Archbishop Wenski’s words made true by gay writer who viciously attacks him for defending reality of marriage

Some of the most vicious attacks I’ve read against the Church are normally written by people who understand the Church the least.

Brandon K Thorp’s screed against Archbishop Thomas Wenski in the Broward-Palm Beach New Times is a sad example of this phenomenon.

Here’s the quote from Abp Wenski’s weekend editorial in the Sun Sentinel (“Traditional Marriage Predates All Of Us“) which caused Brandon to fly off the handle:

In our nation’s culture wars, the two sides are fighting about the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality. One side — and today, “gay marriage” is its poster child — holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things, but by one’s own individual will. The other side holds men and women are not self-creators, but creatures. Truth is not constructed, but received and thus must reflect the reality of things. Or, as the Book of Genesis says: “Male and female, He (God) created them.” (Genesis 1:27).

Let’s make the Archbishop points glaringly simple: the homosexual attempt to redefine marriage, he says, represents an attempt to make reality what they want it to be. The Christian response is to say that the traditional view of marriage reflects “the reality of things” – what institutions (like marriage) actually is.

What is astounding to me is to see how Brandon, offended by the Archbishop’s words, proceeds to do exactly thatcreate and propose a myth about what the Church is.

{Warning: some of Brandon’s lies about the Church will be offensive to readers.}

Brandon writes:

Archbishop Wenski believes that a virgin gave birth to a deity who was nailed to a piece of wood to save us from the wrath of his father; and who rose from the dead, floated in the air, and ascended through a magic portal to heaven. I mention this not to cast aspersions on Wenski’s faith — I’ll do that in a moment — but to underline what Wenski means…

Quite a start, huh? Now, reading that above summation of the Christian testimony about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I ask you: who is living in reality? Archbishop Wenski, or Brandon?

I could exhaust you with many, many quotations like this, but instead I’ll jump to the “lowlights”:

“If Wenski and his co-religionists had their way, private, consensual homosexual acts would still be illegal.”

Huh? (In fact, the Vatican’s representatives at the United Nations recently expressed their belief “in the inherent dignity of all human beings and condemned all violence against people because of their sexual orientation or behavior.”)

Whose opinions [about the optimal environment for raising children] are more trustworthy? Those of actual married couples, or those of an unmarried, self-proclaimed virgin?

Huh? (Someone has never heard of the Church’s massive body of teaching and two thousand years of pastoral experience in married life, the vocation of the family, and the proper care and education of children. What exactly does Brandon have to offer on his own?)

Let’s continue….

“Apparently, the Archbishop is unaware that early Christians, beginning with Paul, absolutely loathed marriage. They saw it as an excuse to fornicate.”

HUH? This really gets me, when someone who has never darkened the door of a theology classroom procedes to lecture all Catholics on what our own Church teaches (and has historically taught) about marriage. Brandon’s historical warping is simply beneath rebutting. Here’s someone who hears the name “Casti Connubii” (Pope Pius IX’s encyclical on marriage) and thinks it’s Pig Latin.

Let’s keep going – because it’s hard to look away from a train wreck:

For obvious reasons, the spread of Catholicism necessitated a gradual softening on marriage and all its filthy attendant sex… The form of marriage the Church ultimately propounded — indissoluble, monogamous, and with a dowry — became the template for modern Western matrimony. You’ll note that Wenski implies, but doesn’t quite say, that these monogamous, heterosexual marriages have been the norm in recorded history. Wenski doesn’t quite say it because it’s a lie. Wenski’s own holy books document a long history of polygamy, most of which was approved by Wenski’s god.

Huh? Hold the phone! How could the Church have missed this?! All these thousands of years and only now we find out from Brandon that we should have been advocating for polygamy! Why did we ignore all those sayings of Jesus about it being better to have multiple spouses? Why did we miss the two wives at Cana? How could we have forgotten the Council of Polyamory (A.D. 123) where polygamy was declared to be the eighth sacrament?! Someone should tell the Jews, too.

… oh wait, nevermind. I got caught up in Brandon’s reality for a moment.

Brandon, however, is still going strong {my comment in brackets}:

Of course, this history is one that Wenski would rather elide, historical elision being a necessary pastime of professional Catholics everywhere {dang, he saw my resume!}. There is something repellent about a man assuming moral authority by virtue of his rank in an organization which, when it had the power, spent a millenia burning women {First Council of Salem, I guess?) and subjugating “savages,” {actually the Church upheld the dignity and humanity of the American tribesmen long before any European government did) and which is now engaged in an international cover-up of the rape and torture of children.

Oh. I just knew Brandon couldn’t avoid the one thing anyone who hates the Church without knowing it cannot avoid bringing up whenever that person actually disagrees with what the Church teaches about their chosen lifestyle:

Let me rephrase that: Wenski has a platform in the Sun Sentinel not because of his stature as a journalist, or as an essayist, or as an ethicist, but because he has risen to prominence in an organization which has institutionalized and then lied about the rape and torture of tens of thousands of children. To treat such a man as a moral authority is laughable. If he possessed any true moral authority, he’d have cut and run long ago — or, at the very least, have the decency to use his Sun Sentinel platform not to pontificate, but to apologize.

I have just one thing to say about Brandon’s last barb: the Church in the United States is the safest place in the world for children now. I’ll say that again because even I had a hard time believing it until I did the research: the Catholic Church in America is the safest place in the world for children now. (Update - this fact is still news to some. For those, read Philip Jenkins’ research and Dave Pierre’s book.)

Now, read through what I quoted from Brandon and read Archbishop Wenski’s column and ask – who is intent on creating their own reality and history through pure willpower? And who on the other hand believes in receiving the reality of things, whatever they may be and preserving the truth for all to see?

Brandon considers himself to be an aspiring journalist. I hope this post serves as a reminder to him that, especially when writing about people you disagree with, it’s basic journalistic integrity to check your facts and hold back your bias before beginning to write. I’ll be praying for Brandon, and I know Archbishop Wenski will too, as will all the Catholics who read the hateful things he has written about them.

But I will also continue to call him back to reality, as Archbishop Wenski tried to do.

3,735 views

Categories:Uncategorized

78 thoughts on “Archbishop Wenski’s words made true by gay writer who viciously attacks him for defending reality of marriage

  1. [...] In other words, Throrpe creates his own reality about what Christianity is and what it teaches. (I have more thoughts on Thorpe's screed on my personal blog, American Papist.) [...]

  2. Dennis says:

    The way and method of thinking by Mr. Thorp is becoming the norm in society at large. I think the Church really needs to wake up to this reality. Many see Christianity on the frindge of society (with nothing to contribute) and a relic of ancient history. The Church is facing perhaps its greatest challenge. Failure to recognize and find the means, not to be “relavant,” but to understand the philosophy and thinking of these people so as to speak the truth of the Christian faith in and for our times is essential to our missionary task today.

    A tit for tat reply from the Archbishop might be in order, but hopefully it will be done in a way that reveals the wholistic development of the human being as being not a matter of individual will or desire (which leads to anarchy and despair), but also as a challenge to grow and change as a person in view of the life of Christ.

  3. Roderick says:

    Well written.

  4. Jason Miller says:

    I know this has been explained 1000 times already, but the sex abuse crisis was due primarily due to homosexuality, not pedophilia. I am a clinical psychologist and a statistician. I know what I am talking about here. Depending on the study, approximately 80 to 90% of victims were adolescent males. The dsm-iv diagnosis of pedophilia defines the victims as prepubescent. As indicated by the stats, the overwhelming majority of victims were not prepubescent. Thus, it was homosexual in nature. By law, the victims were “minors”, by diagnosis the majority of Perpetrators were not pedophiles. Don’t confuse the two classes. If you look at those creepy pedophile organization like NAMBLA, you will notice they like little boys before puberty.
    So for those of you who keep saying “there is no association between being gay and a pedophile,” that is not what people are saying here. And by the way, though both gays and straights can be pedophiles, gays are statistically more likely to be pedophiles than straights. Sorry stats aren’t politically correct, but that is the math. I emphasize that this of course does not mean all or even the majority of gays are pedophiles. It is just probability. Now some incorrectly will try to counter that there are more straight pedophiles than gay. Raw number wise, this is true. But since heterosexuals account for approximately 95% of the general population, you have to adjust for this and use rates instead of raw numbers. So there are a greater percentage of gays that are pedophiles than the percentage of straights that are pedophiles. You may “feel” differently about this matter, but if I bet money using these stats, using them to predict who is a pedophile, I would win more money. Stats may be cold, but they work.

    1. Janice says:

      Can you please tell me where I can find these statistics?

      1. Bain says:

        For the statistics as regards clergy sex abuse in the USA 1950-2002 (not necessarily what the previous poster was referring to), see the 2004 Report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It was commissioned in 2002/2003 by the National Review Board set up by the USCCB and it is available in full on the USCCB website at http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ The “executive summary” includes this:

        “The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.”

        For the detailed break-down by age of complainant (at time of first alleged act of abuse) see table 4.3.2 in Part 4.3. It doesn’t give a breakdown by gender, nor is any assertion made as to puberty (the onset of which varies from individual to individual), but it shows that 22.6% of all complainants were aged under 11 at the time of the first alleged act of abuse.

        So, “approximately 80-90% . . were adolescent males” does not precisely reflect the findings of the John Jay Report (although, as I say, the previous poster may not have had that – or only that – in mind). “Approximately 80% of all victims were aged 11 or over” would be more correct for clergy sex abuse in the USA from 1950 to 2002.

  5. Linus says:

    Brandon Thorp is typical of the homosexual bigots so popular in the secular press. A sane society would just ignore them but today, in the name of political correctness or just plain moral perversity, they are sought after. The Church has her warts of course but at least she knows that no society can long survive wide spread, intrenched moral perversity. Yes Brandon, you are perverse beyond measure, grow up man!!!

  6. Bain says:

    Thomas Peters mis-stated in saying (as he originally did) that the Vatican representative at the UN “argued for the repeal of international anti-sodomy laws”. The most a broad-brush summary could go would be:- “Vatican supports repeal of anti-gay laws”. So, on the use of the word “sodomy”, Thomas erred.

    Up for debate at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 22 March was a Joint Statement which concerned human rights abuses on the ground of sexual orientation. From the last para.:-

    “10. We call on States to take steps to end acts of violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity . .”

    Archbishop Tomasi (speaking for the Holy See) first condemned all violence directed at people because of their sexual feelings, thoughts or behaviour. He then made explicit the distinction between orientation and behaviour (the Joint Statement only concerns orientation and identity), and unequivocally condemned laws based on orientation:- “A state should never punish a person . . based just on the person’s . . sexual thoughts and feelings.”

    But he went on to say that human sexuality comes from action not identity – this is what locates it in the sphere of morals. He also noted a world-wide consensus for laws regulating some forms of sexual behaviour, citing paedophilia and incest. Very many countries still outlaw sex acts between persons of the same sex, but that wasn’t actually put in issue by the Joint Statement. The Holy See respects the rights of States to legislate against certain sorts of behaviour (they can and they must regulate it, but that was all he said).

    So where does that leave us? Brandon Thorp, thinking to attack, actually made an unexceptionable claim about the Church’s attitude to the relationship between criminal law and sexual behaviour because he drew the issue so widely that every civilised state can be said to take the same view as she does, viz., that even private, consensual sexual acts (he doesn’t say between adults) are in principle subject to coercive regulation by the State. Where he descends into gibberish is in his travesty of the Church’s teaching on sex and in his tenuous grasp on history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.