Where the Rubber Hits the Road: UK: Homosexual Activist with a camera tries to intimidate priest in his pulpit | Fr. Z's Blog

14 March, 2012

UK: Homosexual Activist with a camera tries to intimidate priest in his pulpit | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?

20 comments:

Anonymous14 March, 2012
Hi Tim,

I think we can all agree that activism of any stripe may involve actions that are illegal.

For example, when an environmental activist trespasses and blocks a logging company's roads or machinery, it is amost certainly illegal.

Similarly, when a pro-life activist trespasses onto the property of an arbortion facility for the purposes of protesting or harrassing clients, that individual may also be committing an illegal act.

I am sure many here would argue that while the above scenarios are technically illegal, they are not necessarily immoral.

I do not condone illegal behaviour, nor would I counsel the use of violence. Having said that, I can sympathize with the aims of many protesters and activists.

While this activist's actions might be reasonably construed as illegal, they are not necessarily immoral.

I think the RCC is horribly complicit in the ill treatment of LGBT persons around the world - as much for what it teaches as for what it fails to condemn. Consequently, I am not surprised that some activists take the fight back into the Church (literally).

Cheers...Martin
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous14 March, 2012
Martin: I have to disagree with you.The church is opposed to the objective sin of sodomy and its allied actions so the church has every right to speak against the sin.It seems to me that homosexuals and the gay/lesbian types are not happy unless everyone approves of their lifestyle but do not want those opposed to have any right of rebuttal. Indeed in the States Catholic institutions are being forced by Obama to pay for services to which the church is opposed. In Ontario the McGuinty government demands that Catholic schools must have gay/lesbian clubs and speak positively about the lifestyle.I am not aware of any bishop who has raised his voice in stirring opposition just as they have allowed their D&P outfit to continue to collect money for actgions that have been proven to be against church teaching.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Father Steven Ballard, J.C.L.14 March, 2012
Now Marty, you haven't lost your ability to yank on the old chain! Cute!
ReplyDelete
Anonymous15 March, 2012
Anonymous,

You write: "The church is opposed to the objective sin of sodomy and its allied actions so the church has every right to speak against the sin."

I do not need you to tell me what the current teaching is - I am well aware of it. My point is twofold:

1. The RCC has no objective basis for its teachings on homosexuality. I say this for a few reasons:

a) Natural Law Theory is useless in condemning homosexual acts (one cannot even use NLT to arrive at a consensus on the death penalty or whether or not it is moral to assassinate Osama Bin Laden);

b) The church's distinction between "sinner and sin" is a distinction without a difference. One's sexual orientation is integral to one's personhood and legally proscribing the related behaviour is tantamount to discrimination against the person. Try this on for size: if I were to call for the criminalization of religious practice but not religious belief, would you not rightly cry foul? Why? Because the right to believe is a useless right if you cannot also practice your religion.

c) There is not one shred of credible evidence that homosexuality is inherently harmful to either the individual or society.

2. The RCC is not only bereft of a rational basis for its teachings on homosexuality, but it’s pope and hierarchy frequently go out of their way to demonize LGBT persons (e.g. SSM marriage is greatest threat facing civilization). Shamefully, the hierarchy remains resolutely mute in condemning its own members who spread calumny against LGBT persons, and they are virtually inactive in opposing legislation that invokes the death penalty for LGBT persons (refer to Uganda’s current bill against homosexuals), or they actively fund the removal of legitimate civil rights from LGBT persons (refer to Proposition 8 in California).

While I will concede that the church has a “right” to its theology, it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that this “right” entitles the church to pretend that it has rational, objectively supported arguments in support of its point of view.

The church is no quivering victim in its vicious crusade against LGBT persons and their families. The Church is still wealthy, influential, well organized, and privileged. The LGBT community is small, fragmented, marginalized, and weak.

If the church chooses to squander its treasure (from your contributions to the collection plate), and chooses to squander what is left of its tattered reputation in opposing the legitimate civil aspirations of LGBT persons – then so be it. But don’t expect the LGBT community to roll over without a fight.

Cheers...Martin
ReplyDelete
Replies
Father Steven Ballard, J.C.L.16 March, 2012
What a ridulous stunt in a place of worship - where is a good Knight of Columbus and a sword when u need one!

Marty - whats left of the church's tattered reputation - exaggeration?

Could you give me a cogent definition of 'transsexual' and why it should not be considered something of a psychological impairment?
ReplyDelete
Anonymous19 March, 2012
Hi Lulabell - The popular meme among the religious right is that the Church is a victim, and the LGBT community is some kind of facist bully. By any objective measurement, the LGBT community is weak when compared to the well-funded, well-organized and privileged RCC. I do, however, acknowledge that the LGBT community has one great advantage over the RCC, namely: the LGBT community has truth on its side (read "objective reality"). Truth is powerful and helps to level what is an otherwise skewed playing field. Perhaps this is what you find so disturbing in recent media coverage and the more enlightened response from sociaety in general?

Hi Steve - I would have thought that the Church's tattered reputation would be a given among both "progressive" and "orthodox" citizens. Progressives see the Church's position on women, contraception, abortion, equal marriage, and the sexual abuse scandal as evidence of a reputation in decline. The orthodox might cheer the Church on while it wages a culture war, but many see the sexual abuse scandal as evidence of a reputation in decline.

If you are interested in learning more about "transsexualism" feel free to look it up on the internet. There is an abundance of material out there. I will simply note that whether or not it is a psychological diagnosis, the "treatment" sometimes involves gender re-assignment. The data I read suggests that gender re-assignment has tremendous benefits for the individual undergoing it. Why would you deny someone a "treatment" that they freely undertake, and which has clear benefits?

Lastly - are we then in agreement on the other points which I raised above?

Cheers...Martin
ReplyDelete
Replies
Father Steven Ballard, J.C.L.19 March, 2012
Wow - lots there Marty - all of which I have serious problems with.

I gather we are both rather entrenched in our positions, however I would be lying if I did not take note of a bit of an uppity tone: so all those who are in the LGBT community (or whatever combination of consonants one would want to assemble) are the dear enlightened ones and we poor RCs are 'knuckledraggers' from the dark ages? That would seem to be the tenor of your remarks.

I get the politics and the drive to make all things 'normal' in THE community. I would simply suggest that contrary to what you would want to present as settled facts, are not so. You toss around terms like sex reassignment as if it's the most natural and normal thing to do like getting ones hair cut.

Clearly, there are attempts to influence culture and law on all fronts. The attempts of THE community are interesting, but will not undermine the legitimate right of the church to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and teach the tenets of our faith. That we may not be seen as 'progressive' is probably a plus. That the church will continue to fight to protect marriage and family life, in the (dirty word) traditional sense of the word, is a given.
ReplyDelete
Father Steven Ballard, J.C.L.19 March, 2012
Oh I forgot Marty, you dodged my question. I cant google it, since I am of compromised intelligence: pretend you were speaking to a Grade 4 class or a Grade 8 class - define transsexualism - seriously!
ReplyDelete
Father Steven Ballard, J.C.L.19 March, 2012
A blog can be a great place to intelligently share ideas and debate. Regretfully, they are co-opted by the crazies and the haters of all thing Catholic.

With that in mind, i take my leave I recall a line from one of my favorite Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes - "have a nice existence everyone!"

Pax Christi
ReplyDelete
Anonymous20 March, 2012
Hi Lulabell - You write: "If you are the Witch in charge, please come on out- let all who are evil adore you."

Thanks for the invitation to come out and let all who are evil adore me. Honestly, I am not sure I have a suitable frock in my closet for the occassion. Let me see...how about an old alb from my seminary days? Nah...too plain. I need something truly fabuuuuuuulous!! Will get back to you once the wardrobe issues are sorted.

Hi Steve - So...you think that I have "...a bit of an uppity tone"? Sorry my writing style is not sufficiently obsequious for your tastes. What with Lulabell's exhortation to reveal myself to my adoring evil audience, I think I am permitted a certain "uppity tone". No? In any case, rather than critique my tone, stick to a critique of the content of my writing. That way we will know that you have a serious counter-argument to make.

What is a transsexual? Well I am certainly no expert in the area. Here is a rather straightforward definition:

Transsexual: a term for a person who has an intense long-term experience of being the sex opposite to his or her birth sex and who typically pursues a medical and legal transformation to become the other sex. There are transmen (female-to-male transsexuals) and transwomen (male-to-female transsexuals). Transsexual people may undergo a number of procedures to bring their body and public identity in line with their self-image, including sex hormone therapy, electrolysis treatments, sex reassignment surgeries and legal changes of name and sex status.

Lastly, I did not suggest that sex reassingment surgery (SRS) is a common or every day occurrence. Everything I have read and learned from others indicates that it is quite the opposite. In fact, I understand that it sometimes entails deleterious side effects. What I did say was that SRS can provide siginifcant benefits to those who identify as transsexual. There are also other treatments available as I have noted above.

In any case, let's assume there is really something called "Gender Dysphoria" and that SRS is freely undertaken by a transsexual after careful consideration of the risks, costs and benefits. Why on earth would the RCC have an interest in denying SRS to such an individual? How is the individual helped by such a prohibition? How does society benefit from such a prohibition?

Happy to explore the issue with you Steve. Let's just stay away from tone trolling and personal attacks MKay?

Cheers...Martin
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous20 March, 2012
Hi Lulabell - you are a real giggle aren't you?

You state and ask: "Many a gay person has gone to the seminary looking for victims. Are you one of those?"

Well my dear...I will concede one point: a great number of men who enter formation are gay, and a disproportionate number of those gay men are ordained. They are now your priests, your rectors, your seminary professors, your bishops, your archbishops, your cardinals and sometimes even your pope!

I have no idea why you would think that gay men need to look for "victims" inside or outside the seminary. Are you implying that gay men are pedophiles? Or are you suggesting that gay men go to seminaries to recruit straight men into being gay? Or do you possibly mean both? Either way - the accusation is as ridiculous as it is unfounded in reality.

Despite the fact that the hierarchy of your church is packed to the rafters with poofters, it is a self-loathing lot of poofters - who are neither ornament nor use to the LGBT community.

In my humble opinion, the value exchange between gay men and the church is entirely one way. Gay men are, and have traditionally been, a rich source of formation candidates for the church, but the church does little to enrich the gay community in return. In fact, your church goes out of its way to persecute gay men. Perhaps your hierarchy fears that a more accepting social environment outside the church for gay men will disrupt their supply priestly candidates and leave them without future leadership? I do not know for sure what drives your hierarchy's animus. That is something you might ask your local priest or bishop next time you see them.

As for what drives your animus towards gay men...I could not care less.

Cheers and "god bless"...Martin
ReplyDelete
Replies