Skip to comments.Columnist Joseph Sobran Asks, "Is the Pope Square?"
Posted on 08/19/2003 5:54:57 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Vatican would say nothing about same-sex marriage. Its beneath its dignity to enter into debate with a sick joke, and when it does so it only allows progressive-minded fools to change the subject.
Such fools, some of them nominal Catholics, argue that the Church is a bunch of hypocritical old men nervously obsessed with sex and Jesus told us to be nice to each other and refusing to let homosexuals marry isnt very nice because they dont bother anyone and anyway what about all those pedophile priests so let the Pope mind his own business and look to his own house. You get the idea. Like, if the Church doesnt enforce its own rules, those rules must be invalid.
Some people have the ineradicable impression that Catholics regard the Pope as an absolute dictator who can change the moral rules at his own whim. On this view, he could approve of abortion, contraception, and sodomy if he wanted to. Unfortunately, he wont change his rigid opinions because he is out of touch with the modern world. Not only is the Pope a religious tyrant; worse yet, he is hopelessly square.
Even some Catholics hold this view. They are always eager to let you know they are Catholics, albeit nicer than the Pope and, of course, more in touch with the modern world. Unfortunately, these Catholics arent in touch with their own Church. They appear to have been dozing off during catechism.
The Catholic Church doesnt teach that the Pope can change Gods moral law. On the contrary, it teaches that he cant, because that law is eternal.
For example, the Pope cant declare that murder is good. God has made man in his own image, and it is evil to kill human beings. It may sometimes be justified, but only in rare circumstances. The act itself is intrinsically evil. It would remain so even if all priests and bishops were exposed as murderers; in fact, that would only increase its horror.
Those who are in touch with the modern world may take a more flexible view. They usually do. Advanced modern thinking keeps finding more and more reasons in favor of things that used to be considered murder, such as abortion, mercy killing, and preemptive war.
In the same way, the Pope cant change the nature of marriage. It existed, by necessity of human nature, long before Jesus or even Abraham. Every society has had some version of it, but none has ever seen fit to establish marriage between members of the same sex or more precisely, to call homosexual unions marriages.
This has nothing to do with mere disapproval of sodomy. Even societies that were indifferent to sodomy saw no reason to treat same-sex domestic partnerships as marriages. Why not? Because such unions dont produce children.
Imagine a society in which homosexuality was considered normal and healthy, while heterosexuals were considered perverted. It would still be necessary to have heterosexual marriage as an institution, even if it was a sort of penal institution, for the sake of taking care of the children these perverts produced. Marriage might have no sanctity, but it would still have the same reason. To put it as unromantically as possible, people who have children should be stuck with each other, sharing the responsibility.
Again, what society has ever seen any point in married homosexuals? Set Jews, Christians, and Muslims aside. The Chinese? The Japanese? The Aztecs? The Vikings? The Apaches? The ancient Greeks and Romans? The list could be lengthened indefinitely, and the answer would always be the same. Marriage might be regarded as a mere necessity, even a regrettable necessity, but it was always for men and women.
If same-sex marriage were anything but a sudden modern fad, wed surely have heard of it before. But it was never even a fad; it was merely a contradiction in terms, not worth considering. So even homosexuals never considered it.
Christianity took a more elevated and uncompromising view of marriage than the businesslike pagans did, raising it to the level of a sacrament; later the West mixed marriage with the charming but extraneous idea of romantic love. But it was always assumed to make sense only as a relation between men and women.
Today the contradiction in terms has become the latest thing. And as always, the most absurdly provincial idea is being accepted as the most advanced thinking, as long as it can be passed off as modern.
This is a really important point not often heard in the current debate. "Being in love" is not the sole reason for marriage. It's not even the main one. And for most of human history, it wasn't even considered terribly important for a marriage.
But in the modern debate, I have actually seen homosexual "marriage" advocates turn this against the marriage defenders. Andrew Sullivan in particular baited his opponents into admitting that the institution of marriage placed reproduction rather than love as its core principle. That allows the gay side to claim "love" as their side of the issue. It's about as perverted and corrupt as one might expect, but it appeals to a certain corrupted morality that pervades our society.
Advanced modern thinking keeps finding more and more reasons in favor of things that used to be considered murder, such as abortion, mercy killing, and preemptive war.
I just KNEW there was a Bush-bash in here, somewhere!
Actually the homosexual communtiy has considered it -- as part of a well planned and well funded campaign to destroy marriage:
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
An excerpt from: Homosexual Priests: A Time for Truth:
"The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesnt belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize perverse behavior. This is apparent in the all-too-common need of homosexuals to declare their sexuality rather than simply do the job they sign on to do.
The homosexual movement is marked by two major tendencies: the tendency to continually infiltrate all good aspects of society; and once they have achieved that, the tendency to destroy this good. Public education, the Boy Scouts, the military, and now the Catholic Church have been targeted, and all have been hurt by the effects of homosexuality. The media and the Church must break its silence towards this enemy. If they do not, the people themselves must rise up and expose it..."
Public education is an evil institution--now made even more evil by having been infiltrated by the gay agenda.
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links|
|Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)|
|Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search|
|All FreeRepublic Bump Lists|
A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.