Apb. Sheen: An error of broadmindedness

Broadmindedness, which sacrifices principles to whims, dissolves entities into environment, and reduces truth to opinion, is an unmistakable sign of the decay of the logical faculty. - Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Moods and Truths

A recent discussion of homosexual marriage in the local newspaper and in blogs (including this one) was marred by accusations of hatred.

The charges were invariably leveled by the pro-marriage side. It didn't matter how mild the statement in opposition to homosexual marriage was, it didn't matter if the opponent said nothing against homosexuals themselves, or even expressed love and respect for them. No, if you dared to oppose changing the law to allow homosexual marriage, you were labeled as "hate-filled" or a "hate-filled Catholic" or a "hate-filled bigot." Foes were also called "ignorant," "blind," "unthinking," and "uncaring."

Oh, and sometimes the comments were accompanied by gratuitous criticisms and insults aimed at religion and the Church in general, or references to pedophile priests.

There were a few attempts to engage in an actual discussion, but for the most part the pro-marriage side quickly resorted to insult, stereotyping, and parroting specious arguments.

One common charge is that the foes of homosexual marriage are "closed-minded," the implication being that those who support it are "open-minded" or, in other words, "broadminded."

But all too often the broadmindedness they espouse seems prompted by whims and opinion and to be influenced by a permissive amoral environment and not by actual independent thought and logic.

Perhaps such folks need to keep in mind that the people of faith they describe as "intolerant" are, as Archbishop Sheen observed, indeed "intolerant"- of error. But at the same time these people of faith are tolerant of the erring individuals.

In other words, even as they oppose the error of homosexual acts, and the sanctioning of homosexual marriage, these people of faith can care deeply about the people suffering from homosexual inclinations.

The homosexual marriage proponents need to keep in mind that one can be motivated by love for the person when addressing the error.

But making such a differentiation requires independent thought and a functional logical faculty.

I for one pray that they will discover how to use these gifts when discussing moral issues - just as I pray for those who are afflicted with the desire to engage in intrinsically disordered acts that are contrary to the natural law (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

You mean - it might be a choice?

Here's a new twist in the ongoing twisted attempts to justify aberrant behaviours.

An American Psychological Association publication now includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene."

If they are right - and given that it's a psychological association you never can tell - that would mean that homosexuals are not born that way.

Which would imply that homosexuality is more of a choice than the psychological establishment had tried to lead us to believe.

The APA has previously said that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (see my earlier comment about their reliability). But now in a brochure - "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality" - the APA states:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

Back in 1998, the APA opined: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Now they say there is no such evidence? Gee, what happend to the information upon which they based their previous learned opinion?

Before we get all excited, remember, these are the same type of folks who endorsed electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, and the belief in the emotional "inferiority" of women.

Still, it's a step in the right direction.

Now I've always held that some folks may have some sort of a disorder that inclines them toward being homosexual - the same way that some people may have a disorder that inclines them toward being alcoholics or drug addicts. But just as taking a drink or using a drug is generally a choice (unless you are subject to some form of secret CIA "interrogation" involving needles and narcotics), committing homosexual acts is a choice.

Sin enters not with the predisposition, but in the choice to act on it.

So will the APA now admit that homosexuals can change?