Abbey-Roads2

Gay agenda and propaganda. 

My friend Paula sent me the link to the video of Archbishop Niederauer giving Communion to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which took place last Sunday in San Francisco.  It appears he was set to deny Communion, but then one of the “Sisters” requested it, and the Archbishop obliged.  Ah!  “Reluctant compliance” again.

Anyway, I could not get the link to the video to work, but Cafeteria is Closed has it, along with a bit of commentary.  Off The Record  also has a very good post covering the event.  The entire debacle is extremely sad and a disgrace to the Archdiocese of San Francisco - expecially in light of the recent threats against the lives of high ranking members of the hierarchy for their opposition to the gay agenda.

Yet, even amongst staunch Catholic bloggers there is this odd concession to “Gay Catholics” dismissing the actions of a few radical queers as being non-representative of gay culture.  Bullshit!  If a sexually active gay Catholic, or anyone, sexually active or not, who applies the label “gay” to their Catholic identity, tells you they reject such behaviors, they are deluded.  In effect they are saying they reject all the GLBT rainbow crap they claim to support.  If you are pro GLBT you necessrily accept all the crap that goes with it.  When a gay person desires rights for themselves, they must respect the rights of others in the sub-culture - hence there is tacit approval.

“G” stands for Gay in GLBT.

Gerald writes:  ”To be sure, these nuts are not representative of gay Catholics. While being gay is not exactly a choice, running around like that is.”  I am not taking issue with Gerald in his statement, simply using it to demonstrate how many of us are taken in by gay propaganda on the road of tolerance and acceptance.

A Catholic man or woman may be same-sex attracted, experiencing their sexual orientation for persons of the same sex, but to call oneself “gay” and Catholic seems to me to be incompatable with Catholic teaching.  Gay is a poitical term, it is the “G” in GLBT.  To label oneself gay implies a person is either sexually active or accepts homosexual behavior as normative.  It implies an attachment to the homosexual sub-culture.  This goes for parents of homosexual children  who participate in organizations such as the Rainbow Sash movement.  (I’ve written about this before when I posted about “what homosexuals do“.)

Off The Record  author Diogenes makes the point so much clearer than I do:

A further point. If there existed in reality gays who were faithful Catholics — that is, if the expression “Gay Catholic” were not a contradiction in terms — it wouldn’t be the orthodox bloggers who were first and loudest to cry foul. Gays themselves — I mean the ostensibly responsible gays like James Alison and Sean Michael Winters — would pounce on Niederauer to demand he shut down MHR, banish its clergy, and toss out the twisted sisters with them. “Don’t you see,” they’d argue, “that this mock-jocular sacrilege and puerile exhibitionism plays right into the hands of our adversaries? That this is exactly the kind of sexually distorted rage that conservatives are always warning the Holy See about? That our claim to be mature, sober, and pious Catholics is blown out of the water by cross-dressing psychotics who can’t switch off their act long enough to take communion? Can’t you see that this harms our cause worse than anything the conservatives could say about us?” Well, the fact is that we haven’t heard such protests, and we won’t. And the reason is that the difference between the “presentable” gays and Sister Boom-Boom is one of tailoring rather than conviction. Skeptical? Find me a counter-example. - Diogenes 

A local “Gay Catholic” speaks out.

A rather prominent local gay activist who writes about the Catholic Church and gay issues, recently posted his thoughts on the Folsom Street Fair (see my post on that event)  and the denunciations by the Catholic League over the Miller Brewing Co.’s sponsorship of the event.  What is interesting in this man’s writings is that he often characterizes such events as aberrations in the gay sub-culture, as well as pointing to similar sexually deviant behavior amongst heterosexuals.  As if this makes it all okay.  Nevertheless, this is all part of the propaganda.  What follows is a snippet from his post, which I will not link to:

A diverse group of people - both straight and gay - participate in the Folsom Street Fair. What they share in common is a penchant for S&M. Regardless of what you may think of this type of sexual role play, the antics depicted by the Folsom Street Fair images are actually quite tame compared to what goes on at certain bars (gay and straight) every weekend around the country – not to mention other boozed-up and more public events like Spring Break on South Padre Island.

The bottom line is that gays don’t have a monopoly on certain types of behavior that objectify oneself and others. I mean, shows like Big Brother After Dark and Girls Gone Wild aren’t populated by gays. Yet what these forms of “entertainment” do have in common with events (such as the Folsom Street Fair) that do attract gays, is that they are sponsored by corporations. Is the Catholic League also going to go after these sponsors? Not likely. No, once again, it’s those “homosexuals” that are bringing about the decline of civilization as we know it. - Wild Reed

You see what I mean?  As sincere as this fellow may  be, there is a tendency to dismiss,  excuse or whitewash the aberrant behavior of some  homosexuals.  The “good ones” distance themselves from the “exaggerated” behaviors of the “few” in order to promote what is in effect  their common agenda.  As Diogenes stated, “it is a matter of tailoring, rather than conviction.”