More “hate” bunkum

A reader comments below:

While no one here may consider themselves advocating hatred against gays, the end result of agreeing with statements and positions marking gays as “objectively disordered,” that argue for a restriction on their rights “in order to protect the common good” and beliefs that, if gay people are open about who they are, not only should no one be surprised if they are hurt, abused or discriminated against, but that laws or policies preventing that should not be in acted, is indeed hatred.

Any proclivity toward sin is disordered, not simply homosexual sin. What the above really argues for is that the Church should not be able to name what is sinful if the sin is sufficiently popular with enough people. And, of course, it does so in the name of the god of this age: Rights. Sorry, but the sacrament of Holy Orders is not a civil right. If the Church chose to legislate that only heterosexual men be ordained, she would be within her rights to do so and it would not constitute a violation of anybody’s “right” still less (talk about a transparent playing the victim card!) an act which “hurt, abused, or discriminated against” gays. Sacraments are gifts, not rights. And they are gifts properly under the governance of bishops, not the US Constitution. The Church is under no obligation whatever to ordain anybody, except in the sense that She is under obligation to God. If she chooses to legislate her internal affairs such that no one with a known homosexual orientation should be ordained, she would not be violating anyone’s “rights”. She would be making a prudential decision based on that fact that, were there no homosexual priests, virtually none of the abuse our children are suffering from would have taken place. If you are going to talk in “victim” terms, start there–with actual victims.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X