Which Side Of The Homosexual Rampart Will You Be Fighting On?
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “This is a point of reference here that, if you know someone that’s homosexual and is trying to be Christian and Catholic, it is possible. You just have to take the same vow of celibacy that a monk takes. You cannot commit mortal sin of relations outside of the marital bond. You’re not going to get a sacramental marital bond as a homosexual. It’s not going to happen.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
In the week since, many Catholics have downplayed the starkness of what happened or minimized the papal role. Conservatives have implied that the synod organizers somehow went rogue, that Francis’ own views were not really on the table, that orthodox believers should not be worried. More liberal Catholics have argued that there was no real chaos — this was just the kind of freewheeling, Jesuit-style debate Francis was hoping for — and that the pope certainly suffered no meaningful defeat.
Mike: Oh yes, he did. Meaningful is an understatement. It was a landslide against the initiative when the final votes were tallied.
Neither argument is persuasive. Yes, Francis has taken no formal position on the issues currently in play. But all his moves point in a pro-change direction — and it simply defies belief that men appointed by the pope would have proposed departures on controversial issues without a sense that Francis would approve.
Mike: Folks, again, I have to reiterate, not everything he says is infallible. You are also in charge of defending what you know to be doctrinal and canonical and dogmatic.
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
You are just as culpable and answerable in your and my defense of these things as he is. He is just appointed, blessed, the Vicar of Christ. He has a distinction. Vicar is Latin for “voice of.”
If this is so, the synod has to be interpreted as a rebuke of the implied papal position. The pope wishes to take these steps, the synod managers suggested. Given what the church has always taught, many of the synod’s participants replied, he and we cannot.
Over all, that conservative reply has the better of the argument. Not necessarily on every issue: The church’s attitude toward gay Catholics [Mike: If there is such a thing.], for instance, has often been far more punitive and hostile than the pastoral approach to heterosexuals living in what the church considers sinful situations, and there are clearly ways that the church can be more understanding of the cross carried by gay Christians.
Mike: This is a point of reference here that, if you know someone that’s homosexual and is trying to be Christian and Catholic, it is possible. You just have to take the same vow of celibacy that a monk takes. You cannot commit mortal sin of relations outside of the marital bond. You’re not going to get a sacramental marital bond as a homosexual. It’s not going to happen. So, yes, you can be a homosexual, but you would be under the same prohibition that those heterosexuals living in — I’ve tried to explain this to someone the other day. I said: Look, heterosexuals are under the exact same sexual prohibition and on the exact same dogmatic prohibitions that homosexuals are. They’re similar, almost identical. The partners are different, but the admonition against the sin is the same. There is no difference.
Folks, that’s an important point. We talked yesterday on this show that about 40 percent of children born in these United States this year are going to be born as bastards, out of wedlock. That is a societal calamity. It is a tsunami coming our way of epic proportions that no civilization is going to survive unscathed. That’s the fact. The only way to curb this is to curb the behavior. The only way to curb the behavior is to provide supernatural reasons why the behavior should not occur, thus religion. It’s not that hard to figure some of this stuff out. People want to make it hard because they think: No, man has a solution for me. Man has failed miserably. We’ve been on the course charted by Margaret Sanger and her murderous, genocidal gang for the last 80, 90 years. It’s not working out for the benefit of the children or the grandchildren. It’s certainly not working out for the benefit of those that will never be born as a result of it. We have to start somewhere. This is as good a place as any to start.
[mocking] “Mike, get back to bashing Obama and politics.” Again, politics is easy. We did some politics at the end of the first hour and we’ll do them at the end of this hour and next hour. Meanwhile, this stuff is important, more important. It’s civilizational. If we erected a government and made it in our image, which we did, we can do it again. [mocking] “We don’t have men like the founding fathers.” No, you don’t have men that are publicly known like founders. They’re out there, they’re just not publicly known. Don’t tell me there aren’t men that aren’t educated classically and liberally, and I mean liberally in the 16th century Jesuit sense of the term. That’s baloney, absolute baloney. Back to Douthat.
Such a reversal would put the church on the brink of a precipice. Of course it would be welcomed by some progressive Catholics [Mike: If there is indeed such a thing] and hailed by the secular press. But it would leave many of the church’s bishops and theologians in an untenable position, and it would sow confusion among the church’s orthodox adherents . . .
These adherents are, yes, a minority — sometimes a small minority — among self-identified Catholics in the West. But they are the people who have done the most to keep the church vital in an age of institutional decline: who have given their energy and time and money in an era when the church is stained by scandal . . .
Mike: Douthat is a layperson, folks. He’s right on all these points. He’s correct. Imagine, this stuff is being published in the New York Times, the center, the epicenter of the demonic possession. Well, Mordor is the center but this is the northern center. This is the northern branch field office. You guys and gals living in New York City, you are living among the most demonic, diabolical, despicable people that have been lived among in the history of the earth. It is nothing short of a miracle or nothing short of — two things: things only happen, number one, because God wants them to happen, and number two, because he allows them to happen. He does not want to strike any of you down with lightning bolts, although I keep imagining that that day can’t be far off. What Douthat is writing about here is, by and large, correct.
They have kept the faith among moral betrayals by their leaders; they do not deserve a theological betrayal.
Which is why this pope has incentives to step back from the brink — as his closing remarks to the synod, which aimed for a middle way between the church’s factions, were perhaps designed to do.
Francis is charismatic, popular, widely beloved. He has, until this point, faced strong criticism only from the church’s traditionalist fringe, and managed to unite most Catholics in admiration for his ministry. [Mike: Unfortunately that ministry is not conducive to and is not reflective of doctrinal thinking. This is a problem.] There are ways that he can shape the church without calling doctrine into question. . . He can be, as he clearly wishes to be, a progressive pope, a pope of social justice — and he does not have to break the church to do it.
But if he seems to be choosing the more dangerous path — if he moves to reassign potential critics in the hierarchy, if he seems to be stacking the next synod’s ranks with supporters of a sweeping change — then conservative Catholics will need a cleareyed understanding of the situation.
They can certainly persist in the belief that God protects the church from self-contradiction. But they might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.
Mike: This is key. That is the key point in Douthat’s piece in Sunday’s New York Times editorial page, republished all around the country and all around the globe for that matter. That’s the key point. The idea here that we are but a bunch of pedestrian serfs serving at the eternal and perpetual will of a pontiff who may be in error is not correct. He is fallible in some of the things that he does, just like we are fallible. He is capable of error, he is. This is why councils and tribunals are convened, to prevent the error or to correct the error. From time to time those encyclicals are issued. It takes a long time to write these things.
The key point here is that there are those who, for the reasons of their devoutness, who are standing and who will stand in opposition to this, meaning to a change in the way Western civilization defines and treats and promotes the family and family life. You have to, regardless of denomination. It shouldn’t matter. We talked about this yesterday. We all have to do this, all of us. If we don’t defend it, then there will be nothing left to defend. If you leave it up to the same nitwits that have given us Ebola, the same nitwits that have given us the NSA, that have given us the IRS, that have given us 24/7 soft-core porn on television, what do you think they’re going to give us for families? There won’t be any. It will only be a bunch of people that resemble the blessed Amish who refused modernity with every fiber of their being and still refuse it today, and there will be the rest of them. They will curse us, they will ostracize us, and it may even come down to martyrdom to get rid of us. [/private]
Folks, this is the battle. You can think that the battle is all political. It’s not. The battle line is being drawn. We can see the ramparts. Which side of the rampart are you going to be on? Which side of the rampart are you going to pick a shield up on, gentlemen? Which side of the rampart are you going to pick a lance up on, gentlemen? Which side of the rampart are you willing to defend, the one that got us here as God created us, as the heirs and descendants of all of Christendom and of all the history of his work and his magisterium since he walked the earth 2000 years ago? Are you going to be on that side, or are you going to be on the side of the diabolical hordes that wish to conquer it and wish to try to vanquish it? Which side are you going to be on?
St. Augustine wrote a great book about this called The City of God. There are two cities: the city of man and the city of God. Most people, including most Christians unfortunately, and including, even more sadly and tragically, most “Catholics” want to be citizens of the city of man. They don’t want to be citizens of the city of God. It’s hard; it’s difficult. It’s the road less traveled. It’s the road that doesn’t hold out the rewards of fancy cars and big televisions and McMansions. People are taught from birth in the Western world today to aspire to those things and curse the others. You don’t want to live a life of penance. That’s horrible. Why would anyone want to live like Mother Teresa, for Heaven’s sake? Why would anyone want to live a life of service, a life of being a good neighbor, being a good friend, being a good father and mother and having that take precedent over any earthly endeavor you can imagine? Are we the generation that holds the line or are we the generation that surrenders the line and is accursed by history? We have a choice in this matter.
End Mike Church Show Transcript