For Archbishop Chaput, Father James Martin's ad hominem trashing of faithful Catholics is apparently just fine

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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.

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.