Sky View: The Biggest Embarrassment in Higher Education

Sky View: The Biggest Embarrassment in Higher Education

The Biggest Embarrassment in Higher Education Professor Mike Adams is a tenured professor at the University of North Carolina. He happens to support the Christian definition of marriage; that being a union exclusively reserved for a man and a woman. But not a few same-sex marriage advocates- progressive in their ideology -have proven to be utterly intolerant of such a view. In fact, more and more Christians are being discriminated against and even persecuted in academia. Professor Adams, who has made his views on marriage known, is starting to experience this himself. It just so happened that a colleague of his from UNC, Professor Ed, wrote him a letter, complaining that he is “the biggest embarrassment to higher education in America.” What Professor Ed did not know was that he was standing on thin ice when making this charge. You see, once the light of faith is diminished in any given institution or society, moral goodness is attacked while moral evils and the most unseemly behaviors are tolerated; especially by those who lose their faith. In his letter to Professor Ed, Mike Adams does a fine job in making this very point. You will be shocked what our universities have come to.
 THE LETTER
 Dear Edward:
 I want to take the time to thank you for writing and telling me that I should be fired from my position as a tenured professor because I am “the biggest embarrassment to higher education in America.” I also want to thank you for responding when I asked you exactly how you arrived at that conclusion. Your response, “because you insist that marriage requires one man and one woman,” was both helpful and concise.
 While I respect your right to conclude that I am the biggest embarrassment to higher education in America, I think you’re wrong. In fact, I don’t even think I’m the biggest embarrassment to higher education in the state of North Carolina. But since you’re a liberal and you support “choice” – provided we’re talking about dismembering children and not school vouchers for those who weren’t dismembered – I want to give you some options. In fact, I’m going to describe the antics of ten professors, official campus groups, and invited campus speakers in North Carolina and let you decide which constitutes the biggest embarrassment to higher education.

 1. In the early spring semester of 2013, a women’s studies professor and a psychology professor at Western Carolina University co-sponsored a panel on bondage and S&M. The purpose of the panel was to teach college students how to inflict pain on themselves and others for sexual pleasure. When you called me the biggest embarrassment in higher education, you must not have known about their bondage panel. Maybe you were tied up that evening and couldn’t make it.

2.At UNC Chapel Hill, there is a feminist professor who believes that women can lead happy lives without men. That’s nothing new. But what’s different is that she thinks women can form lifelong domestic partnerships with dogs and that those relationships will actually be fulfilling enough to replace marital relationships with men. I can’t make this stuff up, Ed. I don’t drop acid. Well, at least not since the late 1980s. But I promise this story is real and not an LSD flashback.
 3. At Duke University, feminists hired a “sex worker” (read: prostitute) to speak as part of an event called the Sex Workers Art Show. After his speech, the male prostitute pulled down his pants, got down on his knees, and inserted a burning sparkler into his rectum. While it burned, he sang a verse of “the Star Spangled Banner.” I believe that stripping incident was almost as embarrassing as the other one involving the Duke Lacrosse team.

 4. A porn star was once paid to give a speech at UNCG. The topic was “safe sodomy.” After her speech, the feminist pornographer sold autographed butt plugs to students in attendance. I’m not sure whether the ink could contribute to rectal cancer. I’m no health expert. But I do know it was pretty darned embarrassing when the media picked up on the story.

 5. A few years ago at UNC-Chapel Hill, a feminist group built a large vibrator museum in the middle of the campus quad as a part of their “orgasm awareness week.” I think that was probably the climax of the semester, academically speaking. But they certainly weren’t too embarrassed to display a vibrator that was made out of wood back in the 1920s. Keep your batteries charged, Ed. We’re about halfway done.

 6. A feminist administrator at UNC-Wilmington sponsored a pro-abortion event. During the event they sold tee shirts saying “I had an abortion” to students who … well, had abortions. That’s right, Ed. The students were encouraged to boast about the fact that they had killed their own children. That’s how the UNC system is preserving the future of our great Tar Heel state.

 7. The following semester, that same UNCW administrator sponsored a workshop teaching students how to appreciate their orgasms. I learned art appreciation in college. Today, college kids are taught orgasm appreciation. I will let you decide whether that’s an embarrassment to higher ed., Ed.

 8 A few years ago, a UNCW English professor posted nude pictures of under-aged girls as a part of an “art exhibit” in the university library. The Provost then ordered the nude pictures to be moved away from the library and into the university union. This decision was made after several pedophiles had previous been caught downloading child pornography in the university library just a few yards away from the location of the display. The English professor was incensed so she asked the Faculty Senate to censure the provost for violating her “academic freedom.” The faculty senate sided with the feminist professor. The provost was later pressured to leave the university.

 9. A different feminist professor at UNCW accused a male professor of putting tear gas in her office. She was later caught putting her mail in a microwave oven. She did this because she thought people were trying to poison her with anthrax and that the oven would neutralize the toxins. She was not placed on leave for psychiatric reasons. Instead, she was designated as the university’s official “counter terrorism” expert.

 10 And then there is Mike Adams. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. So those are the choices, Ed. You can simply write back and tell me which of these professors, groups, or guest speakers has caused “the biggest embarrassment to higher education” – either in North Carolina or in America altogether. Or you can just concede that our system of hire education is the real embarrassment because it has been hijacked by radical feminism. And please pardon any puns – especially those that take the form of ms-spelled words.

In God's Company 2: Vicka in Isreal

In God's Company 2: Vicka in Isreal:

Vicka's Apparition in Isreal https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=730738296940252

 The Sun https://www.facebook.com/...

Suicide’s Tormented Souls | Crisis Magazine

Suicide’s Tormented Souls | Crisis Magazine

EXCERPT-Christians don’t believe that by throwing your life away, you simply get another brand new one.  For Christians, the choices you make now have eternal implications. The things you do now, the relationships you make, the loves and joys and sufferings you share: these aren’t merely cast aside in death like so much worthless baggage on the way up above.  The “you” you make yourself into here and now is preserved and glorified in eternity—if there is any “you” left after the chipping away and diminishment that you cause by your sins.

Moreover the Christian message of a resurrection from the dead rescues us from a very serious and very bleak emptiness that we should not take lightly:  that’s why it’s such “Good News.”  Not to take death seriously as a very substantial evil—one that can only be overcome by an overweening goodness of an entirely unexpected type—is not only to live in a foolish, life-denying illusion, it is also to falsify everything the Scriptures tells us about the evil of death.  It is to indulge in what might be called a type of “cheap grace.”  Death in the Scriptures is not a good thing; it’s the enemy that came about because of our sin and from which we can only be rescued by the most powerful force in the universe: indeed, only by the very Creator Himself.

And yet I suppose it’s inevitable that, as the culture moves further away from any belief in a Creator (even while, oddly and incoherently, continuing to hold onto belief in things like angels and the afterlife), we’ll continue to see more people choosing suicide. When people no longer believe in a god to whom they owe their life, they will often enough decide that it is “theirs” to do with as they please—including end it.

The Epicureans in the ancient world were of this sort.  They judged that belief in the gods and the afterlife (at least they were consistent in seeing the relationship between the two) was foolish.  Their creed was “maximize pleasure and minimize pain,” so when the pain or discomfort of life got too great, one simply ended it.  Their opponents in the philosophical world, the Stoics, criticized them for this because, like Socrates, they thought a person owed a debt of gratitude to the city that had given him birth, raised and educated him; thus to end one’s life in this way without any consideration of the debt of service one owed to others was both sad and selfish.

Airmen Punished for Objecting to Gay Marriage

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html

By Todd Starnes

A 19-year veteran of the Air Force said he was relieved of his duties after he disagreed with his openly gay commander when she wanted to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality.

“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk told Fox News. “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.”

The Liberty Institute is representing the Christian airman. They fear the Pentagon will retaliate because the first sergeant is speaking up.

“Are we going to have a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for Christians so we don’t get harassed for our beliefs,” attorney Hiram Sasser asked Fox News. “Here’s a guy who wants to have his religious liberty and serve in the military. He shouldn’t have to believe in gay marriage in order to serve.”

A spokesperson for Lackland Air Force Base public affairs told Fox News Monk was not punished and that he was simply at the end of his assignment.

“They did have a disagreement, but supposedly, they agreed to disagree,” the spokesperson told Fox News. “But the wing commander said there was no punishment.

Monk has served as a first sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio since 2011. He recently returned from a deployment and discovered he had a new commander – an open lesbian.

“In one of our first meetings, she was talking about her promotion and she mentioned something about a benediction,” Monk told Fox News. “She said she wanted a chaplain but objected to one particular chaplain that she called a bigot because he preached that homosexuality is a sin.”

“She then said, ‘I don’t know what kind of people actually believe that kind of crap,’” Monk said, recalling the meeting. “I knew I was going to have a rough time in this unit and I would have to be very careful what I said.”

That moment came when Monk was called in to advise the commander on a disciplinary matter involving an Air Force instructor accused of making comments objecting to gay marriage.

The instructor was investigated and the members of his trainees were given a form with two questions:

1. Did your instructor ever slander homosexuals?
2. As a result of his slander, did it create a hostile work environment?

Monk said he quickly determined the instructor meant no harm by his public comments – comparing the United States with the fall of the Roman Empire.

“He said in spite of our differences, we can’t let that happen to the United States,” Monk said. “He then used homosexual marriage as an example – saying that he didn’t believe in it – but it doesn’t matter because he was going to train them the same way.”

Seven people took contention with the instructor’s remarks and filed complaints. It then became Monk’s job to advise the commander on disciplinary action.

“Her very first reaction was to say, ‘we need to lop off the head of this guy,” Monk said. “The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination.”

Monk suggested she use the incident as a learning experience – a way to teach everyone about tolerance and diversity.

“I don’t believe someone having an opinion for or against homosexuality is discriminatory,” Monk told Fox News.

From that point, Monk said he was told that he wasn’t on the same page as the commander and if I didn’t get on the page they were on, they would find another place for me to work.”

“I’m being chastised about what’s going on,” he said. “I’m told that members of the Air Force don’t have freedom of speech. They don’t have the right to say anything that goes against Air Force policy.”

Monk, who is a devout evangelical Christian, said he met with the young instructor and told him that he was fighting for him.

“He was really concerned,” he said. “He said he felt like he was on an island – that he couldn’t be who he is anymore. He didn’t understand why somebody would be offended.”

The instructor was eventually punished by having a letter of counseling placed in his official file.

Monk soon found himself in a very similar position after his commander ordered him to answer a question about whether people who object to gay marriage are guilty of discrimination.

“She said, ‘Sgt. Monk, I need to know if you can, as my first sergeant, if you can see discrimination if somebody says that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage,’” he said. “I refused to answer the question.”

Monk said to answer would have put him in a legal predicament.

“And as a matter of conscience I could not answer the question the way the commander wanted me to,” he said.

At that point, Monk said that perhaps it would be best if he went on leave. The commander agreed.

“I was essentially fired for not validating my commander’s position on having an opinion about homosexual marriage,” he said.

Monk said he is brokenhearted over the way the military has treated him.

“If this young man would’ve given a speech and said he was good with homosexuality, we wouldn’t be here,” he said. “The narrative is that you cannot say anything that contradicts Air Force policy.”

He said in essence, Christians are trading places with homosexuals.

“Christians have to go into the closet,” he said. “We are being robbed of our dignity and respect. We can’t be who we are.”

Monk said he is scared to speak out – and understands that he could face severe penalties.

“They will make this about me but I have an impeccable record,” he said. “I stand on my own two feet. People have to know what’s going on.”

And he’s also doing it for his three teenage sons.

“Every night after dinner we read the Bible together,” he said. “I tell the boys we’ve got a lot of stuff going on in this world and we need people to stand up. My boys know what I’m going through. They are looking at me – wanting to know how I’m going to handle this.”

He said the Monks have a “family ethos.”

“The Monk family will be strong in mind, strong in soul, they will have strong character and strong work ethic,” he said. “That is the ethos of our family. That’s what I hope they see in me.”

And more importantly, he hopes his young sons will see “a man who stand upright and stands for integrity.”

Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

by Mark Ellis -
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

HT: hollanddavis.com

Homosexuality - COMMUNIO - International Catholic Review

http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/melina.htm

 This article first appeared in Communio 25 (Spring 1998). 

© 1998 by Communio: International Catholic Review
The issues relating to the difference between the sexes are not trivial ones, but indicate epochal shifts in culture andthe spiritual history of humankind.

One of the most significant changes made by the Corrigenda in the official Latin edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church(=CCC) [1997] with respect to the 1992 vernacular version concerns the Catechism's treatment of homosexuality. The first commentaries, which focused on other moral issues such as the death penalty, self-defense, and organ transplants, somewhat neglected this modification, which is nonetheless of great importance. Paragraph 2358 of the original text spoke of "innate homosexual tendencies" in a considerable number of men and women, who, it said, had not "chosen" this condition. The revised text, by contrast, limits itself to calling these tendencies "deep-seated," without saying that they are innate or that they are not chosen. It does, on the other hand, state that "this inclination is objectively disordered." The Catechism thereby better harmonizes its formulations with the "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (cf. 3), published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (=CDF) on 1 October 1986.

What is the significance of this statement? Without entering into the moral issues,⁽¹⁾ I would like to offer a few reflections on the level of theological anthropology in order better to understand precisely what is meant by calling homosexual inclinations an "objective disorder."

1. Homosexual Inclination as "Objectively Disordered"

An adequate description of the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality must say more than (1) that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, inasmuch as they lack their essential and indispensable finality (cf. the Declaration Persona humana, CDF, 29 December 1975, 8) and (2) that we must always treat homosexual persons with respect, compassion, and tact and must avoid any unfair discrimination (cf. CCC, 2358). Rather, it is also necessary to say (3) that the inclination to homosexuality, "though not in itself a sin," is "objectively disordered" in itself (cf. Letter of the CDF, 1986, 3). If we fail to make this last point, compassion and respect can become ambiguous. An acceptance that makes no judgment about homosexual orientation, and that supposes it to be "natural," or at least "unchangeable," if not actually "part of personal identity," can slide into toleration of the acts that follow from the orientation. At the same time, there would be no good reason for calling homosexuals to chastity: to do so would be tantamount to imposing an extrinsic limit on an orientation that is deemed to be natural, innate, and constitutive of personal identity and that has no legitimate outlets. It thus seems that whoever denies that homosexual inclination is an objective disorder faces the following dilemma: toleration and approval of homosexual activity or despair.⁽²⁾

However, the ordinary magisterium's affirmation that homosexual inclination is objectively disordered immediately provokes an objection, which appears to be decisive. How can we define something as morally wrong if it is not the result of a free choice? Catholic teaching has made use of the distinction between "homosexual condition" and "homosexual acts" with the document Persona humana. This distinction implicitly acknowledges that homosexual orientation, insofar as it is not the fruit of deliberate choices, is not per se a moral wrong for which persons are to be held responsible. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas and the entire tradition of Catholic moral theology, we can speak of moral good and evil only in relation to what falls within the sphere of free will ("voluntarium").⁽³⁾Tendencies that are merely "suffered" ("passiones") are morally relevant only insofar as they are subject to the control of reason and will.

Nevertheless, what precedes our freedom, the basic predisposition that conditions our free choices, is of great significance for morality. It can therefore be assigned a moral quality analogically, insofar as it favors a certain orientation. After all, man's freedom is a "merely human," that is, non-absolute freedom: a real, but finite, situated, and conditioned freedom, which rests on, and develops from, motivations, contingencies, and bodily determinations.⁽⁴⁾ Concern for these prior conditionings, judgment of them with reference to the behavior towards which they incline, and the attempt to correct them, are all part of the inescapable task of a sound, objective, and realistic moral teaching.

The very language that has become entrenched and that we are obliged to use in speaking of homosexuality carries with it a second difficulty and a dangerous ambiguity, for it seems to imply that "sexuality" is an abstract and neutral term, to which two apparently symmetrical versions are added only later: "hetero-" and "homo-" sexuality. In this way, normal sexuality is redefined as a later specification and implicitly placed on the same level as abnormal behavior. The ideological and manipulative character of this contrived system of language must not escape us. The apparent symmetry is in reality false: sexuality is constitutively relative to the gender difference and is thus in and of itself "normally" heterosexual.

Nevertheless, what is not normal for the common condition can appear to be "natural" to the individual because of the disordered disposition of his being. Saint Thomas points this out in relation to unnatural pleasures: "what is contrary to the nature of the species becomes natural to this individual per accidens."⁽⁵⁾ In the case of homosexuality, as in other cases, the complaint "that's the way I am" expresses many things: the frustrating realization that one cannot change, a way of blaming nature and perhaps God for one's condition, even the unwillingness to reconsider one's attitude towards reality.

The psychoanalysts point out that sexuality is not only a "natural" faculty or capacity but also the subject's articulated response to the world around him. Sexuality, then, is inclusive of a "stance." In any case, our focus here is not on the psychological aspects of homosexuality, but rather on the anthropological meaning of homosexuality in terms of what the Church calls a "disordered tendency."

2. The Meaning of the Expression "Objective Disorder"

To speak of sexuality as a "stance" or a "disposition" is to speak of a plurality of elements and factors in the personality that are meant to make up a unified tendency upon which the subject constructs his or her own sexual identity and recognizes his or her place in relations with others and the surrounding world. The concept of "order" and, correlatively, of "disorder," seems to apply precisely to this kind of stance or disposition.

Augustine defines order as "an arrangement of equal and unequal that gives each its place":⁽⁶⁾ an appropriate disposition of differentiated, indeed, complementary elements such that each finds its proper place within the harmony of the whole. Thomas Aquinas offers a definition that makes more of the dynamic aspect of order. According to this definition, the formal principle of order lies in orientation to an end: "Now, an inclination to an end, or to action, or to something of this sort follows upon form; because each thing, insofar as it is in act, acts and tends towards what befits it according to its form. And this pertains to weight and order.⁽⁷⁾ Thomas' relating of order to an end also allows him to integrate the dynamism of human freedom into the striving for perfection that permeates the whole universe and animates its movements.

For Aquinas, then, order is an expression of wisdom: "sapientis est ordinare." It is precisely in establishing ends that God's provident wisdom orders the world. And by recognizing the goals preestablished in God's plan, the wise person is enabled to order his or her actions and dispositions.

We can thus understand more precisely what is meant by the expression "objectively disordered inclinations." Such inclinations are tendencies wherein the elements of the personality are disposed in such a way that they do not orient the subject towards the attainment of the end that God's plan assigns to sexuality. The Council of Trent spoke in an analogous sense of the disorder of concupiscence.⁽⁸⁾ As a result of sin, the sense powers are no longer subject to reason in accord with their original ordering, but resist and rebel against it, thus pushing men to actions contrary to the moral order. In itself concupiscence is not a sin in the strict sense, but it is called "sin" by the Apostle Paul insofar as "it derives from sin and inclines to it."

From the moral point of view, Catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, inasmuch as they activate the sexual dynamism of persons without (1) that unitive meaning of total self-gift to the other which can be realized only in the matrimonial union of man and woman and (2) openness to the procreative meaning whereby human sexuality is further ordered to the good of the child. But the criteria for ethical evaluation are rooted in a theological anthropology of human sexuality. It is only in the light of this anthropology that we can see, by way of contrast, the disorder inherent in homosexual inclination.

3. The Order of Human Sexuality in the Wise Design of God

As is the case with every other fundamental dimension of human existence, we can understand human sexuality theologically only to the extent that we relate it to Christ.⁽⁹⁾ God's wise plan is recapitulated in him as its final point. The universe, in fact, was created in him and through him: He is the first born of every creature (cf. Col 1:15-20). In him we too have been "predestined" according to the plan established by God the Father before the creation of the world, in order to be the praise of his glory (cf. Eph 1:3-14). The mystery of human sexuality, which is part of the divine plan, is therefore the mystery of our likeness to Christ, of our call in Christ to express the wealth of Trinitarian Love, whose created image we bear.

In the perspective of a Christocentric and dramatic anthropology, and following the cue of Genesis 1:27, we see that human sexuality, marked by the duality of male and female "genders," is a constitutive part of the imago Deiwhich the Creator impressed on man at the moment of creation.⁽¹⁰⁾ The difference between the sexes is a reminder of the original love, of the divine source of man's being, which is a whole composed of body and spirit. At the same time, it invites each person to a vocation of self-giving and welcoming the other in love.

The difference between the sexes is the sign of the creaturely and finite condition of human nature: "no individual human being is ever capable of exhausting by himself the whole of man: the other mode of being man (in respect to his own) is always before him."⁽¹¹⁾ At the same time this difference is an invitation to encounter and to communion, and thus constitutes, in the proper sense of the word, a vocation. As John Paul II has said in his catecheses on love in the divine plan: "sex expresses an ever new surpassing of the limit of man's solitude that is inherent in the constitution of his body, and determines its original meaning."⁽¹²⁾ The body, then, is the place where both a limit and a vocation are revealed. The body, with its masculine and feminine specificity, is a real symbol of a call to transcend original solitude, in order to encounter other, who is different from oneself, and to form with him/her a unity in which the original likeness of God's Love shines forth. The body has, as the Pope said, a "nuptial meaning": it is made to express the person's gift of self to another person who is different from oneself.⁽¹³⁾ Christ's Eucharistic gift to his Church ("take this all of you and eat it, this is my body") is the unsurpassable model of every gift of love, even in marriage, as well as the source of grace that makes this gift possible.

The difference between the sexes thus establishes a polarity between man and woman that orients them to a reciprocal relation, even though one can never absorb the other as such. This brings to light a new, fundamental characteristic of sexuality. The reciprocity of the sexes is not an integral complementarity, but always leaves open--and uncloseable--the wound of an asymmetry. This word is the witness and the trace of the ontological difference, which distinguishes contingent being from the Being in which it participates. The claim that we can overcome the difference can only be a tragic illusion.⁽¹⁴⁾ We inexorably experience the pain of lack when we realize that we cannot lay our hands on the other and that the very structure of our being prevents us from overcoming our difference from him. Desire never rests in completely satisfied enjoyment.

Though there can be no pacifying and totally satisfying fusion with the other, this very impossibility sets in motion a new dynamism. It also gives sexuality a new openness, in that it orients the lovers to a completion lying beyond themselves. By its very nature love is oriented to produce a fruit that transcends it. In order to avoid self-absorption and self-consumption, love must open up to a further fruitfulness, whose most obvious dimension is procreation. The procreative meaning, then, is not added extrinsically or biologistically to the unitive dimension of sexuality. On the contrary, procreation is the completed form of union.⁽¹⁵⁾ Children are the crown of conjugal love,⁽¹⁶⁾ which is inconceivable apart from ready openness to fruitfulness. Otherwise, conjugal love becomes self-absorbed and makes an illusory claim to self-fulfillment. The necessary transcendence of sexuality towards a mysterious third factor, and the presence of this third in sex, is represented by the child. So much so that Balthasar regards conjugal love and its fruitfulness, two aspects that cannot be separated, as an image of the Trinity.⁽¹⁷⁾

The history of the "sexual revolution"⁽¹⁸⁾ is a negative proof that the attempt to cancel the procreative dimension of sexuality leads ultimately to the abolition of the meaning of the sexual difference and to the loss of its symbolic significance. The search for joy [godimento] in the encounter with the other is replaced by the more immediate and superficial search for pleasure [piacere]. The cultural trend which denies that procreation is co-essential to union is of a piece with the elevation of homosexuality to equal status with heterosexuality. The desire for the infinite in the love between man and woman is kept open to something beyond the couple by the procreative dimension. The denial of procreation bends this desire back on itself, in a narcissism that seeks pleasure independently of joy in the other [godimento].

The elimination of openness to procreation uproots sexuality from its insertion in time and history through the succession of generations. Without the dimension of the past and the future, the sexual encounter is condemned to an aestheticism fixation on the timeless moment. This is even more necessarily true in the case of homosexuality, which A. Chapelle has rightly called a "pointilisme esthétique."⁽¹⁹⁾ The only hope for a future in the homosexual encounter is the exhausting search for a beauty that is dreamed of but always pursued in vain.

The Italian philosopher Augusto del Noce has acutely observed that "today's nihilism is gay in two senses. First, it lacks restlessness (we might even define it as the suppression of the Augustinian inquietum cor meum). Second, its symbol is homosexuality (in fact, we could say that it always intends homosexual love, even when it retains the man-woman relation)." A. Scola, commenting on this passage, notes that "gay nihilism, not 'seeing' [the] difference, including sexual difference, as a sign of the other, risks conceiving of love as a pure prolongation of the I (again, in a homosexual way)."⁽²⁰⁾

The difference between the sexes, in other words, has a meaning that transcends mere physical being: it is ontological before it is physiological, it is in the soul before it is in the body.⁽²¹⁾ The ultimate explanation of this difference is threefold. It lies in the creaturely logic of the relation between God and the world that comes from him, in Christ's spousal covenant with his Church and in the analogy of the Trinitarian life within God himself.

The uni-duality of the nuptial communion between man and woman is, infinitely distant, an image of the uni-Trinity of the divine persons.⁽²²⁾ As John Paul II has affirmed in Mulieris dignitatem, "We read that man cannot exist 'alone' (cf. Gn 2:18); he can exist only as the 'unity of the two' and therefore in relation with another human person. It is a question here of a mutual relationship: man to woman and woman to man. Being a person in the image and likeness of God thus also involves existing in a relationship, in relation to the other 'I.' This is a prelude to the definitive self-revelation of the Triune God: a living unity in the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."⁽²³⁾

4. Homosexuality as a Disorder: The Theological Dimension

The difference between the sexes is part of the creaturely image of God in the human person. It must be understood as an analogical term situated within the relation to the Creator, and of the Church with Christ, as well as within the call to mirror the communion of the divine persons. If all this is true, it is normal to expect the disorder of homosexuality to have a paradigmatic theological significance in the history of salvation. The French theologian Gaston Fessard offers an illuminating interpretation of this paradigmatic significance in a commentary on the first chapter of Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans (cf. Rom 1:20-29).⁽²⁴⁾

In the text, the Apostle connects the refusal to recognize God on the part of pagan idolaters with the sexual perversions to which they have abandoned themselves: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27). But what is the meaning of this connection between godlessness and idolatry and homosexuality, between one's religious attitude toward God and one's sexual behavior?

To be sure, to avoid invidious misunderstandings, we must recognize at the outset that Saint Paul is not interested here in homosexuality as an individual matter and even less in its material causes. His aim is rather to understand its "typical meaning and value for society," indeed, for world history, in which pagan and Jew are opposed, in order to illustrate the historical essence of idolatry. Fessard presents an original interpretation of the text, drawing on the three polarities that define human historicity: the man-woman couple (natural historicity), the master-slave couple (human historicity) and the Jew-pagan couple (supernatural historicity).

Moreover, for Paul the primal origin of these attitudes is not carnal or psychic, but rather "spiritual," or, to be precise, "diabolical" (cf. Eph 6:12). Now, the starting-point of Fessard's interpretation of the text is the observation that the Apostle, following numerous and well-known passages from the Old Testament, bases his account of the relation between God and humanity on the analogy of the man-woman relationship. Both in creation and in the history of salvation, God is a man who freely offers his love to humanity, which is a woman in relation to him. The pagan's idolatry flows precisely from the spiritual pride that drives the human being to want to be "like God," not recognizing his Creator, refusing to obey him as a servant obeys his Lord.

The result is a perversion of the creature's original attitude of feminine receptivity to the Creator.⁽²⁵⁾ Refusing God, the pagan claims to exercise an arbitrary freedom and an exclusively virile power over creation. In Fessard's interpretation, sexual inversion is ultimately an expression of spiritual pride, the sign of an aspiration to an asexual angelism revealing the human spirit's refusal to adopt before the transcendent the feminine attitude characteristic of creaturely being. At the heart of idolatry, homosexuality, not only as a deliberately chosen and consciously justified lifestyle, but above all as a paradigmatic spiritual attitude, is actually a sin against the Spirit which denies the order of nature and attempts to posit itself as the principle of a culture without transcendent points of reference.

 Our anthropological reflection on the objective disorder inherent in the homosexual inclination has led us to a final and delicate threshold: to the spiritual dimensions of the creature's relation with its creator. As A. Chapelle puts it, "much more is involved in the drama of homosexuality than a sexual behavior."⁽²⁶⁾ When the objective disorder is not merely acted out, but crystallizes through free decision into a spiritual attitude and an ideology, homosexuality takes on a typological significance. To be sure, it must be stated unequivocally that what we have said concerning the typological value of homosexuality cannot be taken as a judgment on individual persons, who may suffer because of an unchosen disposition and may act out of weakness. We are dealing instead with a general spiritual physiognomy that informs a consciously chosen lifestyle, though its influence often reaches well beyond what individual persons are actually aware of, a "spirit" which we must resist and which manifests itself in many and varied ways.

The obligatory struggle against certain unjust discriminatory practices in society, solidarity with persons with homosexual tendencies, and the pastoral effort to aid them to live chastity must not lead us to neglect the cultural, indeed, spiritual dimensions of the struggle for the truth and the authenticity of love. It would be a profound distortion if the homosexual option were elevated to the same level as the choice of a man and a woman to contract a marriage and to form a family in which to raise children, or if such a lifestyle were woven into the cultural and legislative fabric of society. As the CDF clarified in 1992: "Sexual tendency is not a quality comparable to race, ethnic origin, etc., with respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexuality is an objective disorder and calls for moral concern."⁽²⁷⁾

"This is a great mystery! I say it in reference to Christ and the Church" (Eph 4:32). The mystery of Christian marriage fulfills human sexuality as a gift of self that is open to life. It is great insofar as it finds its place in the order of the wise plan of God, who in Christ loves the Church. The issues relating to the difference between the sexes are therefore not trivial ones, but indicate epochal shifts in culture and the spiritual history of humankind. The act of recognizing and reestablishing the order willed by God's wise plan is thus the basis of the path of truth and freedom, a path that begins with the humble recognition that we are creatures before the Creator.--Translated by Adrian Walker.

Fr Giertych (Pope’s personal theologian) on contraception and the coming violence

https://fifthmariandogma.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/fr-giertych-popes-personal-theologian-on-contraception-and-the-coming-violence/

Fr Giertych (Pope’s personal theologian) on contraception and the coming violence

Text by Tom:

(This is the second report from the 40-minute LifeSiteNews video-recorded interview with Fr. Giertych. The first report and video was Papal theologian: Treating homosexuals with dignity means telling them the truth www.lifesitenews.com/news/papal-theologian-treating-homosexuals-with-dignity-means-telling-them-the-t)

VATICAN CITY, July 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “I think clearly we can see that the economic crisis which we are observing in the western world is a direct consequence of 1968, of the rejection of Humanae Vitae, of the rejection of the Church’s teaching, and the approval of the sexual revolution, which has caused a demographic crash.” Those were the words of Rev. Wojciech Giertych OP, the Theologian of the Papal Household, in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com in which the highly-placed prelate related some fascinating history and projections. (See video of this part of the Giertych interview)

Beyond the issue of people working less and living longer which creates economic instability, Fr. Giertych discussed “the moral issue of spending money and throwing the debt on the next generation, on a generation which has been partly aborted, which has not met with the generosity of the parents,” and described it as “the preparation of a violent conflict between generations.”

“I am seeing this brewing, certainly in Europe,” added Fr. Giertych. “In America at least you have a public debate about the morality of extending the public debt and throwing the responsibility on the future generation.”

Children living in poverty because their parents experienced a tragedy or war, can live with their circumstances understanding the calamity that led to their state he explained. He contrasted that however with “a vast segment of society saying we are poor compared to what the generation of our parents had, not because there was some catastrophe, but because the generation of our parents consumed all the [wealth] and threw the responsibility on us.”

The papal theologian drew attention to the violent youth protests and mass unemployment across Europe. “They are generally demonstrating saying, ‘We have the right to receive’, because their parents received grants for their studies, they received cheaper housing, and so they have this sense of entitlement which is a consequence of socialism – somebody has to give.”

Fr. Giertych warned “ultimately there will be a violent conflict.”

He said: “And the states are finally saying, ‘We cannot give. There is a limit, you know. How far can we go?’ And of course the state may produce money and be more and more in debt, but ultimately there will be a violent conflict, and euthanasia is one aspect of this conflict, which is a direct consequence of the expulsion of the transmission of life and the living out of sexuality. Ultimately it boils down to contraception – it’s a consequence.”

The Church, he said, will have an answer for the youth, one they will need to and be glad to hear. “I think there will come a moment where the young people will need to hear, will be glad to hear from the Church a voice which will be on their side, and a voice which will point to the egoism of the hedonist generation that has distorted society,” he said. “And it has distorted society beginning at a very important focal point, which is sexuality… and we are seeing the consequences.”

We began our discussion with the Papal theologian how the Catholic Church could defend its ‘hard teaching’ on contraception.

Fr, Giertych emphasized that the issue is about a reality that applies to everyone. He explained, “it’s not only a question of being in sync with Church teaching, it’s being in sync with reality, with the nature of the human person and the nature of love, which we received from God, whereas the Church’s teaching is showing us the way towards that supreme love.”

For Fr. Giertych there is nothing difficult about the answer of why the Catholic Church forbids contraception. “Because it distorts the human sexuality, and elevates the moment of sexual pleasure, whereas it denies the fundamental finality of sexuality, which is the transmission of life,” he said. “Sexual activity has been created, devised by God, as a way of transmitting life and expressing love, whereas contraception separates the transmission of life which it excludes, and then focuses uniquely on the pleasure, which generates, as a result, egoism.”

“The main reason why the Church says ‘no’ [to] contraception,” said Fr. Geirtych, “is that it destroys the quality of love, and marital love, which is a way of expressing the graces of the sacrament of matrimony, which is a way of living out the divine charity which is infused in the body and soul of the spouses.”

He explained that “marital love is to be of the supreme quality” but “contraception boils down to the saying of the spouse, ‘There’s something in you that I love, but there’s something in you that I hate, and I hate the fact that you can be a mother. So I require that this will be poisoned.’ Well, this is not love. It is not possible for a husband to say to his wife, ‘I love you truly,’ if at the same time he demands that she poisons in her body the capacity to transmit life, to be a mother.”

“That distortion of sexuality,” he said, “distorts human relationships, distorts the entire living-out of human sexuality.”

He added:

“When sexuality is not tied with the virtue of chastity, which trains the person how to integrate the sexual desire within charity, then everything is rocked. And certainly we are seeing this once contraception became so easily available. We’re seeing, successively, the distortions of sexuality, and problems on the level of human relationships, of marriages breaking down, of a violent aggressiveness of women who are discovering that they are being abused as a result of contraception, and so they’re landing in an aggressive feminism, with rage against men. Contraception is leading to abortion, because it treats the potential child as an enemy, and if something goes wrong and a child is conceived then the child is easily aborted.”

Sexual impurity and the corruption of our nation’s soul

Sexual impurity and the corruption of our nation’s soul

CALIFORNIA,  August 9, 2013 — Anyone who lived through the ‘60s knew our country would never be the same. Not only did the sexual revolution shake our national innocence, but that era produced many congressmen, governors and state legislators who are adulterous, sexually corrupt, or just plain deviant. Although former Congressman Anthony Weiner and San Diego Mayor Bob Filner are the latest examples, who can forget Bill Clinton, who disgraced the highest office in the land?

Unfortunately, morally challenged leaders aren’t the worst product of that revolution. When our culture rejected sexual restraint, it laid the foundation for two sources of national shame: abortion, and the normalizing of deviant sexual behavior.

What’s the common root to this slide into moral relativism? The loss of an age-old virtue known as sexual purity.

For generations our nation upheld a thin veneer of sexual propriety in the public realm. Though artificial in many respects, it reflected a legacy of Christian modesty inherited from our nation’s beginnings. But that restraint was virtually abandoned over the last generation.

Consider what’s now commonplace: gratuitous sex in movies; infantile potty and sexual “humor” in most TV SITCOMs; advertisements delivering soft porn; songs and video games glorifying self-gratification, sexual indulgence and voyeurism; the evening news searching for stories having sexual details; young women’s clothing catering to exhibitionism; and the Internet providing unspeakably vile content to anyone who wants it.

Should any of this be a surprise?

Sexual impurity and societal decay have been commonplace (though generally condemned) ever since the fall of mankind. Whether it is polygamy (Genesis 4:19), adultery (2 Samuel 11), rape (Genesis 34:1-7) or outright perversion (Genesis 18:1-19:29), nothing is really new under the sun. But as prior nations have learned, there’s an unavoidable cost when society openly glorifies sexual exploitation. An increasingly rotting legacy is passed to the next generation as they’re sexualized at ever younger ages and never taught the virtue of sexual self-control, or, as Hebrews 13:4 so aptly puts it, how to keep the marriage bed pure.

Obviously, there are consequences to casual sex: STDs; broken marriages; physical and emotional abuse; sexual harassment; public leaders living double lives; and yes, even personal regret and shame (Romans 2:13-15).

But it gets worse. Lack of sexual responsibility feeds an irrational attitude toward a consequence of sex: pregnancy. Clearly, God intended children to be a blessing (Psalm 127:3-5) and instituted marriage as the best way to bring them into the world. But when sexual conquest becomes culture’s highest aspiration, abortion becomes the quick fix to an unwanted nuisance. This nuisance, however, is a life created in the image of God just like his parents (Genesis 1:27).

Unfortunately, government is not a bystander in this destruction of life; it’s an accomplice. First, it makes abortion a legal right to be protected at all costs. Second, it treats students in public school as little more than animals with no control over their sexual appetites, providing explicit sex education, and then offering free condoms and trips to abortion clinics. It’s no wonder teenagers choose to follow their baser instincts.

If the death of innocent, unborn children provides little restraint to sexual promiscuity, it follows that deviant sexual appetites won’t have any restraints either.

Once sex is governed by a consumer mentality, any aberration can and will be quickly normalized. It’s not surprising that the sexual revolution opened the way for homosexuals to aggressively engage the public mind, the entertainment media, and the legal realm. Although homosexuality violates the obvious compatibility of the male-female biological design created by God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) and has devastating health and emotional consequences, homosexuals have successfully convinced much of our nation that it’s normal, healthy, and above criticism.

When healthy sexual norms are discarded and homosexuality is mainstreamed, any manner of sexual perversion and deviancy will seek legitimacy. Look around. Gender selection and confusion, bisexuality, transexuality, and even man-boy love relationships are all being promoted as normal and healthy.

As a result, our nation is reaping what it has been sowing: heartache, pain, disease, confusion and self-destructive behaviors that no amount of government spending will ever be able to correct (Galatians 6:7-8).

In contrast, sexual purity and self-control, abstinence before marriage, and fidelity within traditional marriage are openly ridiculed as naive and treated as religious fanaticism. Scripture is right in characterizing this worldly attitude as foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:18-20). In fact, common sense, reason and research have always shown that societal stability is best served when sexual desires are kept within clear, respectful bounds and cherished within marriage.

If our sexualized society continues to pursue this immoral path, our country is doomed. If God’s standards continue to be ignored and denigrated, inevitably our nation’s vitality will be dissipated and its moral conscience hardened against anything God has intended for our good.

Can this slippery slope be stopped? Only if the next generation can objectively see the rotting fruit that comes from embracing sexual impurity and decides to return to behaviors that God has declared as good and beneficial.

Follow Frank on Twitter @FrankKacer or #BiblicalPolitics

---

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Papal theologian: Treating homosexuals with dignity means telling them the truth

Papal theologian: Treating homosexuals with dignity means telling them the truth http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/papal-theologian-treating-homosexuals-with-dignity-means-telling-them-the-t/
BY JOHN-HENRY WESTEN

• Wed Jul 03, 2013 20:15 EST
• Tags: Catholic Moral Teaching, Contraception, Homosexuality,Same-Sex "Marriage"

VATICAN CITY, July 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Papal Theologian Rev. Wojciech Giertych, spoke of the need to treat persons with homosexual inclination with dignity, adding that dignity means telling them the truth.  What truth? “Homosexuality is against human nature.”  And what is needed is to “pastorally help such people to return to an emotional and moral integrity.” (see video of the interview)

Appointed in 2005 by Pope Benedict XVI, it is Fr. Giertych’s job - Theologian of the Papal Household - to review the texts given to the Pope for his speeches for theological accuracy.  LifeSiteNews was granted access into the papal palace wherein Fr. Giertych has his apartment for the interview.

Asked about the problem of homosexuality, gay ‘marriage’ and their incursion on relgious freedom, Fr. Giertych noted “this is not an issue which is reacting against the Church’s teaching – this is a fundamental anthropological change.” It is, he said, “a distortion of humanity which is being proposed as an ideology, which is being supported, financed, promoted by those who are powerful in the world in many, many, countries simultaneously.”

“The Church,” he added, “is the only institution in the world which has the courage to stand up to this ideology.”

He continued, noting that the increasing role of the state in society has resulted in a substantial lowering of ethical standards:

“Now, what we are observing in many countries world-wide, certainly in the 20^th and the 21^st century, there is an enormous extension of the responsibility of States. Now, the more the State is encroaching on the economy, on family life, on education – the State is saying that only the State has the monopoly to decide about these things. The more the State is omnipotent, the more the ethical standards are lowered, because it’s impossible to promote high ethical standards by the State."

The 61-year-old of Polish background said, “I’ve seen the Communist ideology, which seemed to be so powerful, and it’s gone! Ideologies come and go, and they have the idea of changing humanity, of changing human nature. Human nature cannot be changed; it can be distorted. But the elevation of perversion to the level of a fundamental value that has to be nurtured and nourished and promoted – this is absolutely sick.”

“The Church, standing up to this ideology which we are seeing now in the Western world, the Church is saying something very normal and humane, which corresponds to the understanding of humanity, which humanity has had for millennia, long before Christ, long before the appearance of Christianity,” he said. “So it’s not a question of the Church fighting the ideology, it’s a question of the distortion of humanity, and the Church standing up in defence of human dignity.”

Fr. Giertych and John-Henry Westen on a balcony within the papal palace.

Speaking of practicing homosexuals Fr. Giertych said, “of course they have to be treated with dignity, everybody has to be treated with dignity, even sinners have to be treated with dignity, but the best way of treating people with dignity is to tell them the truth.”

“And if we escape from the truth we’re not treating them with dignity,” he added.

The papal theologian drew an analogy to smoking saying that helping people stop smoking is not denying their dignity.

 He said:

"Homosexuality is against human nature. Now, there are many things that people do that are unnatural – smoking cigarettes is also unnatural. You can live with the addiction to tobacco, you can die of it, but there are people who are addicted to tobacco, yet they live and we meet with them and we deal with them and we don’t deny their dignity. So certainly people with the homosexual difficulty have to be respected … And so the important thing is how to pastorally help such people to return to an emotional and moral integrity."

Fr. Geirtych noted that for many there is a lessened culpability for falling into a homosexual lifestyle due to hardships endured. 

Homosexual activity is also tied to the contraceptive culture, Geirtych explained:

"...we began talking about contraception, and homosexuality is tied with it because since contraception destroys the quality of relationships amongst the spouses, and it generates sexual license outside marriage, and it reduces sexuality to an easy source of pleasure with no responsibility, that pleasure without responsibility is never satisfying, and it generates like a drug. It generates a hunger for even more pleasure, which is even more not truly satisfying, not giving ultimate happiness, and so there is a search for more perverted types of sexual pleasure, which can never fulfill the human person."

The Pope’s theologian also explained the distinction between the words “homosexual” and “gay” and the danger to someone who identifies themselves as being “gay”.

 "…in the American language you have a distinction between the word ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’. A homosexual is a person who has, to some extent, this homosexual condition. Somebody may have this difficulty, and his friends, his neighbors will not know about this. He’s dealing with this in cooperation with the grace of God and may come out of this difficulty and come back to normal human relationships. Sometimes adolescents, at the moment when their sexual sensibility is appearing, if they have been distorted by others they go through a phase of difficulty in this field. But as they mature they will grow out of it. Whereas a ‘gay’ is somebody who says, ‘I am like this, I will be like this, I want to be treated like this, and I want special privileges because I am like this.’ Now if somebody is not only homosexual, but a gay, declaring, ‘This is how I am, and I want this to be respected legally, socially and so on’ – such a person will never come out of the difficulty."

He also spoke of the danger of identifying with the homosexual condition as if it was the “supreme expression of the identity of the individual” which would deprive the individual of healing and happiness.

The papal theologian concluded noting that Christ is both the model for a healthy humanity and the source of healing for distortions of humanity. “Christ shows us a humanity which is supremely transformed from within by the divinity, “ he said. “Now, we have access to the grace of God through our faith, through the sacraments, and, by living out the grace of God, that grace of God heals whatever distortions we may have, whatever difficulties we may have, on the condition that we initiate, we commence the pilgrimage, we start the journey of living out our lives with the grace of God.”

See the video with all of Fr. Giertych's comments on this issue.