Leonardo"s Notebook by Mattheus Mei

I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

The Vatican overreacts which causes 'Libruls' to over react, and so of course Mattheus Mei has to react too.

Our friend Waldo first pointed it out and it's made some rounds in the blogosphere already. The Vatican, by way of Archbishop Celestino Migliore Permenant the Pope's Observer to UN, lodged it's opposition to a French Initiative which would universally decriminalize homosexuality out of a rationale that it would open the entire world up to the scourge of gay marriage.

The problem is, according to Time and other media outlets, the resolution makes no mention of Gay marriage and notes that of those countries who support the measure than the majority do not offer gays the right to marry. The Librul 'gotcha' media was fortunate enough to find a dissenting voice from within the ranks of the Roman Presbyterate and exploit that as a slap in the face of the BoR (because the librul media hates Catholicism), "When you're always trying to look for new ways to make your point, you lose credibility," says the priest. "Better sometimes to keep quiet."

LifesiteNews, that paragon of ideological purity and journalistic integrity has been prophesying for months (but not editorializing mind you) like Casandra the end of the world and damnation the entire human race should ever, ever, the 'homosexualists' get the right to marry or partner, or have any other rights besides their right to be born and subsequently die (and how!). For months they have warned of those evil French and Secularist Europeans trying to push the 'homosexual agenda on more than 80 countries who still outlaw homosexuality and its acts. It should also be noted that the folks at LifesiteNews have again issued a fatwa on the USCCB movie reviewer Harry Forbes for not rating the movie 'Milk' morally offensive. And though it's not the policy of this news service to encourage hate mail, they certainly do include Mr. Forbes business address as well as his superiors. (That's soooo 1987)

But back to the point at hand, and hopefully I'll shed the snark....

Subsequently the Holy See then had to offer a caveat to their blanket 'No' to the resolution to fine tune their position. From Zenit,

"Obviously no one wants to defend the death penalty for homosexuals, as some
would insinuate," he said.

"The well-known principles of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the rejection of all unjust discrimination -- recognized clearly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself -- evidently exclude not only the death penalty, but all violent or discriminatory penal legislations in relation to homosexuals," the spokesman stated.

Paragraph No. 2358 of the Catechism affirms: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

It's fantastic that the Vatican thinks that Gays shouldn't be put to death in any country for being a homosexual, that's great! But there message becomes awfully cloudy when they try and speak to the 'dignity of the person.' In my own conversion I came to appreciate the lengths at which Catholicism is so much more accepting of the gays than my old faith tradition. But as time passes and especially as I grow ever more aware of the factionalism within the church and especially certain corners drive to purify or purge those they interpret to be heterodox I'm finding that the rubber doesn't meet the road in Church teachings. So why? Where's the problem? Well most 'homosexualists' like to complain about our sexuality as being objectively disordered. I'll get to that.

One of the beautiful contradictions of life is that God made everything and everything is perfect. At the same time because of man's original sin everything is skewed - everything is objectively disordered, all sexual orientations because they don't orient you towards God. If sexuality and sex were a compass, sure certain sexualities would point north; while other's point East, West, South by Southwest, but remember - the needle doesn't point absolute north, only magnetic north.

My biggest problem is with the last word of the statement. Condition. Condition could mean the human condition, but that's too broad a category. The church uses the word here strictly in the sense of medical terminology as in something that has the potential of being treated or maintained or even changed. It's not even treated like a physical defect or mental retardation or even with the care or same level of di which doesn't impugn upon a person's basic rights either. And because it's spoken of and defined in clinical terms it allows folks to hold gays off at an arms length and say that this is charitable or dignified. The biggest cross we bear is the loving disdain hoisted upon us by well intentioned coreligionists.

As I understand it and the church teaches. Sexuality has a visible definable component in biology and physiology as well as psychology has it's roots in the notion of personhood - an ontological reality. In Catholicism thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas we like to speak of things in terms of accidents and substance. Your sexuality is an accident of the substance of your humanity, much as the bread and wine change into the body and blood soul and divinity of Christ yet still we see, taste and experience physical bread and physical wine, so to do the accidents of our humanity remain, including our sexuality, as we are perfected and move down the path of life to our hopeful union with God.

But what do I know, I'm just a librul which means I'm heterodox and going to hell anyway. Thanks Tom Peters!

Sphere: Related Content


Anonymous said...

"and hopefully I'll shed the snark...."

Dare one hope that?

You accuse everyone else of sarcasm and bitterness and lack of charity. But that's what I sense coming through the most from your blog, amicus meus.

Anyway, I'll write more on that in private, since my aim is not to chastize, but to make a charitable observation.

Just to say, and you've heard me say this before: maybe the Church knows more about humanity and the human condition and the human heart than you and I and any of us do.

Pax frater,


Mattheus Mei said...

I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean their immune to the limitations and implications of language.

As for the snarkyness, I've become cynical - I'm pissed at the librul media for not using any objectivity when it comes to religion. But at the same time I deplore the right wing media for essentially the same thing. The media can be both objective and truthful - the problem is, it's not!