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.
8 comments:
"Bigot" and "racist" are the two favorite epithets that liberals use against conservatives in every venue. Most of the time, they use the words incorrectly. It is time we get over our fear of these much cliched words and tell the truth on every front without regard to lib whining, foot-stomping, and hand wringing. This nation has been brought to its present low point, in part, because everyone is so afraid of being called "racist" or "bigot." Homophobe is another favorite slur. It would be comical if we would just quit taking these people seriously and go about the business of taking the country and the Church back.
And, on a lighter note...this guy comes to work all depressed and looking sad. His friends ask, Joe, what on earth is the matter? Joe says, "My wife ran off with a gay accountant." All his friends shout in outrage, "AN ACCOUNTANT?!!!!!!"
I am delighted to report that I find myself in complete agreement with you Father. Pin's comments too :)
Father, thank you for your excellent commentary on this very sensitive issue. We are somehow focused on homosexual immorality, forgetting that heterosexual immorality is just as destructive to the soul. Perhaps it is what is known in psycho-speak as "selective forgetting" due to ongoing heterosexual aberrancies in our own families, friends etc. which we would prefer not to think about--I don't know...
The mission of the Church: to save souls. If we focus on that mission and leave judging to God, then we can get on with loving absolutely and unconditionally and setting good example by our own behavior.
One important step is for people, Catholics at least, to make clear in their own heads and then in there discussions, that there is no intent to attack, injure or hurt homosexuals in any way. This is the insinuation of Morgan. There is no link between saying something is wrong for several reasons, including moral ones, and wanting to hurt someone.
This will be the foundation of legal attacks on Church teachings. Imputing that preaching against homosexuality is the same as hate speech and therefore the same as violence will be used in court and will probably prevail.
This going to get very ugly pretty soon.
rcg
I just looked up several definitions of "bigot." All of them have in common the idea that the bigot is intolerant of ideas, groups, or prejudices that differ from his own. One definition adds that this intolerance is unreasonable.
I then looked up "tolerance." it means allow or permit a thing of which one disapproves.
I further looked up "prejudice," which the definitions indicate to be an unreasonable adverse judgment formed without basis or in advance of the facts.
According to these definitions, if Santorum engaged in or permitted pogroms against the LGBT community, and he withdrew his love from his hypothetical gay son because of his sexual preference, and he did so without ruminating on the authority of the Church or the nature of homosexuality, _then_ he would be a bigot.
If, OOH, he has used his judgment to evaluate the reasonableness of the Catholic faith and its teachings and has reached a principled decision that homosexual marriage contradicts that reasoned position, and attempts to share those reasons in a public forum--perhaps to convince others of the reasonableness of the position, or perhaps simply to state is position when asked with no effort to change others' minds--he isn't a bigot.
The above is a simple exercise in vocabulary and logic.
It looks very much as if the person who accused him of bigotry is, in fact, the bigot here. certainly he doesn't tolerate Santorum's (or the Church's) position, and he used the term indiscriminately (i.e. name-calling) rather than offering a reasoned critique of the Santorum/Catholic position.
(By extention, the Church _tolerates_ same-sex marriage; it doesn't _approve_ of it. If the Church _didn't_ tolerate it, then it would use--rather than reasoned argument in support of its position--blunt political force or outright violence to eradicate gay marriage, and even gays themselves.)
But of course, all of this will be suppressed by the biased media, ignored by the intellectual fascists of the Left, and uncomprehended by the ignorant masses who elect our public officials (C. Jack Ellis 49%, QED).
Of course, they killed Socrates when he employed reasonable discourse such as this . . .
Well, if there is ever a Masturbator's Pride Parade, I'll start easing up on the gradations of offenses against chastity.
Then their could be the "Bold for Bestiality" parade...
Post a Comment