Tutu's Tragedy: Denial of God's Authority in Favor of Error

Yesterday, Archbishop Tutu stated "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," and "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Such a statement reflects what happens when we forget the aim of Christianity and reduce it to being nothing more than a social action NGO by focusing solely on the immediate physical needs of individuals. 

The Christian is called to know, love and serve God. Christ makes obedience to His commandments a sign of loving Him (see John 14:15). Since His Church and His scriptures say that homosexual acts are wrong, the Christian is called to avoid those acts and to speak out to make others aware of the dangers of the path they are on (See Ezekiel 33:1-20). If we are silent, the sinner will die in his sins and we will be held accountable.

Tutu, by his statement, has effectively rejected the God who is goodness and love unless God will change His teaching to conform with Tutu's will. I'm sure he's being over rhetorical in saying he (like many Anglicans) rejects the Christian teaching on homosexuality, denying it is from God, but the problem is his rhetoric is a denial of God in one way or another.

Since the Scriptures and the Church do teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, Tutu is either:

1. denying that God is good or
2. denying that Scripture does authoritatively teach truth about how we are to behave.

In other words, Tutu either rejects God explicitly or rejects the authority of teachings he dislikes even when Christianity believes it comes from God.

Now, acts of violence against people on account of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the basis of his statement) is of course condemned and the acts of violence described in the article of course fall under that condemnation.  For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasis added)

However, the unjust actions some people perform against individuals with a same sex attraction disorder do not take away the fact that actions which are intrinsically wrong may never be justified.

That's the problem.  "Homophobia" is a pejorative label which seeks to vilify anyone who believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.  It is used to equate Christians who try to live as God commands with the barbaric thugs who actually kill or harm people.  It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of some Muslim radicals.  Muslims can rightly be appalled by the immorality of the West without being terrorists and Christians can oppose homosexual acts as sinful without supporting violence against people with homosexual attraction.

So with Tutu, he uses the appeal to emotion to link apartheid and belief that homosexuality is wrong – basically claiming (without proof) that belief that homosexual acts are sinful have the same motivation as the appalling racism of apartheid.  But if the Christian teaching comes from God, then Tutu is indeed rejecting God… either by repudiating Him directly or by denying the authority of His Scriptures and Church.

Tutu's Tragedy: Denial of God's Authority in Favor of Error

Yesterday, Archbishop Tutu stated "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," and "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Such a statement reflects what happens when we forget the aim of Christianity and reduce it to being nothing more than a social action NGO by focusing solely on the immediate physical needs of individuals. 

The Christian is called to know, love and serve God. Christ makes obedience to His commandments a sign of loving Him (see John 14:15). Since His Church and His scriptures say that homosexual acts are wrong, the Christian is called to avoid those acts and to speak out to make others aware of the dangers of the path they are on (See Ezekiel 33:1-20). If we are silent, the sinner will die in his sins and we will be held accountable.

Tutu, by his statement, has effectively rejected the God who is goodness and love unless God will change His teaching to conform with Tutu's will. I'm sure he's being over rhetorical in saying he (like many Anglicans) rejects the Christian teaching on homosexuality, denying it is from God, but the problem is his rhetoric is a denial of God in one way or another.

Since the Scriptures and the Church do teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, Tutu is either:

1. denying that God is good or
2. denying that Scripture does authoritatively teach truth about how we are to behave.

In other words, Tutu either rejects God explicitly or rejects the authority of teachings he dislikes even when Christianity believes it comes from God.

Now, acts of violence against people on account of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the basis of his statement) is of course condemned and the acts of violence described in the article of course fall under that condemnation.  For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasis added)

However, the unjust actions some people perform against individuals with a same sex attraction disorder do not take away the fact that actions which are intrinsically wrong may never be justified.

That's the problem.  "Homophobia" is a pejorative label which seeks to vilify anyone who believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.  It is used to equate Christians who try to live as God commands with the barbaric thugs who actually kill or harm people.  It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of some Muslim radicals.  Muslims can rightly be appalled by the immorality of the West without being terrorists and Christians can oppose homosexual acts as sinful without supporting violence against people with homosexual attraction.

So with Tutu, he uses the appeal to emotion to link apartheid and belief that homosexuality is wrong – basically claiming (without proof) that belief that homosexual acts are sinful have the same motivation as the appalling racism of apartheid.  But if the Christian teaching comes from God, then Tutu is indeed rejecting God… either by repudiating Him directly or by denying the authority of His Scriptures and Church.

"Very Well, Alone"

Read more »

"Very Well, Alone"

Read more »

TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church

A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying.  Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument.  Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.

What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics."  This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth.  Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.

The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church.  This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.  On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error.  Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.

Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.

The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking).  It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably.  It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]."  The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?

Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion.  Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person).  This line is clear.

But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not.  How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?"  How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"

These are not easy questions to answer.  Christians are forbidden to lie, we know.  An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?"  But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know?  This is where the dispute exists.

This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side.  But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.

Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position.  Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.

This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again).  But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."

TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church

A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying.  Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument.  Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.

What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics."  This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth.  Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.

The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church.  This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.  On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error.  Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.

Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.

The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking).  It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably.  It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]."  The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?

Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion.  Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person).  This line is clear.

But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not.  How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?"  How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"

These are not easy questions to answer.  Christians are forbidden to lie, we know.  An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?"  But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know?  This is where the dispute exists.

This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side.  But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.

Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position.  Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.

This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again).  But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."

We Used To Call This Indoctrination…

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.

 

—Adolph Hitler.  November 6, 1933

Introduction

My sister-in-law told me about an event called "Day of Silence" put on my a group called GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).  While this information came too late for me to write about this as a warning before it happened, I can at least comment on this so people of good will can be aware of what can only be described as propaganda aimed at indoctrinating the youth.

The claimed purpose of this event is to protest against bullying in the public schools.  However, when one looks at the materials, what we see is a concerted effort to undermine the moral teaching authority of parents and their religious faiths through misrepresentation and bad logic.  It is intended to push a radical agenda which portrays "alternate sexual preferences" as merely a matter of taste and not morality.  Because this activity happens in schools, it aims its agenda at people who are considered vulnerable with no chance defending the family religious beliefs until after the fact.

The designed exercises seem aimed to presenting their views as true while pressuring youth who know what is right to cave in or keep silent.

My sister-in-law tells me she kept her son home from school on the day of the event (4/19/13).  After reading the material, I can only conclude she is a very wise woman.  While I only found out about this event after the fact, I still think it is good to write about this so that people may be aware of this in the future and consider how they might protect their children from overt indoctrination.

Because there is so much to consider, I will focus mainly on one area of attack which happens to be my area of expertise.

Undermining Religious Beliefs of a Family

One example of their tactics in indoctrination is to ask whether Jesus condemned homosexuality in the Bible.  They answer that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  They point out that these condemnations show up in Paul and in the Old Testament.  The intended conclusion they want to draw is that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, He would have condemned it by name.

The problem is, by this logic, Jesus never condemned bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or the like.  He never condemned incest either.  Come to think of it, He never mentioned consent either, so rape is theoretically OK by this argument. 

So are we to assume that Jesus was an "anything goes" type of person?  If we accept this kind of argument, we have to assume Jesus was in favor of all sorts of sexual behavior – behavior that promoters of homosexuality get extremely angry over when we point this out.

Actually the "Jesus never said anything about [X]… therefore [X] is ok" argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence."  The reason this fallacy makes the argument invalid is because silence neither proves support or hostility.  However, we can find out what Jesus thought about marriage from other things He said.  For example, Matthew 19 tells us:

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)

So what we see is that while Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality by name, he explicitly declares that God's intention (from the beginning [see Matt 19:8]) is for man and woman to be married in a lifelong relationship.

What this shows is we have people who are willing to misrepresent what Jesus taught in order to undermine the family beliefs and convictions.

Conclusion

So here's why you should be alarmed, whether you have children in school or not.  People who are willing to misrepresent what a person says in order to make a point are behaving dishonestly.  Even if one disagrees with Christian teaching on sexual morality, a person of good will should want to condemn a deliberate misrepresentation made in order to deceive someone (called sophistry).

If a group claims to want tolerance and dialogue, they should be open to seeking out the best possible representation of both sides to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.  But if they misrepresent, if they use false arguments, if they intimidate in order to get young people to support their position then we do not have tolerance and dialogue.

Instead we have indoctrination and propaganda.

People of good will should be aware of the fact that this sort of event engages in unscrupulous tactics to push an agenda that parents have every right to oppose.  Parents who oppose such events should be supported, and schools who try to allow such events should be opposed.