It's official: Military chaplains who propose the truth about homosexual acts will not be tolerated

Authentic Christians have always and everywhere accepted a "healthy pluralism." At the same time, such Christians have also understood that they have an obligation to acknowledge their beliefs and to preach the moral message given to them by the Lord Jesus. The follower of the Lord Jesus possesses a qualified certainty regarding the tenets of Natural Law and other truths which are revealed by God and help guide the conduct of man. Consequently, the authentic Christian understands that Christian ethical principles inform human society.


The authentic Christian will reject the sophism of those who declare that anyone who does not buy into the Dictatorship of Relativism (a pluralism of opinions which rejects any and all absolute truth or even its possibility) is a "fanatic" or a "fundamentalist." On the contrary, the authentic Christian will defend the truth in a positive manner. And while respecting persons and living out charity, such a Christian will proclaim the truth without fear.

This is the mind of Christ. As Pope John Paul II taught us in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 95: "The Church's teaching, and in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts, is not infrequently seen as the sign of an intolerable intransigence, particularly with regard to the enormously complex and conflict-filled situations present in the moral life of individuals and of society today; this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the Church's motherhood. The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. "As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection...

In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."

But, as Mass Resistance is reporting: "Among the first casualties in the homosexualization of the US military caused by the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) are the military chaplains who still profess traditional Christian (or Jewish) belief. And it's starting right away. It's becoming clear that any open disagreement with homosexuality will not be tolerated.


The latest news from the Center For Military Readiness (CMR). is extremely disturbing. CMR, run by executive director Elaine Donnelly, is the best source for information on the effects of the culture wars and political correctness plaguing our US military forces. She's exposing the speed and thoroughness of the transformation of the military since the DADT repeal. Their goal right now is to beat any possible subversion of it from a Republican Congress.

She reports that the Army is implementing "three-tiered LGBT training" for military chaplains. Tier One has already begun. As Donnelly explains:

CMR has obtained copies of the 'Tier One' training documents that the various services are already using to 're-educate' the troops. The training program for Army chaplains, in particular, makes it very clear that dissenters will have no option but to leave the service, if they are eligible and if they do not owe time to the Army.  See full article here.

This is the new military being re-tooled for a New Age; a military which will stamp out ortodox Christianity so that it may better serve its master when he comes.  Do I exaggerate?  Really?  Not long ago Lt. General Thomas Bostick said, "Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them...But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today." See here.

Does D.J. Bettencourt really believe that conservative solutions are best for New Hampshire?

New Hampshire House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt has been quoted in The Union Leader as having said that, "It is our responsibility [Granite State conservatives] to teach them [young people] why conservative solutions are best for New Hampshire."  See here.  And yet, Rep. Bettencourt has also expressed his belief that any debate on repealing same-sex "marriage" should be put off until next year so that "full and undivided attention" may be focused on New Hampshire's "outstanding financial issues."

One has to wonder how committed D.J Bettencourt is toward preserving the traditional understanding of marriage or promoting conservative values and solutions.  In the same article cited above he is quoted as having said that, "..the GOP must address the issues that have traditionally been outside of our comfort zone, but which are significant to young voters...I believe we need to do more to attract them."

Would this include watering down opposition toward same-sex "marriage"? Is Bettencourt suggesting that it possible to reconcile conservative principles with the homosexual lifestyle or ideology?  Star Parker so eloquently refutes such an asinine notion.  She writes, "The idea of 'gay conservative' is an oxymoron. 'Gay' is everything that 'conservative' is not. The foundation of the worldview that so-called 'gay conservatives' embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism. It's a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. It is a worldview that rejects eternal truths passed on from the beginning of time. Although the worldview that 'gay conservatives' choose to invent may diverge from the worldview of liberals, their common ground is they make it all up. And it is here where 'gay conservatives' and 'liberals' fundamentally depart from conservatives. Conservatives believe that there are objective and eternal truths, not of the product of any individual human mind, that are transmitted through the generations. Culture is not like HDTV or iPhones where the newest model is the best. These eternal truths provide the light in the fog that keeps us from crashing on the rocky shores where our base instincts lead us. 'Gay' is liberal, not conservative, regardless of what their stand may be on government spending or taxes. It's why, like all liberals, they use language to create reality, rather than appreciate that words have meaning that reflect reality. So they have re-invented the word 'gay,' re-invented the word 'marriage', and now they want to re-invent the word 'conservative.' Finally, we will re-invent the word 'freedom' and we'll put the final stamp on the idea that a free society, rather than being the path to truth, is the path to meaninglessness. What individuals choose in private, and for which they bear personal responsibility, is separate from what we sanction publicly for which we all must bear responsibility. A value-neutral government is impossible. The central battle in our country today is about values and how we understand freedom. It is a battle for our very soul." (Full article here).

Is it D.J. Bettencourt's hope to re-define or re-invent what it means to be a New Hampshire conservative?  Is this what he means when he says that conservatives must leave their "comfort zone" and do more to attract young people?  Is this merely code for "let's change the ideals of the GOP in New Hampshire"?

Let's hope not.

The New Hampshire and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt get it wrong

The editorial staff of The New Hampshire, an independent student newspaper at the University of New Hampshire, are upset over two bills currently before the New Hampshire House: HB 437 and HB 443.  Both would ban same-sex "marriage" in the Granite State.

In an editorial which may be found here, the bright lights of The New Hampshire, suddenly concerned with the economy (a concern which was noticeably absent when legislators were pusing for same-sex "marriage" in a floundering economy), assert that, "...the larger issue behind this debate is that the House's insistence to focus on social issues is doing little to benefit the state at this time."  They go on to quote from House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, who told the Nashua Telegraph that it is his belief that "the same sex marriage repeal must be retained in the Judiciary Committee this year so that our full and undivided attention is focused on New Hampshire's outstanding financial issues."

Issues of morality are merely a distraction from financial issues?  Our nation's first president would have disagreed.  In his Farewell Address given on September 19, 1796, George Washington specifically warned that, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Any attack on the Common Good will have ramifications across the political and economic spectrum.  There is a direct connection between a nation's moral health and its economic health.  Which is why the United States is now in crisis.  Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.

Now where did I read that?

Related reading: The rot in values that is causing America's decline.

A message from Karen Testerman: "Let's preserve marriage"!

I received an email from my friend Karen Testerman this morning.  Karen is asking us to make our voice heard and to let the HJC know that we support the repeal.  She writes:


This, Thursday, February 17th, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing two bills to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Both HB437 and HB443 will have the public hearing in Representative Hall inside the State House at 10 AM.


The Judiciary Committee members have been receiving communication against the repeal. They need to hear from you. There is also talk to "retain the bill." This is your chance to repeal Same Sex Marriage this year. Make your voice heard.

Please attend and testify. Let the Committee know that NH wants the 2009 Same Sex Marriage law repealed this year. If you cannot attend the hearing, please email the committee letting them know of your support of the repeal. Please email them with your name and town at: HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us.

This is your chance to support marriage between a man and a woman through your attendance and testimony. Let's work together. Let's Preserve Marriage!

Come on New Hampshire...this is a unique opportunity to serve the common good of society!  New Hampshire has been on the wrong road.  Let's change direction before its too late.

1993 U.S. Senate Debate on Homosexuality in the Military: "..in the development of cohesion, the needs of the group must be placed ahead of the rights of the individual."

"Military personnel policies on homosexuality have developed in a long history, history that has taught the lessons of war and peace, readiness and failure. The ban did not begin in the 1980's. It was codified after decades of experience. That experience led to a conclusion: Homosexuality is incompatible with military life, for practical reasons and for experiential reasons. Our Armed Forces have concluded that the presence of homosexuals undermines their ability to: First, maintain discipline, good order, and morale; second, our Armed Forces have concluded that the presence of homosexuals undermines their ability to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members.

They have concluded that this policy is necessary to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; that it is necessary to facilitate assignments and worldwide deployment of service members, who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; it is necessary for recruitment and retention of members of the military services; and finally, it is necessary to maintain public acceptability of military service.

That is a direct statement from current military policy, at least the policy as it was before the interim policy was directed in response to the President's initiative to change that.

The courts, in turn, have consistently upheld this policy because they judged that its basis was rational, that the military had a rational basis with which to make these conclusions and, therefore, draw the policy as exclusion of homosexuals from the military.

So when the President proposed to overturn the standard, I came to the floor and made a statement and also issued a challenge. I said that the burden of proof in this matter was squarely on the President's shoulders. It ought to be the advocates of change of a system that is deemed not only effective but the most effective the world has ever seen who must overcome the lessons of history. It is those advocates of change who must positively discredit an experience that is far different and far wider than their own.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted an extensive process to examine the roots of this policy. Senator Nunn designed a process that was fair and balanced. Staff interviewed thousands of military personnel on 21 bases. In six hearings, including field hearings, talking with soldiers, sailors, airmen where they live and work, thousands of pages of testimony were collected. Many Members of the Senate have not followed these matters as closely as those of the committee and, as I said, I would like to provide a summary of what we found so it can be a basis for evaluation by Members of the Senate as they look at these proposed policies.

Let me address this in a topical way. The most important criteria was this whole question of cohesion and morale. In the Armed Services Committee, we devoted a great deal of attention to the importance of cohesion in the military. It is something that those who have not served need to understand before they can render judgment.

Dr. David Marlowe, a military psychiatric expert, gave cohesion a very clear definition. He said:

[Page: S7604]

In its simplest form, cohesion could be viewed as that set of factors and processes that bonded soldiers together and bonded them to their leaders so that they would stand in the line of battle, mutually support each other, withstand the shock, terror, and trauma of combat, sustain each other in the completion of their mission and neither break nor run.

Dr. Marlowe concluded:

I think it was best put by a soldier I knew once who said the flag, patriotism, mom and apple pie are what bring you into the army. When the first bullet comes down the range, the only thing you are concerned with are your buddies.

Experts then told us that cohesion between those buddies is based on trust and shared values. They stressed over and over the importance of the shared-value system that is necessary to form the unit, the cohesion, the team that can effectively do what Dr. Marlowe has said, and that is withstand the shock, terror, and trauma of combat.

Dr. William Henderson testified before the committee:

A significant characteristic about a cohesive unit is the constant observation and evaluation of the behavior of unit members. Any deviation from unit norms, values, or expected behavior brings immediate and intense group pressures to conform to group norms. If the behavior is not corrected, then cleavage results in the group and cohesion is weakened.

One submariner with 12 years in the Navy commented: `Every sub I've ever been on has been like a close-knit family. If you feel uneasy about somebody within the family, you separate the family.'

As I said, this is not something that we normally relate to in our everyday lives because we live and work in an entirely different atmosphere, an entirely different way than those in the military. Those on deployment, those living in close quarters on submarines and ships, those living in tents overseas, those in training experience a far different living relationship, working relationship than those of us in civilian life. It is important to understand the distinction, and it is important to understand the difference, and it is also important to understand the concept of unit cohesion which can only be formed through, as these experts have testified, shared values and a unique type of bonding.

We heard that in the development of cohesion, the needs of the group must be placed ahead of the rights of the individual. Most of our work on the Senate floor and most of the legislation that we evaluate have to do with individual rights, and when we talk about military units, we subrogate individual rights in favor of group rights. It is something that is foreign to a lot of our thinking and a lot of our evaluation."

Reflect very carefully on this coherent and irrefutable argument: "It ought to be the advocates of change of a system that is deemed not only effective but the most effective the world has ever seen who must overcome the lessons of history."  The Obama White House and those who wish to cater to the radical homosexual lobby, have not made their case.  In fact, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) is beginning to bear fruit already.  They have not "overcome the lessons of history."  The old axiom applies here with emphatic force: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Related reading: Pederasty is the dominant form of homosexuality.

The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is beginning to bear fruit

WorldNetDaily is reporting that half of the Marine Corps may leave over the repeal of DADT.  If only the Obama administration had listened to the Archbishop for the Military Services, His Excellency The Most Rev. Timothy Broglio.  In a recent statement, His Excellency said that:
"In a response to a request from the Chiefs of Chaplains of the Armed Forces I communicated some considerations and concerns regarding the proposal to change the existing legislation regarding persons with a homosexual orientation in the military. In fulfilling my role as the chief shepherd of Catholics in the United States Armed Forces, I have had the opportunity of visiting many installations in the recent past. A number of chaplains and commanding officers have expressed concerns about the effects of a change. There is a request for guidance.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is clearly expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Consequently, those with a homosexual orientation can expect respect and treatment worthy of their human dignity. The prohibitions regarding sexual harassment and intimidation refer just as much to homosexuals as to anyone else. However, unions between individuals of the same gender resembling marriage will not be accepted or blessed by Catholic chaplains. Furthermore no restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted. First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion must be respected.

This means that Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation, but can never condone--even silently--homosexual behavior. A change might have a negative effect on the role of the chaplain not only in the pulpit, but also in the classroom, in the barracks, and in the office.

A more fundamental question, however, should be raised. What exactly is the meaning of a change? No one can deny that persons with a homosexual orientation are already in the military. Does the proposed change authorize these individuals to engage in activities considered immoral not only by the Catholic Church, but also by many other religious groups? Will there be changes in the living conditions, especially in the AOR?

There is no doubt that morality and the corresponding good moral decisions have an effect on unit cohesion and the overall morale of the troops and effectiveness of the mission. This Archdiocese exists to serve those who serve and it assists them by advocating moral behavior. The military must find ways to promote that behavior and develop strong prohibitions against any immoral activity that would jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that weakens the mission. So also must a firm effort be made to avoid any injustices that may inadvertently develop because individuals or groups are put in living situations that are an affront to good common sense.

I think that those questions require an adequate response. The effect of a repeal of the current legislation has the potential of being enormous and overwhelming. Nothing should be changed until there is certainty that morale will not suffer. Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed forces at a time of war. Catholics believe that nothing will be done if there is a careful and prudent evaluation of the effects of a change.

For years, those struggling with alcoholism have benefitted from Alcoholics Anonymous. Like homosexuality, there is rarely a cure. There is a control through a process, which is guarded by absolute secrecy. It is an equivalent to "Don't ask don't tell". The process has worked well for some time without the charge that it is discriminatory.

The Archdiocese for the Military Services--the only jurisdiction charged with the pastoral care of all Catholics in the military, VA Administration, and at the service of the Federal Government outside of the boundaries of the United States, which is also charged with endorsing Roman Catholic priests urges the Congress not to repeal the current policy for the Armed Forces."

Meditate very carefully on this part of the Archbishop's statement: "Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed forces at a time of war." 
 
Translation: The Obama White House shouldn't throw the moral beliefs of heterosexual soldiers whose religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality into the garbage bin just to score political points with the radical homosexual lobby.  And these same heterosexual men shouldn't have to share close living quarters with homosexual men since this would make them uncomfortable and negatively impact unit cohesion and morale.

We already know what Obama thinks about the religious beliefs of these soldiers.  He could care less about them.  In fact, he has ridiculed these religious beliefs, describing them as "worn out arguments."  Apparently soldiers who are Christian, Jewish or Muslim and who object to homosexuality on moral grounds are now considered second-class citizens by the Obama White House.

 
 

Archbishop Timothy Broglio Warns of Immoral Consequences of 'Dont Ask' Repeal

"There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons, No. 11).

The Archbishop expressed his concern that troop morale and unit cohesion would suffer if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly in the military. Additionally, His Excellency said that a firm effort must be made to avoid injustices that develop because people are put "in living situations that are an affront to good common sense." (See here).

The repeal of DADT also represents an act of violence toward Christian soldiers (and others). How so? Because "Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2525) and "purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person....It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2521). But the sexual liberation movement undermines the sense of modesty, which protects chastity.

A repeal of DADT represents an act of violence against chastity, modesty and temperance. Openly homosexual men and women will share the same barracks, showers and restrooms with heterosexual men and women with whom they wish to have sexual relations. And that is unjust because people are thereby put in living situations which make them uncomfortable. This should be common sense. The early Church apologist Tertullian, in his treatise On Modesty which is an apology of Christian chastity, wrote, "But all the other frenzies of passions - impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes - beyond the laws of nature [homosexual], we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities." (See here).

They should likewise be banished from the military.