Card. Njue tells Pres. Obama to stow his promotions of homosexuality in Africa

A little while ago The First Gay President went to Africa and lectured Senegal, an African nation, about being more “gay” friendly.  Pres. Obama’s advice was not appreciated by the Senegalese President, who curtly invited POTUS to stuff it.

Not too worry, Pres. Obama could car less about African nations.  He was talking to his U.S. base when pushing his homosexualist agenda in Africa.

Now I see that The Pill has a piece about the reaction of John Card. Njue of Nairobi (that’s in Kenya, for those of you in Columbia Heights) to TFGP’s advice to Senegal.

Kenyan cardinal hits out at Obama
3 July 2013

Kenyan Cardinal John Njue has issued a strongly worded riposte to US President Barack Obama’s call for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Africa.

At the start of his three-nation African tour in the Senegalese capital, Dakar, on 28 June, Mr Obama said gays deserved equal rights. Homosexual acts are illegal in 38 African nations.

Speaking in Nairobi the next day, Njue, president of the Kenyan bishops’ conference, said Obama, whose father was Kenyan, should forget the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

“Let him forget and forget and forget … I think we need to act according to our own traditions and our faiths,” said Njue. “Those people who have already ruined their society … let them not become our teachers to tell us where to go.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Just Too Cool, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Religious Liberty and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Card. Njue tells Pres. Obama to stow his promotions of homosexuality in Africa

  1. Supertradmum says:

    Cardinal is absolutely correct. We have ruined our own society, which is no longer “under God”, but under man’s devious rebellion against God. Well, I am not sure that POTUS is listening, but he should, God bless him.

  2. VexillaRegis says:

    Ouch!

  3. markomalley says:

    VexillaRegis: I’ll call your ouch and raise you a “heh.”

  4. frjim4321 says:

    The problem is that criminalization of a sexual orientation leads to great violence against a population segment. I don’t think it’s widely appreciated in other parts of the world how much brutality is directed toward homosexual persons in Africa and how institutionalized homophobia (both church and state) has promoted this.

    I can understand why this bishop would want to maintain the status quo as long as possible, however there is no way imprisonment, torture and execution of persons on the basis of their sexual orientation can be justified in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

  5. Mariana2 says:

    “Those people who have already ruined their society … let them not become our teachers to tell us where to go.“

    God bless the Cardinal!

  6. Supertradmum says:

    frjim4321, There can, in law, be a distinction between sinful, homosexual acts and people who suffer from ssa. Of course, sin has no rights, such as there can be no legal protection, really, for pedophilia, incest, abortion, sodomy, etc. However, the modern world cannot grasp the distinction. In all states, it is illegal to get drunk and drive. Those who have a proclivity to alcoholism are not having violence done to them if they drink too much and drive, or even have public brawls when drunk and get arrested, fined and even put in prison. Make the distinction between the action and the person, please. We are all called to prudence, temperance, justice and forbearance, another word for courage. We all are sinners, but some sins are more serious than others. CCC 1867 “The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143″

  7. Lin says:

    Why is it that the Pope, cardinals, and bishops do not speak out more often? So many teaching moments wasted! God bless the ones that do! We have ruined our society! Thank you Cardinal Njue!

  8. Tell you what, Fr. Jim…why don’t you put your money where your mouth is…petition your bishop to detail you to the missions, and go give those folks the benefit of your insight and point out the errors of their ways, since they’re obviously so in need of correction to become more of how great the ‘civilized’ west is .

    I’m sure you will do much to correct their evil and mistaken ways.

  9. Andrew says:

    frjjim4321
    The problem is that criminalization of a sexual orientation leads to great violence …

    Criminalization of sexual “orientation” does not exist anywhere in the world. But your choice of words goes to the heart of the problem: how do you define or legislate or enforce laws based on something as vague as someone’s sexual appetite? The only end result coming from this promotion of the LGBT agenda will be violence against anyone who does not applaud it. We are being drawn and incrementally forced to approve morally reprehensible lifestyles. That’s the bottom line here. People will always sin. But now, those who sin insist on my public approval. And if I don’t give it, I am the criminal.

  10. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Well, I’d like to think that there’s plenty of room between the excess of criminalization/institutionalization and the excess of open promotion of sinful, perverse lifestyles. I certainly don’t want anybody to suffer for being cursed with a temptation. But apparently, there’s only about forty or fifty years’ worth of live-and-let-live before one turns into the other. A lot of people apparently do think that if an act is legal, and if predilection toward that act doesn’t get you medicated or hospitalized as mentally ill, it must be totally okay.

    Of course, it’s possible that if bad sexual behavior had been preached as a mortal sin instead of authority being abdicated to the judges and the shrinks, it’s possible that Western society could have kept matters proportionate. But noooooo.

  11. donato2 says:

    Others have reacted also to the “those people who have already ruined their society.” It exactly expresses how I feel about what what the champions of contraception, abortion, divorce and “gay marriage” have done.

  12. wanda says:

    Yowzer! God bless you and strenthen you, Cardinal Njue. Why oh why can we not be hearing this from our own Cardinals and Bishops? It should be preached loud and clear, unambiguosly, not sugar-coated. No more church of nice. Souls are being lost, the faithful are scandalized.

  13. Christophe says:

    Cardinal Njue for Pope!

  14. Fr AJ says:

    Wow a prelate who isn’t afraid to tell Obama to get lost. How rare! We’re too busy inviting him to our universities to give speeches and receive awards or to dinners to joke with while he stabs us in the back.

  15. DisturbedMary says:

    Hey frjim, sometimes you just have to tell the devil to get lost! God will sort out the wheat and the chaff.

  16. DisturbedMary says:

    Wanda, Our bishops can’t even utter the word “homosexual”. They would rather be called pedophiles than tell the truth about homosexual priests.

  17. netokor says:

    Fr. Jim, acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle destroys a society. A country has a right to defend itself against this evil. Good for these countries in Africa!

    No one is condoning the persecution of homosexuals. Also, torture and violence, are not used solely against homosexuals in our broken world.

    However, in a world ruled by the gay agenda, anyone who disagrees with this evil lifestyle will certainly suffer. Ironically, the straw man you create with your illogic will come to life as real Christian victims who will suffer martyrdom when they refuse to accept the evil of homosexual acts.

  18. deliberatejoy says:

    I have a REALLY hard time picturing Jesus condoning the imprisonment and probable violent scorn and torture (let’s face it; it certain parts of the world, that IS what you’d get), of active consenting adult homosexuals. I really, really do. I am in no way – NO way – saying that he would personally or legally condone the SSA act, but we all fall, MORE than regularly, if not in the same manner, and every stone fits in every hand, mm?

    I am in no way saying that a society should promote or adopt such things – I do believe they are absolutely and intrinsically dangerous – but there must always, always be room for compassion and redemption, and yes, free will. If you truly desire moral change, you must change people’s rational hearts, not monitor and enforce and punish their inherently inclined mindsets and animal instincts. Love, not judgment is the key there.

  19. Angie Mcs says:

    BRIAN D BOYLE, I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion to FRjim. Some practical, field experience might shake the smug, devils advocate tendencies out of him. Yet he has all along provided us with reason to consider our own beliefs and to respond strongly. The sad thing is that if some of us were to speak out in society today as we do to him, we would probably be ripped to pieces by our fellow countrymen, lose our jobs, our family and friends. The days are coming when the comments made by “frjim” will be nothing and we will be called to remember our words and be ready to do more than respond on this blog.

  20. Angie Mcs says:

    On the positive side, it really brought a smile to my face that Cardinal Njue spoke up so clearly. . I only hope it got back to Mr. O, and that some inkling enters that brain that not everyone in the world considers him the great leader he thinks he is and is hanging on his every word.

  21. markomalley says:

    frjim4321,

    How in the world would anybody else know if an individual has one sexual orientation or another?

    (hint: the answer is an 8 letter word (well, 9 with British spelling norms) beginning with the letter “b”.

  22. SKAY says:

    “AFP – The Vatican on Friday issued an unprecedented religious text co-written by Pope Francis and his predecessor Benedict XVI in which the two popes said faith should serve the “common good” but restated their opposition to gay marriage.”

    The Cardinal certainly had a point about those responsible for ruining their own society trying to
    preach to other countries. They would be foolish to listen to Obama on any subject.

  23. StJude says:

    Way to go Cardinal John Njue !

  24. Johnno says:

    Frjim, do you actually want to further encourage a culture and disorder that exposes young boys to the predatory nature that underground homosexuality fosters? Are you aware that a good many homosexuals are actually victims of molestation by an adult who don’t want to see it that way and instead convince themselves that what happened to them was some ‘loving’ affair? Or convince themselves that sex was no big deal and is meaningless in a bid to try and downplay what happened to them and therefore are led into a path that makes them predators justifying their actions according to seeing what happened to them as a positive result?

    Have you no consideration or sense of justice? Or is facing the reality too difficult for you and therefore you are willing to ignore them and convince yourself that you don’t have to do anything because there’s nothing ‘wrong’ and therefore you are not in actuality being a coward?

    To be fair though, if homosexuals are to bear the punishment of jail time, then likewise so should adulterers. Heterosexuals must also be held accountable to an equal degree for their sinful lifestyle otherwise it would be true that homosexuals are being unjustly discriminated against while their heterosexual counterparts get away with all sorts of debauchery. The homosexual movement would not have gotten this far were it not for the hypocritical GRAVE SINS committed freely by heterosexuals! We should be ashamed!

  25. Giuseppe says:

    @Supertradmum: What criminal punishments should be reinstituted for sodomy in the US? I think the US is too libertarian to go along with reinstitution of these laws. It is one thing to believe that your polite homosexual neighbors are hell-destined for unrepentantly continuing to engage in a sin which cries to God for justice. But I’d have a harder time sending them to jail. (Actually, Lawrence v. Texas would have to be overturned. On can lobby to try and pass laws criminalizing sodomy which will certainly be struck down — this is an expensive, but some say valid use of state resources.)

    Tightening the noose (pun applicable to Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and maybe Uganda) on the cultural acceptance of sodomy could possibly be done via jail terms as still present in many African nations, as was noted in the defense of the practice to Mr. Obama in Senegal (1-5 years in prison) and Kenya (up to 14 years in prison). Until the 1990s in the US, punishments could include long prison terms in some states (I believe that around 50 years ago, life in prison was an option in Idaho) Now, to go back to the founding fathers, remember that Thomas Jefferson advocated castration (or placing a hole in the nasal cartilage of women) as a way of liberalizing sodomy laws from the common law death penalty.
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

    Should sodomy be criminalized in the US? Western Europe? What sins should be criminalized? Are there serious sins which, in a pluralistic America where most Americans not Roman Catholic and who do not adhere to the natural law philosophy and biblical underpinings of law, should not be criminalized? (Adultery, divorce after remarriage, sodomy within marriage, sodomy within marriage which does not evolve into a procreative act during the encounter, pornography, and then other serious sins like receiving communion while not in full communion with the church, Arianism, Donatism, schism, apostasy, selling meat on Fridays, eating meat on Fridays, eating prior to receiving communion, folk masses, etc.)

    How about a WDTPRS poll? (Just a suggestion, which our fine moderator can rule out of order).
    1) Should sodomy (male-male) be re-criminalized in the US? (yes, no) (overturn Lawrence v. Texas)
    2) If so, what should its punishment be
    a) fine of up to $500
    b) fine over $500
    c) jail less than 1 month
    d) jail 1-12 months
    e) jail 1-5 years
    f) jail >5 years
    g) death
    3) Should sodomy (female-female) be criminalized in the US? (yes, no)
    4) Same question re. punishments
    5) Should sodomy (male-female) within marriage be criminalized in the US? (yes, no)
    6) Same question re. punishments
    7) Should sodomy (male-female) outside of marriage be criminalized in the US? (yes, no)
    8) Same question re. punishments

  26. MikeM says:

    I think that there’s a broad middle way between modern liberal promotion of homosexual activity and African-style laws against it. Obama and the Senegalese government can both be wrong on the issue.

  27. Giuseppe says:

    @MikeM – what’s the ‘broad middle way between modern liberal promotion of homosexual activity and African-style laws against it’? Remember, most people are not Roman Catholic. So appeals to sin, the Bible, and natural law philosophy (especially with many examples of same-sex activity in nature) fall flat for most. I honestly do not know what the ‘broad middle way’ is. If you are Catholic, you cannot have sex outside of marriage, and in marriage you can only have procreative sex. Pretty simple. But for the rest of America, how do you make this argument? And for the rest of Western Europe?

    And do you really think homosexuality is promoted by modern liberals? Why would anyone be ‘tempted’ to homosexuality who was not already same-sex attracted? Life is infinitely simpler as a heterosexual. It is the default normal. If you don’t experience same-sex attraction and do experience an opposite-sex attraction, then what it the point of joining the homosexual team? Homosexuality is promoted only in that it is no longer condemned. Not quite sure that is really ‘promotion’. I’d say that homosexuality is actively tolerated, not promoted.

  28. MikeM says:

    Things can be frowned upon without being punished by jail time or execution. We don’t “embrace” someone for being a drunkard, but, as long as you’re not being disruptive or endangering the public, we don’t do anything about it.

  29. Giuseppe says:

    @MikeM – re. frowning upon same-sex activity. It’s not working. How about a poll re. making illegal same-sex activity (repeal of Lawrence v. Texas, which repealed Bowers v. Hardwick). vs. ‘frowning’?

    While I do think criminalization of same-sex activity could be political suicide for American Republicans, it is the only way one can curb social acceptance of same-sex activity. I do not think a constitutional amendment can be passed (there are not 37 states to pass it). But I do think that strict laws, followed by at least 2 Republican administrations (and 6-8 years of Republican supermajorities) with clear assurances from judicial nominees that they will vote to reverse Lawrence, is the only way that criminalization of all non-procreative sexual activity (a.k.a. sodomy). This, then, is the only clear way to ostracize those who might be tempted to engage in non-procreative sexual activity (same sex or opposite sex).

    Criminalization of divorce and extra-marital affairs should be considered next to be consistent.

    Short of criminalization, I think ‘frowning’ won’t work. It hasn’t thus far. The downside of criminalization laws is that few representatives would be elected to execute them. I dont think America (or Western Europe) wants a re-criminalization of sodomy (mostly same-sex, but also opposite sex, which distracts from reproduction and horrifies God.) But short of criminalization, I am not sure what would work.

  30. frjim4321 says:

    Yikes what kind of concept of the missions do Angie and Brian have if they are so eager to inflict their notion of a defective pastor upon them? That was a total non-sequitur.

    Or, punish a pastor who is compassionate by sending him to the missions? Wow is that ever a warped ecclesiology!

  31. Indulgentiam says:

    frjim4321 says:Or, punish a pastor who is compassionate by sending him to the missions? Wow is that ever a warped ecclesiology!”

    So you consider ministering to the poor in third world country a punishment?
    Thought you where all about the “social justice”

  32. robtbrown says:

    Frjim4321 says:

    The problem is that criminalization of a sexual orientation leads to great violence against a population segment. I don’t think it’s widely appreciated in other parts of the world how much brutality is directed toward homosexual persons in Africa and how institutionalized homophobia (both church and state) has promoted this.

    Interesting that you seem concerned about that kind of brutality but not brutality against Christians.


    I can understand why this bishop would want to maintain the status quo as long as possible, however there is no way imprisonment, torture and execution of persons on the basis of their sexual orientation can be justified in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Nor can those teachings justify gay unions.

  33. deliberatejoy says:

    Giuseppe- You cannot legally moderate sex. You simply *can’t.” What are you going to do, install government issue cameras in every nook, cranny and bedroom of the world in order to keep an eye out there?

    I would never support such strategies. Like it or not, we all have the God-given right to sin, and yes, too, the God-given right to protest it and its results… But that’s it; that’s all (unless someone is actively and directly being injured, of course). What good is obedience to God’s law if it’s forced, after all? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; if you want to change the world for good and all, you must change its rational heart and understanding, not its laws. And the only way to do that is through persistence, Christ-like love, and fearless and determined personal demonstration of all that is good, true and beautiful.

  34. frjim4321 says:

    Indulge, no that’s what THEY said.

  35. Giuseppe says:

    @deliberatejoy – 1) There is no ‘right to privacy’. This right, emerging from ‘penumbras’ coming from ‘eminations’, was mocked today in the Wisconsin ultrasound posting. Roman Catholics never imply a right of privacy, c.f. Justice William Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html

    ‘The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions “of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” [*] We recently referred [p485] in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a “right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people.” See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 216 (1960).

    We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of “privacy and repose.” See, e.g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541. These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

    The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
    NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [p486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

    We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.’

    2) Marriage is not ‘private’. Marriage is a public ritual, a community’s witness to the church’s blessing upon a couple a special and privileged opportunity to experience physical thrills beyond belief for the sole purpose of having children. Yes, in many marriage beds, non-procreative sex occurs. If anyone has a claim to witness what does on in the marriage bed, it is the church. Nothing should occur in the sanctity of the bridal chamber that would not be condoned by every Roman Catholic adult and clergyman. Given the widespread monitoring of our daily activities, it is not a stretch to envision a time when the marriage bed could, and indeed should, be monitored by religious authorities.

    OK, I give up — I tried as best as I could channel Aquinas and give a vigorous argument for the other side. It’s hard because it is ridiculous.

    Where being American conflicts with being Roman Catholic is in this very issue of liberty. Since most Americans are not Roman Catholic, should they be held to Roman Catholic standards of sexual mortality? I think not. There is a long and established tolerance for same-sex sexual activity, going back to Greece and Rome. Why we need to spend so much time legislating against it is beyond me. No one who is fundamentally heterosexual will be swayed into homosexuality (and vice versa – pun on vice intended.)

    My same-sex attracted (I got reamed for using the word ‘gay’ recently on a Catholic site, so I’ll stick with same-sex attracted, despite its length) neighbors are wonderful (translation: Satan has made them charming). They will go to hell, I have no doubt Supertradmum, but I am glad they are my neighbors, as they water my garden when I am away and throw fantastic parties. Plus, the children they have adopted seem happy and loved. Even though I know they would have been better off unadopted in an orphanage, they will both get into fantastic high schools and colleges and have a good chance at an American life, albeit, sadly, not a Roman Catholic one.

    3) Does any reader know anyone under 30 who a) does not attend at TLM AND b) who thinks legitimizing same-sex relationships will destroy America? I have not met anyone. (I am over 30, and I understand that same-sex relationships will destroy America, but I take this on faith, as I see no evidence that it will actually happen. Thus, faith.)

  36. Indulgentiam says:

    @Frjim4321-Actually indulgentiam means Pardon, not indulge. And NO , I am referring to your likening of mission work to punishment. I know it was THEIR idea, a REALLY good one, that you should put all that love of “social justice” to good use by going down there and educating the natives. Your response seems to say that would be punishing you for your “compassion”

  37. Indulgentiam says:

    Giuseppe says:but I am glad they are my neighbors, as they water my garden when I am away and throw fantastic parties. Plus, the children they have adopted seem happy and loved”

    St. Aquinas Summa Theologica (Prima Pars Q.20)
    Reply to Objection 3. An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. ”

    Th greatest good that you can will for anyone is an eternity in Heaven. God rules and ONlY He determines what is good enough to get there. Scripture says that sodomy is a sin. Holy Mother Church, the only Church instituted by Almighty God, for over 2000 years has maintained that it is. Sin. If you really loved these friends of yours, you would want them to spend eternity in Heaven. You seem to care only about what happens to them in the here and now. But you don’t care wht happens to them after they die? That’s not love.

  38. Indulgentiam says:

    Giuseppe says:OK, I give up — I tried as best as I could channel Aquinas and give a vigorous argument for the other side. It’s hard because it is ridiculous”
    You didn’t channel Aquinas, Ann coulter maybe. Your argument sounds ridiculous b/c it is. And I would add intentionally so. You sighted all that case law and your argument isn’t even on point.

    You say:”Where being American conflicts with being Roman Catholic is in this very issue of liberty. Since most Americans are not Roman Catholic, should they be held to Roman Catholic standards of sexual mortality?” Should we be held to theirs?
    Holy Mother Church has no interest in monitoring your bedroom or anyine elses. Neither do ANY Catholics that I know. The Church like a good mother will tell you the rules, set you a good example and pray that you will follow it. But, and here is where your argument falls off the rails, the Church is FULLY aware of your FREE WILL. and your God given right to do with it as you choose. The Church does not go around sueing private citizens for what they believe. However the same can not be said of your neighbor friends. Your neighbir friends amd those like minded want to be free to believe what they want AND LIVE ACCORDINGLY but THEY REFUSE to acknowledge the rights of Catholics to do the same.

  39. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Suburbanshee and @MikeM,

    that there are middle grounds between criminalization and embracing is no matter of doubt… however, the question is whether criminalization really is an excess.

    Dear @neotokor, in any colloquial sense of the term (at least for my own sort of language where “homosexual” and “gay”, as opposed to “people with ssa”, always mean the person who does not shrink back from acting upon his attraction), he who favors criminalization, does condone persecution. We’ve got to be fair about that. Sure, the word “persecution” sounds less friendly than “prosecution”… but that’s mere nuances of language. The persecution may be right, but it is persecution.
    Noone, indeed, has condoned bullying, violence (other than by prosecution), torture, or any such thing.

    Dear @Giuseppe,
    your detailed questions of what to do are very interesting… but if you permit it, before saying anything, let me protest against the assertion:
    My same-sex attracted [...] neighbors are wonderful (translation: Satan has made them charming). They will go to hell, I have no doubt …
    In the second thing you are, in my very humble opinion, being rash. The only thing you can know is that they commit an objective mortal sin; and even if it is also subjective (which you don’t know), you never know what happens later in life, at the hour of death, and at the final moment of life when contact with the living world is already lost. But my real issue is with the first thing. If a person is charming he is charming; in all normal circumstances because God has made her charming. If the charming person is a sinner, that is a pity. But if the person is not altogether rotten, then she does not need the trickeries of the Enemy to be charming.

    Now as to more substantial things. The whole theory of “do we or do we not want to criminalize this sin” turns on the point of natural law. If indeed nothing but punishment could only way one can curb social acceptance, then that is an argument that it should not be punished, because this would be, in itself, an indication that it is all okay with natural law. And this really is what this thing is about, I fancy. Noone objects to the criminalization of theft or rape because anyone gets the natural law argument that the things are sinful. (The question whether or not the punishment is useful is apparently irrelevant to the general public; there might be a case that for dealing with non-habitual petty theft, giving-back with a surplus and the civil courts would suffice, but the important thing is that: theft is a sin.) Noone even objects to the criminalization of incest, because everyone (surprisingly!) still gets the natural law against incest (which cannot be defended on the grounds of dogmatic liberalism). It may be that, had the punishment not been lifted, this would be recognized for homosexuality more than it is this way, but the question of recriminalization will have to deal with the attitude such as it is now.

    Furtherly, criminalization can only be done by political means. Any political group who has the courage to attack “homosexual rights” will have to vow that they at least will not go back to criminalization. Then they would be bound to that vow. For this reason, the question is a theoretical one.

    Of course I have always loved theoretical questions.

    Here I do not have an answer; I have to admit, by the way, that with all the caution I advocated (and mean), I would not even dare to admit that I have no answer (which after all also excludes “certainly no!”), would I not post under alias.

    Maybe more later.

  40. robtbrown says:

    Giuseppe,

    1. There is a right to privacy, but the use of contraceptives, which is private, is not the same as the sale of them, which is public. Griswold dealt with law that concerned the former, which was bad law and unenforceable.

    The mistake made by liberals like FrJim4321 is that they assume that cultural neutrality is possible. I’ve said before that IMHO in states permitting homosexual unions, there will be grave encroachments on the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment in public schools. They will insist on moral equality between marriage and homosexual unions, inhibiting the practice of religion. These encroachments will be ignored, as they are now.

    2. In no way does St Thomas encourage the state policing the privacy of the bedroom. For you to think that all moral acts can be policed qualifies you as a Calvinist, not a Thomist. In fact, St Thomas says that it’s a bad idea to have unenforceable laws. Obviously, the state cannot enforce the morality of private acts.

    3. I wonder what you would think of friendly neighbors whose income was gained through drug running.

    It seems that the the deleterious effects of homosexual unions is already present, increasing the split begun with Roe v Wade.

  41. deliberatejoy says:

    Giuseppe:

    First off: you don’t get to decide who goes to hell. Only God does, because only He knows what lies in His children’s hearts. To quote someone or another: you will be absolutely ASTONISHED to see when you die just who made it to heaven and who didn’t.

    Yes, I am angry. This is a wonderful site, but the sheer unyielding arrogance of some of the contributers is positively un-Christian. None of us is any better than our brother: sins have a way of adding up no matter their kind, and homosexuals are not ANY less worthy of love and light and compassion simply because their biology, or psychology, threw them for a loop. I know people who’s rigid, hetero and condemning pride will likely earn them a place in hell LONG before their rainbow-napping neighbors will, and maybe if we all stopped looking at each other as mere and faceless groups and started approaching our neighbors as individuals – like say, JESUS did – we’d do more to assure our own places in the hereafter, hmm?

  42. robtbrown says:

    deliberatejoy,

    First you say that only God knows what is in someone heart (which is true), then you say that you know people who are likely headed to hell. Which is it?

    Are their people whose biology inclines them to homosexuality? Perhaps, but we all have inclinations that are both good and bad, and we must learn to deal with them.

  43. acardnal says:

    “. . . we all have inclinations that are both good and bad, and we must learn to deal with them.”

    deliberatejoy. robtbrown is right. The Church calls the proclivity to sin concupiscence, It does not disappear just because one is baptized either. We all must strive to avoid sin and do good. This includes the proclivity a homosexual person may have to act out in sinful ways with a same-sex partner. This behavior opposes God’s will. Sin can never be condoned. It can be repented of and forgiven though.

  44. robtbrown says:

    Should be:

    Are there people whose biology . . .

  45. Kathleen10 says:

    I love the good Bishop’s words, and long to hear our own say it. Too bad that money talks, and the US buys off many a country by with-holding funds they badly need if they don’t cooperate with the agenda of the US. I don’t know how Senegal manages it, but, maybe they are not under the yoke of US oppression. Good for them! Could the Senegalese imagine in the world, many in the US, are cheering the rejection by this Bishop of the export of evil that emanates from our United States? Perhaps the Senegalese government is cringing, however. We don’t know. They may very well not wish to say no to POTUS at all.
    Frjim. It comes to this.
    In your viewpoint, which is clearly shared by many, the greater evil is the persecution of someone on the basis of their homosexual behavior, than the sexual molestation of a little boy by a homosexual. To you, the greater evil is the persecution of an adult who participates in an act which scripture itself proclaims an abomination and which cannot possibly be part of God’s plan for the creatures He created. No life results from these “unions”, but really, only disease and domestic violence.
    But you care more about these particular adults than the innocent children, mostly boys, who will suffer at the hands of the many homosexuals who target, choose, and sexually assault innocent children. To you, a homosexual who is harassed or even beat up, is, if we must qualify, worse than say, Jerry Sandusky’s setting up an entire population of fatherless boys from which to choose the next lonely boy that he could befriend and then violently and repeatedly rape, causing that boy hurt and confusion for a lifetime. I see the children’s hurt and pain as worse. Literally, a worse evil. If someone disproves a link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of boys by men, I will read it and consider it, but, right now I don’t even hear ANY refutation by a homosexual or group that denies adult intercourse with, or sodomy of boys is anything of any consequence at all! Many, not just the National Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) state it is a healthy and GOOD thing for the boy! Personally, I see THAT as the greater evil, and to me it is that simple. I will not now or ever, support any movement or cause that includes such a disordered behavior as part of it’s behavioral set. You may. Now, we can debate whether or not such behaviors are actually included in most homosexual orientation, but, it is like Islam. Waiting to hear refutations of bombings and beheadings is, at best, like listening to a cricket amongst lions, and doesn’t convince you of much. So even were I to hear that some homosexuals decry sexual behaviors with little boys would not make much difference to me. I notice I hear nothing anyway. But I digress.
    You appear to have chosen the opinion the media, university elites, public school officials, politicians, and hollywood “artists” prefer. One day we’ll all know which one our God says is the greater evil. I’m no religion scholar, but a world with no gradations of evil makes absolutely no sense to me in my limited understanding. I think I know greater evil when I see it.

  46. acardnal says:

    Finally, some recent data in a new report from the CDC showing HIV rates are RISING – particularly among gay men. Folks, when you disobey God’s will, there are ramifications.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVFactSheets/Epidemic/Transmission.htm

  47. jhayes says:

    Finally, some recent data in a new report from the CDC showing HIV rates are RISING – particularly among gay men. Folks, when you disobey God’s will, there are ramifications.

    From what I have read, the reason for the increase is that AIDS is now readily treatable. People were more likely to take precautions (condoms, etc) when getting AIDS was a death sentence.

  48. Indulgentiam says:

    JHayes says:From what I have read, the reason for the increase is that AIDS is now readily treatable. People were more likely to take precautions (condoms, etc) when getting AIDS was a death sentence.”

    Since the first diagnosed cases of Aids aka GRIDS the numbers have steadily increased with no decline in sight. That would indicate that even at he hight of the Aids scare condomn use was not used with any regularity. IMHO that would be b/c those inclined to sexual perversion think with their pelvic region. They do not reason well if at all. They do not count the consequences to others or even to themselves until it is way too late.
    The CDC states the following:
    CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.
    In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).
    http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

    More than one in five aids carriers are unaware or uncaring that they have it and are spreading it with impunity. And as far as aids being readily treatable, that really depends on a variety of factors. Aids is still incurable. Really they only thing they treat is the opportunistic infection which in time further weakens the immune system. Do they give out drugs that bolster the immune system? Yep, all the while knowin that they are destroying the liver. It’s a trade off the pharmaceutical companies are willing to make. Are the people on these drugs told that? Nope. Much the same way as woman who are given the pill are not told that they are playing Russian roulette with cancer and blood clots. These people are lulled into a false sense of security. The pharmaceutical companies cover themselves by saying “hey! We provide an insert with every package. If they don’t get it or read it, it’s not our problem”.
    Aids is still the danger it always was. People are doing what they Always do, taking the governments word that “its all under control, move along nothing to see here.”

    This group of people is a menace to themselves and to society. Feeling sorry for them doesn’t help them or us.