9/11 and bullying

On this day, 9/11, when we should all, with damp eyes, wear our war faces, I am conscious of bullying.

There is no question that homosexuals have, in the past and present, been the victims of bullying.  That surely is not what Our Lord would want.

I am getting texts and emails from all sorts of sources right now about behind the scenes maneuvering of certain promoters of the homosexualist agenda who are using back channels, as it were, to try to get their critics fired or silenced.

COWARDS.

NOW, they are doing the bullying.  Why?  Because they can.  And, ironically, because it suits them.

You would think that – having been bullied – they might think twice about bullying.  But, no. Human nature is what it is.  Also, speaking of nature – or rather the unnatural – since I stepped off the airplane in Rome and I engaged the Italian switch in my head, I am reminded of a word for homosexuals which comes from the Latin ferox.   

Homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered.  They can be sinful, if consent of will is given to them.  Homosexual acts are always sinful, because they are objectively disordered and against natural law.  They are un-natural.  To call them anything else is simply wrong.

And, in the midst of all this, I am sent this story from Toronto Catholic:

James Martin S.J. accuses Catholics of being “traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded…” for not accepting homosexuality

James Martin S.J., in a recent symposium at [Jesuit run] Fordham University, continues his promotion of homosexuality. Martin then turned his attention to Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches: that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful.

The following video clip shows James Martin S.J. expressing astonishment that “even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act…” Oh Jim, Are you really telling Catholics that acts that cry to Heaven for vengeance are loving? Guess God made quite a few BIG mistakes.

Sodomy is never a loving act, dear readers.  At best, it is a manifestation of a twisting of the concept of friendship.  Otherwise, it is a sinful, disordered act, often of aggression or self-degradation.  It is not charity to say that evil is good.

Speaking of a “Jim”, I had some hate mail from a “Jim” today.  99% of my hate mail is from angry homosexuals, by the way.  “Jim” is not the Jesuit mentioned, above, nor am I in the least suggesting that he is.  In fact, some quick searching reveals that he is a tax accountant or some such in Muskegon.

Anyway.

I don’t like bullies.

UPDATE:

And now I read in PJMedia:

UK Speaker: Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be ‘Proper’ Until Churches Can’t Opt Out

In a shocking attack on religious freedom and even property rights, the speaker of Britain’s House of Commons argued that the country won’t have “proper equal marriage” until churches are unable to turn away requests to host a same-sex marriage.

“I still feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right,” John Bercow, the Commons speaker, declared at a PinkNews reception in July.

Britain legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, but Bercow suggested that the LGBT issue will not be settled until churches are unable to refuse to host such weddings. “We don’t want to behave like it’s all over, everything’s been done and nothing remains, because that isn’t true,” he added.

[…]

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Lighter fare, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to 9/11 and bullying

  1. Dad of Six says:

    Yes, that old slippery slope…

    First it was “What we do in our home is our concern, no one else. We only want our privacy. We don’t want anything else.” Then it became “All we want are civil unions so we can have the same rights as married people. We don’t want anything else.” Next, “We want to be married just like the procreative people. We don’t want anything else.” Now it’s “We want to married in whatever church we want. And by the way, bake the cake!”

  2. Kevin Jones says:

    Speaker Bercow is a man after his own heart I’m afraid to say. He clamours for the limelight and has been in the chair for far too long.

    If Jacob Rees Mogg doesn’t pursue the Conservative Party leadership, it is entirely conceivable he will be the next speaker. But for the precariously small majority that the Conservatives have in the House of Commons, Rees Mogg may well have taken up the role by now.

  3. acardnal says:

    I know that Austin Ruse, President of Center for Family and Human Rights, and CatholicVote have been bullied by the homosexualists recently on Twitter.

  4. JARay says:

    I live in Australia and right now we are experiencing bullying from the Alphabet brigade who are thrusting down our throats that we must vote “Yes” in the forthcoming postal vote on Same-Sex Marriage. Already we have witnessed Dr. Pattie Liu being hounded because she appeared in a TV Commercial supporting the “No” vote. There was a petition got up wanting her licence as a GP removed by the Medical Council and she received death threats such that she had to call in the Police. There have been offers made to students for them to go round to large blocks of flats to remove the postal votes which are being posted out, from the letter-boxes with the intention of falsely filling them in as “Yes” votes and then posting them as replies to the Counting of Votes. The whole business of us having this postal vote at all was taken to the High Court in an attempt to have it stopped since the Alphabet brigade do not want the general public to have a vote on this matter at all. They just want Parliament to pass a vote approving of SSM since there are clear indications already that such a vote would be passed with this present Parliament.
    The whole matter is becoming very bitter within the Country and the worst offenders are the “Yes” voters.

  5. clq24 says:

    While listening to this past (23rd) Sunday’s readings, I could not help but think of Fr. Martin. As a priest, I do not understand how he can be so careless with souls. The Lord called him to preach the truth but he does not. Instead he would rather be popular and loved by secular people then helping the flock God entrusted him with get to heaven. As the first reading was proclaimed, I could not help but wonder if he ever looks at passages like that one prick his consciousness ever.

  6. Alanmac says:

    I cannot fathom why Martin has not been silenced by his superiors or a Bishop.

    [Really? Silenced by his Jesuit superiors? And bishops don’t have much authority in his regard.]

  7. tho says:

    Father, this post is a shining example of what a sincere and honest priest says. It also reminds me to send you a donation to further your good work. You really are special.

  8. JustaSinner says:

    Every great civilization in the world ends when it embraces the inner gayness. Western Civ is hell bent on proving this point AGAIN.

  9. Ben Kenobi says:

    England killed her priests, buried her bishops and went 250 years before a Catholic could go to Mass in the open. Never again.

  10. Pingback: TVESDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit

  11. Sonshine135 says:

    All of this is the result of men not being men. It started, if we want to be honest, when men were beating their wives and sleeping with women outside of their marriage, and we said nothing. Make no mistake, the horse has left the barn long ago. Once homosexuality is firmly entrenched, it will be pedophilia and then bestiality. There will be no depravity off limits until we men put our foot down and say NO! ENOUGH! and call this activity out for what it is. How many of us decry LGBTQ, but fail to say anything to our children who are living in sin with their boyfriend/ girlfriend? You see what I mean? No double standards!!

  12. Legisperitus says:

    “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
    As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

    – Alexander Pope, Essay on Man

    [Sigh. Too true.]

  13. KAS says:

    Evil is never satisfied with being tolerated, it must conquer, dominate, and enslave.

  14. The video is very revealing. Father Martin’s true agenda is being revealed.

    The first move was to say that all he wanted to do was promote “dialogue” — a “conversation.” Of course he accepted Church teaching! How dare anyone suggest otherwise?

    Next move: really, can’t we just change a word or two? Is it so hard to call people “gay” or “LGBT”? Just a little change…

    Next: Oh, and can we stop saying sexual attraction between members of the same sex is “disordered”? How about “differently ordered”?

    Latest: “It’s a loving act” — the problem isn’t in homosexual actions, but in our lack of “understanding.”

    Stay tuned for more unveiling…

  15. aviva meriam says:

    Why is it Fordham University never misses an opportunity to remind me why I shouldn’t donate? As an alumna, I want to support the university but just can’t.

  16. Adeodata says:

    What’s up with the word homophobic? People can disagree with their lifestyle without being afraid of homosexual persons.

  17. kbf says:

    Aaah Bercow! He’s my MP (which means I am effectively disenfranchised as the Speaker,by tradition … oh the irony .. stands for re election to Parliament unopposed). It’s an open secret in the town he is in a “Lavender marriage” and that Sally is free to do as she pleases (such as have an ongoing affair with his cousin). You used to see him around town all the time when he wasn’t in London but since he reneged on his oldge to stand down at the last election he has barely shown his face.

  18. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    It’s too bad that up to this point our Church hasn’t made clear that:

    Christian marriage is ordered to mirroring the relationship of Christ to His Church, which is His bride, by the fidelity of the two spouses to one another for their entire lifetimes. And Christian marriage is ordered *primarily* to the procreation and education of children. (However, the Church leaves in the hands of God the question of the fertility of any given bride and groom, since Sacred Scripture itself recounts the histories of many men and women of advanced years who beget healthy children: from Sarah, the wife of the Patriarch Abraham, who gave birth to Isaac when she was 90 years of age, as is told in the book of Genesis; to the barren Shunamite woman who, we hear in the second book of Kings, although her husband was now old, believed in the prophecy of Elisha that she would give birth to a son, and, to their joy, it was so; down to Elizabeth of Zechariah, the kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin, who conceived and bore Saint John the Baptist when was long thought to be barren and was, by then, thought well beyond the age, too. )

    And . . . I would add, children have a *right* to have their material being brought into existence through an act of love between their own mother and their own father, as God intended, (and not by any artificial means such as are deployed in the breeding of domesticated animals – cattle, horses, and fowl.) And children have the right to live with their own mother and father and be reared and educated by both of them, just as mothers and fathers have the right to rear and educate their own children. (And the Church leaves in the hands of God those tragic instances in which a child’s mother or father are taken away by illness, accident, or by the breakdown of a marriage and the consequent destruction of a home and family, all of which are most deplorable misfortunes. But to deliberately arrange to start off a child’s life apart from the presence of a married, committed mother and a father in that child’s life is to thwart and to rebel against the will of God.)

    How does any homosexual stack up against all that? Or, for that matter, any heterosexual, contracepting couple? Or any heterosexual couple who enter into marriage with the attitude: “if this doesn’t work out, then we’ll split up and find new loves . . . “, or couples who say to themselves, “we want to be married just for ourselves; no children shall be in the picture for us.” . . . ?

    If only the Church really shouted out from the rooftops what marriage is and what marriage is for, these kinds of problems would never have emerged!

  19. nycdreamr says:

    Can you cite a specific example of the “back channels” and attempts to “fire or silence” gay people are supposedly orchestrating? [Sure. One has already gotten out into the public, as a matter of fact. Fr. Martin tried to cause problems for a writer at First things. ]
    Last I checked, all they were asking is not to be discriminated against or denied service solely because of their orientation. Much like we wouldn’t want businesses to be able to deny serving inter-racial couples grounds grounds, we shouldn’t expect businesses to deny serving gay people on the same grounds. [You made a few errors there. But we see what you are doing. It’s clever, but it doesn’t work.]

  20. dallenl says:

    The gay lobby has always been regarded as a rather prissy lot, with a lot of whining and complaining. Unfortunately they saw the success of other pressure groups employing militant tactics and decided to copy them. We have now gotten to the point where annual “Pride” festivals in many cities are simply an excuse for various forms of public debauchery. I know of no one, outside of Muslim countries, who wants persecution of this minority but neither should we be forced to give approval to anyone’s life style, unsatisfactory or not.

Leave a Reply