidence of heterosexist discrimination. Terms such as husband and wife are now forbidden across the spectrum of Canadian law and government programs. The legal meaning of parenthood is being transformed, with consequences no one can predict.
Henry says Canadian schools are becoming battlegrounds. "Children will have to be taught about homosexual acts in health class, as they now are about heterosexual acts. Books that promote same-sex marriage are being introduced in some elementary schools. In one action, complainants have demanded 'positive queer role models' across the whole curriculum. If parents complain, they'll be branded as homophobes." Sound farfetched? People who disagree with same-sex marriage risk charges of hate speech. In British Columbia, teacher Chris Kempling has been found guilty -- and disciplined -- for defending male-female marriage in newspaper opinion pieces. Henry himself has been hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for promoting traditional marriage in his pastoral letters. "The human rights tribunals have become like thought police," he says. "In Canada, you can now use the coercive powers of the state to silence opposition."
This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.
Shelby Steele eloquently lays out the case against the homosexual agenda as a civil rights struggle...
The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none--white supremacy, black inferiority--for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly--not innocuously--different....right before he falls off the Cliffs of Insanity.
Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.If there is a "true and firm difference", is it not at least possible that someone could disagree with the endorsement of the other side of that difference without "reactive prejudice"? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct (or rather, the complete lack of a moral and ethical rationale for it) is always prejudged "homophobic" sans psychotherapy? How is it that in a few short years the stigma has completely reversed itself, and opposition to this "lifestyle choice" is now the mental disorder, and not the pathology itself?
The stigmatization of homosexuals is wrong and makes no contribution to the moral health of our society. I was never worried for my children because they grew up knowing a gay couple that lived across the street, or because several family friends were gay. They learned early what we all know: that homosexuality is as permanent a feature of the human condition as heterosexuality. Nothing is gained in denying this.Nothing, of course, except the one thing in our overly licentious age that we are no longer allowed to regulate: morality itself.
The majority of Americans are against homosexual marriage. They make a moral statement that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our laws reflect these morals, as all our laws reflect our morals....(I should openly disclose my Dowdification® of Mr. Megary, who in several places not noted above accepts the notion of civil unions. My editing in no way is meant to detract from his opinion or embolden my own (civil unions are not a concession I feel is desirable or necessary). His drift into that part of the discussion simply detracted from the central issue we've been discussing, IMHO.)
But this is unacceptable to some homosexuals. They want to be labeled as "married," as if that will force the rest of society to accept their actions as morally right....
(N)o right exists for all behavior to be morally accepted by society....
The struggle of a people to be accepted for who they are is just not the same as the effort by a people to be justified in what they do. (my emphasis - Chris)
This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.
Almost 1,000 years ago, the Christian Church (as it was a singular institution in those days) passed a requirement that all priests take a vow of celibacy prior to ordination. In the feudal structure of the society at the time, too many young men were left without anything to do, having been deprived of land and position by the strict inheritance laws. Many of them, seeing the potential for power, influence, and upward mobility, were becoming priests as their choice of career, with barely a thought to the spiritual component to the profession. The heirarchical clergy of the time decided the most efficient means to separate the devout from the social climbers was to deprive all priests of the pleasures of the flesh - at least officially. It was a brilliant political maneuver, conveniently supported by Scripture. ("Each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him." 1 Cor 7, 17)
Some of the problems the Catholic Church has today are wholly man's problem, and this is one of them. The very passage that supports the celibacy of its priests makes no requirement beyond that of "continuing as he was". Paul goes on to say that it would be better if a man were unmarried, but admits all the other Apostles did not follow that path as he did, because "It is better to marry than to be on fire."
Oh, how prescient that statement is for us today - yet, the church leaders deny it. Why? They say it is just because we're not holy enough, that if more more Catholics were more devout, we just wouldn't have a problem.
'The problems in the church today are not caused by the teaching of Jesus and of his church, but by lack of fidelity to them,' Archbishop Dolan wrote. 'The recent sad scandal of clerical sexual abuse of minors, as the professionals have documented, has nothing to do with our celibate commitment.'So it would seem that the Church leaders believe we get what we deserve. If no one wants to live under the yoke they say Scripture imposes, we have no one to blame but ourselves for our lack of fidelity to the Word.
As the bishops reaffirmed a requirement that has been part of church practice for nearly 1,000 years, priests and laypeople added their voices to those in Milwaukee calling for change. According to the National Federation of Priests Councils, associations of priests in Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Charleston, and in the states of New York and Illinois, are all considering issuing manifestos like the one issued in Milwaukee.
Bishop Gregory and Archbishop Dolan both argued that the shortage of Catholic clergy has little to do with celibacy, and is a problem shared by many Christian denominations and even Jewish synagogues.
However, Dean R. Hoge, a sociologist at The Catholic University of America who has studied clergy in Catholic and Protestant churches for more than 30 years, said that the shortage of priests in the Catholic church is 'far more severe' than any other denomination in the United States. He said that for every 100 priests who die or leave ministry today, Catholic seminaries are now training only 30 or 40 to replace them.
This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.
I've always had a link to Andrew Sullivan because I've respected his work during the war, and I've actually enjoyed the occasional piece about gays and gay marriage, in that I could see what some who aren't strict conservatives are saying about such issues. But recently I haven't seen anything that makes me want to applaud him, and he's become very strident on gay issues again. (Not that he ever probably slowed down off the website, but a man only has so much time in the day to write and we've had more important things to talk about lately). And add to this, he's now gone to such an extreme as quoting the "slavery" section of the Catholic Encyclopedia to support his case. That just about sent me into fits, so I've decided to remove his link. It's not that I've suddenly gone anti-Sullivan. I just don't care to associate myself that closely with him at the moment and imply endorsement of his entire agenda.
[Ed.: I should note that Andrew Sullivan's heresy was one of the main reasons I began posting heavily Catholic content on The Black Republican. In that respect, I like to think of Andrew as the inspiration for Ex parte Fide in a similar way that Trent Lott was the inspiration for The Black Republican. The Lord works in mysterious ways.]
This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.
I respect Andrew Sullivan for much of his writing, but the one thing where we differ wildly is obvious. And no, it's not proof of my homophobia, because many times I can discount his opinion as, well, his opinion, and be done with it. But he is so arrogantly sure he is right on matters of sex, he allows himself to be just as prejudiced against his opponents on the issue as he thinks they are of him.
Lately his number one enemy has been Rich Santorum. For example, in referring to the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas yesterday:
Sex in our culture — gay and straight and everything between — is no longer restricted to procreation. OK, there are some exceptions: Pennsylvania's GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, for example, who has six kids, apparently follows strict Catholic doctrine and abhors every nonprocreative sexual act.Yes, he does. Is that so evil? While I can't say I "abhor" nonprocreative sex, I recognize that it is a sin, and my confessor has been forced to counsel me many times on this fact. Luckily, he and the Sacrament are still there for me when I fall prey to it.