Over at America Magazine online, Michael O'Loughlin asserts that Catholics faithful to the Magisterial teaching of the Church are loud and uncharitable

In an article published at America Magazine online, and which may be found here, Michael O'Loughlin writes:  "I've read a couple different stories over the last few days that offer a glimpse into the polarization of the Catholic Church on certain issues, in this case homosexuality and the place of gay people in the Church.


First was the news that The Pilot, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston, ran an opinion column in which Daniel Avila, an employee of the USCCB, said that homosexuality may well be the work of the devil. From the SFGate:

In the column, Avila says 'the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.' It also says 'disruptive imbalances in nature that thwart encoded processes point to supernatural actors who, unlike God, do not have the good of persons at heart.' It says that when 'natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God.'

Both Avila and The Pilot apologized for the column; The Pilot said the claim was contradictory to Church teaching and presented theological errors. Today, the USCCB said that it had accepted Avila's offer to resign.

Regardless of Avila's official employment status with the Catholic Church, it is clear that some within the Church still believe that gay men and women are demonic; are less than images of God; and are not worthy of the dignity that by the Church's own teachings should be afforded to all human beings. It is doubtful that Avila's views are unique to him.

Now contrast that with this story from the Chicago Tribune that profiles Anthony Alfano, the first openly gay student body president of DePaul University, the nation's largest Roman Catholic university. From the article:

When Alfano ran for student government president last spring, he didn't make special note of being gay. His closest friends knew, and that seemed enough. Over the summer, though, he decided he owed it to other young gay people to be more candid, so he opened up in the student newspaper last week, despite worrying about how his candor might affect his conservative Catholic family.

"This story needs to be shared," he said. "It's for the gay youth, especially those thinking about taking their lives. I want to let them know I'm in a position of influence at a Catholic university, the largest Catholic university in the country, and I have all this support. I want to tell them, 'You can come out too.'"

Alfano, of course, has his detractors, but he says that his experience has been overwhelmingly positive, with support from the University community. It is a credit to Catholic universities in the US, beacons of hope for Catholics here, that DePaul released this statement:

'Anthony is a remarkable young man and student leader,' said an official DePaul statement, 'and we hope that his candor helps other young people facing these issues to feel comfortable discussing their orientation with family and friends.'

The Catholic Church in the US is a big tent if there ever were one, so it is not surprising that the range of opinions on certain subjects is wide. These two anecdotes offer a glimpse into that range. Though it would be naive to use them to make too large a claim, it is hopeful that the individuals involved in the DePaul story represent the generation that will supplant those involved in the first episode.

Taken together, these two stories represent my own experience in the Church. There are the few who readily denounce those who are different from the norm. But alongside those individuals are the many who stand ready to welcome people where they are, to affirm their gifts, and to walk alongside them without judgement or callousness. Sadly it seems that the few have the loudest mics available to them. But when I search just a bit, it's not too difficult to find the many, and that is where the Church truly lives."

Mr. O'Loughlin, like many of his intellectually-challenged counterparts in the world of "liberal Catholicism," suffers from an almost irreversible condition we Frenchmen call "grosse tete et peu de sens" - big head and little wit.  It is almost impossible to produce the slightest crack in the wall of conviction which such intellectually-cramped characters have constructed around their own opinions.  Nor should this come as a surprise.  For the rejection of episteme inevitably leads to the worship of doxa.  But faithful Catholics understand, even if these mental and moral midgets do not, that the question of who speaks for the Church has already been resolved: "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

As for O'Loughlin's idiotic suggestion that those who condone homosexual behavior constitute the "the loving many," this is nothing more than the regurgitated asinine artifice employed by those who advance the radical homosexual agenda.  This cheap tactic ignores the truth that from the Catholic standpoint [aka, the rational standpoint] compassion is only true when it aims at the real good of one's neighbor.  And the greatest good is his eternal salvation.

Mr. O'Loughlin's piece is long on emotional appeal but short on substance.  Which is probably why we find it at America Magazine.  Such articles are its stock and trade.

Obama: Americans are stupid

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).



Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate.  And now, he is suggesting that the American people are stupid.  In an article which may be found here, we read how Obama told Steve Kroft during a "60 Minutes" interview that, "..leadership isn't just legislation..it's a matter of persuading people..making an argument that people can understand."

How patronizing.  How insulting. If the American people are not convinced of Obama's policies, it is not because they lack understanding, it is because his policies are inane and his ideas lack substance.  Remember when this mental giant suggested that those who oppose homosexuality (because of Divine Revelation and Natural Law) were clinging to "worn out arguments"?  How about when Pope Benedict XVI telephoned Obama after the election to congratulate him on his victory?  The Holy Father brought up the subject of abortion and Obama said simply, "We agree to disagree."  See here.

Authentic leadership also involves acknowledging when one is wrong and not blaming one's failures on other people.  Our president is grossly immature.  And that fact is chilling.

President Obama and the basic incapacity to listen...

It comes as no surprise that President Obama admits to ignoring the Restoring Honor rally (which he refers to as the "Beck Rally." See here. When the President and other liberals aren't dismissing their opponents as being "bigots", they simply ignore them. This is the characteristic sign of irreverence.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand defines irreverence as, "the basic incapacity to listen..the attitude that already knows everything before being has the opportunity to inform us. Irreverence is the impertinent, arrogant attitude that makes our minds deaf and blind to reality - the more so, the deeper and more sublime the object.." (The Charitable Anathema, p. 112).

Irreverence is not the proper response to value. But what more can one expect from an egocentric opportunist who poses as a statesman? President Obama is not at all interested in meeting the demands of truth or in acknowledging those valid points raised by political opponents. Which is why he dismisses the Restoring Honor rally by implying that "a certain portion of the country" has been stirred up by Mr. Beck - the implication being that those in attendance cannot think for themselves.

As time marches on, it is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that President Obama, the "Yes we can" President, is nothing more than an intellectual fraud. Especially since he now admits he is powerless to fix the economy.

He has proven himself to be most competent in one area: taking vacations. One should stick to what one is good at I suppose.