Search This Blog

Monday, December 22, 2008

Gay Propaganda Reigns at Newsweek

Back in 1993 when the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' arrival in the new world brought out the attack dogs to rage against white Christian Europeans, Fr. John Hardon, SJ predicted that the battle would be nothing compared to the one targeting Jesus Christ and his teachings at the beginning of the new millenia. Since faith and culture have been under attack for generations, Father really didn't need to be a prophet to make that prediction. He just needed to have his eyes open. The attack has been relentless in recent years and we are still two decades away from the 2000th anniversary of Christ's crucifixion. Newsweek's apologia for gay marriage earlier this month by religion editor Lisa Miller (Our Mutual Joy, December 6) represents just one more attack, this one on Biblical teaching about traditional marriage.

Miller's selective interpretation of the Bible leads to her conclusion that it defends gay marriage. This is how she puts it: "Should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that." Take that, you Christian homophobes; Lisa Miller has spoken. (This obviously also makes mincemeat out of the Catholic sacrament of priestly ordination since the Church teaches that only men can be ordained.) But Miller never even makes an argument to support her outlandish statement. Despite thousands of words she never addressed the central issue.

What is marriage? Is it a lump of playdough to be formed according to each man or woman? John wants to marry Dick. Jane plans to wed Jill. Betty wants a menage a trois with Susie and Bob. Woody wants to marry his daughter and Kitty wants....fill in the blank. Can all these situations be described as marriage in Miller's view? We can't say since she never defines what marriage is, except that homosexuals have a right to it, whatever it happens to be. But what possible reason can she use to exclude the rights of these other folks to define marriage however they want if marriage, by definition, has no definition?

But the Bible is actually pretty clear about it. Jesus blessed the institution of marriage between a man and a woman at the wedding feast of Cana when he performed his first miracle. Miller ignores that Biblical event completely. The first book of Genesis is also very clear - God made Adam and Eve and blessed them and said, "That is why a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." That's pretty clear: 1 man plus 1 woman equals two in one flesh, also known as marriage.

There are two purposes for marriage. The first is to procreate and educate children to know, love, and serve God and be happy with him in heaven. That particular purpose is physically impossible for same-sex couples although, who knows, immoral technologies may one day be able to surgically alter a male so he can bear a child, not from a union with the "marriage" partner, but through another immoral technology like cloning. The other purpose of marriage is to unite the couple in love, a love that doesn't seek self-gratification through lust, but desires the good of the other. The depraved practices of homosexuality certainly don't resemble marital love as God intended.

Miller claims that 2000 years of interpreting the bible as defending traditional marriage is just plain wrong. The Bible wasn't written for our time, she says, and must be interpreted with modern eyes as a "living document." This is the same argument liberals use to undermine the Constitution. Whatever aberration they want is found in the document's "penumbra" (the term used in Roe v. Wade to create the right to abortion). Let's face it, very few people actually read, much less study, the Bible so Miller's distortions will no doubt be accepted by those who want to believe what she says. To hell with reality when it conflicts with what I want to do.

Columnist Don Feder and Biblical scholar Robert Gagnon demolish Miller's arguments better than I can. I was, however, intrigued by her comparison of the fight for same-sex marriage to the abolitionist fight to end slavery. "Not since 1860," Miller writes, "when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny."

There is an argument to be made using the issue of slavery for comparison, but it's not the one Miller puts forward. The civil right that applies will never scream for attention because these victims of discrimination are tiny and voiceless. Abortion is the new slavery that makes mothers the slavemasters of their unborn children. Keep them or kill them, it's the mothers right to decide just like keeping or selling slaves was the right of the master. Only one difference for the babies; there's no hope for freedom once the abortionist gets through with them. As for "gay rights" they are based, not on any physical characteristics, but on sinful choices. Gays have as much claim to civil rights protection as kleptomaniacs and adulterers.

Lisa Miller's article is just one more attack on Jesus Christ and his teachings. The saddest thing about the article to me, however, was the ending. She tells her readers, "My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: 'I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.' And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for 'Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.' Let the priest's prayer be our own."

Fr. James Martin, is a Jesuit and acting publisher of America, a Catholic dissenters' magazine that has undermined Church teaching for years. If Miller's interpretation of Fr. Martin's words is correct, he needs to be disciplined. Psalm 139 no more relates to the "question of homosexuality" than it relates to fornication or adultery. Being "lonely or sad" is often part of the human condition and it does not excuse evil actions. Jesus would say to sodomite homosexuals exactly the same thing he said to the woman taken in adultery. "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way and sin no more."

It's hard to believe that Fr. John Hardon, a champion of orthodoxy who died on December 30, 2000 at the age of 86, came from the same religious order as Fr. James Martin. May Fr. Hardon pray for his confrere's conversion and for a renewal of sexual purity in the United States.


James Martin, SJ said...

Dear Ms. Kreitzer,
The Peace of Christ!
For the record, my comment about Psalm 139 was to remind people that God loves all of us. That particular passage has proven helpful for gays and lesbians struggling to accept God's love for them.
Best wishes for a Holy Christmas.
James Martin, SJ

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Thanks for the clarification, Father. Perhaps it would be more to the point to correct Lisa Miller since she used your comment to bolster the case for same-sex marriage. She made you a party to her scandalous opinions, I hope incorrectly.

Also, in view of the fact that those who use the term "gay" generally mean living the active sodomite lifestyle, your statement about Psalm 139 is confusing and also scandalous. The only true happiness and the sure cure for loneliness is in union with Jesus Christ who loves us all enough to tell us to shun sin and do the Father's will. Homosexuals don't get a special pass because of their disordered inclinations any more than heterosexuals do if they are disordered toward adultery, fornication, and lust. We are all sinners in need of God's mercy. What we don't need are false words of consolation that encourage us to be at peace with our sinfulness.

I return your wishes for a Holy Christmas.

Mary Ann Kreitzer

Turfsuper said...

“The other purpose of marriage is to unite the couple in love, a love that doesn't seek self-gratification through lust, but desires the good of the other.” Your views of marriage are confused, parochial and extravagant.

The legal recognition of marriage and the religious views of marriage are separate. The legal recognition of marriage provides for the legal dissolution of marriage. There is no dissolution of marriage in the Catholic faith. Yet Catholics still must get divorced legally and some eventually have the marriage annulled. Annulment is not a divorce. The Catholic Church does not recognize legal or religious divorces.

Skipping the religious view of marriage you have confused Catholic marriage with legal marriage. What is the purpose of making a marriage legal? It is denying gays the right to a legal marriage that you have confused with your religion and now feel compelled to deny them their civil rights. The Catholic Church does not have to perform “gay” marriages. Again what has legalized gay marriage have to do with your beliefs? Your arguments are primarily moral and religious based and yet you conclude that gay marriages should not be made legal.

Remember that most marriages in the world are not Christian and Christians themselves cannot agree on the purpose of marriage and the roles of the sexes. Your views are parochial. I have to agree with you that Miller is arguing for Catholic sacramental gay marriage she is barking up the wrong tree. It is not in the Catholic faith nor should it ever be.

However I would argue that it is unconstitutional for gays to be denied marriage because of Catholic dogma.

Why not make gay marriage legal? To answer that you first have to answer why make any marriage legal?

You confuse legal and religious views of marriage.
Your views are parochial because you only know the Catholic beliefs of marriage.
Your views are extravagant because you would impose unrealistic religious goals on others.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Turfkiller said: "Why not make gay marriage legal?"

Marriage between a man and woman benefits society by providing a protective environment in which to raise the next generation of ciitizens. A society is only as strong as its families. (Experiments with no-fault divorce, shacking up, etc. are already wreaking havoc on the cuture.) There is NO societal benefit to same-sex "marriage" - just the opposite. Studies show even so-called "stable" same-sex relationships are characterized by promiscuity. That's no place to raise children which is just one reason adoption to gays is insane. By every measurable standard children do better in a normal nuclear family.

The depraved practices of homosexuals are also a public health threat. Despite gays trying to make AIDS a problem of the general society, it has always been, and continues to be, primarily a gay disease. Gay bowel syndrome, anal incontinence, intestinal parasites, etc. are among the common problems arising from gays' depraved practices.

Those who follow Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality do not suffer from STDs, the aftermath of abortion, dangers from chemical methods of birth control, or the emotional damage of all these things.

As for being "confused, parochial, and extravagant" that describes your position pretty well. Anyone who cavalierly throws out thousands of years of culture and tradition to embrace an experiment with sodomy masquerading as marriage is pretty parochial.

Turfsuper said...

By your logic, to help protect society, we need to save gays and keep them from being married. By that logic, we should ban marriage completely. No more divorce, less child abuse etc. To eliminate even more child abuse, we should ban the Catholic Church. We shouldn’t ban any thing just some members are scum. The Church or better said some church men have walked arm in arm with depravity.

Your targeted and exaggerated focus on wicked gays is just the latest fashion in devils needed by the Church to rally the troops for their neo-orthodoxy goals. No mention of divorce? This is why your arguments are shallow and hypocritical. What is the difference between divorce and gay marriage? For Catholics there is none! When do you think you folks will get back to banning alcohol and start the new prohibition?

So again, why shouldn’t gays be legally married or at least a form of civil union? I can think of licensing for public health concerns. Dissolution of these civil unions legally could help protect any children and assets.

If only everybody followed Catholic teaching. Now you sound like Pastor Dollar and the other Protestant success preachers. What we ought to do or be is to be defined by the subjective beliefs and strict neo-orthodoxy interpretation of the Catholic religion. But in this country liberty is the ability to pursue happiness as long as the actions of one person does not result in harm to others. If there is harm, that’s why we have legal marriage, divorces, building permits, lawyers and taxes to name a few.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Turfkiller: By your logic, to help protect society, we need to save gays and keep them from being married.

Response: It's not a question of saving gays, it's a question of the nature and definition of marriage. Gays can't "marry" any more than men can be mothers or women can be fathers.

Turfkiller: Your targeted and exaggerated focus on wicked gays

Response: Wickedness, wherever it takes place, should be targeted for criticism. We should all be striving to do good and avoid evil.

Turfkiller: in this country liberty is the ability to pursue happiness as long as the actions of one person does not result in harm to others.

Response: That's the point. Sodomy does harm others. So does divorce as you mention which is why no-fault divorce is a disaster. I've written about it. Visit the Les Femmes website.

Turfkiller: you sound like Pastor Dollar

Response: And you sound like the "pro-choicers" who never debate the issue, but immediatiately change the subject and call you a hypocrite if you aren't addressing every social evil on the planet. It's a dishonest method of arguement, but distracts from the issue you don't want to take on in its essence.