Editor: It's not clear whether the author of Crabby Roads is on board with the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He seems to understand the problem, but then, looking back over his shoulder as he leaves the city, he occasionally praises the architects of the disaster and wingdes when they are exposed. His recent post on the Ugandan Martyrs is very good and right on. We didn't know that they were murdered by the King because they refused the King's homosexual advances. It's truly a tribute to the spirit of Sodom, the vindictiveness that individuals disturbed with homosexuality, engage in insults, threats and even violence to promote their depravities as normal.
Like many of God's most beautiful creations, the Martyrs of Uganda were brutally slaughtered by vicious men.
The following essay is an interesting piece in that line. Once again, the editor of America Magazine breezily insults people who write letters to him complaining about the homosexuality rife within the Jesuit order, no doubt, they're sincere if not good at expressing themselves in writing. We know that Father Martin is a homosexual enabler. Only a homosexual enabler portrays the need for "homophobia awareness" month, and we'd ask Father, what's crazier, someone who is angry and wounded enough by the crimes of the Jesuit order to write halting letters, or someone who fundamentally disagrees with the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality, but chooses to continue calling himself a Catholic, even drawing a salary from that Church, writing for a highly funded, glossy nationally circulated magazine that frequently betrays the Catholic Church as it has done at least since the twenties?
Who's crazier and more contemptible, you, or the "crazies"?
Gays and the Church: Two Stories from Today
Posted at: Friday, June 03, 2011 01:36:24 PM
Author: James Martin, S.J.
You won’t be surprised to discover that we get all kinds of crazy letters here. And I don’t mean simply letters that seem odd or strange, or even letters that I don't fully understand—I mean crazy. As a Jesuit friend told me last night, “No nut like a religious nut.” One fellow sends me (regularly) a packet of folded-up colored paper with instructions on how this can be used to communicate with angels. Another correspondent mails pages and pages of tiny, mostly illegible, scrawl covering every inch of several pages, with Gospel passages underlined three times. So one learns to discount the nuttier letters. And one learns to accept more easily criticism from "non-nutty" people as well, even when it's delivered with sarcasm and invective. One's skin gets thicker, I think.
On the other hand, some letters tend to stick out. This morning I was opening up yesterday’s mail and noticed an envelope without a return address (never a good sign). Inside was a copy of an Of Many Things column I had written about the beatification of John Paul II. In the article I mentioned that Blessed John Paul had, at one point in his papacy, removed Pedro Arrupe, S.J., the superior general of the Jesuits, from his post in 1981, a move that dismayed many Jesuits. The letter-writer had highlighted those few sentences in bright yellow. Next to it was a Post-it that read, in full: “But Jimmy, so many Jesuits were screaming fags that something had to be done, you know, to clean the filth out of the clergy.”
Not the pleasantest thing to read in the morning. And who knows whether this person is a subscriber or not. (He, or she, seems a bit cowardly though: the lack of a return address demonstrated a lack of resolve.) Odds are, though, if he's reading the print version of the magazine, he’s probably Catholic, and even if he's not a subscriber is likely reading it in a parish or a library. (We don’t sell on newsstands.) And he knew enough to quote Pope Benedict XVI on the “filth” in the church-- referring to pedophiles not gays, but no matter.
Homophobia is still out there, no matter how much we would wish to think of ourselves as an enligtented culture, and exists in our church. Thus, the need for June as “LGBT month,” as just proclaimed by President Obama.
Link to original... before Martin changes it.
2 comments:
ABERROSEXUALISM (HOMOSEXUALISM) vs. “HOMOSEXUALITY”
The choice of word DOES matter!
The suffix “ity” means an “attribute, a cause or quality of being”; it refers to a “characteristic or state of being,” Use of the term “homosexuality” is improper because it reaffirms the false aberrosexualist (homosexualist) propaganda line that aberrosexual (“homosexual”) conduct is an immutable characteristic, innate quality or genetic condition. In other words, that individuals that engage in aberrosexual (“homosexual”) conduct or practices don't have a choice or say in the matter, they are simply "born that way"!
Partisans of the aberrosexualist ideology (it is an ideology!) pushing the macabre "celebration" of biologically aberrant sexual conduct, insist on using the term “homosexuality” because it creates the deceptive illusion that Nature somehow "makes" aberrosexuals (“homosexuals”); that Nature somehow "gives" aberrosexuals their biologically incorrect “sexuality” or sexual so-called “orientation.” This, of course, is simply unscientific propaganda; it is voodoo science!
Please! Never use the "homophobic" put down.
''Homophobia'' has never been listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It is rather a disrespectful, pejorative, non-scientific, non-medical word invented to attack and incite violence against all who disagree with Aberrosexualism or biologically aberrant sexual behavior.
“Homophobe” is a hate-loaded slur used by Aberrosexualist groups to unjustly discriminate, stigmatize, demean, hurt and offend everyone who disagrees with their extremist ideology and irrational agenda. This slur is as despicable as any other ethnic, racial or sexist slur. It has no place in civil, respectable public discourse and it be understood that is never acceptable. Never!
Use of the pejorative term “homophobia” to denigrate the universal rejection of Aberrosexualism is a verbal act of aggression against humanity and violates our basic right to have language used in a truthful, objective, precise and depoliticized manner.
It's easy for those desensitized by bigotry and intolerance to shrug “homophobe” off as just a word, and dismiss everyone that gets upset over it as too sensitive. Interestingly, few would make the same argument with the n-word. That's because we recognize what a loaded term it is, bound up in centuries of painful history and very real violence.
Using the "h" slur and making derogatory comments against those who disagree with Aberrosexualism or biologically aberrant sexual conduct, isn't much different. Both are the kind of thing that tells us more about the person using them than the people he's uttering them about. It makes him look like a bigot, and it makes him look ignorant.
Post a Comment