Over the past few weeks, a variety of articles have been published that contain comments from a few Catholics that heap some praise on a few homosexuals. Understandably, such comments have caused many to be perplexed and rightly so.
One instance involves an Austrian Cardinal proclaiming that a particular person is very “impressive,” and so he is allowed to serve on a parish council despite the pastor of the parish refusing to seat the man in question because of his open defiance of Church teaching regarding homosexual activity. Then a few days ago, a fairly jovial American blogger decided to “out” one of his acquaintances who recently died, and he declared that the fellow was an exemplary model of Catholicism and a saint to the blogger’s way of thinking.
What seems more than passing strange and quite disturbing in the 2 cited examples is the manner in which the admirers of the two men in question simply gloss over the real or potential defects of character of the two homosexuals, and focus only on their “positives” as if the negatives don’t matter one bit, or if they do matter, their defects make them just like everyone else with their own defects, so “nobody should judge.” Yawn. Did you ever notice how judgmental the people are who proclaim others should not judge?
Now, in the first case, permitting a person in open defiance of Church teaching to sit on a parish council is indeed scandalous, and it also does nothing to help the defiant one from repenting of his sinful behavior. If anything, the awarding of the seat provides the homosexual with a reason to not change his ways. After all, if a prince of the Church can declare the person to be “impressive,” and override the decision of a pastor who sought to uphold Church doctrine and not give scandal, why should the person repent? Moreover, what about other homosexuals and their reaction to such an “affirmation” by the Cardinal? Will they be more motivated to give up their sinful ways, or are they more likely to “feel better” about themselves (“greater self-esteem”) and continue in their sins?
In the second case, the admiring blogger claims that he didn’t know if “his saint” was celibate, but then he quickly adds that it’s not his business, and by implication, it’s nobody else’s business either. Seems quite tolerant, but if a person is to be declared an unofficial “saint,” and that person is known to be homosexual, then the celibacy or lack thereof of the person is extremely important to know about. Additionally, even unofficial “sainthood” from a Catholic point of view should require that a person lead a life of heroic virtue as all true saints have done (even if they led reprobate lives prior to repentance), but this cannot be determined by observing all sorts of “wonderful things” the person may have done throughout his life while ignoring other elements that pertain to whether or not the person led a life of and died while practicing heroic virtue to the very end. So if it’s not known that a person led a life of heroic virtue, and an examination to find out is considered off limits by the admiring blogger, then how can the blogger declare he knows enough to consider the person to be a saint? What bogus standard is he using, and how can he “judge”? 🙂
Next, the admiring blogger also refers to the person as having been gay. Not many people know that the term GAY is also used as an acronym that means “Good As You,” and this “good as you” is not simply a declaration of equal human dignity, but that homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality in terms of morality. As such, using this term to describe the homosexual person is imprudent at best and an affirmation of the sinful lifestyle at worst.
Of course, there is no valid reason to bully or unnecessarily bash homosexuals, but neither is there a valid reason to heap praise upon them in unjustified ways that gives scandal to others, diminishes or misrepresents Church teaching, or provides any kind of affirmation to the homosexual that may encourage him or her to continue living a lifestyle contrary to a more complete life in Christ. Both the Cardinal and the admiring blogger, despite any qualifying statements from either of them regarding their acceptance of Church teaching concerning homosexual acts, have done unnecessary harm to the Church by their actions and statements that praise a few homosexuals in unjustified ways. But perhaps I’m just being intolerant and judgmental toward error. So be it.