No Surprises
OK, on the case re HaloScan. More news as it comes to hand.
Meantime: SX column for the week. Snrt.
I must admit, as a proud humanist brought up in a secular home by two ex-Catholics, I may not have so objective a view when it comes to the so-called "universal" church. But I am somewhat surprised at the response to the Roman Catholic Church's effective ban on gay or same-sex attracted priests.
The recent Vatican instruction, ordering seminaries to bar men from the priesthood who "practice homosexuality," have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or support "gay culture", was never a big surprise to me. This is, after all, an institution predicated on the belief that homosexuality is "an intrinsic moral evil (and) must be seen as an objective disorder". Did we honestly expect a published instruction to offer any other alternative, particularly during the reign of a pope whose anti-queer stance is recognised to be even more extreme than his predecessor's?
Some of the RCC's defenders have been quick to qualify this position, arguing that celibate same-sex attracted men are in fact free to be ordained. Celibacy is, after all, required of all potential Catholic priests regardless of their sexual orientation. And in a thrashing out of semantics, they have further argued that there is a difference between a "homosexual" and "same-sex attracted" man in that the homosexual will define his entire existence by his sexuality whereas the same-sex attracted man has but one personality "deficit" he needs to resist or overcome in order to be a true servant of God.
Certainly, it would appear this document is designed to combat primarily the men deemed to be "overly" proud of, and/or "flaunt" their homosexuality, with expression couched in political rather than dogmatic discourse. Consider, for example, the passage affirming that "the mere desire to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive sacred Ordination". That is to say, the RCC will have nothing to do with perceived civil rights, just as it will have nothing to do with the promotion of any alleged gay "culture".
Don't think for a moment I am defending the RCC or that I don't find the likening of my sexuality to a mental illness or defect to be extremely offensive. I am, however, arguing that the RCC, if nothing else, is consistent. I would also suggest that this Church, through at least being so explicit in its homophobia, is less of a threat than, for example, the Assemblies of God church, which conceals its true malevolent agendas behind warm and fuzzy veneers of pop music and the regressive "family values" it seeks to integrate into law through its political arm, Family First.
Personally, I will always have more respect for the enemy that hits me in the face than that which bashes me on the head from behind with a tambourine.
1 Comments:
Update on the "same sex relationship" bill that did not pass in the SA (hick state) parliament, due to time. Now this "bill" has been on the statue books for over two years. Not being a polly winner(well poufters and Lesbians are disposable), The whole routine has to be gone through again.
best advice avoid and boycott (if you are a poufter or lesbian) South Australia, because you are not welcome which appears thats what the government of South Australia is indicating!
Post a Comment
<< Home