Archive for the ‘catholic’ Category

Looking at this story about Anne Hathaway leaving the church I simply shake my head realizing how lucky we are she didn’t head for holy orders, as she is very unclear on the nature of sin. So lets review a little:

First lets remind her of what the church actually says about homosexuality…

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 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.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

As is clear, the church differentiates between homosexuality and homosexual acts. What the church doesn’t accept is the sin, not the orientation.

And that is no different than the church not accepting breaking one’s wedding vows, or spreading calumny about another, or shoplifting, or not honoring father and mother or rejecting God, or drunkenness, or porn, or any of a bunch of other sins that the church has always talked against.

One mistake that people of religion often make is the “holier than thou” bit. There are people who never take a drink that burst out into anger at the drop of a hat. There are people who are absolutely faithful to their wives who dip into the till at work, there are people who are drug dealers, who wouldn’t think of missing mass, and there are people who would happily swindle their partner but wouldn’t ever think of gossiping about a neighbor.

The bottom line is we all have our own sins to deal with, that’s what confession is for. If people obsess about homosexuality but ignore their own sins it is their souls that are in danger.

One week at confession I mentioned to the priest that I was frustrated because I seemed to be repeating the same sins week after week. He had an interesting answer:

What do you want to be committing new sins?

Anne’s brother like everyone else has a particular sin that he is vulnerable to, by removing himself from the church and the sacrament of confession he instead of confronting his sin chooses to celebrate it.

Tell me Anne, if your brother liked to steal, if he enjoyed it, would you leave the church because the church refused to “accept” his thievery?

Your brother’s homosexuality is something he has to deal with, but the real dangerous sin that both he and you are dealing with is PRIDE. The departure from the church is a sign of narcissism, it’s the same mistake that Andrew Sullivan makes, instead of doing one’s best to fight one’s sin (and no matter what the sin is, it can seem to be a losing battle believe me I know) they choose to re-define what sin is and condemn the Church. And with the number of denominations out there you can always find one that will celebrate whatever particular sin you want to keep doing without guilt.

Thus does sin multiply. Christ was pretty explicit about this on two occasions:

He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.” Luke 17:1-4

There is a warning to those who lead others to sin, but also a reminder to those that we MUST forgive sin when one asks. Both ARE explicitly said by Christ, If Anne ignores the first two verses and those who condemn her ignore the second two then both are in danger, but remember the words “if he repents” those words actually mean something.

And remember this applies to any type of sin. Those who try to use this only against homosexuality are deluding themselves as it was said in the Screwtape letters #12:

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,

However there is an even more explicit message that Anne and her family might want to take note of:


“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10:34-39

Anne you may realize that there are some differences between the Catholic Bible and the one that the Episcopal church uses, but none of those differences are in the New Testament.

If you and yours decide to discard your cross rather than bear it you will be celebrated. You will be feted at the best parties. The media will love you, it will lead to prestige for you in Hollywood and everywhere on the talk show circuit. And if you choose to keep on this path, when your obituary is written the style and media writers will mention how brave you were to defy the church. The media will celebrate you for all the rest of your days…

…after that you’re on your own.

I’ll say a rosary for you, I invite others to do the same or whatever prayers you prefer.

Update: Linked by Adrienne’s corner. Thanks

Just what the Church needs.

Posted: February 5, 2010 by datechguy in catholic
Tags: , ,

…another organization operating under the banner of the CABC (Catholics against being Catholic).

There is a word for people with said beliefs, it is a perfectly good word that has been around for centuries. They are called Protestants.

If a person doesn’t like the church there are plenty of other denominations out there that are bleeding members and would welcome them with open arms.

I wonder if they will have any comment on this at the meeting tomorrow?

According to a police report filed at the scene, supported by several witnesses, the following interaction took place between Miss Rose and the uniformed Planned Parenthood escort:

Rose, from the public sidewalk: “Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?”
Escort approaches Rose rapidly from Planned Parenthood parking lot, says, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”
Rose offers to show Escort a picture: “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”
The Escort strikes Miss Rose’s hand, knocking literature and Bible to the ground. Rose steps further back on sidewalk, Escort steps towards Rose.
Escort, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”
Rose says, “What about the baby’s choice?”
Escort says, “It’s not a baby!” Escort turns around and walks away.

Police were called and interviewed the victim and several witnesses. Rose sustained no injuries from the attack. Charges of assault and battery are pending. There have been no apologies.

I guess he didn’t have an answer to the “cut to the chase” either.

Now the assault took place back in December but more interesting than the assault is the response by Planned Parenthood, as Cassy Fiano reports:

I was asked by Live Action to try to contact Planned Parenthood and get a response from them about this incident. I genuinely wanted to know their side of the story. Have they done their own investigation into this? Is the escort, a Gerard Nordley, still working with Planned Parenthood? Do they have a statement? Will they issue an apology?

I called their public relations department repeatedly for over a month. I left message after message. I never received a single phone call to follow up about this incident, or a single e-mail. This leads me to believe that Lila Rose’s statement is indeed accurate, and that Planned Parenthood is trying to keep this quiet. I understand the role of escorts for abortion clinics, and approaching the abortion protesters is not in the job description. Assaulting them is definitely not. Lila wasn’t hurt, thankfully, but what happens next time? If this man wasn’t even disciplined for his actions, what will keep him from taking it a step further with someone else?

That’s a great question. I wonder if anyone will be asking it tomorrow night, and what the answer will be? Would their response time for such an event be better than 6 weeks?

A while back I talked about Crazy Uncles, the proposition that 1% of any given population is composed of “Crazy Uncles” people who might be normal in a bunch of ways but whose views are very out there.

In any crowd you are going to have some crazy uncles. At the Boston Tea Party there were a few Ron Paul guys, at least two LaRouche guys and one vulgar sign about Barney Frank that I think crossed the line.

It added up to 5-10 guys out of 1000. The Boston Globe would have surely highlighted it…if they bothered to cover the rally.

Highlighting the crazy uncles in a group is method that the media has used to discredit movements that don’t have their imprimatur. One of my early disputes with Charles Johnson on his blog that led to my eventual banning at LGF (I posted there under my name not DaTechGuy) was my critique of his use of the Crazy uncle method to go after the Tea Party rallies.

The danger comes when you use that 1% of “crazy uncles” to reinforce your view of a group you already hate. By painting with that broad brush you don’t have to engage, your own bigotries and prejudices of the other 99%. Thus can a person sit back in the comfortable chair of affirmation. The certainty of their own moral superiority, unchallenged by the pesky facts around them…

…and that brings us to Joe My God’s post today. He has found a radio host who is a crazy uncle. A host I’ve never heard of or listened to. A host I’ll bet a lot of other Christians don’t know much about, and uses him to paint Christians with a broad brush:

Remember folks, the Christianist right is not about hatred and bigotry. It’s about the gentle redemptive love of Jesus, forced upon you at the barrel of a gun in prison as they beat the gay out of you.

According to this site 71% of Americans self identify themselves as Christians. 159 million adults (2001 figures). I have been a Catholic all my life and have spoken to Catholics and other Christians for all of my life concerning religion. I’ve heard ministers preach and been around their congregations. I’ve never heard any priest or minister advocate anything remotely like this. If I had to think of all the Christians I’ve known in my nearly 5 decades, maybe 2 might share this guys opinion and his twisting of scripture to his own ends. It is highlighted for the same reason why Chris Matthews goes after the birthers, it’s low hanging fruit and easier than going after Churches sending millions to Haiti; after all that doesn’t fit the template.

But such an acknowledgment wouldn’t support the “Christianist” template. So let’s play a game, let’s ask a few intelligent questions and invite our friends who use the term “Christianist” to enlighten us:

1. Define “Christianist”

2. Does belief in Roman Catholic Doctrine make one a “Christianist”

3. Name the protestant denominations that are by definition “Christianist”

4. If you are “bible believing” christian, does that make one a “Christianist”

5. Is the current Pope a “Christianist”, was the previous one a “Christianist”? If you answer yes to both, can you name one that wasn’t?

6. Can one by definition avoid the label “Christianist” without rejecting the Bible?

It will be interesting to hear the answer to these questions.