Milo Yiannopoulos
Posted on 04/18/2018 10:15:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Catholic Church in America has a problem. How is it that a flamboyant gay guy who is known for his openness about his past promiscuity and wild lifestyle is better at defending the Church than some (highly visible) men of the cloth? Recently, Milo Yiannopoulos was interviewed by America magazine, a Jesuit publication, which chose not to print the interview. Fortunately for us all, Milo did.
"Amusingly, while the Jesuits struggled to decide if they could bear to publish my answers, one of the Church’s highest ranking Cardinals called out Fr. Martin by name as 'one of the most outspoken critics of the Church’s message with regard to sexuality,'" he said. "That means my side in this dispute enjoys support from a black prince of the Church raised on a continent where martyrdom is common, while the other side’s champion is a white bourgeois man in whose life the worst threat is that the wine is a bit off this week. Ask yourself: Which of these men would you want to have your six?"
The cardinal in question is Cardinal Robert Sarah, who said the Church cannot back down from its teaching of chastity in regards to homosexuality as Father James Martin appears to be open to.
“Father Martin is correct to argue that there should not be any double standard with regard to the virtue of chastity, which, challenging as it may be, is part of the good news of Jesus Christ for all Christians. For the unmarried—no matter their attractions—faithful chastity requires abstention from sex. As a mother, the Church seeks to protect her children from the harm of sin, as an expression of her pastoral charity,” said Sarah.
Milo's ribbing of Fr. Martin may be a tad harsh. Fr. Martin seems to be a person genuinely concerned about caring for the members of the faith who are LGBT and this is absolutely within the purview of an active Church that seeks to care for all people. Any man who dedicates his life to serving others deserves the benefit of being heard without being shouted down or screamed at. Fr. Martin was recently disinvited from speaking at several events over the controversy, which should not happen in America. Shutting down speech is something the left does that conservative people should shun. It is imperative to respond to any hotly debated topic with more reasoned arguments, not less.
The definition of "caring for" the LGBT community is what is controversial. People like Fr. Martin believe that caring for LGBT people includes affirming their decision to be sexually active while others like Cardinal Sarah believe that caring for LGBT people requires priestly council on abstinence. From what I've read from Fr. Martin, he does not appear to be any sort of monster who needs shutting up. On the contrary, a debate between him and Cardinal Sarah would be something I would pay to see. In the spirit of the intellectual history of the Church, this could be a way to get somewhere on this topic without the over-emotional responses on both sides. Who could argue with Fr. Martin that we are called to love all our neighbors? It is the definition of love that needs fleshing out.
I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Martin that this topic needs much more reasoned discussion seasoned with truth and less hysteria. The bombastic and ultra-conservative "Church Militant" often calls Fr. Martin a "liar" and a "heretic," but one wonders how effective this is at getting to the heart of what he is wrong about. This is one of those debates where sobriety and seriousness are needed in order to find common ground and refrain from alienating people you want to persuade.
Fr. Martin has received much criticism for his book, Building a Bridge, which some have said is "heretical" because they view it as not being clear on the Church's accepted teaching that homosexuals should practice a chaste life. (Full disclosure: I have not read the book yet and as such won't comment on it.) In a recent video, Fr. Martin talked about the snark and sarcasm flung around this issue that is disheartening to him and others. And while it might seriously put a dent in our fun, we could all do with less snark and sarcasm on many issues. When you want to convince someone of something, using sarcasm won't work.
But Milo's harsh truth-telling in this interview is the kind of discussion that Christians should be having. "Maybe you mean it’s shocking that I’m always joking about my lack of chastity and my fondness for black dudes, but I still call myself Catholic. And I don’t see what’s so shocking about that, either. One of the most famous saints of all time, sixteen centuries ago, prayed, 'Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.'" And while Milo is unlikely to be singled out for sainthood, his observations are profound. "I think it was a visit to New Orleans that inspired Evelyn Waugh to make an observation I often quote: Protestants seem to think, I’m good, therefore I go to church, whereas Catholics think, I’m very bad, therefore I go to church...You have no idea how bad I’d be if I weren’t."
It is not we who are good. We know we are spiritually wounded and wicked without Him. The most devout people I know are some of the most battered by sin. Those of us who lived according to the popular culture's idea of happiness and freedom found nothing but shackles and despair. Some of us almost died in it.
And what brought us to a better place of peace and happiness? Abstinence. Restraint. No matter what the sin, the answer, according to the Church, is abstinence. If your sin is anger you are not told to go and be angry, but to refrain from harsh words and to pray harder. If your sin is gluttony, the answer is to stop eating and practice self-control. If your sin is addiction to pornography, the answer is to avert your eyes and abstain from the practice. There isn't one sin I can name that Church teaching doesn't recommend abstinence to combat. A single heterosexual person is given the exact same prescription for sexual purity as the gay single person. The prescription is "do not indulge." Gays may feel that chastity is an imposition on them, but how is it more of an imposition than the call for chastity to single heterosexuals? Don't we all feel imposed upon by restraint? Just ask anyone on a diet! That doesn't mean that restraint isn't good for us, like the pain that comes from building muscle or studying for exams. Being a Christian doesn't mean we don't fail at restraining our nature, but it does mean we get up and try again, acknowledging that the thing we fail at harms us in some way. Prayer and practice of self-denial help us have faith that God will free us from it or help us to suffer it. May God have mercy on us all.
ach person struggles with their own moral decay and disorder. Thank God the Church is there to tell us to stop harming ourselves! We don't really want to be told there is no remedy, do we? Or that we do not need saving from ourselves? Isn't that a foregone conclusion to anyone who professes to be a Christian? We are supposed to know how very bad we actually are, otherwise, why on earth would we be here?
"Who says any Catholic should lack tension stoked by his weaknesses?" Milo continued. "You don’t see me disputing the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. There’s no intellectual tension, because I wouldn’t dream of demanding that the Church throw away her hard truths just to lie to me in hopes I’ll feel better about myself. I love the truth, not lies, and I know no one’s feelings are the basis of truth. That’s why I don’t understand those Catholics — such as, if you’ll forgive my horrid impertinence, this magazine’s editor at large, Fr. Martin — who imply that if people don’t like what the Church says, maybe the Church is wrong or should apologize. The Church was founded on a rock and a cross, not on a hug." There are plenty of churches that will affirm any type of biblical sin that is your preference. Why do the LGBTs always demand the one hold-out give up their moral truths? (Joel Olsteen will never make anyone feel bad about anything. You don't even have to leave your couch!) In subsequent interviews, Fr. Martin has said he does not deny the truth of the Church's teaching on chastity, but he doesn't affirm it either. He is greatly concerned with tone and gentleness, and if he's being honest, he could stand to temper his remarks on conservative Catholics and ex-gays whom he has mischaracterized as "alt-right" and hateful, suffering from internalized homophobia. This is not helpful and also rarely true. There are few groups as hated and maligned as people who used to be gay and are now celibate or heterosexual. Fr. Martin has engaged in the same kind of hyperbole he warns about, saying about ex-gays who criticize him that "it's their own complicated sexuality, and psychologists will tell us that we are all in a continuum, we're all on a spectrum. There's bisexuality in most people in different degrees and for some people who are afraid of their complex sexuality this kind of stuff is terribly threatening." It's hard to imagine a bigger insult to a person who discovered peace from his complicated sexuality through restraint, like Robert Lopez, a professor and former gay man raised by gay parents. PJM reached out to Lopez for his thoughts on Fr. Martin's philosophy.
"My history with homosexuals was not the result of anything related to a spectrum of identity or inner urges. I was abused and pressured by a loud and obnoxious gay community in the 1980s until I found myself stuck in a homosexual behavioral pattern. There is nothing funny or glib about this," he said. "My story is like many others who ended up 'gay' through unjust external pressures, often abuse or grooming. It is disingenuous and unprincipled to discuss homosexuality without acknowledging that the political realm we call 'the gay community' purposefully forces people to join them and then holds them captive." Surely, people like Lopez deserve to be heard by the Church as well as the LGBT people Fr. Martin is most concerned with. It's disheartening that he has chosen to malign those who chose to apply the Church's traditional remedy to their own lives and benefited! No one argues that human sexuality isn't complicated and filled with disorders. The question is, what should the Church do to help people through it? Affirm the disorder or continue to suggest abstinence? And if the church waffles on homosexual adultery, then what about regular adultery? Should priests start affirming cheating spouses too? Or pre-marital sex? There is no shortage of places a person can go to be affirmed for any type of sexual proclivity they can think of. Does the Church need to be one of them? And if it becomes that, then how does it retain moral authoritative teaching on anything? These issues are ones that Fr. Martin and Cardinal Sarah should work out publicly to add something substantive to the questions we all have. Is there a way to discuss God's truth (which is absolute and unchanging) without causing offense to all people? Unlikely. Jesus was so offensive that he was put to death. If Jesus couldn't tell the truth without offense, who can? No one becomes a martyr for making people feel good. Milo's willingness to not be offended at church teaching about his particular struggle is a mature and reasoned position which would benefit us all when looking at our own sin problems. We're all terrible, disordered, and yet welcomed by the Church that I pray remains unmoved by the constant pressures and desires of a fallen world.
Jesuits.
I remember when I (mistakenly) actually thought they were Catholic.
I’ve known plenty of Jesuits, which makes me suspect that Fr. Martin himself is a practicing homosexual.
Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
You know, I’m putting two and two together now. This guy was on Breitbart, right? I used to participate occasionally in their discussion forum. Then about 18 months or maybe two years ago I was barred from posting there. I repeatedly asked them to give me a reason but never received a reply.
But at least one of the discussions had to be about homosexuality, and there’s a sentence I frequently use in those discussions: HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.
I remember getting a displeased reply to it from someone. The next time I went on I found I was banned. Could it have been our boy Milo who did the banning?
Disease vectors then, and now.
No, very unlikely.
That doesn’t sound like Milo but who knows? It’s easy to get banned on almost any internet forum for posting something politically-incorrect.
Not only is he openly gay, he’s ethnically Jewish too. He’s also Catholic.
He’s an odd bird, by any measure, but nobody defends Christianity, Western culture, or conservatism better than Milo.
He’s something else. I like the guy.
I may be proven to be wrong
but I have a sense that Milo’s penchant for rational thinking
will ultimately result in the cessation of his homosexual behavior.
Bttt
He ALMOST openly concedes that he is a homo because he was molested by a homo.
ALMOST.
He went much further than that, actually. He’s admitted that his life is essentially steering into bad circumstances and trying to convert them into something that serves him, at the least.
bump
Love the sinner, hate the sin. Something the secular humanist real haters do not understand, when they call faithful Christians “haters”.
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.