Cardinal Designate Calls Homosexuality a Defect. Spanish Government Investigates.

This is the sort of story that makes you want to kiss the Bill of Rights.

Eigthy-four-year-old Cardinal Designate Fernando Sebastian answered a question about homosexuality by saying:

“… that a lot of people “complain and don’t tolerate it, but with all respect I say that homosexuality is a defective way of manifesting sexuality, because that has a structure and a purpose, which is procreation.

”He compared homosexuality to his own high blood pressure — “a defect I have that I have to correct as far as I can”. He added: “Pointing out a defect to a homosexual is not an offence, it is a help because many cases of homosexuality can be recovered and normalised with adequate treatment.”

Now, he’s under investigation by the prosecutor of the province of Malaga, Spain for “hate speech.” The gay rights group, Colegas, lodged a complaint against the Cardinal designate, for “violating the constitution’s guarantees of dignity and non-discrimination and for ‘clearly inciting hate and discrimination.’” 

Archbishop Emeritus Sebastian’s appointment as Cardinal won’t be official until February 22. Activists started a petition, which news reports say have as many as 20,000 signatures, asking the Holy Father to rescind the announced promotion.

Evidently, there’s a lop-sided kind of freedom of speech in Spain. The people who are attacking Cardinal Designate Sebastian seem to feel free to start petitions and issue allegations. But he is not supposed to hold an opinion that they disagree with.

It is sad to see Spain behaving this way. It is a lovely country that has already suffered much from dictatorial governments.

From Zenit:

Spanish prosecutors have opened an investigation into newly chosen Cardinal-desginate Fernando Sebastian Aguilar after a homosexual-rights group accused him of hate speech for calling homosexuality a “defect”.

AFP reports that the public prosecutor for the southern province of Malaga, Juan Carlos Lopez, had opened a preliminary inquiry “to clarify whether the allegations constitute a criminal offence.”

Cardinal-designate Sebastian is one of 19 new prelates Pope Francis has named to be elevated to the College of Cardinals at a consistory on February 22.

The 84-year-old archbishop emeritus of Pamplona said in a newspaper interview last month that a lot of people “complain and don’t tolerate it, but with all respect I say that homosexuality is a defective way of manifesting sexuality, because that has a structure and a purpose, which is procreation.”

He compared homosexuality to his own high blood pressure — “a defect I have that I have to correct as far as I can”. He added: “Pointing out a defect to a homosexual is not an offence, it is a help because many cases of homosexuality can be recovered and normalised with adequate treatment.”

  • RelapsedCatholic

    With due respect, the gentleman is in trouble b/c he attempted to speak about this subject scientifically, rather than theologically. Sexual expression has a wide variety of purposes in the wild, especially when one looks at primates & specifically our closest (well tied) cousin the bonobo. There is scant to no scientific basis to call homosexuality a defect, let alone making such a reductionist comparison like high blood pressure. It may in fact be a distinct evolutionary advantage, or an unintended side effect of another very beneficial mechanism.

    Further, he seems to be endorsing reparative therapies, which have bee shown to be based on such flawed premises methodology that one could rightly call it hucksterism or snake-oil sales.

    Although I generally hate free speech restrictions, the gentlemen should speak in terms of theology or his philosophical ontology, the science seems beyond his grasp.

    • hamiltonr

      It doesn’t matter.

      He should have the right to say it.

      The people who should be “in trouble” are those trying to limit another person’s freedom of speech. If we stifle ideas — and the threat of government prosecution is certainly stifling — where will we be?

      There is nothing wrong with anyone having and expressing an idea of their own. No matter if they are speaking scientifically or not.

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        Rebecca, I am almost certain that this is nonsense. As I said elsewhere, Italian law – and so, surely, Spanish law as well, since it is also derived from Roman and Napoleonic law – makes it a duty for a public prosecutor to “investigate” any complaint laid by a citizen; that is, to see whether there is any substance to it. My guess is that the usual gay activist publicity-seeking group has gone into the usual synthetic rage, alerted their friends in the press – especially foreign journalists who don’t know what the law is – and managed to get five minutes of fame. If this ever sees the inside of a courtroom, I will pay a hundred pounds to any charity of your choice.

        • hamiltonr

          You know more about this than I do Fabio. I hope you are right.

      • RelapsedCatholic

        Morally you may have an argument, but as I am no expert in Spanish free speech laws you may not. While I object to the teaching behind his statement, his statement itself is far below my expectations for a Cardinal.

    • FW Ken

      There is actually no science to support the notion of same-sex attraction as biological or natural. In fact, other than subjective, self-reported feelings, there is no scientific evidence that “sexual orientation” or “homosexuality” have any form that make gay people comparable to blacks, or their purported gay rights activism a legitimate social concern.

      • Bill S

        “There is actually no science to support the notion of same-sex attraction as biological or natural.”

        See the comment about bonobos above. If they do it then it is natural.

        And yes. Discrimination against gays today is very analogous to the plight of African Americans a generation ago. (Or is it generations ago? God, I’m getting old).

        • Dave

          Under your definition, anything could be “natural”, including eating our offspring, since some animals do that.

          The philosophical concept of natural law is completely different and relates to the purpose of sexuality as discerned by the apparent design. Just as the natural purpose of eating is pretty self-evident, so is the natural purpose of sexuality.

          • Bill S

            No Dave. You’re the one that said there is no science to support the notion that same sex attraction is natural. That’s got nothing to do with the predominantly Catholic concept of “natural law” (which is suspiciously consistent with Catholic teaching on morality and not with what occurs naturally). You’re trying to say that there is no science but observation of animals and nature is considered to be scientific.

            • Dave

              I didn’t make the original comment….The concept of natural law originated with the Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle. Observation of animals and nature is not science per se. It is just observation.

              • pesq87

                Dave, natural law theory fails miserably at explaining much of human behavior, especially sexual behavior. It requires me to believe that a certain body part is “for” certain things and therefore “not for” other things. Why must I accept that? Are my legs for standing and walking? And ONLY that? Are my arms for lifting and holding objects? And ONLY that? Then, by your reasoning, I am violating natural law when I use my arms and legs for recreational swim and when I use my [___] for recreational sex. Please show me where I am wrong with respect to this application of NLT.

                • hamiltonr

                  I think this argument is a little far-fetched. Here’s a brief discussion about natural law from Catholicism for Dummies:

                  A pillar of the Catholic set of laws is its understanding of natural moral law, which addresses laws that aren’t written but nevertheless known by all men and women who have the use of reason. It uses basic common sense, prudence, and justice.

                  Moral law is natural because it’s known by reason — not written in stone or on paper, like the Commandments or the Bible. It’s moral because it applies only to moral acts — actions of human beings that involve a free act of the will. (It doesn’t apply to animals, because they don’t have the use of reason.):

                  Under natural moral law, Cain sinned when he murdered his brother Abel even though he committed the crime long before Moses received the written laws of the Ten Commandments. Because of the natural moral law, Cain knew it was wrong to commit murder before the Fifth Commandment ever came along.

                  Because of the natural moral law, trials for war crimes can be conducted against anyone who commits genocide or mass murder regardless of the person’s religion or lack of it. A Nazi couldn’t have used the defense that he didn’t recognize the authority of the Bible, because even the most evil of Nazis still had the use of reason, and reason is what discovers the natural moral law for each and every man and woman.

                • Dave

                  Rebecca,

                  I do think that the natural law does have something to say about human nature as designed as well. If you prefer, it could be called ontology. For example, the bodily function of eating and digestion is to support the nutrition (and thus the continued existence) of the entire body. The pleasure of eating is thus an encouragement, but not the main purpose. Therefore, it would be wrong to eat food PURELY for pleasure, to the point where one purposely regurgitates their food after eating it. Most people sense this in their conscience without having to reason it out, but they have been brainwashed to reject a similar point in regard to sexuality.

                  Natural law does not attempt to explain human behavior, but rather gives us counsel as to proper human behavior.

                  • pesq87

                    Dave, your eating analogy is good, but you misapplied it. You need not take it to the extreme of regurgitation – clearly a bad idea. But under NLT as you express it, drinking any coffee (which is always far more BAD for a person than good) would always be a violation of NLT. In short, by your very words, eating something purely for pleasure is a violation of NLT.

                    Moreover, please explain why I can use my legs and arms for recreational swimming but why can’t I use my private parts for other recreation.

                    • Dave

                      I would actually say that drinking coffee is bad in that case. If something does you more harm than good and you know that, then it is wrong to eat or drink it just for pleasure. Some people think they need it to function, though, so I’m not sure it would be more harm than good for them.

                      Sexual parts are not for recreation, that’s why. But since the pleasure is more, it is harder for people to accept the same arguments that make perfect sense to them in terms of eating (i.e. it is wrong to indulge the pleasure of eating, which is secondary, while intentionally thwarting the primary purpose.)

                      I don’t really understand what legs and arms have to do with this. Legs and arms could be considered “tools” to help us move and interact with the world. I don’t see why swimming would violate those purposes.

                    • pesq87

                      Dave, with respect, your reasoning is wholly circular. You expressly state that “Sexual parts are not for recreation” in a discussion where you are trying to prove that sexual parts are not for recreation. HOW do you know that they are NOT for recreation. You have limited their use to one purpose – procreation. Why then do you not limit other body parts to certain functions. Is my tongue only for eating and not on occasion, for my sexual pleasure? Why? Why can I use my arms and legs for a vareity of purposes but not my genitals? NLT proponents never explain this. At least Fundamental Biblical Christians say “Because God told me.”

                      Please also confirm my understanding that in your first sentence, where you say, “drinking coffee is bad in that case” and since “that case” means all cases, that you contend that drinking coffee is a violation of Natural Law.

                      Is eating chocolate also a violation of Natural Law?

                      If not, why is only a violation of Natural Law when it comes to private parts?

                      I beg you to reply. I appreciate your thought and I’ve never gotten anyone else to give this the attention it deserves.

                    • pagansister

                      If eating chocolate is a violation of Natural Law, I’m certainly in BIG TROUBLE!! :-)

                    • FW Ken

                      Or coffee. I’m not much liking that part of the conversation.

                    • The original Mr. X

                      Wait, since when is drinking “any coffee” “always far more BAD for a person than good”? Where’s the evidence?
                      Although even if you could provide it, this wouldn’t disprove natural law theory, it would just mean that drinking coffee is wrong under natural law theory. And FYI, there are a fair few natural law philosophers who would say that eating purely for pleasure is fine, just as long as this doesn’t interfere with the primary end of eating, i.e., getting the nutrients and energy required to stay alive and healthy. So it’s fine to eat a chocolate bar because you like the taste, because one chocolate bar isn’t going to kill you or make you sick. Eating lots and lots of chocolate bars and making yourself obese would be wrong, because then you’re not actually ingesting the right nutrients in the right quantities, and hence not fulfilling the ends of eating. Ditto things like eating and then throwing up immediately afterwards, or taking some sort of pill to interfere with your body’s ability to absorb nutrients from food so that you can eat more and not get fat. In these cases, you’re directly interfering to frustrate the ends of eating.
                      Similarly with sex, the end of sex is quite clearly to procreate. Now this doesn’t mean that every time you have sex you must have the goal in mind of having children, any more than every time you eat something you must have the goal in mind of gaining nutrients. It does mean, however, that you mustn’t interfere with the ends of sex, just as you mustn’t interfere with the ends of eating.
                      As for the swimming example, the purpose of arms and legs is locomotion, i.e., moving stuff around. When swimming, you are using your arms and legs to move yourself around the swimming pool. So no violation of natural law there.

                    • pesq87

                      MrX: If in a course of a healthy, lifelong diet of fruits and veg “one chocolate bar isn’t going to kill me” then why, in the course of a healthy lifelong male-female sexual life, can I have one homosexual encounter? By your reasoning, neither violates natural law. I can use my taste buds, esophogus and digestive tract for more than just one purpose (nutrition). So then too, I can use my private parts for more than just one purpose (procreation). I can use both solely for my enjoyment.

                      As regards swimming – Thanks, helpful. So arms and legs are FOR any locomotion on land or sea. Got it. No violation of NLT if I walk stand run jump or swim. Now, sorry for the baby steps (but in my life, that’s how reasoned arguments are built): what about my fingers and lips and tongue? I use each of those, on occasion, solely for non-procreative pleasure. In fact, sometimes, I like to take a girl out to a drive-in and just make out with her. Am I misusing my lips and tongue – which I think are FOR eating and tasting – or is OK under NLT for me to make out under the stars? If that’s OK, why is it OK for me to do that, but not perform oral sex? Oral sex is a clear violation of NLT, isnt it?

                    • The original Mr. X

                      The bit about “one chocolate bar isn’t going to kill you” was intended to contrast moderation in eating with gluttony, which is detrimental to your health and hence wrong under natural law. Having anal sex is more akin to eating and then immediately making yourself vomit in order to avoid ingesting any calories from it: both must inevitably fail to achieve the ends of sex/eating, and hence both are wrong.
                      As for “using both solely for your enjoyment”, sure you can. Nothing in natural law says that you consciously have to be intending to achieve an action’s end when you carry out said action; all that’s required is that you don’t actively take steps to frustrate the purpose of said action. By all means, have sex with your wife for fun, or eat a chocolate bar because you like the taste; just as long as you don’t so in a way to artificially prevent conception or nutrients absorption, that’s fine.
                      As for your kissing question, I don’t think that eating and tasting are the only things you’re allowed to use your lips for (speaking, for example, is also fine). Now the final cause of kissing is expressing and increasing intimacy and love for somebody, which is a perfectly licit goal (provided, of course, that it’s the right kind of intimacy and love — sexual intimacy with a close relative, for example, is definitely out). As for oral sex, again, you’re causing ejaculation but in a way which cannot even in principle result in conception, which is why it’s wrong. OTOH, you could if you were so minded use oral sex during foreplay, just as long as the reproductive organs get into the right configuration by the end of the process.

                    • pesq87

                      Thank you Mr. X. I think what you are saying is consistent with Natural Law Theory. And I mean no disrespect, but I think it is patently ridiculous to believe that, among your other claims, that making out is OK only because “the final cause of kissing is expressing and increasing intimacy and love”. I don’t love these girls on a first date, and I always make out with them. But I understand your claim that in doing so I’m violating NLT at every step.

                      I further reject the claim that oral sex as a single act between loving persons is “bad”, that is, a violation of natural law theory.

                      I appreciate your reply. I understand your reply. Yet I reject the notion that there is any sense behind it, let alone enough sense to support civil legislation.

                    • The original Mr. X

                      Well if what I’m saying is consistent, why do you reject the notion that there’s any sense behind it? Do you have a problem with one of the premises of natural law theory?

                    • pesq87

                      Mr. X: I’m saying that your explanation is consistent with NLT and as applied to human sexuality – even sexuality as tame as making out under the stars – these notions are senseless and ridiculous. I know those are strong words, and if i had less strong words to express the level of distrust I have for such an application of NLT I would use it.

                      Bear in mind, I do not reject NLT in its entirety. The NLT arguments against murder (for example) make great sense to me. But as regards the enjoyment of sexual pleasure, NLT flies in the face of reason. And I believe your explanations illustrate that.

                    • The original Mr. X

                      “Senseless and ridiculous” by whose standards? In the majority of societies, both throughout history and today, NLT conclusions regarding sexual ethics would have been considered common sense by the great majority of people. Why do you assume that your instincts as to what is senseless and ridiculous are more correct than these other people’s?

                    • pesq87

                      “Throughout history and today?” No, sir, I conclude that I have my finger on the pulse of this country today more than you do. If you want to discuss Iron Age standards, I will gladly defer.

                      Not long ago, the idea that a woman could never legally show her bikini’d body in public was considered to be as much “common sense” as you now claim it is “common sense” that making out with a girl I don’t love, or performing oral sex on her, is wrong.

                    • The original Mr. X

                      “No, sir, I conclude that I have my finger on the pulse of this country today more than you do.” Who ever talked about “this country” (I presume you mean America)? There are lots of countries outside the USA, and quite a few of them would find making out with strangers or performing oral sex is wrong — unless, perchance, you think that all these Muslim and sub-Saharan African countries are beacons of NYT-esque social liberalism?
                      Anyway, though, you aren’t at all answering my question. You say that it’s “common sense” that oral sex and so on (OSASO) are fine. If you’d been born in Nigeria, or Saudi Arabia, or pretty much anywhere before about sixty years ago, you’d have thought the opposite. So why do you assume that modern American society’s instincts about what is and isn’t “senseless and ridiculous” are right, and all these other societies’ are wrong?

            • FW Ken

              I’m the one who said there’s no science to back you up. And there’s not. Even if same-sex acts, or even bonds, occur in nature, that doesn’t make them “natural”. You’ve done nothing to show that “sexual orientation” exists, our that same-sex attraction is not a defect (prefer the term “disorder”).

            • The original Mr. X

              “”natural law” (which is suspiciously consistent with Catholic teaching on morality”
              …Which might have something to do with the fact that Catholic teaching on morality is, y’know, largely based on natural law theory.
              I mean, really, what next? Are we going to say that “The so-called ‘evidence for evolution’ is suspiciously consistent with what the theory of evolution requires”? That “The evidence for the historical existence of Julius Caesar is suspiciously consistent with mainstream historical theories about the Roman Republic”?

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          “If they do it then it;s natural”.
          Female cats eat their kittens. There’s something that abortionists haven’t thought of yet – and it’s “natural”. I suggest you think again about the use and abuse of words.

          • Bill S

            I’m not saying that being natural automatically makes everything right. But I am saying that the anti-gay argument that homosexuality is not natural is totally blown out of the water by observing the behavior of the bonobo, one of our closest relatives. If animals do it, you can’t say that it is unnatural, plain and simple. Find another argument (like it doesn’t lead to procreation – so what?).

        • FW Ken

          Apparently “bonobos” is the new Harry Potter incantation that is supposed to prove something. And, Bill, it takes some serious white-bread bigotry to compare the oppression of blacks with the purported oppression of gays. I’ve known a fair few gay people and they have the lives they chose. Quite wealthy lives, in a number of cases.

      • RelapsedCatholic
        • FW Ken

          Describing behavior is not science. Political rhetoric is not science. I’ve worked around psychologists and psychiatrists: what they don’t know is legion. Moreover, that same-sex attraction may be attributable to some in-utero function is irrelevant. In a world where babies are born without brains, why shouldn’t same-sex attraction be just another birth defect?

          You know, a physical cause is really irrelevant, since psychological/sociological factors are not chosen. In fact, choice is a complex activity that gay rights advocates like to play with. But all behavior involves moral choice. Taking that out of the equation reduces gay people to sub-human status. But the gay rights advocates themselves.

        • FW Ken

          This might stretch your mind,, but here’s what actual science looks like. And it tends to support (but not prove) your side of the argument.

          http://malaysiandigest.com/world/487979-male-sexual-orientation-influenced-by-genes-study-shows.html

          Personally, I found this a fascinating article, although it shipped into advocacy at the end. And, btw, I got the link at a Catholic website. And here’s another link, citing actual research which demonstrates the complexity of sexual attraction and the damage done by gay advocacy:

          http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shouldnt_same_sex_oriented_teens_be_given_a_chance_to_change

    • Dave

      “A distinct evolutional advantage”

      ROFL!!! That has to be the funniest thing I’ve read all month. BAHAHAHAHAHA! What it is, is a dead-end, in regards to evolution. Get this, an evolutionary advantage that would lead to extinction if everyone followed it!! No thanks. Thanks so much for a good laugh, though.

      Methinks the Cardinal is not the one who is not grasping science.

      Also, there’s this gem. “Sexual expression has a wide variety of purposes in the wild.” Here we go again with the comparison to animals. Animals do all sorts of strange things that we would not wish to do.

      • RelapsedCatholic

        genius, for a species to survive it must reproduce, but not every single member. The rules of evolution & reproduction become much more complex when one considers social animals like primates & bees. In fact there were some evolutionary questions that Darwin posed that were not answered for a hundred years after his death.

        Also notice…not everyone is following it. Only 3% of the population…hardly a dangerous percentage. Your grasp of science & evolution need to go beyond your surface level of understanding.

      • kenofken

        Actually, there’s a pretty solid if preliminary body of work which shows that homosexuality is not the evolutionary dead end intuition tells you it would have to be. The same gene sets which tend to produce gay males in a family also tend to make the females more fertile. There is also some evidence that gay “aunts” or “uncles” in the animal kingdom give their nieces and newphews a greater survival advantage through resources they would otherwise have given their own offspring.

        • hamiltonr

          Ken, I’m not getting into the argument. You folks are doing fine. But I do want to say that this type of “evolutionary work” — and I am not referring at all to this particular set of arguments, but to this entire school of fantastical confabulation — is just fanciful fiction. I’ve read whole books written in this school of thought that get into social constructs that no one outside of a Ted Bundy would approve. The scientists who are engaging in it debase themselves by calling it science.

        • FW Ken

          Ken,

          Are those studies accessible online? I would be interested in reading them, since every generic study I’ve ever known of turned out to be bogus. This sounds interesting, though I can imagine some high hurdles to jump. First, you would have to establish a gay identity in three animals comparable to the identity of human gays. You would have to account for the variety of possible causes of same-sex attraction in humans, and demonstrate a comparable gene set in a variety of gay.people. Fascinating possibilities.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      Your response was deleted- you are right- my science is outdated.

      However, the same article you linked to to rebut me, pointed out that the behavior of bonobos is sufficiently different from homo sapiens to be worthless as a comparison.

      • RelapsedCatholic

        My point in bringing up bonobos was only to illustrate that as animals become more complex, sex, reproduction, and the survival of species becomes more complex as well. To describe homosexuality as unnatural is inaccurate, to state that it goes against the ontology of sex is based on the pre-scientific observations of a thirteenth century worldview. It needs some updating.

  • oregon nurse

    Oh boy. Pope Francis, with all due respect, is going to have to make a public judgment this time. I don’t see anything reported as the cardinal designate’s words that is inconsistent with Church teaching and therefore no reason not to go forward with making him a cardinal. Will this be the event that unleashes hate against the pope from the left? It will be double the hatred and scorn for having ‘liked’ him and then felt betrayed.

  • SisterCynthia

    Calling a bent towards homosexuality a defect might annoy someone who thinks it is in fact healthy and wonderful, but there’s nothing in this statement inciting anyone to hate, discriminate against or otherwise harm the ones the Cardinal described as afflicted. I’m pretty sure the grownups on this site have all heard words intended to do that kind of thing: inflamatory rhetoric, dehumanizing the “target” and leading listeners to believe the target group/person stands outside of humanity and does not deserve the basic protections others deserve. Frankly, the gays’ response comes a lot closer to such hatefulness than what the Cardinal said. In point of fact, I didn’t hear anything hateful in his words at all. Even if you believe him wrong, he did not make any cruel or violent statements. Is it illegal in Spain to disagree with gay activists?

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      It seems to be illegal in the United States to disagree with gay activists, given where this all started, why would it surprise anybody that Spain and France are using their governmental power the same way?

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        Wrong. The Spanish government is conservative/Catholic and not intested in this sort of thing – unlike their “socialist” predecessors, who were voted out of office due to their total inability to deal with the economic crisis. As I said elsewhere, this is probably nothing. I think a Spanish public prosecutor, like an Italian one, has a duty to investigate any complaimt lad by a citizen. A few years ago, a prosecutor in Italy was actually asked by someone to require a local priest to prove that Jesus Christ was a historical person! Needless to say, nothing much was ever heard again of this particular investigation.

  • pagansister

    I do disagree with the soon to be Cardinal that homosexuals have a “defect’ and can be “normalized”. That has been tried by some groups, many religious ones, and found to not be successful. I do not think what he said should be classified
    as “hate speech” as he was expressing an opinion based on his religious beliefs—in this case the Catholic church.

    • http://www.exclusivechurch.com/ Lorenzo Fernandez-Vicente

      How about the old Russian approach: Catholicism is a mental illness, a defect that can be remedied. Would that qualify as hate speech?

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        So you think that Communist butchery is something you want to be compared to?

      • pagansister

        Catholicism is taught as a faith. The comment about it being a mental illness is an opinion. Hateful? I don’t think so, but it certainly isn’t a compliment.

      • AnneG

        You mean Soviet.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      That homosexuals have a defect is obvious. The rest, not so much.

      • pagansister

        Disagree with you Theodore.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          A pathological condition that prevents conception is pretty much a defect.

          That isn’t a statement of morality, that’s a statement of fact.

          • pesq87

            Gay people can conceive. They choose not to. Usually.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              With each other? For the purpose of founding a family?

              Closest I’ve ever heard of was a transgendered man who had his gay lover’s baby, but that was somebody born female.

          • pagansister

            There is more to life than being able to reproduce.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              Yes, there is. But the purpose of life is to beget life, for all forms of life that we know about.

              Infertility is a serious disability- one that I have myself- and I don’t appreciate you making light of it.

              • pagansister

                I am not making light of infertility, Theodore. Not at all. However there are those men and women who choose to not reproduce. And for those folks, reproduction is not the purpose of life.

              • pesq87

                Ted, I wholly disagree that the purpose of life is to beget life. You tell us you are infertile. I promise you that God did not blow breath into you with no purpose. Infertile people have a purpose in life. Fertile people also have a purpose in life. But the purpose in life is not merely to make more life.

  • oregon nurse

    Hate speech – the new name for Truth

  • FW Ken

    One more comment.

    The national and local news tonight was agog over some college football player who “came out” as gay. Which is fine. I so don’t care, except that someone finally commented on his “courage” in doing so. What courage does it take to say something that will get you universal praise. Not sure the president got involved this time, but he usually doors.

    This cardinal-designate had shown real courage in standing up to the gay bullies and he may have real consequences.

    • kenofken

      I’m not so sure that even today in America, coming out as a gay man in a hyper-masculine sport and the insecurity of a locker room environment will get you “universal praise.” It was worth a man’s life not so long ago, or at least a beating or daily harassment throughout one’s career. I don’t know that professional football is yet quite as accepting as the media and general public. I suspect it will work out ok for him, but he’s still the first “out” guy in a society where virtually every other professional and social venue has been decades past the “pioneer” stage of acknowledging LGBT in their midst.

      I’m quite certain the Cardinal Designate won’t be doing any time on a chain gang for hate crimes. Unfortunately for them, Spain, like the rest of the world, really doesn’t have a First Amendment that is as near-absolute as ours. It’s not a matter for any civil authority to properly have to “investigate.” But let’s not pretend he faces any serious jeopardy from this. A “preliminary investigation” is a political sop to the gay and socially progressive lobby in that country.

      The prosecutor is going to go through the formalities of seeing whether it’s a real legal matter, and he’s going to come to the obvious conclusion that it’s not. As overreaching and silly as they are, none of Europe’s hate crime laws have ever been used to any real effect on anyone for speaking their mind about homosexuality. From what I’ve ever seen with these laws, you basically have to be a full-blown hate group inciting violence against a group before you’re at any risk of prosecution for hate speech. His idea that reparative therapy works is scientifically unsound and probably rises to the level of medical malpractice, but….he’s a priest, not a doctor, so his opinion is just that.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        The Cardinal said nothing about reparative therapy.

        • RelapsedCatholic

          He certainly implied it.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Not really.

        • kenofken

          “….many cases of homosexuality can be recovered and normalised with adequate treatment.”

          That’s exactly what reparative therapy is about.

          • FW Ken

            But it’s not the only method. I know persons who overcame same-sex attractions and went on to lead comfortable lives.

            • kenofken

              You have no way to establish that they overcame their same sex attractions. They may have decided not to act upon them or not to self identify with them, or they may have been bisexual and simply worked on cultivating their hetero interests as primary. You have no way to know that they’re “ex-gay” in the sense of reprogramming their primary orientation. I’d bet my last paycheck (a petty bet), that with guys at least who claim to be ex-gay, a surprise inspection of their internet history would be……let’s say incongruous with their stated reinvention as 100 percent straight men.

              Reparative therapy ie conversion therapy has mostly been done under the auspices of pseudoscientific pschological professionals, not by praying. I don’t have a problem with adults who want to change their behavior and consult with clergy on a pastoral basis. I might think it’s hokey, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s purely a First Amendment freedom. When it’s offered as a paid medical or psychological service, that’s a different matter entirely. It’s unscientific and unethical. My original point is that the cardinal’s ideas about treatment of sexual orientation are unscientific, but he’s not a man of science, and his mistaken opinion is certainly not a matter of criminal law.

              • FW Ken

                I can only accept the words of these people, and yes, it’s not so much about how they feel, but their comfort at living a celibate or heterosexual life. One in particular… well, if he wasn’t gay, no one is. Personally, I’m embarrassed for you that you need to speculate on the internet habits of others.

                As to science, I’m still waiting for some actual evidence of a sexual orientation that isn’t subjective and self-referential. I’ve known far too many people through too many phases of life to buy the myth of a fixed, immutable, and predetermined “orientation”. Frankly, people are more complex than that. And more interesting.

                The utter antipathy of gay rights advocates to the notion that gays might become something else is fascinating in itself. For example, just as the cardinal-designate did not speak of relative therapy, I never used the term “ex-gay”.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            No, Reparative Therapy is about praying the gay away.

            I don’t call that adequate treatment.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      Great point.

    • Sus_1

      In the past the player would have had to quit the team or even be kicked off the team if he admitted to being gay or if someone found out. When I was in college a football player could not say he was gay without it being awful. People remember that. They think it is better to live truthfully instead of hiding who they are. You may not care. His peers do.
      I don’t know if President Obama said anything. Michelle Obama tweeted her support.

      • pagansister

        Sus_1, wouldn’t it be nice if the sexual orientation of an individual just wasn’t news anymore? In this case, his peers at Uni. of Missouri didn’t care that he was a gay man, and accepted him for who he was. Now we will see if the NFL is going to NOT accept him because of his orientation. It should be only about his ability to play football—and nothing else.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          From what I’ve heard, and I have no way to verify it, most of his fellow players in college knew he was gay and didn’t like it. They didn’t have a choice but to accept him.

          • oregon nurse

            Since generally people don’t like being forced to share a locker room with someone they fear may be looking at them in a sexual way. A person can legitimately feel that way and want that person off the team without harboring any ill will toward them because of their sexual orientation. Some won’t care, others will. It’s not an easy issue for anyone.

            • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

              Agree. Plus jocks are not necessarily the most progressive types.

            • pagansister

              It is a tricky situation for some, I guess. However,some men look at women fully clothed and some women look at some men, totally clothed, in a sexual manner. Just because a person is a lesbian or gay doesn’t mean they look at a same gender person as a potential sex partner anymore than heterosexuals look at other heterosexuals as potential sex objects, IMO.

              • oregon nurse

                I think you are talking past the point. I doubt very much you would comfortably use a men’s locker room but according to what you’re saying you might as well since clothes and gender really don’t matter. Right.

                • pagansister

                  What? I was not talking about men, naked or dressed, in the women’s locker room or women, naked or dressed, in the men’s locker room. Merely mentioned that some heterosexuals “undress” the opposite gender in their heads.

              • kenofken

                MOST of the straight guys who obsessively worry about gays leering at them are a little too full of themselves. A few of them doth protest too much! Back when I was a gym rat, I used to notice that the one guy who went on about how much he couldn’t stand queers was always the guy who was there 6 days a week and lingered in the steam sauna every night!

          • pagansister

            Guess it depends on who is dong the reporting on whether his team mates in college liked him or not regarding his being gay. I heard (TV, but not sure just who) he was accepted. I can’t verify either, Manny. :-) i would hope that they didn’t dislike him for being gay. One could also hope that since college students are from a younger generation, they haven’t developed a dislike of a person just because they are homosexual.

        • Sus_1

          Can’t wait for that. It will take a couple of generations but it will happen.

          • pagansister

            Yes, unfortunately it probably will take at least a couple of generations.

        • FW Ken

          Funny you should mention that… I just watched a news report on my city councilman resigning to enter a Harvard graduate program in public policy development (Wendy Davis held that seat, BTW after Harvard) and his being gay was not the centerpiece of the report. When asked about unfinished business, he talked about transportation, not gay rights. Wow, a normal person! I expect he’ll be mayor someday.

          • pagansister

            Thanks for relaying that. It means that being gay doesn’t have to even enter the conversation! :-) One good example of that.

        • Sus_1

          I also can’t wait until the “news of the gay” blog posts aren’t the posts that get the most comments. There are so many more important issues in this country.

          • pagansister

            Yup, I totally agree. :-)

    • Bill S

      The football player stands to lose millions because he will probably be drafted later because of his coming out. The later he’s drafted, the less he will be offered for signing with a team. He also runs the risk of not being as well received by homophobic teammates.

      • Dave

        It is possible. By coming out, it seems to have created a media circus, and whichever team drafts him will have to deal with that. On the other hand, whichever team drafts him will be feted by the media and the left-leaning establishment. Perhaps Obama will invite them to the White House, lol.

        The whole thing is pretty stupid as being gay has nothing to do with whether he can play football or not.

    • pesq87

      Universal praise? FACT: 5-year old TV star Mia Talerco recently received death threats, yes, you read that correctly, because her Disney TV show featured a lesbian couple in the neighborhood. Is a death threat to a 5year old child universal praise? Is that what Sam can expect?

      • FW Ken

        Changing the subject. A favorite tactic of gay rights advocates.

        • pesq87

          Actually, Rebecca’s subject is free speech, especially when exercised by religious persons regarding religious views.

          You co-opted her subject, attempting to change it to “gay people are bullies who get universal praise.” I merely posted a contrary fact. I know you hate facts that contradict you, but what’s a thinking man, supposed to do? :)

          Back to Rebecca’s point, since you diverted us: yes, thank God we have the Bill of Rights, free speech and the freedom to proclaim our religious beliefs.

          • FW Ken

            I love facts. It’s liars I hate. Not to mention manipulators. Anyway, the subject is the cardinal-designate who has demonstrated courage standing up to the gay bullies. Who, by the way, have suggested that the First.Amendment needs”re-thinking” in the light of their personal obsession.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Rebecca, I’m not so confident any longer the Bill of Rights protects us. If they can force an individual to buy something he doesn’t want, if they can force religions to violate long held beliefs of conscience, then the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper with words on it.

  • Bill S

    “I say that homosexuality is a defective way of manifesting sexuality, because that has a structure and a purpose, which is procreation.”

    That would be well within his rights here under the first amendment. We are all entitled to state our opinions.

    As to what he is saying, how sad for the Church to have a spokesperson like him. Pope Francis would never say such a hateful thing.

    • Dave

      Pope Francis is a son of the Church, according to his own statement. So while he may not phrase it the same way, I am sure that the Pope believes the very same thing.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    I don’t think it’s as bad as it sounds. If Spanish law is like Italian, which I think it is, the local prosecutor has a duty to investigate any complaint. It does not mean that “the government” is investigating the Cardinal, and it is very likely to amount to nothing. Besides, the current Spanish government is conservative with a strong Catholic component, and is rolling back the vicious abortion laws it inherited from the Zapatero mob.

    • oregon nurse

      I’m not concerned about the legal outcome as I’m sure the whole purpose is just the public outrage and garnering of support for gays. I’m concerned that this is going to end up as a springboard for a direct and vicious attack on the Pope since he will undoubtedly move forward with making the archbishop a cardinal. I think the fact that so many on the left have voiced praise for Francis I as a more ‘enlightened’ Pope (the “who am I to judge” comment taken out of context) and having given praise, and now embarrassed by it, will result in an even more hateful backlash.

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        That is the last thing that worries me. The good opinion of bad men would make me wonder what I have done wrong. Besides, “Blessed are you when men revile and persecute you and lie against you for the sake of My Name. For that is what they did to the prophets before you.”

  • Ryan

    I did not see it mentioned in previous comments, so I thought it would be good to reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the topic (since this is a Catholic Bishop speaking), which does call homosexual *acts* “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered”, as well as an *inclination* to homosexuality as an “inclination, which is objectively disordered”:

    “2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,(141) tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”(142) They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

  • Gregory Peterson

    “Hate speech” or not (I would say “not,” if only because he’s very old)… he’s still wrong. Human sexuality isn’t primarily about procreation. If it were, women would have an estrus cycle and we wouldn’t be human.

    Human procreation needs a society… and sexuality creates couples with families and in-laws, networking and wider connections for gathering resources etc. We all help raise human children, even if we don’t have any ourselves. Gay people can do that, even if they don’t have children (though some Gay couples I know do). Gay people can be teachers, nurses, police officers, sanitation workers, religious leaders etc.We pass on genes and memes, so we all need to try to be good ancestors.

    Neither are sexual orientations a pathology. Creating minority stress, which is what he is inadvertently doing, does create health problems and encourages anomie and dangerously fatalistic behaviors.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X