"The UK Tablet continues its crusade for Brokeback Montanism, most recently by means of a curiously argued essay urging the Church toward a Vichy-style capitulation that acknowledges the de facto coercive power of sexual Leftism..."
There is no possible way I could have said it better. The article that the editorial refers to from the Tablet (a UK periodical) is HERE. The Tablet article leads with:
"Misunderstanding the depth of post-socialist commitment to equality and diversity, especially that of sexual orientation, was a serious mistake in the Church's handling of the gay adoption issue, according to a leading Catholic human-rights lawyer."I guess I just never understood truth as dependant upon someone's commitment. And all this time I thought truth was objective. Huh. Then again maybe truth is subjective to the masses, the mob. At least that's what I glean from this sentence:
"Might Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O'Connor and his episcopal brethren benefit from a board of lay Catholics to advise them on their contact with secular society?"As you might have guessed, this article is full of less-than-stellar stuff. Its arguments range from naivete of church teaching to down right disregard for it. The arguments are embarrassing in the sense that someone was actually paid to write this article...and they're catholic. For instance, in the case of naivete of church teaching, the author asks "The Church's stand left many questions to be answered. Are homosexual acts a "grave depravity", as the Vatican says, if within the context of a loving, monogamous relationship." Of course they are still wrong, the appetite is still disordered. Is it okay to over eat at every meal of every day as long as the food is prepared properly and at the proper times? Of course it isn't okay. Rather than spend my time refuting this, as it isn't what I'm most concerned with, go HERE for the church's position.
The Tablet article does get something right:
"The fact that this ideology is one of tolerance, mutual esteem and respect for diversity is why its imposition is not something of which its proponents are proud. But if liberals are truly committed to this perspective they need to be willing to recognise that they are being fundamentalist in exactly the way in which they often accuse others of being. The inevitable consequence is that the victims of this determination to impose mutuality of respect feel that they are being coerced, "forced to be free" as Rousseau might have put it."Exactly. If its true that values are subjective, for instance "respect their gayness if they want to be that way," then you are stuck with the fact that it is your subjective view and not mine. If I on the other hand see their homosexuality as a disordered appetite, the subjectivist cannot tell me I am wrong, though that is exactly what occurs.
Then the wrong way again goes the Tablet. To answer their rhetorical "How should the Church react to the challenge of this liberal vision of society?" it answers:
"It should recognise, first, that it is much better than the rampant capitalist world of competing selfish individuals that might otherwise be on view, and second, that it seeks a much better world than one in which all are allowed to discriminate to their heart's content. And finally, with one large exception, the liberal vision of society is very close to that of the Church, with progressives and Catholics being almost always on the same side on such key issues as esteem, dignity and opportunity for all. The one exception, the radically different approach taken to sexuality, is often more to the fore among the senior church leadership than it is on the ground at parish level."Okay comrad, first off, when and where did the Church say that the "rampant capitalist society" was perfect? Never has the Church proclaimed that a capitalist society was Utopia, as a matter of fact the Church has never said that any earthly government in particular could rule perfectly.
Second, who is discriminating wrongly? If it is true that a homosexual couple is leading a life intristically disordered towards evil by the type of relationship they commit to, then would it be wrong to stop it? Of course it would not, it should be stopped. Should we allow child molestation because some individual feel an orientation towards it? No. Is it discrimination to say they can't molest the child, which is only what their "unchosen orientation" leads them to do? If the same argument is applied to the molestor as the homosexual couple than it certainly is discrimination. The assumption by the author is that it is not intristically disordered and therefore alright for the couple to have the child. And btw if the afformentioned couple is morally sound because values are subjective, then keep your lib hands to yourself and stop touching my conservative, personally owned, "subjective" values. Also, who is "discriminating to their heart's content?" I have yet to find the man who thinks that "real" discrimination is okay. This as opposed to the neutering of the world as I will discuss in a moment. No one, even in our non-commie, non-socialist world is going around discriminating (again validly discriminating) against people just for the sake of discrimination itself.
Thirdly, the church is not nearly as close to "progressive values" (an illogical statment in itself) as the author might want us to think. The church does not see the value of an individual as "we are the same" but rather as our value in our uniqueness as men and women. We have intristic value in that we are created in the image of God, and unique value in that we are created differently than one another as male and female. If we are biologically different, does that not imply differences in natural tendencies? Does a man not have a penis and a woman a vagina naturally tending toward activity for males and a type of passivity for females.? For example, a man, by nature, tends toward more aggressiveness than a woman. A woman tends, by nature, to be more compassionate than a man. Is this not true? The liberal "progressive" ideology on the one hand demands that we neuter ourselves so that there is nothing to discriminate, but the Church says we cannot discriminate precisely because we are different, and that discrimination lies not in treating someone differently than another (because we are all different from one another) but in treating someone in a way less dignified than befits a child of God.
Also, the "radically different approach taken to sexuality..." is not different among upper and lower ranks among Church officials, the teachings are the same at all levels. Instead, it is only that the Church's teachings are more readily mutilated in order to fit "progressives" likings at the parish level.
The final paragraph of the tablet's article begins with: "The liberal vision of a tolerant society based on mutual respect but also on a rejection of intolerance is not one to be feared." If you adhere to the liberal values discribed previously they mean. But what if you don't? It seems to me that based on the "anti-discrimination laws" being laid out in Euro-topia that I will eventually be arrested for thinking differently, for actually realizing that there are gender, racial, and cultural differences. I wouldn't fear the vision if I thought that Huxley's "Brave New World" was the place I wanted to go.
Finally, the last statement made by the Tablet article reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw a year or so ago that read "The road to Hell is paved with democrats," meaning of course that good intentions alone don't make a thing work out right. Read their statment: "Liberal society knows exactly where it is going; does the Church?" I would say yes, the Church knows where it is going, to the truth- Jesus Christ. And do I agree that "Liberal society knows exactly where it is going?" Yes I do, straight to Hell.