Name! That! Author! (#noGoogling)

“The [upcoming Second Vatican] council should trace the line of Christian relativism, laying down how far the Catholic religion must act as the iron guardian of absolute values, and how far it can and *must* bend in its approach, in its *connaturality* with human life as it exists in time.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Not so queer, after all…

Homosexuality is, by definition, love of one’s sameness-in-sex. It is, in other words, love of one’s self-in-sex. Homosexuality is, therefore, onanism by a longer name. It is the quintessence of the contraceptive (i.e. sterile) mentality. As such, it is not simply immoral; it is an aesthetic outrage, and therefore it is the pageant of our grotesque age.

Heterosexual pairs may naturally conform to each other over time, but the “love of same” inherent in homosexuality tries to vault that entire process and go for the gratification of inherently sterile love. Trapped in a phenomenological echo chamber. The “stereoscopic” effect of homosexuality is yet another sign of its artificiality (i.e. contra-naturality).

With credit, I owe the seed of these ideas to Douglas Wilson, that stalwart Midwestern Calvinist. A key point in his essay is that “gay love” is the least queer thing there is. What’s really queer (odd) is two individuals crossing the sexual divide to love each other and raise children.

“At its root, homosexuality is a love of sameness rather than difference. Jehovah teaches us to love difference, and in this fallen world obsessed with finding ways to deface God, homosexuality rejects difference in order to spite God. … Homosexuals say they are “queer” as a point of pride, while outsiders use it as a taunt or insult. But they both agree that homosexuality is in fact queer. But our charge against those who promote this sin is that they promote a dull and monotonous love of sameness, and the last thing we may call this is queer.… A resentment of true difference and dogmatic insistence upon sameness is the sine qua non of homosexuality. However desperate the attempts, this tenacious loyalty to sameness cannot be obscured or hidden by odd mannerisms, paper hats, grease paint, outlandish outfits, and Mardi Gras style parties. Under all the odd and outlandish clothing, when the couple have disrobed, everything is the same and not queer at all. What God did at the beginning is truly queer—male and female created He them. So just as we avoid calling them gay when they are miserable, so we avoid calling them queer when queer is precisely what they are refusing to be. 

Along similar lines, here is what Germain Grisez has to say on the subject:

“[A]lthough it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends.

Someone who admits that sodomy necessarily lacks the unitive significance of heterosexual intercourse which makes a couple a single reproductive principle might nevertheless suggest that a couple can choose such sodomitic intercourse as a way of communicating good will and affection. However, just as with fornicators, sexual intercourse is not chosen by sodomites in preference to conversation and mutually beneficial acts because it is the more expressive means of communicating good will and affection. Rather, it is chosen because it provides subjective satisfactions otherwise unavailable. Consequently, while sodomites may not choose, as fornicators do, an illusory good instead of a real one, they do choose to use their own and each other’s bodies to provide subjective satisfactions, and thus they choose self-disintegrity as masturbators do. Of course, while masturbators can be interested exclusively in the experience of sexual arousal and orgasm, sodomites also are interested in the illusion of intimacy.” (From The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 2)

“thus they choose self-disintegrity as masturbators do” + “the illusion of intimacy”

As messed up as the film Brokeback Mountain was, one thing it got totally right is the destructive blindness of gay-ety. That scene where the one guy turns his wife around to take her from behind, and eo ipso not have to FACE her (face), really captured it all, even if unwillingly. The sodomitic posture is literally one in which one’s OWN body-self is projected one plane forward, faceless and a sheer sensual device.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Things that make you go “Hmmmm…”

“‘There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them’, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecumenism ‘are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.'”

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-37117/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stop me if you’ve heard it before…

We all sense that our own lives are a joke of some kind. Our destiny is one of the following two: Heaven is the eternal experience of saying, “Oh, I get it now!” while Hell is the endless experience of saying, “I just don’t get it!”

The only choice, then, is to embrace the absurd wisdom of the Cross in this life–God crucified to save His own crucifiers!–or to endure unwisdom of having only ourselves to embrace forever.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Name! That! Author! (#noGoogling)

“I am reluctant to say anything that runs against [holy Scripture and Catholic tradition] on the pretext that we have superior insight today. Respect for the deposit of faith should not be called conservatism in the pejorative sense but a simple loyalty to the word of God. … I do not particularly strive for originality. Very few new ideas, I suspect, are true. … Far more valuable would it be to insert oneself in the great tradition of the fathers and doctors of the Church. I myself try to think and speak within that tradition, while taking due notice of new and deviant opinions. … [T]he present climate of opinion does not favor tradition and orthodoxy, two terms that have negative connotations for many hearers.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

It’s the culture of death, stupid!

“[T]he strategy of voting for Republicans in the hope that conservative Supreme Court justices will overturn Roe v. Wade is deeply flawed. Republicans nominated most of the justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade. … If the prolife movement is to make any strides, it must bring in a more diverse group of people. Abortion needs to be framed as a human-rights issue…. Like the Irish monks of the Dark Ages, Catholics should work to improve the educational, cultural, and moral environment of places where crisis pregnancies and abortions most likely occur.”

– Leah Mickens, letter to the editor, New Oxford Review (March 2009), p. 11.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hey, man, if you like sausage… Oh… Okay… I’ll shut up now…

“The cooks of a pot of soup on the stove of the Catholic Church would be the bishops and priests. Faithful Catholics expect bishops and priests to keep contaminants out of the mix. Unfortunately, many of them failed to meet this expectation.”

– Richard & Mary Gerbracht, response to a letter about their previously published article, New Oxford Review (March 2009), p. 5.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment