The liberal society has clearly no problems with the use of light drugs, or with sodomy, but when a bishop contracts Hepatitis A he makes headlines worldwide because he might, or so they say, have infected hundreds through the chalice.
Notice the double standard: when sodomites die of AIDS no one is guilt, and we must spend huge amounts of money in medical research for something that, to a vast extent, will only be useful to perverts, instead of having a saner approach and direct a great part of the funds towards, say, cancer research; but when a bishop accidentally and without any malice exposes others to infection the undertones abound.
Do the authorities in North Dakota feel the need to warn the populace of the dangers of having sex with sexual perverts? Surely, even in North Dakota the latter problem must be far more concrete than the theoretical, admittedly “low risk” of infection for the parishioner of five churches?
I know, I know. You can say the authorities in North Dakota are making their job etc, but I do not think I am the only one who smells a rat here. Perceptions shape reality, and I cannot imagine this case was such that it required – as opposed to: made it look advisable – this kind of intervention.
Again, it's a funny world. Obsession for health questions – possibly red-tape induced, as in “let us justify our jobs by sending health warnings around” – on the one side, extreme political correctness on the other.
If the health authorities of any place in the West really had health as their priority, they would invest time and money in a relentless work of sensibilisation concerning the health risks of a sodomitical “lifestyle”.
But no, they must let the world know a bishop might have infected hundreds.