Homo, Faggot, Straightness, And Decency

No, they aren't good Catholics


In the wake of a controversy between the blogging priest and the blogging queen (search, and you shall find) I would like to offer my two cents in matter of what I see as proper terminology, and proper behaviour for everyone.

I use the word homosexuality to describe the perverted attraction toward people of the same sex. Concerning this, then Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

There can be no mistake here: the churche hates homosexuality, because homosexuality is intrinsically evil. This not only corresponds to 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also to sanity and common sense. The one who is not disgusted at the thought of sodomy isn't better than the one who is not disgusted at the thought of incest, bestiality, or child rape. Still, the Church will tell you that the inclination of a person to incest (or homosexuality; or child rape) is in itself not a sin as long as no consent has been given to the thought. I never see this argument used to say that the Church “loves child rapists and hates child rape”. I wonder why?

Therefore, yours truly uses the following words to mean the following:

Homosexuality: that particular kind of sexual perversion consisting in sexual attraction for those of one's sex. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is in the same ballpark as incest, & Co.

Homosexual: the person afflicted by this particular sexual perversion. This person might try to be a good a Catholic, and not consent to his perversion. In this case he might not sin, but he is still a pervert, and the fact that he fights the good fight may exclude the sin, but it will not negate the perversion.

Faggot (Fag, Sod, Sodomite, Queen): the man who commits the sin of the sodomites. Often, he is vocal about it, adding scandal to sin.

Homosexuality is a perversion. It is extremely bad, revolting, disgusting, an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The homosexual who does not consent to his homosexual attraction may not sin in the particular instance, but he is not less of a pervert than the paedophile who does not consent to his own kind of abomination. Whilst we try to be charitable to everyone, we can't make what is bent straight for the sake of niceness, and I personally wouldn't want either as neighbour (thank you very much; and you're welcome), particularly if I had children.

“Oh, but he is sooo chaste”

Bully for him. Wish him all the best. My next rosary is for him, that he may get rid of his perversion by God's grace. Sincerely.

But would you have a pedophile as neighbour because he says – or you think – that he is reforming himself? Thought not. If in doubt, ask your wife.

The faggot is, in all probability, Satan's fodder. He bears very clear signs of reprobation, and extremely strong ones if he also gives scandal. I can't imagine many of them repenting, and I can obviously not imagine a single one of them escaping hell who does not repent.

It is a great mystery to me how modern Western societies have de-coupled their judgment of the child rapist from the one of the sodomite, but the most probable reason is because they have forgotten what a sin is: the violation of God's law, rather than the act of ” harming” someone. Sheer stupidity might play a role, though.

The question remains how a homosexual is supposed to behave concerning his affliction. I get rather angry when I read of homosexual, and allegedly pious ones, insisting that they be allowed to “out” themselves.

Why?

Does society allow people to say “I am a Caholic and I would love to foxtrot my dog, or my mother, or the neighbour's little child?”. No, it doesn't. The one who has such perversion is required to pray very much and shut up more, lest he gives scandal.

In every demand that one's perversion be “acknowledged” lies the implicit demand that such perversion be accepted. There can never be anything like “Homos for Christ”, because the very shouting that one is a homo goes against the very idea of shouting that one is a Christian.

In fact, the very fact that one is a homo precludes him the Priesthood, and for extremely good reasons. Here it is recognised that a great flaw is present: a flaw that is there even in those instances in which no sin occurs. Said in a blunter way, it's never OK to be a “homosexual Christian”, because it's never OK to be a homosexual.

Therefore, the homo is required to think, speak, and behave straight, without any “born that way” bullcrap. There can be no excuses of “it would be as absurd for me to play straight as for you to play bent”. God does not make any man a homosexual, He makes every man man. Therefore, the homo who adopts a manly behaviour is still going with, not against, his nature, and is conseuenly rightly required to behave accordingly.

Any other behaviour is scandalous, implies the desire for acceptance of one's perversion, and unavoidably leads to the demand of its approval.

There. Now you even have Mundabor's code of conduct for Catholic homos.

What more can you want.

Mundabor

 

About these ads

Posted on July 19, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. It is some event, once or ongoing that forms this inclination. I was molested for years by my father. I knew other girls who were molested by their fathers, and I hated men for a long time. It is by the grace of God that I am able to see myself as He wants me to be – chaste outside of marriage, chaste within the union of matrimony to one man. I have been married 30 years and have been blessed with 4 daughters who didn’t go through what I went through. I made sure of that. When I finally told them what had happened to me, they wept, and they couldn’t understand. But they know, and they understand, nevertheless.
    Sadly, they are having a terrible time finding men worthy enough to be husbands. We are that emasculated a society. Perversion cuts to the very bedrock of civilization, destroying it. We are reaping the whirlwind and a bitter harvest. The Church ceded a lot of territory, damning many to an eternity in Hell. This is what you get when you’d rather be liked than be light.
    Much love to you for posting these difficult topics. Someone has to.

    • Jewel, whilst violence or molestation may play a role in perverting one, I cannot accept the idea that the homosexual is necessarily the victim. We make choice in life, and having more difficulty to connect to the other sex does not imply the attraction to one’s own, merely – in case – difficulties in interpersonal relationships.

      Your daughters will have a difficult time to find worthy men, because the modern society produces eunuchs meant to pay alimony. With the beautiful humour God always puts in things, the generation of emancipated women is paying an astonishing high price for their folly. Instead of being “liberated”, they are used, instead of being emancipated, they are unhappy.

      M

  2. Most of the girls I knew who were molested became lesbians or promiscuous. At 14, I was a prostitute. If I thought this was the most loathsome I could sink to, I was surely wrong. When I see what public school teachers, so many of them are women, who are abusing their students sexually, and now stories of bestiality, I want to cry, “Where will it all end?” I think, in my heart, I know the answer to that cry, but I really fear having to say it.
    God bless.

    • I am sorry to hear of your troubles, Jewel. Very glad you got out of it.

      Where this will end, Cameron & Co. will discover when the time appointed for them comes.

      M

    • adsalvandasanimas

      It is always a terrible thing to see innocents wounded – psychologically and spiritually – by another’s sin, and as a result rendered vulnerable to serious demonic influence.

      Fr. Chad Ripperger has an excellent series of homilies titled “Wounds and Healing,” which is the best treatment of the topic from a traditional Thomistic point of view I have ever seen, and which may interest some of the readers here:
      http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html

      Having been wounded myself by sin, although to nowhere near the same degree as yourself, I must say that it has greatly helped me to understand my own experience.

  3. vermontcrank1

    Dear Mundabor. Let’s stick with sodomites. There was no such being as a homosexual until the 19th century

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f

  4. Thundering applause! If only we had Cardinal-Prefect Fellay of the Holy Office, Cardinal de Mallerais, Cardinal de Galaretta (Pope Fellay, even?) and Mundabor manning the Vatican Press Office, we’d make them squeal!

    This blog is wonderful, really, it’s one of the very few where common sense is maintained. I thought of setting up an imitation. It’s sort of like a Catholic dose of sanity for the Modern World.

    • With Bishop Jorge, Mundabor at the press office would be desaparecido faster than you can say “Pinocchio Mass”… but thanks for the compliment!

      M

    • adsalvandasanimas

      This makes at least three commenters at this blog with a Duns Scotus icon.

      I must say that it makes for a rather peculiar situation.

    • I’ve seen worse… ;)

      One or two St Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t be amiss, though…

      M

  5. I don’t want to give you a heart attack but you may want to read the contents of this link. The writer is a priest, Fr. Kieren O’Mahoney OSA who holds a Ph.D. and has written numerous books. He assures us that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was being inhospitable and assures us that ALL modern biblical scholars agree with this interpretation of scripture. Saint Paul’s strictures may also apparently be ignored because he doesn’t provide any ‘rationale’ for them! I have sent him St. Peter Damian’s view on the practices that this priest assures his audience is not sinful at all. (I wonder how he spends his spare time).
    http://www.acireland.ie/gay-pride/

    • Yes, the thing with the Sodomites being “inhospitable” has its own followers here in Blighty.
      I have written some days ago about the Reprobates. These people are clear examples of the way a reprobate thinks.

      M

  6. Yes, and the Mohammedans think that women inhabit hell only because they weren’t nice enough to their husbands….who put them there.
    I have heard this weak and lame argument. I think it is time for the church to quit riding the gravy train of those who were martyred in the past, and prepare for martyrdom now. If only she would grow a spine and tell the truth…even if slant.

    • Yes, the tragedy is that the Church can’t even meow regularly. It’s just silence.

      Not sure I get the one with the Mohammedans, though.

      M

    • My point is the absurd theological laxness of reasoning that characterizes both the sodomites and Mohammedans. Both are heretics, but are certain of this “one thing” whatever that happens to be that they build their assumptions around.

    • Ah.

      There was a commenter on “Rorate” who was outright shocking. Allegedly Catholic.

      Disturbing.

      M

  7. I agree those afflicted with the evil inclination of homosexuality should not be regarded as a special category by the Church. Like us all, they have the channels of grace available to them through the Church and should quietly and discreetly seek God’s help in resisting the temptation to do evil.

    However, aren’t all the seven cardinal sins ‘intrinsic disorders’ – an evil tendency towards the misuse of a proper desire? Sexual perversions, be it the desire to have sex with animals, children or those of the same sex, is intrinsically disordered. So too is an uncontrollable desire to have sex with multiple sexual partners. If acted upon these inclinations are all a manifestation of lust, the origin that engenders such vice. Each of the deadly sins reflect fallen humanity’s tendency to evil and if not resisted and overcome destroys the life of grace and charity within us and creates the very real threat of eternal damnation.

    Or have I got something wrong her?

    • It has been constant thinking in all Christian countries that there is fundamental difference between sins going with nature and sins going against nature.

      Gluttony is certainly a sin, but is different from coprophagy. Lust is certainly a sin, but lust directed to the same sex is a different beast altogether.

      This is the reason for the sodomy legislation in most countries, which certainly did not extend to normal adultery. Taking Italy as an example, to leave the family roof was a criminal offence, but adultery wasn’t, whilst sodomy was.

      For this reason, we must also avoid the argument (that I read all too often) of “the Church calls the homosexual to chastity, but the church calls everyone who isn’t married to chastity”. The two are not even in the same ballpark. IN fact, the only fact that such comparisons are run shows the shocking perversion of our times, which naturally compare human weakness to absolute taboos that merely one or two generations ago would not even have been considered a fitting subject for discussion.

      The banalisation of sodomy perverts everyone, even the straight.

      I think I wrote a blog post on this. I’ll try to fish it out.

      M

  8. Lust – self-seeking need
    of disordered desire
    intent on relief
    and venereal pleasure

    Asmodeus falls
    cast down by Raphael’s spear
    God’s healing comes and
    Love’s freedom reigns

    • I have republished several posts dealing with the fundamental difference between human weakness and human perversion.

      I hope this helps.

      M

  9. Thank you – I am reading and thinking about them.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,964 other followers

%d bloggers like this: