As explained here, Vester Lee Flanagan, the Virginia killer of two television journalists, self-identified as a homosexual and claimed that he "was attacked for being a gay, black man."
In the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Cardinal Ratzinger summarized the biblical teaching on homosexuality and explained why the Church's teaching on this subject follows necessarily from her teaching on the nature and purpose of sexuality:
"The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women in the Sacrament of Marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."
Homosexual activity is both self-indulgent and narcissistic. Gianfrancesco Zuanazzi, Professor of Psychology and Psychopathology for the John Paul II Institute for Studies at the Pontifical Lateran University, explains that, "The homosexual condition is difficult, sometimes tragic, and not only because of the obstacles it can still encounter in society and the injustices of which it can be the victim, but also because of its narcissistic quality. This quality is expressed in the continual attempts at 'self-recovery' and in searching for the 'better self' or the 'missing self' in another person. The homosexual approach is really one of identification and possession. According to Miller, it is easier for two homosexuals to regard each other as narcissistic extensions of themselves than to be involved in a mutual exchange. Socarides says without hesitation that in a homosexual relationship each partner plays his role, ignoring the complementarity of a sexual union, as if the act were consummated in "splendid isolation" from the other individual, simply as a stratagem for portraying a one-sided emotional conflict. Every homosexual encounter is primarily concerned with disarming the partner by means of seduction, prayer, power, prestige, effeminacy or masculinity, in order to derive satisfaction then from the loser.
Homosexual, like heterosexual, relationships exhibit forms of uplifting tenderness or mere genital expression, but whatever the approach, it always seems that the subjects use each other to fulfil themselves and, at the same time, to defend themselves from one another in a reciprocal way. Even if at the present time, dominated by the fear of AIDS, a couple's relations are not exceptional, as a rule they are unstable, unfaithful, strewn with jealousy and bitterness, marked by possessive love and demands that will never be satisfied. Very often homosexual relationships do not bind the two parties, but reveal that typical self-isolation which is an expression of complete autoerotism. The absence of complementarity, which stems from the radical difference between masculine and feminine identification, prevents the genuine dynamic of a couple. 'There is always something false", Marcel Eck notes, "and deeply painful in these loves which cannot experience reciprocity'. The problem of being, the title of a work by Jean Cocteau, who wrote from direct experience, is precisely the problem of being together.
Hans Giese rightly stresses that the 'foreground' of the homosexual syndrome comes from 'clinging to the self'. The move towards the other is not completed, while the move towards one's own sex is shorter, less costly, simpler; but, since one fears the risk of failure, to take this step involves a new risk, that of egotism. Bergler also maintains that the dominant note is always emotional detachment from the other and the focusing of interest on mere sexual gratification."
Acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God, Vester Lee Flanagan embraced the lie instead and worshipped and served himself. His narcissism and self-indulgence resulted in a callousness toward others even while claiming victim status at every moment of failure.
Showing posts with label Status. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Status. Show all posts
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
A pile of Manuse: Republican Representative Andrew Manuse accuses Bishop John McCormack of breaking the law
Vatican II teaches clearly that Catholics have certain responsibilities with regard to political matters: "In loyalty to their country and in faithful fulfillment of their civic obligations, Catholics should feel themselves obliged to promote the true common good. Thus, they should make the weight of their opinion felt, in order that civil authority may act with justice, and legislation may conform to moral precepts and the common good" (AA 14; cf. LG 36, GS 43, 75).
This teaching applies to Bishops as well of course. As Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted explains, "Bishops and priests are not to participate in the public administration of the government. Nonetheless, they do have the right, and sometimes an obligation, to speak out on political, social, or cultural matters impacting the Church or the common good. In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (28), Pope Benedict XVI states: 'It is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.' The Holy Father goes on to write (ibid): 'The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to awaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.'" (See here).
The First Amendment to the Constitution says absolutely nothing about keeping religion out of government. As Archbishop Charles Chaput has said, "Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic." See here.
But there are some who insist that religious expression should be private, marginal and ultimately irrelevant. For such people, religion is okay "in its place" but should be sanitized from the public square. One such individual is Republican State Representative and Tea Party leader Andrew Manuse. This intellectual giant, angry because Bishop John McCormack spoke at a Statehouse rally last week criticizing a state budget proposal, has said that, "There is already a federal provision that prohibits a church leader from engaging in the political process if the church has a tax-exempt status. What Bishop McCormack did was in effect breaking that law. If he wants to engage in the process, he can step down as Bishop or have his church pay taxes.." (See here).
If this is the best the GOP has to offer New Hampshire, small wonder that the party has been floundering as of late. What is it exactly that drives such animus against religious belief and Catholicism in particular? See here.
This teaching applies to Bishops as well of course. As Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted explains, "Bishops and priests are not to participate in the public administration of the government. Nonetheless, they do have the right, and sometimes an obligation, to speak out on political, social, or cultural matters impacting the Church or the common good. In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (28), Pope Benedict XVI states: 'It is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.' The Holy Father goes on to write (ibid): 'The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to awaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.'" (See here).
The First Amendment to the Constitution says absolutely nothing about keeping religion out of government. As Archbishop Charles Chaput has said, "Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic." See here.
But there are some who insist that religious expression should be private, marginal and ultimately irrelevant. For such people, religion is okay "in its place" but should be sanitized from the public square. One such individual is Republican State Representative and Tea Party leader Andrew Manuse. This intellectual giant, angry because Bishop John McCormack spoke at a Statehouse rally last week criticizing a state budget proposal, has said that, "There is already a federal provision that prohibits a church leader from engaging in the political process if the church has a tax-exempt status. What Bishop McCormack did was in effect breaking that law. If he wants to engage in the process, he can step down as Bishop or have his church pay taxes.." (See here).
If this is the best the GOP has to offer New Hampshire, small wonder that the party has been floundering as of late. What is it exactly that drives such animus against religious belief and Catholicism in particular? See here.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
The ugly face of anti-Catholicism in New Hampshire
Courtesy of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:
Tuesday April 5, 2011
N.H. REPUBLICANS ARE IN TROUBLE
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the reaction he has gotten from some New Hampshire Republicans in the wake of the Catholic League protest of Rep. David Bettencourt's attack on Bishop McCormack:
Never in the nearly 18 years I have spent as president of the Catholic League have I seen more totally irresponsible statements issued by the lawmakers in any one state. While some Republicans—and all of those attacking the Catholic League are Republicans—are merely upset with our criticism of Rep. Bettencourt, two have clearly crossed the line.
Rep. Lynne Ober wrote the following to us in an e-mail: "I agree that it is certainly unfortunate that the Catholic League chooses to harbor a person who helped pedophiles continue abusing children."
Rep. Andrew Manuse wrote this missive: "I am now considering a bill to remove the Church's tax exempt status in New Hampshire, for you have clearly shown that you no longer want it."
I have a challenge for the two of them.
Why doesn't Ober take the next step by personally accusing me of harboring a person who helped pedophiles continue to abuse children? Organizations can't sue for libel, but individuals can.
Why doesn't Manuse go right ahead with his bill to remove the Church's tax-exempt status? We'd love to present his e-mail in court.
Didn't anyone ever tell these lawmakers to be careful what they put in writing? In any event, it's time these two heard from our members.
Contact Ober: skibear@cheerful.com
Contact Manuse: amanuse@gmail.com
Tuesday April 5, 2011
N.H. REPUBLICANS ARE IN TROUBLE
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the reaction he has gotten from some New Hampshire Republicans in the wake of the Catholic League protest of Rep. David Bettencourt's attack on Bishop McCormack:
Never in the nearly 18 years I have spent as president of the Catholic League have I seen more totally irresponsible statements issued by the lawmakers in any one state. While some Republicans—and all of those attacking the Catholic League are Republicans—are merely upset with our criticism of Rep. Bettencourt, two have clearly crossed the line.
Rep. Lynne Ober wrote the following to us in an e-mail: "I agree that it is certainly unfortunate that the Catholic League chooses to harbor a person who helped pedophiles continue abusing children."
Rep. Andrew Manuse wrote this missive: "I am now considering a bill to remove the Church's tax exempt status in New Hampshire, for you have clearly shown that you no longer want it."
I have a challenge for the two of them.
Why doesn't Ober take the next step by personally accusing me of harboring a person who helped pedophiles continue to abuse children? Organizations can't sue for libel, but individuals can.
Why doesn't Manuse go right ahead with his bill to remove the Church's tax-exempt status? We'd love to present his e-mail in court.
Didn't anyone ever tell these lawmakers to be careful what they put in writing? In any event, it's time these two heard from our members.
Contact Ober: skibear@cheerful.com
Contact Manuse: amanuse@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Mr. Slater was not the victim but the victimizer
Remember Steven Slater, the homosexual flight attendant who had a psychological meltdown? In a previous post, I referred to Mr. Slater as the face of American decline and noted that he is "hardly someone we should be holding up as a role model for our children." This when he was being hailed as a "working-class hero" by many - especially those confused souls in the homosexual community. I was immediately mocked by a homosexualist website. And this comes as no surprise. The homosexual community is always in pursuit of victim status to promote its agenda.
Well, Mr. Slater has now accepted a plea bargain to stay out of jail. He is required to enroll in both mental health and substance abuse counseling and to keep the court abreast of his progress. Mr. Slater was not the victim here. He was the victimizer. He was the mean-spirited bully who threw a tantrum because he couldn't live up to the demands of his chosen profession. His bizarre rant was the result of his psychological problems and not stress from dealing with unruly passengers.
Will the homosexual community now acknowledge this? Don't hold your breath.
Well, Mr. Slater has now accepted a plea bargain to stay out of jail. He is required to enroll in both mental health and substance abuse counseling and to keep the court abreast of his progress. Mr. Slater was not the victim here. He was the victimizer. He was the mean-spirited bully who threw a tantrum because he couldn't live up to the demands of his chosen profession. His bizarre rant was the result of his psychological problems and not stress from dealing with unruly passengers.
Will the homosexual community now acknowledge this? Don't hold your breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


