The Catholic Free Press buys into homosexual agitprop

The word "homophobia" is employed by homosexual activists as a semantic weapon in the cultural war. Arthur Evans, co-founder of Gay Activist Alliance (GAA), explains how the homosexual movement came up with the word homophobia to characterize their opposition:

"By good fortune, George Weinberg, a straight psychologist who had long been a friend of our community, regularly attended GAA meetings. Watching with fascination our zap and the media responses, he came up with the word we had been struggling for - 'homophobia,' meaning the irrational fear of loving someone of the same sex....The invention of the word 'homophobia' is an example of how theory can be rooted in practice. The word didn't come from an arm-chair academic viewing the movement at a distance....Instead, it came from personal interactions among active, thinking people who acknowledged a shared value: the transformation of society for the better." (Arthur Evans, "The Logic of Homophobia," see here).

George Weinberg thereby classified moral opposition to homosexuality as a phobia: "I would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his prejudice against homosexuality." (Quoted in Jack Nichols, "George Weinberg, Ph.D - Badpuppy's February Interview," see here).

For the homosexual activist, moral opposition to homosexuality is a "phobia." Even a mental illness. The use of the word "homophobia" as a semantic weapon is now being employed by The Catholic Free Press, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. In an article entitled "How are we doing in this life" (February 19th edition of the newspaper), Diane Boover writes, "...racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia all show our tendency as human beings to diminish the other for reasons each individual deems justifiable."

There you have it. Those of us who are morally opposed to homosexuality are "homophobes" who are attempting to "diminish the other." Small wonder that when I wrote Bishop Robert McManus recently and expressed my interest in the Diocesan priesthood, I received no response. Apparently I am a "homophobe." And so are those at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10).

And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).

When the Bishop neglected to answer my letter was he diminishing me? Or is it considered "acceptable" to discriminate against orthodox heterosexual men who feel called to the ministerial priesthood?

Related reading here.