Sunday, July 12, 2015

Homosexualtiy and Tactical Accommodation

Since the infamous gay marriage ruling of June 26th, 2015, I have noticed a very troubling trend in the Catholic world. I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but I think I will say it is a sort of "tactical accommodation." What is this tactical accommodation? It is a degree of measured accommodation to homosexuality that, while stopping short of actually affirming it, allows a certain amount of legitimacy of some of the points of the homo-fascist crowd, thus giving the appearance of compromise to one side while maintaining fidelity to Catholic teaching on the other. I believe the purpose of this accommodation is to save some face with the other side.

In practice, this looks something like, "I believe in traditional marriage, but I also believe that conservative Catholics have generally failed at loving homosexuals adequately." 

Or perhaps, "I know we should not encourage people to define themselves by their sins, but Christians should not be so dismissive of the concept of homosexual identity."

Or another favorite, "The Church's teaching has not changed; but at the same time, I think the Church needs to more fully utilize the unique gifts and that homosexuals can bring."

And so on.

It's as if the Supreme Court ruling is being used as an occasion for self-reflection; not a reflection on the corrupt morals of the world or the need for a stronger defense of Church teaching, mind you, but an occasion to reflect on how we can be more accommodating to homosexuality.  

Even so, the message is clear: The Church is the problem. It is Catholics who have been intolerant. Homosexuals are the victims who have not been sufficiently appreciated. It is the faithful who need to change their approach to homosexuality, not homosexuals who need to conform their lives to the truth.

My friends, while this might make some of us feel good and believe we look more respectable in the "dialogue" with the world, it all mere nonsense. 

This sort of waffling about the evils of the age is how the Church shifted massively to the left after Vatican II: Catholics ceded ground to the progressives, such that what was once merely Catholicism was redefined as "integralism." This horrid lie has Catholics believing that our perennial Tradition is "radical Traditionalism" while what goes on at your typical Catholic parish is "Catholicism."

Similarly, the Church's traditional, uncompromising approach to homosexuality will increasingly be seen as "rigid" and "unmerciful" as Catholics, pressured by society, cede ground to the homo-fascists by making the sorts of wrist-wringing, self-condemnatory statements mentioned above. Traditional Catholic disgust at such acts - which are sins crying to heaven for vengeance - will be seen as an "extreme" position, which will be contrasted to the other "extreme" of homosexual acceptance. The new middle, the new orthodoxy, will be a kind of Kasperian dichotomy that still affirms the inadmissibility of homosexual relations while steadfastly refusing to say anything even remotely "negative" about them. And this new center will be put forward as "the Church's teaching."

Black is white. White is black.

But what of the objections themselves? Have conservative Catholics been "unloving"? Do we need to make room for a homosexual "identity"? Do homosexual Catholics, by virtue of their homosexuality, have some special gifts or insights for the Church? Well, I of course deny all three, but I am not arguing these points here, merely noting that this sort of waffling compromise is being floated and seems especially prevalent among the "new evangelization" crowd.

To see how far we have fallen in our kiddie-gloves approach to this topic, look at the language of St. John Chrysostom, the great preacher and Bishop of Constantinople:

“All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men…. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions [of the homosexuals] satanic, but their lives are diabolic…So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body….. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.” (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV)

Was St. John Chrysostom insufficiently loving of homosexuals? Did he not adequately grasp the gifts they had to offer?

This is how Catholicism has always approached homosexuality. The leaders of today's Church need to take their cue from saints like Chrysostom and others who were unflinching in their attitude towards this evil. Bishops, priests, man up! Sound off like you've got a pair! We need clarity and power in the Holy Spirit, not tactical accommodation.


Anonymous said...

There goes another saint off the calander.

Anonymous said...

100% Agreed. It's driving me crazy. Specially when priests/bishops are doing it. Check out this "gem" I found at CatholicVote. It's like the author read your blog and decided to provide an example:

Boniface said...

It was that article that prompted me to write this post.

Anonymous said...

Hi anonymous. Thanks for your comment on my article, and for the link here.

As a Catholic student at a very very orthodox Catholic University, I've noticed that among students, screaming "faggot" or making xenophobic comments is totally accepted, because conservative values are confused with Catholic morals. I am 'straight' but would not be happy if I were gay, and heard my friends making gay jokes, despite how hard it may be to carry the cross of same sex attraction as a catholic.

My point is not that catholics are bad, or the church needs to change, but rather that there is some lack of charity among catholics, and they are misrepresenting our faith.

Most catholics are wonderful people and I am proud to be one.

God Bless.

Blue said...

Vatican II was a radical transformation of the Catholic faith into a conglomeration of so many heretical philosophies and ideologies, with a little bit of the truth thrown in to deceive, under the umbrella called "Modernism" (the heresy of all heresies), that it couldn't transform the moral teachings of the Church until the flock was fully imbibed in the underpinnings of their new religion. That had to wait. The time has come. And with the elevation of a Marxist-Modernist to the papacy, they will succeed. They will use the Synod on the Family as the vehicle to initially, give the bishops the authority to decide within their dioceses, whether or not the divorced and remarried and those in a sodomitic relationship are given communion. Most bishops will agree to do so. Then, in time, it will simply be an accepted and normal practice.

Anonymous said...

That's not how your article was written, Leon.

Anyway, did anyone see this lame video Catholic Vote made on gay marriage? If you read the comments, it becomes obvious you cannot reason with homosexuals. The truth must be proclaimed boldly, not act like a bunch of wimps in the video.

Konstantin said...

Oh Boniface, you bad rad trad, you quoted Chrysostom, the Jew-hater! Haven't you figured out that we know now that they still are the Chosen People, whose covenant has not been broken and who wait for the first coming of the Messiah while we wait for the second? And we also know by now that homosexual Catholics can bring their special gifts to the Church. So you see, your totally mistaken here. [irony off]

Boniface said...

I presume St. John Chrysostom acted in charity when he called it satanic, diabolical, etc.

Anon. 1:25. Yes very wimpy. So sick of that.

Anonymous said...

I must say, I am getting tried of Catholic Vote. I want to know who pays their bills and their salaries. It is as though they are gearing us up to accept compromise, by shifting our sensibilities in a progressive direction, while imploring Catholic words like charity. Are these people just ignorant of the fight which is taking place between good and evil? Next, they will tell us we have to vote for Jeb Bush because he is the exemplar of Catholic maturity on these issues.

I firmly believe that Catholic Vote acts as a controlled opposition, and we must be weary of what they offer as strategies.

Philip James

Anonymous said...

Got it. So you would have my article support calling gay people fags and mocking them?
That is the faith life I see lived out by some (not all) Catholics. This must change. You will notice in the article I never ask us to be apologetic about our beliefs or change them ("neither the Church nor Her people will ever change their beliefs"). We are on the same side here!
Unless you want the entire US to hate us, we have to prove we are charitable people. I don't know what part of the country you are from, but in the West we are not winning any popularity contests.

Personally, I'd rather reinforce all aspects of our faith, including charity, instead of losing more and more religious freedom rights to the left.
I am sorry the point was lost on you, have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Pathetic how some Catholics will concentrate on >0.001% of faithful instead of focusing their attention on the rapid decline of the secular world. I suppose it makes them feel good, like the better Catholics. The city is burning outside the window, but our hero is cleaning off a spot on the mirror obscuring his face.

One should note that we are talking about Western Catholics, because please do approach Eastern or Southern Catholics (of the Old or New World) of any race and tell them not to say "fag" or "faggots" about homosexuals -- sodomites? -- and enjoy the spit in your face from their violent laughter.

Anonymous said...

Appearing weak and apologetic will not make them hate us less, but more, and more cruelly and visciously. The fact that this is lost on people scares me. Go on, grovel on the ground for them, kiss their feet; see if they love you then. Bring a purse for your teeth.

Anonymous said...

Philip James,

Catholic Vote is a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, a 501(c)3 legal and educational arm established to organize, coordinate, and engage in strategic litigation designed to defend religious liberty, the traditional family, and a culture of life. They are out of Chicago, IL (red flag!). They seem fairly orthodox, allthough their position on the death penalty is contrary to Church teaching:

"The death penalty is an unnecessary legal penalty in the developed world. We are called to love everyone, especially our enemies. This is what Jesus taught us. A great witness to the love and mercy of Jesus in our own time is to oppose the death penalty, especially in a developed country like ours."

Steve D.

Unknown said...

Accommodation another euphemism for compromising the Catholic Faith. I will not hear of it. In 325, the Emperor called for an ecumenical council to settle the debate between Arianism and the Orthodox Christianity that we know and love today. One of the bishops to answer the request of Constantine at the First Council of Nicaea was none other than the Bishop of Myra, St. Nicholas. Being the staunch anti-Arian Catholic that he was Jolly Father Christmas kissed the heretic, Arius’, face with his fist because he just couldn’t take the nonsense any longer. I shall do the same when I encounter a religious who accommodates SSM as if we the Catholic church have for the last 2000 years just been wrong. NO

Anonymous said...

"Who am I to judge?"


Boniface said...

Re: Vladimir-

"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

1 Cor. 6:1-2

Konstantin said...

There is another problem about this Catholic Vote video and their arguments in general. It used to be a basic catechism truth that you avoid people who are immoral as much as possible. Why would you want to become friends with homosexuals? Sin is contagious. You might not become a homosexual, but you're bound to become more and more lax if you don't mind your friends being gay.

Boniface said...


I think the distinction between an active homosexual and a person struggling with homosexual tendencies but living chastely needs to be maintained. I would see no problem being friends with a person who was struggling with homosexuality but was living chastely - I have several friends in this category. But as far as someone living an active homosexual lifestyle, I would agree.

Anonymous said...

Boniface, i'm sorry you missunderstood my comment. I was just citing the Pope, ironically. He is the one who started, or acelerated, this process.
A couple of years ago you asked us, the argentinians, why were we so negative about Bergoglio.
Well, after 3 years of pontificate, you have the elements to make your own judgement.


Boniface said...

Oh I see...apologies, Vlad. Yes, it is that sort of attitude which has given rise to this sort of stuff.

Phil Steinacker said...


Catholics can NEVER succeed in winning popularity contests of any sort. I get what you mean about Catholics being called to love everyone, but our opponents have determined they understand better than the Church what love is.

You are too concerned with the minority of Catholics who scream 'faggot." This is not a widespread practice or experience, but is used rhetorically to denigrate and undermine Catholicism.

The truth is we cannot ever persuade homosexualists and their straight allies that we love them for two reasons. First, authentic love - as any parent knows - usually requires having to speak very painful truths to the beloved. With this bunch, any such attempt to do so in kindness will result in the kindness of your words or tone of voice will be dismissed, if noticed at all, and you will be attacked at the jugular vein.

Secondly, modernist culture has redefined love in the most self-serving of ways, so we have zero common ground on which to build. The Church's wisdom and authority to speak on love is dismissed, fi not rejected outright.

Attempting to "prove" we love them will ALWAYS fail. Rather, we will have achieve success only by speaking unvarnished truth without apology.

You worry too much about a small number of bigots in our midst who are hopelessly outnumbered by the fascists of the homosexual movement, and not enough about crafting compellingly bold positions to penetrate hardened hearts.

bowing and scraping with apologies will get you nothing but a swift kick to the groin.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, you can put a bullet on your enemy loving him.

Konstantin said...

I understand, Boniface. Nonetheless, I believe that we are basically saying the same thing. I said "immoral", this of course doesn't apply to people who suffer from temptations to which they don't assent. Furthermore, since I think it is general consent that a homosexual is someone who identifies with this vice and often centers his whole life around it, "homosexual" doesn't apply to the type of persons you mentioned. Last but not least, the video does not make this distinction at all. When they talk about their gay friends, I assume that they talk about people who sin against nature.

Boniface said...

On thank you for clarifying, Konstantin. I'm sorry I should have read more closely. Agreed on all points.

Out of curiosity, have you seen this one? What do you think of it?

Anonymous said...

Phil S

Is is too much too ask Catholics to admit they are guilty of not being charitable?

I will assume your Catholic acquaintances are all charitable, but I can tell you mine are human and sin quite often.

I don't find calling out my Catholic brothers and sisters to be more charitable to be 'bowing and scraping the ground' as if I were some pathetic being ashamed of being a follower of God.

I say nothing against boldly standing up for our definition of marriage. In fact, I fully support it. But do it without leaving the homosexual practicing Catholics feeling like we hate them. Do it without forgetting our charitable works-I fear that these works will be our last defense and argument against churches losing their non-profit status.

We can't win any popularity contests, but we can be respected enough to have our views not laughed at or spit upon, which is happening today.

If the left can't be reasoned with, and you refuse to admit Catholics need a reality check, what do you propose?


Anonymous said...

Anonymous L,

Of course we shouldn't hate homosexuals; but hey now that we've got that covered you mind if we spend a little time performing the spiritual act of mercy of admonishing the sinner? You are flailing away that Catholics should be a bit more charitable; well how about you give it a whirl? If you take a peek at the world and think the big problem here is that Catholics are walking around shouting fag, then I'm sorry you're not going to receive much support here. And to be perfectly honest, I don't believe you. I don't believe that you're inundated with Catholics shouting fag at homosexuals - I live in the deepest of the deep South and see that attitude no where. I don't believe you are seeing widespread "hatred" for homosexuals. I do believe you have a certain flawed worldview, and your article was a bit of "let me flaunt my crypto-progressive cred a bit shall I?" But it cannot be said enough, friend, that despite all your best intentions you are simply being duped. I have known so very many homosexuals in my life - even called a few friends - and I can tell you that by and large they could not care less for your love or respect. All they want is your submission. They desperately want society to rubber stamp their sin - while always defining themselves as "outsiders." A precarious situation indeed. And your limp wristed definition of love or wake up call or whatever other "gotcha" phrase that works in the local RCIA class is little more than a pacifier for them to play with on a lovely ride to hell. There is no love or human respect that is more powerful than manfully telling someone if they continue in their sin, unrepentant, they will die in their sins and spend eternally in hell - your particular approach will clearly depend on you, your surroundings, your state in life. But, to be sure, while your particular approach may be up for debate, what cannot be up for debate is our constant, intransigent, loud, uncompromising, forceful if need be, admonishing of the sinner. THAT is the scriptural approach. THAT is the saintly approach. THAT, friend, is the Catholic approach.

Boniface said...


Of course there may be people out there who shout "fag" at homosexuals. I admit such people may exist. And to the degree they are as your characterize them, they should be admonished.

But - seriously - looking at the state of things today, is that really a problem? Is the ultimate problem with Catholicism and homosexuality that there is too much intolerance of homosexuals? Hardly! If anything, the opposite is true; the Church is plagued from the Vatican on down to the lowest Youth Minister with acceptance and compromise with homosexuality. The whole Church is rotten with it. When I hear people say the problem is that Catholics need to check themselves because we are too intolerant of homosexuals, I think, "What planet are you living on?"

It'd be equivalent to saying the problem with the Novus Ordo is it uses too much Gregorian Chant, or that there are too few Extraordinary Ministers, or that Catholic liturgical law is too rigid. If someone were to argue any of those things, I would question the approach, as I do here. Catholics being too intolerant and not loving enough? The opposite is true in 99% of the cases.

Boniface said...


I accidentally deleted your comment. Apologies. But yes, I agree. This one sin is getting a disproportionate amount of attention - and why? Because they are trying to change the light in which it is viewed. Great story about St. Francis Xavier's bold preaching against this vice...wonder if we could find any of those homilies?

Anonymous said...

We should strive to be good, not nice. They are not the same thing. Think that Jesus was nice whipping the money changers? No, but He was good. Good people go on crusades; nice people stay quiet to spare feelings of murderers. In some occasions the good thing to do is be nice but in other occasions it is good to offend people if necessary to speak the the truth. In the modern world to be nice you must never claim something is wrong when it is politically correct.

I'm not saying go and offend people for the sake of it. But we must not cower at the thought of others thinking we are not nice people.

Clear Waters said...

1) There is no such thing as a 'homosexual Christian' of any sect. Anybody who assented to this entirely invented concept of 'sexual identity' which has existed at no other time in the history of human civilization, would have to be a devout servant to Modernity, not to God. Having placed idols above the Holiest Throne and Moral Law, he has become apostate, whatever he says.

2) There can be no accommodation. Sin can only be opposed with charity and firmness, or with a sword, depending on its gravity and determined societal lethality. It can never be accommodated. To accommodate sin in any fashion is not only to directly oppose God in favor of man, but to favor eventual disorder over order.

Anonymous said...

I've attached an article to propos on what exactly that needs to happen in the Roman Catholic Church concerning the LGBT community. The RCC must put as much effort in pastoral care for people with same sex attraction or homosexuals as in condemning homosexuality. Does it not teach to love the sinner but to hate the sin? It is a great opportunity for RCC to respond humanely with love and affection to the LGBT community to counter the worldly embrace and acceptance the LGBT community gets. Jesus put more emphasis on pastoral care and salvation than condemnation with regards to sinners.

Konstantin said...


I guess it will be hard if not impossible to come by these homilies. A Jesuit lay brother (I think his name was Fernandez) wrote the account of the trip, but I don't know if he wrote down all homilies and arguments in the countless discussions St. Francis Xavier had with princes and buddhist monks in Japan.

Boniface said...


The RCC must put as much effort in pastoral care for people with same sex attraction or homosexuals as in condemning homosexuality.

HAHAHA! As much effort? Well, given the Church has made almost ZERO effort condemning homosexuality recently, by your criteria we could have quite a bit more condemnatory language to match all the hand-wringing apologias.

Clear Waters said...

anonymous - your comments are pungent with heresy. The 'LGBT Community'??? What is this?! Point me to ONE, even ONE text from any Church Father prior to the last 50 years who has EVER mentioned this 'community' you speak of. They do not exist, except in the minds of those who wish to destroy Christianity with their vile political motives.

People are not defined by their sexual proclivities. There is no such thing as sexual identity. There is only sin, and people who lie with the same sex are committing sin. The Church must treat this in the same way it treats the sins of murder and adultery. That is with the harshest condemnation of the act, and the offer of repentance to the individual for the infraction, given so mercifully by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do not try to mold Holy Scripture to your corrupted Modern views. It transcends this dark age in which the Church has been put under heel. It is ETERNAL and UNCHANGING. From its inception it seems, sound doctrine has always suffered its traitors and appeasers. It's a shame that with so much evidence, you remain blind to the enemies of Christendom, and in fact aid them in their dismantling of the Church.