This morning’s Rocky Mountain News, provides Denver’s Archbishop Charley Chaput’s expected rhetoric with regard to General Peter Pace’s recent observation that homosexuals are immoral. Chaput (still hungry, no doubt, for the Cardinal red–such beautiful foul, um, fowl), noted that Pace was courageous for his comments deploring homosexuality. He is quoted, “Note that Pace did not say, ‘homsexual persons are evil.’ He said that homosexual acts are wrong. And, of course, he’s right.'”
The News also noted, this morning, that Chaput said, “…the outrage over Pace’s defense of ‘Western moral tradition’ is a symptom of how dysfunctional the culture has become about sexuality.”
Western moral tradition. One cannot help but place Chaput’s remarks in a contextual contrast where logic would demand that they go, to wit: Eastern moral traditions–more specifically, the moral traditions of Islam within which, of course, homosexuality is dealt with, most often, by death, flogging, jailing til’ death takes the offender, or, naturally, stoning. The contrast here is that Chaput suggests that homosexuality is not “evil,” but, rather, “…a symptom of how dysfunctional the culture [ he's referring to Western moral tradition] has become about sexuality.” Eastern culture, on the other hand, surely concludes that homosexuality is indubitably evil.
Just a hunch here that Chaput pushes the immoral button rather than the evil button because, alas, the infestation of the Holy Roman Church with pedophilic priests–Chaput’s brothers and minions–still haunts his perception of what his Church is, has been and most likely will remain for some time. His Church IS a comfortable harbor for pedophiles (and, surely, a substantial number of homosexuals who are not pedophiles–there is a difference–who may or may not practice their innate–not chosen–sexuality), which leads inevitably to the next question.
As “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” certainly provides General Pace with some modicum–albeit a wee bit squeamish–of moral security in the notion that the immorality of gay soldiers does not preclude them from serving and dying for their country, but only to the extent that their sexuality is not practiced, does it then follow that Archbishop Chaput’s views–love the sinner, hate the sin–celebrate Western moral traditions to the extent that it’s okay for priests to be gay–serve mass, hear confessions, drink the Blood of Christ–only to the extent that their sexuality, once again, remains unpracticed? Is this a new direction for Charley? Does Western moral tradition–in Charley’s view–embrace this postulate?
The history of Western moral tradition is, of course, resplendent with deviations from Chaput’s obvious conclusion that the righteous high-ground of morality has been defined by the said history. It hasn’t. Chaput’s house–the Roman Church–has itself, throughout the trudge of Western history through time, seen outrageous, deviant, manipulative, debauched thugs sitting on Peter’s Throne. What was their contribution to Western moral tradition?
Suspicion here that Chaput, while understanding that advances in Eastern moral tradition obviously chugged to a halt somewhere around the seventh century, yearns–in his heart of hearts–for a cleaner, more precise manner of dealing with homosexuals. (I won’t recapitulate the cleaner, more precise methods Islamic countries utilize to deal with the homosexuals amongst them.)
Problem is, Chaput’s political sense (perhaps, sense of survival), recognizes that there just aren’t that many mommies and daddies willing to send little Johnny off to the seminary at thirteen or fourteen, just because little Johnny believes he’s got a vocation (kind of an invite from God to be a priest). No, mommy and daddy–surely, rightfully so–fear the consequences of that; consequences that have been played out over and over and over again in the media: little Johnny may, very likely, become a victim. I suspect that older boys/men who believe they have a vocation, may be sitting that calling out for a while; rethinking it in light of what the truth of the Roman Church unarguably is. The Roman Church is having as much trouble as the American military in filling the ranks to serve all of its needs.
Chaput’s Western moral traditions wreak of the kind of revisionist blarney this prince of the Roman Church has been feeding his flock for years. The hypocrisy is clear.