Some time ago Father X discussed in his column, M-EDITATIONS [sic], his years as a columnist for the diocesan paper. He mentioned that a friend of his thought that he had been bringing up the topic of homosexuality much too often. Father said he was surprised because he had only written "fifteen columns" on the subject, when his friend raised the objection.
Well, I agree with the unnamed friend, but add that it is not so much the number of times that our marshmallow meditationist discusses homosexuality, but rather what he never fails to omit, the teaching of Christ through His Church. But then, this columnist-priest appears to be a most troubled priest who needs prayer and help of another kind.
After Father mentioned the re-examination of his columns, I decided to do my own search and came up with a representative sampling, which a kind and generous friend photocopied for me. She had stored away years of the diocesan paper. That luncheon meeting at her home proved to be profitable for examining Father's sentimentality and vagueness, that ever present "blank check" that is currently making the rounds of catechesis, or what passes for it, that mushy middle that does not make necessary distinctions, and that in the breach permit one to draw the most comfortable conclusions without being challenged to conversion, as traditionally understood. But before we review some of Father's more clever and fraudulent columns, I need to address the suggestion he made to a valiant pro-life warrior in our diocese, who has not been fairly treated in the diocesan paper: Father hinted strongly that our pro-lifer, instead of rescuing unborn babies, should read "Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church," which was favorably reviewed in the diocesan paper, of course. Of course!
Father has concluded from this book that the so-called "scientific data" is valid and that sexuality is a matter of degrees, that is, that you and I and he are all sexually oriented along the same line, with some of us more one way or the other. In other words, we are all the same essentially. Then he had the audacity to state that Jesus does not care "about gender issues."
Says who, Father? Our Creator and Savior cares very much about this matter or conditions that make it more difficult for us to grow in holiness, the duty of every person, especially a Catholic. The Book of Genesis says clearly, without equivocation, male and female He created them. And that they were made for union with one another in marriage. So I ask, Father, if God does not care, why do you seem to care so much about a subject that you say God has no interest in? And while we are at it, could you tell me, Father, why it is that the homosexualists, who are so insistent, so strident that "gender does not matter," and that the roles in society should not thus be distinguished, still insist themselves on making a vital distinction, such as in "gay" and "lesbian?" They never say homosexual to refer to both sexes. Ever notice that?
In fact, God cares very much because He created two complimentary but distinct sexes for His Divine plan. Now He made earthworms, which have no "gender" as such yet propagate their species; but in man, there are two separate but necessary sexes. Since God does not act accidentally, by definition, this can only mean that the difference between the sexes is most important!
Father, homosexuality is not an "orientation of degree," it is an affliction, both to the person being so tempted and to the greater society. While the militant homosexuals are parading around, chanting that they are not so afflicted, they afflict those of us who do not subscribe to their and probably your brand of self-absorption, the homo-promo. And never a mention of that scourge of scourges, pederasty, while not numerically greater than the heterosexual kind, percentage wise many times greater. Homosexual acts, Father, are perverted and you should be addressing the necessity of chastity and celibacy, and providing the means for obtaining the virtuous life, not finding excuses to celebrate deviancy through a self-indulgent victimhood.
Father, you are silent in this regard. What are the faithful to conclude from this sin of omission? After a survey of his infidelity to Holy Church, my friend and I found sins of omission in almost every column on every imaginable topic. Herewith are some of his most offensive nostrums. If he can corrupt us, then his homosexual inclinations won't seem so abnormal, perhaps? I won't write about the column wherein he describes for the reader his sexual fantasies. Trust me, he actually got away with that column. You can't tell me that our Bishop was "surprised" by the pornographic homosexual web site for priests. Oh no, you cannot! This is not a pornographic web site and as St. Paul teaches, some matters should not be discussed at all because of their vile, corrupting nature, so that column will remain in the sewer of history where it belongs. My purpose here is to provide Catholics in Maine some points of response when confronted with the same thing from their homosexual and or modernist pastors. In this diocese there is no lack of either.
A Look at Father's Social-Psychological ["Theology"]:
A Functional Family Column
He describes an unnamed family [thank God] whom he lauded for not forbidding their children to read certain books or see particular movies. He calls this family "functional."
The problem here is that we do not learn from Father the ages of the children, which is germane. It is one thing to discuss with an adult offspring a condemned movie or trashy novel he might read in a moment of curiosity, and who may no longer be living at home, but it is another thing to accept such occurrences, for young children, who normally should not have access to such filth since they are so dependent on their parents.
Moreover, children have a natural latency period, and are created by God for modesty, even as we adults are to be. But purity of heart is the core of that childlike simplicity youngsters possess and that we are to imitate before God. Impurity permitted to "entertain" the mind under the misguided and or evil notion that it is enlightening and "progressive," render the heart impure and the soul soiled before God, over just the briefest course of time. Anyone with any experience of life, no matter how rudimentary, knows this instinctively. What could this priest possibly be thinking, if he ever does?
In this column Father proceeds to subtly castigate those who do not read such material as people "having no interest in learning anything new or different." By implication the reader draws the conclusion he means "dysfunctional." Well, Father, perversion and hedonistic enticements of all kinds, are just a little more sordid than they used to be among the general population, but they are not new, for the Bible makes that plain enough.
There was a small item on the same page below this column, urging the reader to consider how not to "foster violence against 'Gays'. " I have little doubt that this positioning was not accidental.
After this column, Father was permitted by the Bishop to continue his public temper tantrum against the Church and traditional family values. Imagine this!
A Decade for Dialogue Column
This column has to be the sine qua non, the quintessential column, that defines Father's attitude towards truth and the exposition of its fine distinctions, its very definition. He proclaims in his opening paragraph that "It's a new year. It's also a new decade! I recommend we name it the 'Decade of Dialogue'." He then launches into some proposals that place both the ACT-UP terrorists and Pro-lifers, who rescue babies about to be slaughtered and instruct the benighted in the facts of life, as properly intended by God, on an equal par regarding "extremism" etc. Need I say more how this column went?
So, instead, some observations about the incessant call to dialogue and its unwritten rules:
1. Dialogue, as used today is a code word for the modernists among us who envision a "new" [C]hurch, and are about their "Father's business," that is Satan's, of implanting subversive opinions to supplant truth, through the technique of "dialogue." This means:
2. They, the subversives, get to judge those who disagree with their gnostic predilections, by calling for the "compassionate, non-judgmental" approach. However, they use judgmental, judgmentally, thereby violating their own "principle." They are so irrational they cannot see that they are breaking their own rule here. Anyone who tells you that you are "being judgmental," is in fact, judging you. I am not saying he cannot do so, only that if it is wrong for you, it is wrong for him, precisely because he is actually sitting in judgment of your intentions when he says you are judging someone's actions as detrimental or sinful, thus implying that the person is bad or evil. Because if he were not, he would know that you were judging actions and not the heart of the one so acting. In other words, he does the very thing he accuses you of. But by their reckoning, the first rule of dialogue is two sets of rules: one for them, another for us. Which negates dialogue by definition. When the "dialogue" is not proceeding as planned by the instigator, the "you are judging," routine is pulled out to intimidate and silence: Like a child attempting to change the subject when caught with the cookie jar.
3. The advantage of using "dialogue" as opposed to honest discussion, is that they know these two primary rules and you probably do not. Of course they never intend to actually discuss issues. Discussion entails ordered thought [the only valuable kind], first and foremost, a clear idea of what truth is and how to proceed to try to acquire it, by sound logic and Thomistic principles, most especially by learning the perennial infallible magisterium of Holy Mother Church. It means definition before proceeding, while engaging in discussion, and retaining it afterwards. Since the marshmallow school of "theology" based on sentimental feelings, cannot possibly survive the light of day, its adherents hide under the dark rock of "dialogue." This means in essence that they can use ad hominen attacks to evade penetrating questions about the falsehoods they promulgate in the name of progress and compassion. If you attempt to defend yourself or the Church's position, you are using, you guessed it, the ad hominem. Like "judgmental," they use the ad hominem ad hominemly, if that is a grammatical turn of phrase. But you get the idea.
How do I know this? Because I was once his student in a Christology class, where dialogue meant the acceptance of dissent and the besmirching of those who dissented from dissent: In attempting to defend the Church's teaching on abortion, I was accused, no, I was verbally assaulted by Father for being a dictator, I was told that pro-lifers [by definition] were bad people with bad motives, after which I never heard a word about life issues from any of my fellow students; by repeated attempts of this writer to "dialogue" with Father, who met my overtures with stony silence and evasion, time and again. He refused to answer a letter requesting dialogue with the "dialogue" priest. He can dish it out as they say, but he can't take it. Translation: he realized I was on to the game and had discerned the rules of playing and was about to turn the tables on him.
Rule no. 3 of dialogue is the "false middle," as used above. Portray two opposing views or groups as extremist, even if only one of them is, then any other position, presenting itself as the "middle," appears more reasonable, no matter how extreme it might be in reality: A version of the straw man approach in argumentation. In the heat of the moment there is little time to reflect and thereby realize what deception has taken place. Most people cannot think that quickly on their feet, human nature distributed as it is. This is not a moral failure on their part, but an indictment of the dissenters who take advantage of this.
As I alluded to, this column sunk to the lowest depths with innuendo, especially as he signed off, "Happy New Year" and the ever heady, reckless "Gay Nineties!" When the Bishop did nothing [apparently] about this scandal, people, including some good priests, were demoralized, that is further.
next installment: forward.