Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church Part II

Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church
Part II
Narcissism, Anthropology, and the Race Track

Preface Continued from Part I

A point about Narcissism: Homosexuality is essentially Narcissistic, with its fear, hatred, or at least rejection of "the Sexual Other," and has been found in "advanced" cultures of effete urbanized elites, or in backward, retrograde cultures turned in on themselves – as with Islam or remote tribes in the jungles – for evidence of that latter, see the Peter Wood article linked to below.

For the basic modern idea about Homosexuality, the idea that "sold" it to the general public, is that people are "born that way." In 1977, only 10 percent of the U.S. population thought homosexuality was inherited, for example; it has risen ever since, to around 40-50 percent today. This Gallup polling shows the lobbying effects of "Gay, Inc." But what is the truth? In general, the current mainline thinking on how homosexuality is generated is probably as worthwhile as the "science" of Global Warming! Both are far to politically "hot" for scientists to be remotely objective. The most one might venture is it's probably due to a complex of factors, with the most weight cumulatively on the side of upbringing and home life, and for male homosexuals, their relationship with their father. (Curiously, I've never seen a study on that, but it seems very apparent that male homosexuals don't have strong, loving father-son relationships.) 

Mainstream scientists today tend to argue it isn't "learned" but "environmentally acquired", as here, wherein the author, an obviously unwise, blinder-bound scientist makes bold to write idiotically, "If homosexual people caused great societal damage, the way that psychopathic people do, we would disvalue homosexuality, whether homosexuality were innate (like psychopathy appears largely to be) or learned. But they don’t, and we shouldn’t." 

Oh? This researcher should tell that to the boys 'Uncle Teddy' McCarrick buggered. And not just that, but any knowledge of the Homosexual lifestyle in any culture, ancient or modern, shows it to be brutal and misogynist, for reasons explained anthropologically here, in a very important article by  the anthropologist Peter W. Wood.

Now, homosexual advocates would howl at all this, but "knowledge is power"; if you review the history of culture, you'll learn that adult men "imposing themselves" on teenage boys is the classic paradigm of traditional homosexual cultures (and that is exactly what the Catholic Church's sex scandal consist of). A culture that had two men of similar age as a "couple" was very rare. 

And every culture that had a strong element of Homosexuality in it was misogynist. Think of Ancient Greece in the Classical Age, wherein Homosexuality had a distinct military element to it, or traditional Muslim Arab culture at any time, past and present. For what was true in Ancient Greece and Rome and the Near East is even truer there today; the traditional Islamic culture is the most homosexual on Earth. And like Ancient Islam and Ancient Greece, quite violent.

Therefore, missing all this, intellectually curious neither about the science or the anthropology, many non-homosexual Catholic bishops and moralists see only the individual who has this burden, and try to minister to that individual, and thus not comprehend, apprehend, or "get" the titanically vast importance of the larger "program", as it were. But whatever one can say about any specific individual and their personal, spiritual, and moral struggles with homosexual attraction – Homosexuality as a corporate thing is itself far greater, and far more dangerous, than the sum of its parts. That's a truism about many things. It is very true about Homosexuality.

One simple example of this truism regarding Homosexuality is what happened in Boston to the St. Patrick's Day parade. Read here a detailed history of how small groups of homosexuals who wanted to march in it eventually resulted in St. Patrick himself leaving the parade, and anyone really Catholic – anyone accepting of the Church's ancient teachings on the subject – being driven clean out of the parade. It's a type of utterly intolerant YOU-WILL-TOLERATE-US-OR-ELSE totalitarian regime resulting in a WE-WON'T-TOLERATE-YOU reality. This phenomenon is widely known now about Homosexuality. It's the "Bake US a Cake or You Won't Bake at All" type of Homosexual threat-aggression. "You will be made to care." That slogan is horrific in its consequences. It's very real, very oppressive, and spreading ever further, contra the researcher's uncomprehending comment above.

One might say Homosexuality is like a weed, a weed that will eventually kill off or drive out every other plant in the garden. Or one might say, using religious speech. that Homosexuality is a jealous god and will have no other gods before it. From a Traditionalist Catholic perspective, of course, Homosexuality is not a weed, but a demon.

And it demands sacrifice.

This series of essays will therefore try to place that aspect of "Corporate Homosexuality" into its rightful place in the great scheme of things, particularly in how it relates to the other "worst" things confronting the Church, Islam and Protestantism. The goal is to make the point that we must "turn the corner" on Homosexuality. To recognize that, whatever or the Church's pastoral response to individual homosexuals is – and that would vary according to each individual, of course, as each person is an unique person created by God – Corporate Homosexuality, Homosexuality in the aggregate, is something deadly to the Faith. 

Only once that is clearly understood, then Homosexuality as a program, as an "alternative lifestyle" or a parallel and equally moral state to traditional Christian sexual practice, will be utterly rejected. (Or "disvalued" as the researcher quoted above put it.)

Introduction

These three things, Protestantism, Homosexuality and the Catholic Church, have been intersecting for some time now; this is a review of what is going on and of what is at stake.

Imagine a horse race track with three horses running on it. They’re pretty much nose-to-nose but it varies every time you look at them. There used to be more horses. The Arian horse ran away with the field for a while, then faltered, fell behind, and finally went lame. In the beginning, there was a Gnostic horse who seemed about to win the race, but he, too, faltered. Eventually a very strong horse appeared, an Arabian, actually, named Islam. That horse is still running. Then, 500 years ago, a second strong contender appeared, the Protestant horse. He first ran a bit behind the Islamic horse, and then they ran neck to neck, nose to nose, for about 100 years, until finally the Islamic horse fell rather far behind. By 1900, the Protestant horse was way ahead, many lengths. But then in the 1950s, and especially by the 1960s, Islam came on strong, and it was the Protestant horse that fell behind, or partially behind. But also in the 1960s a totally new horse appeared, or more precisely re-appeared, after have fallen out of the race during the great Church reforms of the 12^th century (Sts Francis and Dominic) that so strongly established the High Middle Ages Church (1053 to 1300). This is the Homosexual horse, and today that horse is nosing out the other two.

This is obviously a long-term race, lasting two millennia now, and these horses today on the track are the deadliest heresies the Church has ever faced. The race track is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. These three horses look to be final contenders in conquering that prize, and all they need is the fourth, as yet unknown and unnamed, to make the Four Horsemen of Doom. (A "one-world" George Orwell 1984-type of world government might be such a horse.)

In Part III we'll look more closely into what the horses represent, especially regarding the Incarnation.

An Préachán