The other day I wrote about how Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis delivered tough love about homosexual unions and that the deception in the same-sex marriage argument is from Satan.
He is right.
Nienstedt is being viciously attacked in the liberal press.
He must be doing something right.
It is no surprise that he would be attack in the liberal press, but I want to point to the subtle and yet slimy rhetorical underbelly inherent in the liberal, pro-sodomy attacks on Nienstedt and on the Church.
Here are a couple example.
To begin, take the coverage from the New York Daily News.
There are two photos.
First, look at these two wonderful, elated happy “gay” men, husband and husband, in the rotunda of the Minnesota Capitol.
Aren’t they wonderful? Aren’t you happy for them? Look at the joy breaking through the pain!
And now, Archbishop Nienstedt from the same article.
Doesn’t he look mean? How stern! How cold!
What a meanie!
Marshall McLuhan pointed to the fact that the visual trumps all other media. The medium is the message.
For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry. At first, because of the rise of AIDS, active homosexuals were constantly portrayed as innocent, though perhaps quirky, victims. Once the notion of homosexuality was shifted from its moorings and a new status was created in the minds of the public, another shift took place in the media. Now, TV shows and movies are saturated with homosexuals who are far more sophisticated, with it, intelligent, good looking than their more dysfunctional heterosexual counterparts. Victim time is over. It is cool to be “gay”.
For years an artificial sub-culture has been carefully crafted. It is busting out into a “new normal”.
Twenty years of TV has successfully created an image of the homosexual as the ideal parent.
Let’s move on.
At HuffPoo there is equally slimy coverage of what Nienstedt said… or rather didn’t say.
First, this paragraph:
In Nienstedt’s opinion of course, “family” means specifically a union “comprised of one man and one woman.” Delivered one day after Minnesota began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the Napa Institute speech is consistent with the archbishop’s public statements condemning gay marriage, notes The New Civil Rights Movement.
What “family” means is not just Archbp. Nienstedt’s opinion. It isn’t just his opinion. Furthermore, he is right. Moreover, see the name of that organization? Remember: the “gay” marriage thing is NOT a civil rights issue.
In October of 2012, Nienstedt found himself at the center of a similar controversy when a letter he wrote surfaced in which he tells the mother a young gay man that she must reject her son or go to hell herself. [?!? Is this what Archbp. N said? Really?]
“I write to inform you that the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, as described in paragraphs 2357 and 2358 and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is rooted in Scripture and based on the Natural Moral Law,” Nienstedt wrote, according to ThinkProgress. “Catholics are bound in conscience to believe this teaching. Those who do not cannot consider themselves to be Catholic and ought not to participate in the sacramental life of the Church… Your eternal salvation may well depend upon a conversation of heart on this topic.”
There is NOTHING in what Archbp. Nienstedt wrote that suggests that he thinks a mother should reject her son or go to Hell. What he is saying that Catholics are obliged to accept the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. We are obliged to form our consciences according to the mind of the Church. This is a serious obligation. If we reject the Church’s teachings, we endanger our souls. At the same time, we also accept the Church’s obviously sound and charitable teaching that, while we reject homosexual acts, we treat homosexuals with charity and compassion. Reject the sin and not the sinner is the classic way to put this.
What’s the take away?
The MSM has successfully, brilliantly generated sympathy for lifestyle choices that are not just against the Church’s teachings, but against the ecology of the human person. This sympathy and approval is now deeply rooted vast numbers of people, with the result that when people encounter a Christian Catholic message, in its clear and raw form, they think that what they are hearing is cruel and partisan and ideological. They have been instilled with how sensitive and with-it and cool and chic and thoughtful and friendly and compassionate the anti-Christian lifestyle is.
While Holy Church cannot compete head-to-head with the MSM in creating images that stick in the minds of a vast public, her shepherds had better get savvy and soon about what the MSM is doing and how it works, how it uses images and language through powerful visual and aural media to reshape cultural mores and perceptions.