Friday, September 2, 2011
IF YOU ACCEPT THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON CHASTITY, ARE YOU A BIGOT? SECULAR ELITIST'S HIERARCHY THINK YOU ARE!
From the Catholic League:
PIERS MORGAN BAITS SANTORUM
September 1, 2011
Last night on CNN, Piers Morgan asked presidential candidate Rick Santorum about his views on gay marriage. Santorum said he favored the traditional understanding of marriage, citing his allegiance to the teachings of the Catholic Church; both men are Catholic. Santorum said he also accepts the Church's teachings on homosexuality, which regards such behavior as sinful. When asked how he would respond if he learned that one of his sons were gay, the former Pennsylvania senator said he would love him "unconditionally."
Morgan then asked, "I guess one of the reasons it's troubling and difficult for people to come out is because of the level of bigotry that's out there against them. I have to say that your views you espoused on this issue are bordering on bigotry, aren't they?"
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds as follows:
Despite the obvious Catholic-baiting, Rick Santorum was eloquent in his exchange with Piers Morgan. The discussion proved once more the gap that exists between the thoroughly secular values of our cultural elites and the Judeo-Christian ethos shared by most Americans.
Most Americans, like most people on earth, reject gay marriage. Moreover, not a single world religion accepts this alternative lifestyle as being on a par with marriage, traditionally defined. And throughout history, in eastern as well as western civilization, the very idea that two men can get married would have been seen as bizarre, if not delirious. But Piers thinks "we're in a modern world," so things should change. Well, from the flash gangs in Philadelphia to the barbarism in the Middle East, there are plenty of reasons to wonder how modern we are.
If this is what we've come down to—cultural elites branding every person who holds to the traditional understanding of marriage as a bigot—then it's a clear indication that the elites are incapable of rational discourse.
MY COMMENTS AND OPINION:
I would caution Catholics from picking on homosexual acts when discussing sexual morality as it could appear to some that one is only concerned about homosexual immorality and not heterosexual immorality of which there is also a superabundance. One should approach sexual morality from a general and positive outlook.
1. There are different facets to love and love that respects people and their sexuality is to be encouraged. Intimate friendships that are chaste are quite moral between men and women, women and women and men and men.
2. Modesty in relationships is to be condoned. Exhibitionism with the intent to entice or shock should be seen as aberrant behavior.
3. Chastity applies to heterosexuals, homosexuals and the sexually ambiguous. This means that outside of the Sacrament and/or Union of Holy Matrimony as traditionally understood in the Judeo/Christian context, chastity is to be observed. Any act against chastity in this context is considered sinful and/or immoral.
4. Promoting sexual immorality by publicly living together outside of the traditional understanding of marriage, thus a mockery of marriage, is considered very gravely sinful. Any mockery of marriage is considered immoral by the Church as this is a sin against one of the Sacraments of the Church.
5. Unnatural forms of sex, either within marriage or outside of marriage are considered sinful or immoral. Natural sex implies openness to procreation and thus the method of the "marriage act" must climax within the context of that openness to pro-creation. All other sexual acts that are closed to the two purposes of sex (pro-creative and unitive) as properly exercised within marriage are considered immoral or sinful.
If someone then asks you about homosexual sex or marriage, you then say in light of what I write above, "what about it?" "Why are you focusing in only on that?"
Finally, I do think that the clergy and the laity of the Catholic Church shoot themselves in the foot when they only castigate homosexual immorality and do so in a way that promotes bigotry, through name calling and mockery. That is sinful also.
What Senator Rick Santorum said about the possibility of having a gay son is very relevant and his sentiments right on:
When asked how he would respond if he learned that one of his sons were gay, the former Pennsylvania senator said, "I would love him "unconditionally."
If those who love their homosexual children, relatives and friends perceive a contempt for them from Church members, this will undermine the greatest teaching of the Church, "Love of God and love of neighbor."
There are ways to admonish the sinner without showing hatred or contempt toward the sinner.
There is no reason to "freak out" more about homosexual immorality compared to heterosexual immorality. Both are not good for the soul or for society. But neither are unforgivable when true repentance is expressed.