The Slowly Boiled Frog

Ran across this one today ( http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2015/08/gay-catholics-in-futile-struggle-with.html):

The Catholic Church is unlikely to ever accept that LGBT means anything other than behavior. The Church is possibly the world’s largest closet. There are thousands of men at all levels of the Church – with undeveloped sexuality – who might turn out to be gay in far greater percentages than the general population. Acceptance of sexual orientation could cause the entire medieval structure, along with the monarchy, to crumble.

So dramatic and Shakespearian! I do love the title, “The Slowly Boiled Frog,” though, but I’ve never seen it used by a liberal. Usually it’s a conservative analogy. Anyone not know it? It goes like this. A frog dropped in a pot of boiling water will jump out of the pot to save his own life. If the frog is put into cool water and slowly brought to a boil, he will remain there until he is cooked through. Now, a conservative will usually say that’s how we got into this mess. The liberals just slowly increased the liberalism, all the while saying, “What? The water is just fine! No temperature adjustments here.” I’m not really sure what kind of analogy a liberal would make of it, but I’m hoping society can provide them one in the next 20 years or so! It’s more likely the title is poking fun at all the “conservative” frogs in the world who have been boiled.

It’s really rather simple. The Church is looking for men who want to be good Catholic priests. They are not looking for men who want to be good Catholic Gay priests. It’s the same with the laity. They want people to be faithful Catholics. They don’t want people looking for some sort of label. Once you start adding the millions of adjectives to your Catholicity, you haven’t really added anything. You’ve just taken away from the heart of the Faith.

A long, long time ago (and many bishops back), there was a luncheon meeting held in our diocese for “gay priests”. Now, of course, if you bleed Catholic, this is going to pique your curiosity, so some of the “not so gay priests” also attended. We heard from an attendee that a ways into the chatting, one such priest finally could not take it anymore and asked, “Why is it that you want to be known as a ’gay‘ priest and not simply a faithful priest?” There was a little bit of trouble answering that one, because the faithful priest completely hit the nail square on the head.

As the Washington Post reports:

LGBT groups planning events in Philadelphia around a massive Catholic family gathering there next month – which Pope Francis will attend – say the parish hosting them has reneged after a conversation with local Catholic officials.

The news Tuesday follows the announcement by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput that people advocating for gay equality would not be given a platform at the World Meeting of Families, a once-every-three-years global meeting about family issues in the church.

This was particularly striking to me:

Among them was Fortunate Families, a group for Catholic parents seeking equality for their LGBT children. Its president, Deb Word, and her husband run a safe house for LGBT youth in Memphis.

The World Meeting’s director of programming, Mary Beth Yount, told Word that the group couldn’t advertise at the event because it isn’t welcoming of parents who disapprove of their children’s same-sex behavior

Well, I’m reasonably sure that’s not the whole reason, Mary Beth. The whole fiasco pretty much flies in the face of Catholic teaching from start to finish. You are quite correct, this wouldn’t be an event for those trying to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. This would be a gathering for people who want the Church to approve of whatever it is they want. You can find the flyer on my last post: https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/new-ways-annoying-in-the-same-old-way/.

Again, the Church does treat us all equally. We are free to live according to the Faith, and we are free to stray from it, but the latter isn’t going to be sanctioned, rubber stamped, and approved by the Catholic Church. It’s pretty simple: we’re all held to this, no matter what adjective we want to attach to ourselves.

That pretty much sums it up. Gay people require the approval of people who think that homosexuality is a behavior of choice or, in the alternative, that they must make a decision to be celibate for life.  I guess that they can choose to be neurotic priests.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and just guess Mr. Hart is not even Catholic. At least he’s not trying to add qualifications to his Catholicity that I could see anywhere. That’s our first clue, because you’d usually see something like “Gay Catholic Blogger” or “Progressive Catholic Thinker”, etc.

So, let me explain it to you, David: Catholics are expected to live according to the Catholic Faith. It has nothing to do with “neurotic priests” and everything to do with living according to God’s laws. It applies to every last one of us, no matter our temptations or proclivities.

Admittedly I think that it’s all rather silly. It amazes me that intelligent, well educated people buy into all of this. What really astonishes me, though, is that LGBT Catholics keep asking for the Church’s approval — something that they will never get. Do people think that it is some odd coincidence that one of the Church’s most most anti-gay bishops – Cordileone – is the archbishop of San Francisco, perhaps the nation’s gayest city? You just have to read the messages to know where LGBT people stand.

Eureka, Mr. Hart!!! We do agree on something! Of course, I don’t think the Faith silly, but I totally think it’s astonishing that after 2,000 years, one group or another still thinks it can mold the Church around their sins. It’s not the first time it’s happened and it will not be the last.

You seem to be a man who sees things for what they are. I don’t expect you to understand or embrace the Catholic Faith, but I’m kind of sad to see that you would call Archbishop Cordileone “anti-gay”. Your missive seems far more reasonable than that, although from someone who’s probably not in the flock. I can tell you that the Archbishop has nothing but a profound love for ALL of those in his care – no matter the adjective. I think that’s what pains him the most. He truly cares about souls. He just takes the hate and keeps on loving. Do you think it just might be possible that the Archbishop really has the best interest of the souls of ALL his flock in mind? Just the smallest possibility? Surely you would agree that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that you are “anti” them, right? I mean, if you read the documents put out on the issue, one can hardly say the Church is “anti” anyone.

Instead, I suggest that anyone who thinks the mean ‘ol Church doesn’t care read one of the documents on the subject. Here’s one to ease you into it: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, it’s “zero hour” for the Archdiocese of San Francisco. No more extensions are expected in the school contract drama. Please pray that the Holy Spirit guides all those involved, and that He hits those that need it upside the head with a two-by-four.

UPDATE AFTER POSTING: Contract signed!  Deo gratias! http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/docs/default-source/media-items-2015/final-draft-agreement.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The Slowly Boiled Frog

  1. I ADORE this quote, “Once you start adding the millions of adjectives to your Catholicity, you haven’t really added anything. You’ve just taken away from the heart of the Faith.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. An interesting (?) development in the UK: at one time the homosexual population was put at 3%, then it was put at 10%. Now the claim is that 25% are bi-sexual. Thwe tactic somewhat in line with your heading.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I actually have no doubt it is true. Since we are discussing a behavior and not an intrinsic characteristic, as a certain kind of behavior becomes social acceptable, that is does not elicit public condemnation, more people will engage in it. For example I have not doubt at all that the number of people who engaged in adultery 100 years ago was a fraction of what it is now. Zero? Never. But a significant fraction of the present numbers.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Another person who thinks if one does not act on their thoughts, each and every thought, they will end up neurotic. Such is the teaching of our society now. Go for it. How shallow.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s