Are The Cavemen "Homophobic"?It's been said!!
To the right is a photo taken of one of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence", a homosexual group that loves to dress up as over-the-top garish versions of Catholic nuns. A true insult aimed directly at God's Church if ever there was one.
Anyhow, if either of the Cavemen were to ever have the bad manners to say a word against these individuals and the disgusting lifestyle that they advocate, you can bet that we'd be labeled "homophobes" quicker than the AIDS virus can mutate.
Keeping in mind that the context that "homophobe" is used, it's used towards those who stand-up against those who strive to mainstream homosexuality as if it's something normal and should be accepted. The "active" homosexuals, if you will.
As I've said many a time on this blog, those who are stricken with homosexuality who also strive to live celibatly, because they realize that active homosexuality is just plain sinful, should be congratulated and given our full support.
However, those who attempt to portray the Sin of Sodom as "normal" and "correct" are vile and deviant human beings. Don't you dare make a vain attempt to categorize us as "afraid" of active homosexuals (phobic).
If anything... we're Homotaedet. One's who are disgusted by active homosexuality.
By the way, as the picture to the right wonderfully illustrates, why do these people scream so loud to make their private lives public? Hell, I thought they just wanted to be left alone. Guess I was wrong.After all, I'm not the one with "Faggot" tattooed across my back.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
6:36 AM
19 Comments:
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Mr. Caveman, your disgust of these exhibtionists seems a natural reaction to me. They do enjoy mocking the Church AND God- since they're made in His image. They're pitiful and the Priest who not only condones this behavior but "celebrates" it via "special" Masses for this deviant "lifestyle" is aiding and abetting the evil one.
David,
I guess that whole "abomination to God" thingee, and the Spiritual Work of Mercy to "admonish the sinner" clouded my judgment.
I guess I should respect those who knowingly, willingly and intelligently refute God and His Church, huh?
But wait a second... respect is EARNED, isn't it?
Actually, the most minimum measure of respect that recognizes our human dignity is not earned.
The Catechism teaches, for example, that recognizing human dignity by virtue or our creation flows from a faith in God. One aspect of Faith in God means knowing the unity and true dignity of all men: everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. (CCC 225)
Again the abomination to God comment appears to confuse acts with persons. The acts are abominable, the people never are and the admonishing comment is something which calls a for a little bit of nuance. It's been my experience that one cannot really admonish anyone if they are not listening to you and one of the best ways to stop someone listening to you is to call them names.
The acts are abominable, the people never are...
David,
Acts don't go to hell, people do.
But I will agree that there may be a bit of nuancing that needs clarification. I firmly believe that respect is earned. I respect the fact that all humans beings have free will. I respect the fact that we can accept God in humility and reverence, or we can reject Him in depravity (in all it's forms) and arrogance.
Lastly, as far as "name calling" is concerned, it's the Sodomite Community that's been using phrases such as "queer" (Queer Nation, Queer Studies, the war-cry "we're here, we're queer, get use to it!!, etc). I'd also like to remind you that it wasn't me that dressed up as a "fairy" with half my rear-end hanging out... nor did I have the word "faggot" tattooed across my back.
You'll have to take that up with the homosexual community.
So with all that said, who am I not to ref' to them accordingly?
But I'll give ya this, David... you're a stand-up guy. You're a straight shooter, no bull-shit kinda guy. And believe it or not... I respect that.
David has alot of points, and I'm not disagreeing. But it's always interesting that the pansexualists are always saying one should never label, yet they use the most labels.
"of the best ways to stop someone listening to you is to call them names."
david: your completely correct in the previous statement--they call themselves names, queer and faggot--and I stopped listening. The only one I want to listen to is Jesus.
After all, when you think about it, God who loved Satan, and probably still loves Satan, does not "hang out" with Satan. His ways are uncompatible with God's. Homosexuality that shoves their "names" onto Christians, and women who outrageously mock our Holy Nuns--accept us, accept us, I dont think so.
If Satan and God got togther, Satan would continually mock God. If we got together with deviate gays, they would also continually mock us.
Looking at the picture of the SPI, I swear he looks like the offspring of a teletubbie & Dracula.
It also shows the hypocracy of the leftist PC gang. If you are mocking Catholicism, it is OK. I wonder what the reaction would be if 1 of these groups decided to mock Islam & Mohammed?
Hi Tara, the world has always mocked Christians. This is nothing new. No servant is higher than his or her master and they crucified the Man we call our master. Why do we believe the world would treat us all that much better?
Our challenge is in how we respond. Do we meet mockery with mockery, epithet with epithet, anger with anger? Do we act, in other words, like what happens here ONLY happens here and that there is no supernatural or eternal dimension to what we do or say? I don't think so. I don't know what heaven does when sinners are put in their places and reminded of how low and mean and horridly they have acted. But I know what heaven does when sinners repent: it parties.
Caveman, yes, people can and do send themselves to hell - but knowing that I think we have an obligation to encourage them not do. I think you share that conviction. What we are disputing now is the best way to do it.
For the record, many moons ago I used to be a gay activist etc etc etc. I came to Christ because the Holy Spirit came and got me, more or less, but I remained in Christ because of the witness of Christians who did not fit into the mold I had in my mind of "Christians"
The didn't call me names, they didn't refuse to shake my hand, they didn't make assumptions about me. They listened to me and when we disagreed, we disagreed with respect. And in the end I wound up becoming a Catholic and seeking a deeper discipleship to Christ because of their witness.
We can't control other people. We can't make their decisions for them or order them not to sin or forbid them from making mistakes. But we can control our actions, words and attitudes. Do we want to see to that young man with the faggot tattoo in heaven as much as we want to see ourselves and our loved ones there? Because Jesus does and as one of His followers I want what He wants - on earth as it is in heaven.
The didn't call me names, they didn't refuse to shake my hand, they didn't make assumptions about me.
So why don't I get the same consideration? What makes you think that I wouldn't have greeted you the same way?
David, I've made it abundantly clear that I have absolutely nothing against those who are repentant for past sin(s).
As someone who knows first-hand the Saving Grace that God can grant to us... let me say to you yet again, I have nothing against those with the homosexual inclination who realize that the act itself (and subsiquent lifestyle) are sinful and incompatable with Catholicism.
But to those who are obstinant in their sin... expect no quarter from me.
As someone who fights daily (and has for the past 13 yrs) with the very strong desire to give in to my alcoholism, or a "Former Drunken Idiot" as I call myself, know this.... if there was an international organization known as "Drunken Idiots Nation" who also were in favor of "Drunken Idiot Studies" at universities, and they also had "Drunken Idiot Pride" marches where a number of the participants dressed up as drunken idiot nuns, and these very same individuals tried on a daily basis to convince everyone on earth that being a Drunken Idiot was totally normal, etc, etc... would I go after these folks full force? Of course I would.
And also know this, David... if an active Drunken Idiot were to ever come to me and state "I'm a Drunken Idiot, and I know it's wrong. Help me find God and help me to stop being a Drunken Idiot."
David, I'd welcome that individual with open arms and as a Brother in Christ. Come to think of it... I have done that on more than one occassion. Sometimes it worked, and unfortunantly, sometimes it didn't. That whole Free Will at work again.
David:
"The[y] didn't call me names, they didn't refuse to shake my hand, they didn't make assumptions about me. They listened to me and when we disagreed, we disagreed with respect."
I think we are really on the same page. In the previous statement the key word would be "we." We disagreed with with respect.
Treating my homosexual co-workers with respect is a no brainer. They don't obnoxiously throw their sexuality, or hatred of the Catholic Church in my face. They are nice--respectful.
Obviously, looking at someone dressed to purposely mock a nun, or call themself--faggot--is not a respectful act, towards me or themselves.
As human beings, you are correct, they are worthy of dignity and respect. The Bible verse that comes to mind is, "His rod and His staff, they comfort me." Loving the sinner, and rebuking the evil are two entirely different acts.
You know David, you sound alot like the priests at my parish, and you have no idea what a compliment that is. ;-) Being a singer/actor the gay gestapo is always in my face. But lemme share a story.
A couple weeks ago a buy came to our Church wanting to see what Eastern Orthodoxy is like. He walked in and I was the first person he saw and approached me, and I stayed with him the whole time. The St. John Chyrsostom Liturgy is really confusing to someone who has never seen it. Anywho to make a long story short, he told me he was a former Trappist novice, hasn't been to church in 10 years, and was wondering if it'd be a huge deal to us that he's living with his "boyfriend."
Now something made him want to leave Rome, and it wasn't so much their correct stance on that lifestyle and it brought him onto an hour long bus ride to me. I wasn't about to chase him out and yell "repent or perish." He prefered the "old ways" saw all of that in us, especially the "Jesus Prayer" and I wasn't about to run him out. I even invited him to eat with us and sat him next to our new pastor. He hasn't been back, and I don't think he will, maybe he went to the Serbian Church nearer where he lives, I don't know. I hope he did. I did the best I could to be a great representative of the Church, as much as sodomy revolts me, I forced myself to stay with him. I'll never forget the rude treatment my wife and I got at a Russian Cathedral in San Francisco from our "own" and I'll be damned if anyone gets that at my parish.
He figured that we'd be even more strict than the Vatican with regards to sodomy. I just hope that guy repents before it's too late.
Now if he were one of those people in the picture however...
Caveman, I would hope that your response to the folks in the picture, should they come to your parish as he did, seeking something and not just mouthing off, you would treat he or she the same way.
After I came to Christ my very first Church was an Episcopal one, but not the sort of spineless Episcopalianism that one finds nowadays. This pastor was very smart and very orthodox in his belief of who Christ is, what the Cross means and meant and who we are because of that sacrifice. But I was a still a gay activist, still sexually active, and I wasn't going back into the closet for anybody so, even though I had come for six weeks and really liked it there, I scheduled an hour with him for The Interview.
During that time I spilled it all out, my story of how I came to Christ, how I was living etc and loving etc etc. He didn't interrupt me, didn't say anything really, took notes so he could ask questions afterward. When I was done he said to me words that really changed my life though I didn't recognize at the time they would do so.
"David, if you need me to affirm what you do in bed, I can't, because I believe that's sin. But if you need me to affirm you as a brother in Christ I can do that, because everyone who welcomes Christ is welcome here."
And he meant it. So I stayed and I met a whole lot of other folks who disagreed with how I was living but sure as heck loved me and included me and accepted me. Over time I came to find out that a lot of them did so because they had some pretty dicey pasts themselves, prostitution in one case, drug use in several cases, alcoholism, a prison sentence for robbery. Christ didn't see them as walking icons of their sins but has human beings, his little brothers and sisters in God The Father. How could they look at me as any less?
And over time they loved me out of my fear and confusion and deeper into Christ until I finally wound up becoming a Catholic because I wanted even more the Christ than remaining an Episcopalian could give me.
Christ said it best, he or she who has been forgiven much, loves much (Luke 7:47) and since each of us, if we honestly reflect on our lives, has been forgiven a very great deal indeed I think if we had deeper realization of how much we have been forgiven we can, in turn, reflect greater love.
David,
Interesting reflections from your encounter with the Episcopalian preacher, indeed. But one thing I noticed that was left out... shouldn't he have also thrown in there "go forth and sin no more"?
Christ loves us, indeed. But as Christ Himself pointed out, the Prodigal Son was knee-deep in sin until he repented, confessed and changed his ways.
Doesn't the same apply to present day sinners of all stripes?
As far as "Caveman, I would hope that your response to the folks in the picture, should they come to your parish as he did, seeking something and not just mouthing off, you would treat he or she the same way" goes, I believe I've already answered that.
Thanks for posting, David
Caveman, I dunno. I think he made it clear that in the view of Christianity, and his view, I sinned every time I had sex and, where I was then, he still lacked the credibility to demand I give up sex and I had still not had enough time around those Christians to have come to place where I could start to desire to live chastely because I believed it went hand in hand with my relationship with Christ.
It seems to me that none of us can control, or bear the responsibility, for others' choices freely made. But we certainly bear responsibility for our actions and words and how we present the faith and Christ.
It's like when someone asked me once after I spoke at a conference whether I would be more interested in someone coming to know Christ or starting to live chastely. My answer was Christ, of course. None of us, particularly us adult converts, came on board the ship squeaky clean and smelling of roses and I want folks on the ship where interactions with other Christians and with Christ in the sacraments and liturgy etc etc can work on deepening the relationship and making them saints.
David,
I'm not asking you if that particular Episcopalian preacher could control or bear responsibility for your acts... I'm just asking if he ever stated "Go forth and sin no more".
If he was that orthodox in his belief of who Christ is... if he was so much worried about the state of your soul, he could have/should have found the courage to state those painfully simple words to you.
And I certainly do agree with your statement, "But we certainly bear responsibility for our actions and words and how we present the faith and Christ."
Be it alcoholism, homosexuality, thievery, etc... we all who have committed such have the duty (under Christian Charity) to also loudly proclaim "what I did was wrong. There is no watering-down, dumbing-down, nor tap-dancing around just how evil and filthy my past acts are. Let me make this abundantly clear... NONE of you should ever act upon, nor ever give the impression it's not really 'all that bad', any impulse that God and His Church have deemed sinful".
Wouldn't you agree?
Sorry but we err when we reduce human beings, whom God has created in His image and likeness and for whom Christ died on the Cross to nothing more than than the sum of their temptations.
Unfortunately, it is precisely these Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence types who reduce themselves to the sum of their temptations, and identify themselves by their favorite sins.
I don't know about anybody else, but I would not have it so.
Caveman (and others):
Check out this recent post from Fr. Malloy's blog in San Francisco:
http://johnmalloysdb.blogspot.com/2007/06/where-are-we-going.html
Pray for us in SF!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home