Rainbow Sash Movement: Is it dialogue they want or merely surrender to their agenda?

In my last post, I noted how retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has called on the Roman Catholic Bishops of Minnesota to jettison Catholic teaching in the name of "charity" and "dialogue" and to surrender to the radical homosexual agenda and its demands for same-sex "marriage." 

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65). The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost.  For example, Joe Murray, Executive Director of the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States, after hurling a litany of angry and calumnious accusations against Archbishop Timothy Dolan in particular and the Catholic Church in general, challenges the Archbishop to an open debate.  See here.

The Rainbow Sash Movement declares, "We recognize that our Executive Director’s call for such a public debate will most certainly be met with arrogance, and even dismissal. However, such a refusal will only focus the spotlight on a Catholic Archbishop who lacks the courage to stand up for what he claims to believe in and meet in a public setting for a debate on Gay Marriage. It is time to replace the feeding frenzy of homophobia with a mature exchange of ideas in the Church."


As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

But herein lies the problem.  The radical homosexual activists of the "Rainbow Sash Movement" are not interested in objective truth or authentic dialogue.  They will not - they cannot - come to the table with good will.  And this because they care not for truth.  Only for "power" as they incorrectly perceive power.

The Rainbow Sash Movement is part of the broader Homosexual Hate Movement and has engaged in calumny against Pope Benedict XVI, accusing the Holy Father of having "a Nazi past."  At one point last year, this hate group announced its plans to violate federal law and to show contempt for the celebration of the Holy Mass across the United States on Pentecost Sunday by disrupting the Mass.  See here.

Is the United States Department of Justice Christianophobic?

Christian opposition to homosexuality is based upon Divine Revelation and the Natural Law. For Catholics, the Catechism clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary to nature and homosexual acts are among the "sins gravely contrary to chastity" (CCC, 2396) and that "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

This teaching, as the Catechism makes clear, is based upon Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Natural Law. But for homosexual activists and others who support the radical homosexual agenda, moral opposition toward homosexuality is something evil and is rooted in mental illness. The word "homophobia," as explained here, is employed by homosexual activists as a semantic weapon in the cultural war.

The United States Department of Justice, as this article explains, has categorized Repent America as a "hate group" because of its Biblical opposition to homosexuality. And the USDOJ has an article at its website which asserts that "homophobia" is rooted in a "toxic masculinity." This article says that, "Toxic masculinity is the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence...According to Connell, contemporary hegemonic masculinity is built on two legs, domination of women and a hierarchy of intermale dominance...It is also shaped to a significant extent by the stigmatization of homosexuality...Today's hegemonic masculinity in the United States of America and Europe includes a high degree of ruthless competition, an inability to express emotions other than anger, an unwillingness to admit weakness or dependency, devaluation of women and all feminine attributes in men, homophobia, and so forth...Toxic masculinity is..socially destructive...proclivities associated with toxic masculinity include..a strong need to dominate and control others....a readiness to resort to violence, and the stigmatization and subjugation of women, gays and men who exhibit feminine characteristics." (See here).

The USDOJ seems anxious to categorize Christian opposition toward homosexuality as a form of mental illness, a "toxic masculinity" which is prone to violence and domination. But the Church's teaching isn't an attempt to "dominate" or "stigmatize" homosexual persons. The Church teaches clearly that homosexual persons, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC, 2358). The Gospel is not a dominating force. It is a liberating force. It liberates from the slavery of sin. Meanwhile, the Rainbow Sash Movement (part of the Homosexual Hate Movement) has announced its plans to violate federal law by interfering with the First Amendment rights of Catholics. Will the USDOJ take action? Or will radical homosexual activists be allowed to terrorize Churches as they did in California over Proposition 8? Have radical homosexual activists shown respect for Christian believers?

Is the stage being set for persecution? President Obama has already asserted that Christians and others who oppose homosexuality are clinging to worn out ideas. See here.

Pope Benedict XVI on the dangers of abortion and same-sex "marriage" here.

Remember the Domestic Extremism Lexicon fiasco? Read here.

Does the SPLC have to watch a little more carefully?

In my previous post, I challenged those at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to watch the videos posted at Mass Resistance (which clearly show homosexual activists engaging in hate) and to ask themselves who the real hate group is in Massachusetts - and across the country for that matter.

The Southern Poverty Law Center operates a Blog entitled "Hatewatch." That Blog may be found here. In the links section, there is a link to another Blog entitled "Pam's House Blend." That Blog may be found here.

Read some of the hateful, anti-Christian comments which are laced with profanity at Pam's House Blend - here. And ask yourself: is the SPLC really interested in exposing hate? If so, they don't have very far to look. It may be found by visiting the links section at their own Blog.

Is moral opposition to homosexuality a hate crime?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has included Mass Resistance in its list of hate groups because of the organization's opposition to homosexuality, an opposition which is rooted in both Divine Revelation and Natural Law. This is ridiculous on so many different levels. What is particularly ironic, however, is that Mass Resistance doesn't even meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp).

And what is the definition of "immutable"? The word itself comes from the Latin: in - not and mutabilis - mutable. The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with an excellent definition: "Not subject or susceptible to change." But can one honestly suggest that homosexuality is immutable? Not according to the hard science: http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

What then has motivated the Southern Poverty Law Center to include Mass Resistance in its listing of hate groups? Is the SPLC driven by politics or science? Tolerance or relativism? Open-mindedness or indiscrimination?

What do you think?