Attacks on Archbp. Nienstedt reveal a deep and diabolical and successful campaign

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.

Next,

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.

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, Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Wherein Fr. Z Rants and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Attacks on Archbp. Nienstedt reveal a deep and diabolical and successful campaign

  1. Paul H. says:

    Just saw him last night at the SJV golf tournament. He went around “bro-hugging” seminarians and he is definetely not letting haters bring him down. God bless him!

  2. vox borealis says:

    her shepherds had better get savvy and soon…

    Somehow, for some reason,I’m just not confident about this…

  3. Pingback: Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin (pt 2): On Misguided Sympathy : IgnitumToday

  4. Fr. Andrew says:

    The MSM has successfully, brilliantly generated sympathy…
    Very correct and rooted in the education system’s movement away from actual intellectual thought- as predicted by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man and Josef Pieper’s Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power.

    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

    I’m just not sure what to do in this way…savvy, how do we get any control over the message? I suppose proactive in terms of social media and grassroots efforts.

  5. MarkG says:

    >>>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”.

    This is true and actually the gay media regularly has opinions against this. The average gay man is just average in terms of sophistication, intelligence, looks, coolness, etc just like everyone else, and it sets a unrealistic high standard that people are starting to expect, and that most gay men can’t live up to.

    >>>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.

    I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this.
    Very little in the way of charity and compassion and reject the sin and not the sinner has come out since the “crackdown” in the 1980′s. In the 1980s there was a large group of Dignity Masses, and at those Masses the Church teaching regarding gays was read after the homily along with requirements for receiving Communion. Those Masses were new Masses, but I would say more respectful than the average Mass of it’s day. To me this was a good balance of church teaching and charity and compassion.
    Then one day, Dignity was no longer allowed (despite clearly repeating the Church’s teaching at every Mass) and moved Masses to secular centers, with priests forbidden to say the Masses.
    So, the Masses were now said by priests who had left the priesthood, mostly to marry females. The Masses took a turn for the wild and disrespectful in many cases, so lots of gays actually left Dignity because of that and just went to big parishes where they wouldn’t be noticed.

    I think it would be great if this Bishop would announce that Masses for the gay community would again be allowed in his churches. He could stipulate that after the homily a statement of the church’s teachings would be required. Or, he could even stipulate that Communion would be limited to the priest only, thus avoiding the issue of non-celibate gay men receiving Communion.

    It would be even better if he would allow an occasional TLM for the gay community with the same stipulations.

  6. Ryan says:

    MarkG, do you really think it good to have special Masses that focus on particular sins that people struggle with? Is that how we should view (and group) people, by the sins we struggle with most? Should there be “fornicator Masses” for those who struggle with chastity? Or klepto Masses for those who struggle with not taking what isn’t theirs? Etc, etc…? I’m not saying definitely not, but it seems an odd notion to me.

  7. yatzer says:

    I read The Marketing of Evil, which followed how this has been developed during the last several decades.

  8. Bruce Wayne says:

    MarkG,

    Your comments are interesting and thought provoking. I have two very fundamental reservations about masses that treats homosexuals as a group in a self-conscious manner. Unlike organizing masses for any old various kind of groups (e.g. youth masses, which I don’t like all that much either but for different reasons) this approach makes sexuality/sexual inclinations the focal point for bringing the communicants together. So my two objections are:

    1) the overt emphasis on sexual identity rubs me wrong as it seems to tolerate the over-indulgent focus and open fascination with sex in general in the broader culture. That is, society pushes sexual over-saturation in every possible way and at every possible moment, thus fostering seriously prolonged adolescence where raging hormones and concupiscent desires are normalized and define the “self” of contemporary people.

    2) The Mass is about the faithful worshiping God and is not for navel or mirror gazing.

    Now, the point of “Young Adult Masses” in my experience has been only tangentially about going to Mass and worshiping God. There is a not too subtle assumption being made that it is a good thing to invite young adults together to a Mass so that they can associate and possibly pair off and find their future spouses. I am sure you can see where I am going with that comparison.

    So, in my view a sounder strategy is not specifically outreach at the level of Masses for homosexuals but at the more personal level. I do understand that drug addicts or alcoholics who are struggling to conquer their temptations can be helped and bolstered by companionship with others with the same addictions in counseling groups and such. But does that really work when the addiction or compulsion is of a sexual nature? Maybe, maybe not so much.

    I am not trying to make strong and firm claims, this is a matter a bit beyond my knowledge. I am just commenting on my more gut reaction to accepting that basic premise of the sexual revolution that our sexual identities should be out there in the open and that they identify us. It is an important part of human nature, a very very powerful aspect of our personalities and behavior, but it does not define us. Since homosexual-inclined Catholics are expected to attend Mass and strive for purity just as are any other Catholics then I do not see why having their “own” masses would at all serve the purpose you intend of encouraging them in their struggle to overcome their unnatural desires.

  9. Cantor says:

    Whatever else the Catholic Church has been accused of over the years, it has not included spontaneity, frivolity, and expressive joyfulness. We are the Church of the sedate, the sober, and the somber. So what picture do you want the press to use? The bishop “bro hugging” the seminarians? Probably a mixed message. Shots of the dancing bishops/cardinals from Rio? More of an embarrassment. Yukking it up with Obama? Please.

    Yes, we hear of the inner joy and peace that we share in the presence of Christ. But we sure don’t look too happy about it. So when the bishop looks serious and the newlyweds look celebratory, that’s a realistic view. And lot of people prefer happy to sad.

    We re frequently reminded that on earth we are the Church Militant. Well, ask any Surface Warfare Officer: you can only keep the crew at battle stations so long before bad things start to happen.

  10. Sonshine135 says:

    @BruceWayne

    You deserve a gold star for this one. Your points are dead on target. The issue is in trying to bring homosexuals to church. If you market the church to homosexuals, you are no better than any other Progressive who segregates people into tiny classes. This catering to specific minority groups is just ridiculous. You are falling into the trap that has been set for you.

    Sometimes, the best way to play the game is not to play it at all. How about we focus on the salvation of souls. As Father says- brick by brick. I don’t want to save homosexuals, or Protestants, or Muslims, or Atheists. I want to help all people know that God is here for their salvation. Let God worry about the type and severity of the sin.

    Jesus was cunning enough to know when the Pharisees were trying to trip Him up and responded accurately and adequately. Its about time we started doing the same.

  11. Ganganelli says:

    And people wonder why the Pope has been so quiet on the “culture war”. He is clearly making a calculated decision not to be pigeon-holed as a reactionary solely concerned with homosexuality and abortion. We’ll see how it turns out, but the fact is the previous policy obviously wasn’t working. Most of the advances made by the homosexual lobby occurred during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI.

  12. Gladiatrix says:

    I notice that not one senior US Catholic clergyman replied either to the articles or to the offensive and bigoted comments posted underneath them. Why isn’t e.g. a Cardinal writing in response, or complaining to the editor or bringing legal action for inciting religious hatred and infringing the bishop’s right to freedom of speech, belief and conscience?

    The US media does this kind of thing time and again and in never punished for it.

  13. Bruce Wayne says:

    Sonshine,

    Thanks for the response. I would clarify one good point you make.

    I too believe that tit is not that we pray for the salvation of someone as homosexual, as muslim, or as atheist so much as that they are human. But, I do think that the particular context of an individual’s life, beliefs, personality, etc., does play a role in reaching out to them. That means a prudential approach does not assume that everyone can be appealed to in the same manner or means. That is why I mentioned I think a more personal approach will always be more effective than attempts to just appeal to a group as distinctive for some reason. But to be effective in teaching the faith to a Muslim does mean a different approach than to an atheist, etc.

    However, this more individually tailored approach is outside of the context of a Mass. I still maintain as you do and as I stated above that I think tailoring a Mass to fit this or that group is ineffective and does not really allow the graces of the Mass to work as fully as it can. Specifically, I think the Mass is at its most effective when it is done as reverently as possible and the clear focus is on God and His sacrifice for us, His Real Presence in the Eucharist, and not at all in anything self-referential.

    The individual penitent and soul can be best reached that way within the Mass rather than in just being around a group of congregants like himself in some mundane way like sexual orientation/temptation. Incidentally, that is a reason I am rather ho-hum with youth masses or even young adult masses. Sure, the priest will tailor his homily to having a audience that has more specific shared concerns but generally these kind of masses are more about a reception afterwards than the Mass itself where the youth or young adults can meet and greet.

  14. JohnE says:

    “…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.”

    I don’t think people are really hearing the clear Catholic message. [I wrote: "...when people encounter a Christian Catholic message, in its clear and raw form,..."] Either that or they cling so closely to the flimsy pro-gay arguments that in their minds it is better to intentionally misrepresent the Catholic message than to actually grapple with it. Irrational emotional arguments seem to be convincing more people than non-emotional, rational arguments. I think our best bet may be emotional but rational arguments — like the injustices that are happening to anyone who believes in traditional marriage. Unfortunately those arguments get far less press.

  15. Franklinwasright says:

    I was raised by a feminist single mother. One of my feminists aunts left the convent and became a middle school history teacher, she’s had two “life partners” during my lifetime. As a child I would have slumber parties at her house with her “life partner’s” children. During my time at a Catholic high school, my drama teacher took us on a drama club trip to NYC, where she paid for all of us to see the musical RENT. My school’s choir performed a song from the musical at my graduation.

    In college, I had to take a class called Multicultural Education, where one of the “cultures” was homosexuality. We were taught how to present this “culture” to kindergartners. This was for a degree in Elementary Education.

    I am from the Midwest, from a small town, I went to a small college. The liberal bias is so deep, I didn’t question any o this until my early 30′s. Now, several of my high school friends have come out of the closet, a few have left the church over the issue of homosexuality, most of the rest left for other reasons. I can count on one hand the number of people I grew up with who still go to church.

    I am no longer a liberal. My Generation Y siblings think I’m an extremist now, because I have embraced church teaching fully. My Generation X cousins are not as liberal as my younger siblings, they are more libertarian, but they too think of me as an extremist as we have 7 children and they all have 1 or 2. My sister and I are the only ones who still attend mass.

    Looking at the Millenials, Gen Y and Gen X and wondering what went wrong, the culture and media are to blame, but so is the horrible catechesis and I obtained in my Catholic schools and parishes, and the liberal indoctrination going on in Universities, even the public universities in conservative states such as my own.

    I had a truly excellent history teacher in high school, he taught the history of the church. I believe that he is the reason I am still Catholic, why I came back after lapsing in high school and college.

    We need to take back education. We need teachers who are willing to earn half of what the Public school teachers make and teach sound doctrine and history and logic and rhetoric in our schools.

  16. Suburbanbanshee says:

    “Whatever else the Catholic Church has been accused of over the years, it has not included spontaneity, frivolity, and expressive joyfulness.”

    Actually, the Catholic Church has been accused of this a lot. For example, those 19th century anti-Catholic paintings of horrible things like cardinals in their rooms, playing with a kitten. Or all the scandalous scenes of Catholics partying at Carnival. Charles II being accused of being, gasp, popish, because he brought back Christmas feasting and fun. Catholics drinking. Catholics having seductively attractive Mass music and vestments.

    Catholics having too much fun is one of the enduring accusations throughout the ages.

  17. Bruce Wayne says:

    Suburban, good point.

    I think it is also useful to remind ourselves that reactions to Protestantism has so much to do with perceptions of Catholicism in the minds and experiences of secular Americans.

  18. inexcels says:

    When I see a dude kissing another dude my first and most powerful reaction is: “That is disgusting.”

    I understand and fully support the need to reach out to PEOPLE suffering from same-sex attraction with love and patience, but it disturbs me how successful the culture has been at sweeping under the rug the fact that homosexual acts are inherently pretty revolting. I sometimes wonder, if we were more open and honest about the activities that go on in active homosexual relationships, whether some people might be a bit more queasy about supporting it.

    …Then again, given that the culture has ALSO been successful in degrading heterosexual love to rather disgusting dimensions–I won’t get into details here, but apparently a lot of heterosexual unions these days aren’t so distinguishable from homosexual ones–probably, not many people would care. Western society really has thoroughly debased itself.

  19. lmgilbert says:

    “For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry. ”

    No, at this point I can’t provide the source for this, but a number of years ago when I was researching the effect of television on our society, I ran across a quote by a media executive in a television industry magazine who said, “What we are trying to do is is move the country to the left about 4% a year.” He meant the moral left.

    “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.”

    You are right. We cannot compete, but in fact we have been competing. The priest has maybe 15-20 minutes in the pulpit on Sunday to speak on behalf of Christ and the Church, while the MSM has many hours every day in which to speak for the world the flesh and the devil. They set the agenda and we react in horror at the abortion holocaust, pornography mainstreamed, same sex marriage, at our children being lured into co-habitation and away from the faith. etc., etc. We seem to be under the impression that is a struggle with other human beings, with the MSM, with Obama, with the moral left. Symptomatic of this, and ludicrously, too, we complain about the annual lack of coverage of the March for Life. This is completely hilarious. We are at war, and the war is between Light and Darkness, Heaven and Hell. Did the Allies ever complain that they were getting no help from the Axis powers? What do we really expect from the Prince of Darkness and his minions?

    All of the issues we are so exercised about could have been dealt with years ago if Catholics and other Christians had thrown the mass media out of their own homes, as the Holy Spirit and their own consciences were telling them to do. But no, we decided to compete with the Prince of Lies on his own terms. Here is our modus operandi, by and large: We give him carte blanche to pour into our homes whatever he wishes by the hour, and we attempt inadequately to deal with the consequences in ourselves, in our children, in our society.

    The only way to prevail is to stop fighting this battle on terms dictated by the enemy, and on his turf. If Catholics and other Christians cleaned up their own homes by throwing their televisions out, the contest would be all but over. Yes, it is very late in the game, but this very doable strategy offers the only possibility of clearing our wits and setting a very different example for our fellow citizens.

    If the bishops were to say, “People will never do this,” perhaps someone could point out to them that leadership consists in getting people to do things they would not do otherwise. With leadership, we can do this, and it is very likely that people are more than ready for this kind of leadership, leadership that demands great sacrifice and that offers the possibility of giving their children a normal life in a country that has recovered its sanity and its moral beauty.

  20. Traductora says:

    Anybody remember what Pope Francis said the other day about things having changed irremediably? This is what he meant, and this is what we have got to respond to.

  21. Traductora says:

    @franklinwasright: you’re very lucky that you had even one good teacher. When my kids went to Catholic school, the good sisters (there were actually still a few sisters young enough to teach in those days) were virtually heresy central and regarded parents as excessively pious stick-in-the-muds. If they hadn’t been so ignorant, I’d think they’d have a lot to pay for; but most of them were being manipulated by people who were both smarter and a lot more evil than they were. Still, the effect on the children was horrible.

  22. eymard says:

    If I might make a comment specific to the homosexual issue here in Hawaii not directly related to the most excellent Archbishop Nienstedt.

    We are facing imminent disaster here come 10/28 with a special session called by the governor to pass “marriage equity.” Many of us are calling legislators to vote NO. This morning, in talking with a spokeswoman (lifelong Catholic married 56 years) for a representative, she said that she disagreed with Bishop Silva’s excellent letter read at all Masses a couple of weeks ago. Rather, she said: No, I agree with Pope Francis who said: “Who are we to judge?”

    When Fr. Z covered this quote around 7/30, one of the posters said that off-the-cuff-soundbites on such issues get headlines crafted, as Fr. Z states in this article on Minneapolis, to maximize the damage. I concur, and I wonder how many unschooled Catholics in this very liberal diocese will content themselves with this phrase, and feel justified supporting “equality’?

    I must say when I was confronted by this woman with those words this morning, after a week working full time on this issue, my legs went out from under me.

  23. SpittleFleckedNutty says:

    “But they who doing evil, become also involved in evil habit, so that the very habit of evil will not let them see that it is evil; will in turn become defenders of their own evil deeds. They rage when they are rebuked, like the Sodomites long ago, who said to the just man who rebuked them for their most evil inclination: You came here as a stranger, not as a judge (Gen. xix. 9). So dominant among them became the practice of this abominable foulness, that wantonness now became justice; and one who opposed it, more to be censured than one who practiced it.”
    - From Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers Volume Four, p118 (St. Augustine, Sermo XCVIII)

  24. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Suburbanshee,

    you’re right. And somewhat, it is the one accusation justified; only that it is not an accusation but a compliment.

    By which I do not mean the frivolity and not necessarily the spontaneity (just do things as they always have been done, it’s the less the trouble, is a rather Catholic attitude), but yes, the expressive joyfulness, serenity, tranquility, dolce vita, and all that.

    In the Rhenish Carnival, they regularly sing:

    No incense and no jokes and no saints being carved in stone,
    always being serious, on the Rhine leave us alone.
    Ninety-five theses – isn’t that grotesque!
    We need a hundred counters, and for the cards a desk.

    Max Weber has reported only work matters for you,
    ‘the Lord pours out His grace on him who sees his duties through,
    Idleness and Carnival, that is for the birds,
    and at God’s side one will have what one on Earth deserves.’

    I! am! so! glad that I am not a Protestant,
    for they are those who something other than work can’t,
    as Catholic you can bungle, there’s one thing that you know,
    on Saturday confess it, and away is all that mow.*

    [*forced rhyme, means "stuff", but I don't know the Rhenish word there anyway.]

  25. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Cantor perhaps,

    Paraphrasing from my Kuehnelt-Leddihn reading: it may be insufficient to judge the Catholic Church from her appearance in countries where she has had to fight and win the morality race with some fun-opposing Protestants.

    And even so, the Catholics were accused in 19th century USA under the slogan “Rum, Rome and Rebellion”. To which Kuehnelt-Leddihn: “that does not look so bad compared with Prohibition, Protestantism and Positivism”.

  26. MarkG says:

    Some people in this thread have asked why the Catholic Church would have Masses for the gay community again after an almost 30 year ban. I probably should have said why in my earlier post, but will give my reasons here.

    The reason is direct dialog instead of dialog in the media. When the gay Masses were allowed, the Catholic Church had a direct dialog, face to face, on a weekly basis with gay Catholics.
    Today, with a 30 year gap in dialog, the only place any dialog can take place is indirectly in the media, which as the example so clearly demonstrates, always turns into a big mess.

    Remember with gay Masses you are dealing with people who care enough to actually attend Mass, not the people screaming in the streets, holding signs, etc. The meetings were very respectful on both sides.

    I don’t understand why any Bishop would prefer to dialog in the media, rather than dialog directly with the gay community? If not a Mass, maybe a closed door town hall style meeting? I can’t image that putting out a press statement and having it picked apart is preferable to a closed door town hall meeting without media.

    My understanding is that Dignity sends yearly letters to all Bishops asking them for dialog and a possible town hall style meeting, and that no Bishop has agreed citing the 30 year old ban on dialog, and that most don’t reply even to say no.

  27. AvantiBev says:

    It is interesting that HuffPo and NYDaily homed in on the notion of gay unions in the Archbishop’s remarks. I actually was heartened after reading the complete text which Fr. Z linked to on the Legatus site. It was clear to me that the Archbishop did not think the notion of gay marriage developed out of thin air but directly from the denigration of the sacrament by heterosexuals with our past 45 years of Sexual Revolt. He mentioned divorce, co-habiting, hook-ups, serial shack-ups and all the rest before he ever got to a mention of gay unions. I think overall the good archbishop was attacking our debasement of human sexuality and the family through
    ALL our sins against Nature and Nature’s God.

  28. The Masked Chicken says:

    “Twenty years of TV has successfully created an image of the homosexual as the ideal parent.”

    Sadly, that sounds about right. Something happened about 1992. I can’t define it. I can’t explain it, but TV underwent a subtle change around that time. I suppose a study might reveal the processes involved, but I cannot think of a single moral show on TV, today. Not one. The Golf Channel programs don’t count.

    There is a feedback loop involved. Kids and TV respond to each other. The feedback is headed in the negative direction. It cannot be stopped because advertisers need to stimulate the base appetites to sell their non-necessary products. Outlaw advertisers and psychologists and one can break the system. Psychologists provide legitimacy for depravity under the guise of, “science,” and advertisers make illogic into a production.

    Short of that, train your kids in logic, logical fallacies, rhetoric, cognitive biases, groupthink, etc. the more you can name an evil and explain it, the more you can disengage people from its effects. Oh, and fire anyone from teaching catechetical who can’t pass an exam on basic knowledge. This should be one class where it is alright to snitch on the teacher.

    The Chicken

  29. Supertradmum says:

    The Chicken, when I started my blog in Jan. 2007, after years of teaching logic and religion, I wanted to help people think like Catholics, like rational men and women of faith. Actually, the comments and questions on my blog have shown me the further decay in most young people’s abilities to think outside the subjective box. I shall keep trying…

  30. Masked Chicken says: Something happened about 1992. I can’t define it. I can’t explain it, but TV underwent a subtle change around that time.

    It was around that time that movies started popping up that included the theme of AIDS. For example, Philadelphia (with Tom Hanks) and Forest Gump (with Tom Hanks). Around that time some stars and athletes died and it was revealed that they were “victims” of AIDS. On American TV, around that time, homosexual characters started showing up more often and in greater numbers, and they were aimed at the “30 something” crowd.

    With the public identification of AIDS it was necessary shift the public’s perception – even unjust or inaccurate stereotypes – of homosexuals away from being diseased and perverted and their acts away from happened in public toilets. The emergence of AIDS reinforced the image of disease. Therefore, there was a full court press to shift the image. AIDS sufferers were painted as victims. (Indeed, they are deserving of care and compassion, and we know as well that not all who contract it did so from homosexual acts.) Once that was accomplished, then it was possible – through media saturation, especially in the entertainment industry – to make homosexuals seem hip and better adjusted and wiser and smarter and more talented than their frumpy, dumb, dysfunctional hetero counterparts. This effort still continues today.

    But the shift seems to have been in the early 90′s.

  31. Cantor says:

    Suburbanbanshee/Imrahil -

    I stand corrected. The Church has, rightly or wrongly, been accused of just about everything!

    The idea of “Carnivale”, likely derived from German “Fasching,” has even pointed back to Catholicism. Its roots were in Catholic areas of Germany, but primarily they mocked the occupying French Napoleonic forces. Evolution to the Mardi Gras and religious association took place later.

    And most certainly, accusations against the hierarchy’s rather ostentatious lifestyle have long been the bread and butter of Protestant and Catholic criticism alike.

    But these remain the outliers. And they remain the basis of criticism of our Church both in the press and amongst many of our own members. It might be an interesting project to pick 10 adjectives and 5 religions and see how people match them up.

  32. Imrahil says:

    The early 90s?

    Interesting. Something important did happen back then.

    We lost the enemy.

    I cannot say about myself that I’d not take part in what some may perhaps summarizingly describe as decadence (though I try to not do what is a specific, confessable sin, and it goes without mentioning that I fail even there), but all the same:

    The parallels between what Sallust describes in the Historical Excourse of De conjuratione Catilinaria (c. 10ff.), and what he explicitly links to the loss of a nice disciplining enemy, cannot possibly be overlooked.

  33. joan ellen says:

    PROBLEM 1.) Imrahil: referencing Sallust “…the loss of a nice disciplining enemy, …”

    PROBLEM 2.) The Masked Chicken: “Something happened about 1992.” “Psychologists provide legitimacy for depravity under the guise of, “science,” and advertisers make illogic into a production.”

    PROBLEM 3.) “…depravity” usually incurs a DSM label…which can be interpreted to mean ‘garbage, toss out’ perhaps further fueling depravity, but not the legitimacy.

    SOLUTION 1.) The Masked Chicken: “…train your kids in logic, logical fallacies, rhetoric, cognitive biases, groupthink, etc. the more you can name an evil and explain it, the more you can disengage people from its effects. Oh, and fire anyone from teaching catechetical who can’t pass an exam on basic knowledge.”

    SOLUTION 2.) Supertradmum:
    “after years of teaching logic and religion, I wanted to help people think like Catholics, like rational men and women of faith.”" I shall keep trying…”

    SOLUTION 3.) Pray, Pray, Pray.

    The preference for decadence being returned to preference for the non-decadent…the lessening of sin and the increase in virtue…1 Bishop at a time, 1 Fr. Z blog post with comments at a time…then, hopefully, 1 sinner at a time.

  34. Grabski says:

    When you are taking flak, you are over the target. Have heart, Bishop!

  35. Pingback: What it Means to be an Altar Server - BigPulpit.com