Wednesday, March 9, 2005

The Thin Rainbow Line (Part II)

In continuation of our discussion concerning Jason Brent’s recent Viewpoint article in which he criticizes those students who oppose the foundation of the “Human Rights Campaign of Marquette”, a homosexual ‘support’ group, on campus grounds and used specific textual evidence from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to back up his statements, we shall now examine Catechism No. 2357, of which he cites in the article, and examine what textual material was left out (either accidentally or deliberately) of the final publication:

“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, 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 complementarily. Under no circumstances can they be approved”

Beside the clearly and obvious fact that he includes merely five words from this statement in his article, there is something more important to this paragraph statement. Do you not find it a bit suspicious that he does not make mention to the “under no circumstances can they [homosexual activities] be approved”? Though the Catholic Church is clearly not going so far as to say that all homosexuals are going straight to Hell for what they have done, though that may be the case if they fail to repent and ask God for forgiveness prior to their death, it does not appear to make a very solid case that homosexuals are all fine-and-dandy in the scheme of things. Note, I am not advocating that homosexuals should be taken outside and beaten to a bloody pulp with an aluminum bat, goodness no, but neither am I saying that we should lie down and allow this blatant act of immorality go about any further in our nation. What will be discussed later on in this entry is how thin the line has been draw in our current society as to what designates tolerance and utter ignorance concerning the system of morals and values in the Catholic teachings.

Brent goes on to make the following statement:

“There is usually confusion in the fact that the Catholic Church does not condemn a person for being a homosexual”

One could raise some serious arguments concerning what Mr. Brent is advocating in this sentence. First off, the Catechism, at the time it was originally written, was under the impression that homosexuality was essentially a mental disorder in that the person with this defect was born with this condition and that he/she had no control whatsoever over his/her actions or tendencies. Thus said, this meant he/she could neither be condemned nor punished directly for those said actions but rather must be pitied and improved, so it would seem, by society. As we all should know by now, this is not sensible. There is no doubt that it is the choice of the individual himself [or herself], thought through rationally and clearly through logic and reason in their mind, as to whether he/she should engage in homosexual practices or not. This should not be passed off a mere defective reflex in which nothing can be done to stop it and we should simply tolerate it as a society. Your recollection of history may be a little fuzzy but last time I checked this scenarios did not work out all too well for either the Greeks or the Romans in the end. It was actually a contributing factor, though not the main action, in their empires collapsing. Our modern American society draws a thin line between tolerance and the entire relinquishment of our ingrained system of morals and values passed down through religious teachings and traditions, thanks in part to the left’s well-coordinated propaganda concepts known as ‘Separation of Church and State’, which does not exist anywhere within the United States Constitution, and the ‘politically correct’ environment. And secondly, though the Church does not openly condemn a person for being a homosexual as Brent states, but neither does it approve of such a course of action for a particular person, whether they eventually return to the flock or not, either.

The original intention of the Marquette College Republicans was not to engage in a pitched-battle against this program, though we seem to have come to conclusion that if there were homosexuals on campus who wished to receive help in abstaining from their homosexual tendencies then they could receive that either somewhere else within the Milwaukee County area or through their local parish. Sadly things didn’t turn out that way and we were forced to argue against the proposal to the unconscionable waste of our valuable tuition payments. Would it not be considered utter hypocrisy to set up and fund the “Human Rights Campaign of Marquette” to help homosexuals revert from their old sexual ways back toward the church when on the very same campus you have the Gay & Lesbian Organization funding, with clear support from MUSG, “National Coming Out Week” and other ‘Gay Pride’ events that are meant to perform the exact opposite effect on the ‘gay community’ of the university? The higher-ups of the university are attempting to have their cake and eat it too, willing not to oppose the frivolous demands of the liberal ‘political correctness’ crowd while at the same time luring less conservative Republicans back into the fold with this program by appearing to have taken the middle ground in this debate, neither approving nor disapproving of homosexuality, when it fact they have totally caved in to the political pressure the left has pushed on them. The current administration must decide whether to remain with the longstanding Catholic values against homosexuality that the Jesuit orders have kept to for nearly a hundred years now or to cave into the political pressure from the anti-religious left, and thus losing out on any spiritual credibility they once had.

Here is merely a quick note to keep everyone up-to-date as to what is exactly going on with me personally and how this will ultimately affect the way the blog will be operated over the next couple of weeks:

First, a fellow Marquette University College Republican named Douglas Zabrowski recently submitted a Viewpoint article concerning the Catholic values that have diminished in light of the actions made by the higher-ups of the university, eventually having it published in the March 8th, 2005, edition of the Marquette Tribune. In spite of the fact that he wrote a six-hundred and ninety-five word article [with a space limit of seven-hundred words], the newspaper publication still found it fitting to cut the article down to around five-hundred and thirty words, though no reason was ever given as to why this action was taken. Douglas has gracious provided me with the complete text of the Viewpoint article, which I will be more then happy to post here tomorrow afternoon, so be sure to keep checking in for updates.

Second, though it did take an extra day or so to respond to my Viewpoint response then it had been for me before this, I was given a tip by the person who wrote the article, of whom I have no knowledge about [he spoke to me but I have no clue who he is], that a reply to my particular article will appear in tomorrow’s edition of the Marquette Tribune. Apparently he wanted to ensure that there would be no hard feelings between us, despite the fact I hadn’t the faintest idea who he was. Though he was gracious in his action, it was not necessary in the least. I encourage the concept of the political debate; rather it is the left in this country to takes pleasure in attempting to silence their critics. But I am intrigued as to what exactly he will be arguing against given how a majority of the article is a list of facts that are practically indisputable. Here is what I came up with: 1) he will criticize my theory that you can not be a supporter of the troops while at the same time protesting against the Iraq War, 2) point toward Bush’s WMD claims of which he will claim were wrong, 3) he will criticize my use of the term ‘scum’ when describing the United Nations and those who support this organization, 4) will make some claim that we provided Saddam Hussein the weapons he attempted to use against us, 5) question why we supported him during the Iranian war, or 6) criticize my use of the quote from Edmund Burke. Will I be right? We will just have to see tomorrow morning [after my Theology Midterm, of course]. Depending on what I have to do tomorrow morning following the exam or during work, I may not post a reply to the article until either Friday or sometime over the weekend, and even that would be a stretch considering the amount of work I need to get done.

And lastly, speaking about work, it is Midterm time here at Marquette University which means I am going to be a little sleep deprived for the next couple of days or so, all to be made up during Spring/Easter Break no doubt. Here is my schedule as of now – Theology Midterm on Thursday, International Politics Midterm and ‘Robots’ review on Friday [along with an 8am discussion class for Western Civilization 002], English Short-Writing Assignment due on Tuesday, and a Western Civilization 002 paper due on Wednesday. Our break lasts from March 18th to March 29th, 2005, and I have not thought about at this time what I will do with this blog during that time. I may choose to write on current events during that time but more likely I will repost past Viewpoint articles that did not manage to get published in the Marquette Tribune. The website may shut down temporarily during the summer since obviously I can not comment on editorials in a newspaper that is not published during the summer semester, but this may be where I comment on current events. Again, I am thinking ahead of myself and I need to get back to concentrating on my studies. Wish me luck everyone!