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.
As we all know, heterodoxy lurks from all corners. We find it among bishops (look at the United Kingdom, and seek no further); among priests (the last “strange” homily was from that Jesuit from Wimbledon saying on the lines of “hell is a way of saying that we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves with second class choices”); we find it among politicians a’ la Nancy Pelosi and – obviously – we find it among journalists a’ la BBC.
Now how would a progressive, heterodox journalist describe the notorious excerpt? “A change in Church teaching” would be a way; a “softening” would be another; a third one might be a show of “compassion”. Let us see why this is wrong.
1) Church Teaching doesn’t change. Circumstances are always changing, but moral categories never change. We live and die in a world confronting us with exactly the same moral choices of St. Thomas Aquinas’ time. If this wasn’t the case, we’d need a new Gospel and a new Christ. We need no new Gospel and no new Christ; the Truth has been transmitted to us and it is valid for all times and for all (ever changing) circumstances.
Right is right even if no one is right and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong. There is no way on the planet the use of a condom should be considered any differently in 2010 than in Humanae Vitae’s time (sodomy had already been invented; sexually transmitted diseases too) or, come to that, in Romans’ times. We are dealing with moral categories here, not with technological advancements.
2) The one with the “softening” is also funny. It implies that the Church’s teaching about the use of condom is, well, wrong somehow. That it should be “improved”. Poor little sodomites, to whom the Church, which tells them not to commit sodomy in the first place, also makes it impossible to enjoy sodomy in the proper way…..how cruel is that! Don’t ya feel for them, mate? Such a thinking can earn one some kudos in a homo bar or in a BBC studio, but is certainly not Christian. The Church says hard words when she is confronted with harsh situations, with hardened sinners, with abominations, with serious danger to one’s soul. Not only is this the charitable thing to do, but it is the most practical advice. Condoms will never eliminate the risk of infection, chastity will. Condoms will never be conducive to eternal salvation, chastity will. There’ s nothing hard in telling the truth, and nothing to be softened. Truth will make you free and will, possibly, lead you to a long and healthy life instead of a painful agony of spiritual and physical self-destruction.
3) Third one is the one with the compassion. To allow a sodomite to commit such an abomination would be “compassionate”; to suggest the best way to multiply the number of his unspeakably lurid (in all senses) acts would be “compassionate”; to satisfy the desire of the sinner to sin with as few conscience pangs as possible would be “compassionate”.
What has become of us. When the moral instance gives way to the consideration for the comfort of the sinner, we have a clear case of false compassion. When not the sinner as human being is being helped, but the sinner is helped on his way to sin, we have false compassion. When “compassion” is not seen as eliminating the sin from the sinner, but the danger from the sin, we have false compassion. When the physical health of the sinner (through the use of condoms) is considered more important than his spiritual health (through chastity), we have false compassion.
Really. What has become of us.
I stumbled on Twitter on this site,Abortion Facts, which must be the most complete source of information about abortion around.
The amount of information imparted by this site is very extensive. I found particularly impressive the pages about the back-alley abortions and the Christian view of abortion, but will no doubt discover other pages in the next days.
The arguments I have read up to now are very rigorous but not overtly confrontational and they seem well researched. This is a work that can be consulted again and again as the occasion requires and even if the text is far too little for my liking (I seriously hate these things; if it were for me to decide there would be only books in large print) it is nothing that can’t be endured for the few minutes necessary to read the relevant page.
I recommend the saving of this page under your favourites and perhaps its forwarding to those among your friends or acquaintances who might receive it well or forward it.