Posted on 04/08/2009 9:56:11 AM PDT by NYer
I really wanted to go through Holy Week without doing any fisking or public pulling of air or wild rolling of the eyes, but I had the misfortune of reading this piece, just posted by BBC News: "Blair questions Papal gay policy." It reports on a recent interview given by Tony Blair to Attitude, a popular British "gay" magazine (a PDF of the interview, sans advertising, can be accesssed here), which opens by stating Blair "is probably the most prominent pro-gay religious figure in the world."
All of those who criticized or expressed serious doubts about the former Prime Minister's dedication to Church teaching and wondered a bit about his becoming Catholic will say, understandably, "Told you so!" Some of us who took a more "wait and see" attitude will now say, "Wait, now I see." And what we see isn't very encouraging:
Tony Blair has questioned the Pope's attitude towards homosexuality, arguing that religious leaders must start "rethinking" the issue.
Some older Catholics had "entrenched attitudes", while most congregations were more "liberal-minded", he added.
Mr Blair, who converted to Catholicism after resigning as UK prime minister in 2007, told the gay magazine Attitude that views had to keep "evolving".
I don't know which is more bothersome: Blair's apparent ignorance of why the Church teaches what she does about homosexuality and homosexual acts—as well as sexuality and marriage in general—or his apparent ignorance of, say, how the Anglican Communion and many "mainline" Protestant groups have completely embraced homosexuality just as completely and eagerly as they've jettisoned traditional mores. (Never mind what all of that has led to in England, although you can get a good picture of it by reading Theodore Dalrymple's Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses).
Last December the Pope angered gay and lesbian groups by arguing that blurring distinctions between males and females could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.
In a letter to bishops in 1986, when he was a cardinal, he wrote: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."
'Discipline'
First: Chronolical Snobbery Alert! Secondly: How embarrassing. Third: This is not about "generational differences," but about radically different understandings of anthropology, theology, morality, the natural law, sexuality, and marriage. I know of 75-year-old folks who fully support "gay rights" and "gay marriage," while I know plenty of 20-somethings who are strongly opposed to the same. Yet, there is also some truth to what Blair suggests, and it is that most people become more traditional and conservative regarding sexuality as they get older, especially when they realize the damage caused by one night stands, serial monogamy, etc. However, it seems clear that his comment is meant in a critical sense.
"And there's probably that same fear amongst religious leaders that if you concede ground on an issue like this, because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end?
"You'd start having to rethink many, many things. Now, my view is that rethinking is good, so let's carry on rethinking.
"Actually, we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.
"So some of these things can then result in a very broad area of issues being up for discussion. That's when I understand why religious leaders are very reluctant."
Why, you'd almost think that Blair used to be (or still is) a politician, the way he casually paints religious leaders (including Benedict) who reject homosexuality as a healthy or normal or good thing as "fearful," while he, of course, is among those enlightened elites who engage in the magical process called "rethinking." Which begs the question: if someone is "rethinking," shouldn't they show that they were really thinking in the first place? No, of course not, for this isn't about principled thinking and thoughtful principles, this is about attitudes—evolving attitudes!
Frankly, I find it insulting and laughable that Blair would talk glibly about 'the discipline with which you approach your religious faith," especially in the context of Ratzinger/Benedict, whose erudition as a moral theologian makes Blair's musing look like the empty rhetorical rubbish it is. And if Blair is too busy giving interviews to "The UK's best selling gay magazine" to read anything at length, he could at least acquaint himself with the CDF's 1986 document, "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which was, of course, promulgated under the direction of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Why, he would discover that Cardinal Ratzinger actually referred to him—albeit not by name, but by type of action:
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. (par. 8)
Meanwhile, back to the interview:
Mr Blair, who has set up his own faith foundation, was then asked: "Can you foresee a situation where in your lifetime or mine, we would have a pro-gay Pope, for example?"
"I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know. Look, there are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you'd be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."
No, not really. Why, in my more cynical moments (my wife believes they begin when I wake and end when I fall asleep) I think I'd be surprised if the average Catholic parish in the U.S. (or England, I suppose) was filled with Catholics who understood the basics of Church teaching and weren't shy about expressing loyalty to the Church and her teachings. As for the notion of a "pro-gay Pope," it is silly in that the term "gay" is (despite protests to the contrary) affirmative of homosexual inclinations and acts, and the Church has been quite clear about her beliefs about those matters. But just as important, the Pope is always pro-human; he has a duty to proclaim what is true about man, to affirm his dignity as one created by God, but to also explain that certain actions are an offense to what it means to be truly, authentically human. And the Pope and the Church point out, in various ways, that what they say about human sexuality and morality is very often and very much a matter of logic, natural law, and solid thinking; it isn't fair to suggest that opposition to homosexual acts, for example, is merely based in a "religious" or "doctrinal" perspective. Yet Blair seems to think so, stating in the interview:
You are a very rare example of a person who is publicly very religious, and very pro-gay. Did you ever see a conflict between the two?
No. Not for me. Because I came to a religious faith through people who were themselves very much open and liberal on all these issues, and who would have regarded it as bizarre to have attitudes of hostility to gay people. I think it would have been, actually, the other way around. If in the end I’d felt that my religious faith was pulling me in an opposite direction, I’d have had real difficulties with it.
[Pause button] Note, again, the false alternatives: complete acceptance of homosexuality or hostility toward homosexuals. But, of course, these are inadequate and disingenuous. The 1986 CDF document noted, "One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination." Then, after denouncing "violent malice in speech or in action" aimed at homosexuals, the document states, "But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." Yet Blair's position is: either be "pro-gay" or be labeled a homophobe.
I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice? For many people, the reason for their religious faith is less to do with the doctrine and practice, and more to do with the values like love of God and love of your neighbour. And one of the things I do through my Foundation, through trying to bring different religious faiths together, to show how, actually, there is a huge common space around these values between the different religious faiths. For many people in the world of religion, they have found they’re facing the same challenge as everybody else is in changing times, when it comes to the role of women, the issues to do with sexuality, and so on. But the problem within the institutions of organised religion as opposed, for example, to those in politics, is that those attitudes get mixed up with those of doctrine.
Who, really, is "mixed up" here? (HInt: not the Church with 2,000 years of clear and consistent teachings about homosexuality.)
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:
• Authentic Freedom and the Homosexual Person | Dr. Mark Lowery
• Homosexual Orientation Is Not a "Gift" | James Hitchcock
• Can I Quote You On That? Talking to the Media About Homosexuality and the Priesthood | Mark Brumley
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci
• Contraception and Homosexuality: The Sterile Link of Separation | Dr. Raymond Dennehy
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Rev. Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Viagra: It's Not Just for Old Guys Anymore | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
A good analysis of where Blair has failed in his faith.
“Pitch”, catch ... there is a widly inappropriate joke in there somewhere.
SnakeDoc
Gee, didn’t he know this was their “policy” before he converted?
Politics trump religion once again!! Hey Tony.....politics will NOT get you to HEAVEN! IDIOT! CLOWN.
I don’t think anyone expected Blair to ditch liberalism with his conversion.
That's the surprising aspect of his conversion. One does not approach such a change unless in full agreement with the church's teachings. Sadly, the bishop who admitted Mr. Blair must not have done a very good job of illuminating him to the truths of our faith. The other objection I have here is for the media to even approach Blair for his opinions on the Catholic Church. That is sheer arrogance.
The media is also trying to get Newt to talk.
Sure ... why not? They're trying to use his previous marriages to stir up the pot for Catholics who adhere to their faith. There has been so much peace in my life since turning off the televised news.
I don’t know why this friend of bill clinton and socialist joined the church in the first place.
To help wreck it. Liberal orders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.