Guardian’s Andrew Brown falsely insinuates Pope Benedict is gay in an attempt to discredit him

Andrew Brown uses Pope Benedict’s comments on the inadmissibility of homosexuals to the priesthood in his interview with Peter Seeward as an opportunity to snidely, and groundlessly, mock the Holy Father as a homosexual.

Brown sneers:

‘This is ironic in view of the widely held view that he himself is not a man for the ladies (as a gay catholic once said to me).’

Brown seems to have a coitere of liberal and gay Catholics who provide him with poisonous little barbed comments and insults. Brown peppers his posts on the Catholic Church with them as if they give authority to his work. Brown seems to mistakenly think that if he quotes ‘catholics’ it hides the fact that he is just another anti-Catholic bigot playing to the other anti-Catholic bigots who read The Guardian.

Brown’s post on Pope Benedict’s comments on homosexuality is full of ludicrous exagerrations. He stupidly introduces his post by writing that the Holy Father’s comments are ‘hidden in Pope Benedict’s new book’. Also ‘hidden’ in Pope Benedict’s book is the entirety of his responses to Seewald’s questions.

He childishly thinks that celibacy means that priests live in a world devoid of women, when he writes: ‘What he is saying is that the priesthood must consist of men who have renounced the love of women, not those for whom it has never been a major temptation’. Priests may renounce the sexual expression of love for women or the exclusive love of marriage but they don’t renounce the love of women. Priests, like all Catholics, are enriched by the different types of love of women, mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, friends.

The trouble with people like Brown is that they have such an impoverished understanding of love, and its expression. Brown and his kind reduce love to genital sex. As Mother Teresa warned us there are deeper, more damaging, types of poverty in the West.

Brown then goes on to present a nasty caricature of celibacy as if its an unquestionable fact, ‘The consequence is a widespread and rather poisonous culture of camp.This is well-known and admitted by anyone who has made a serious study of it.’  I admit that there may be pockets of camp culture but its definitely not widespread in the Catholic Church. As a deacon of the Diocese of Lancaster I can say categorically that I have not come across Brown’s poisonous caricature of celibacy.  The priests I know are just ordinary men running parishes, working for the diocese and looking after their people.

About Pope Benedict’s point, it seems reasonable to hold that if a man has a deep seated homosexual inclination that affects the way he relates to men and women then he is not suited for the priesthood. When it comes down to it we can’t get away from the fact that the Catholic Church holds that homosexuality is an aberration, a disorder, of the normal, healthy human sex drive.

Pope Benedict writes:

‘At the same time, though, sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual. We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species. The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman.

At the same time, though, sexuality has an intrinsicmeaning and direction, which is not homosexual. Wecould say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolutionhas brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducingthe species. The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction ofsexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and, in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a
future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold
firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.

The issue at stake here is the intrinsic truth of sexuality’s significance in the constitution of man’s being. If someone has deep-seated homosexual inclinations—and it is still an open question whether these inclinations are really innate or whether they arise in early childhood—if, in any case, they have power over him, this is a great trial for him, just as other trials can afflict other people as well. But this does not mean that homosexuality thereby becomes morally right. Rather, it remains contrary to the essence of what God originally willed.’ (p151-152).

No matter how much liberals rant and rage about it, this is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/03/religion-catholicism-benedict-gay-priests

11 comments to Guardian’s Andrew Brown falsely insinuates Pope Benedict is gay in an attempt to discredit him

  • “…in view of the widely held view that he himself is not a man for the ladies (as a gay catholic once said to me).’!

    - gay catholic : doesn’t match;

    - the widely held view: he means, the gay and envious people of the world;

    - Cardinal Ratzinger was an handsome man, not for the ladies because he was already married with the Church, otherwise he would have a row of women behind him.

    They don’t understand anything and they should go to Court for saying things that they can’t prove.

    I really have not patience for that kind of people!

  • fd

    Dear Andrew Brown, what a disgusting piece of writing. Why dont’y you Catholic Britons sign a petition and send it to the Guardian, the Independent, The Times and they like, in which you demand that, after the Pope visit clearly showed that many Brits do keep the Pope in high regard , they stop this vitriol ,once and for all!

    • ninoinoz

      I think that a petition will do no good, I’m afraid.

      I think that the Guardian burnt its bridges to British Catholics in the month preceding the Papal visit and they can’t take those words back. So, having ‘come out’ of the closet, so to speak, they can’t un-out themselves, having grossly offended their Catholic readers. So they’re stuck with their remaining readers who have an anti-Catholic animus: homosexuals, Malthusians, atheists, secularists and those involved in secular education.

      I write as a recovering Guardian reader of 27 years.

    • John

      Better yet, Catholics should just boycott these businesses. I’d rather see these organisations go out of business than reform.

      It’s time for new blood to replace the current media cartel of the Times, Guardian and so on.

  • Karla

    It is like number one thing people like him always say, you do agree with homosexuals being admitted to the priesthood, or you do not agree with gay marriage, and guess what you must be gay yourself. Stupid.

  • diffal

    I agree that Pope Benedict is “not a man for the ladies”, pity Mr. Brown doesn’t under the concept and gift of celibacy. The same lack of insight was apparent in the media treatment of Cardinal Newman and his friendship with Ambrose St. John

  • fd

    Yes, you are right.I see your point Ninoinoz and John.
    I’d like to talk to you about an example (just an example unfortunately) of (backfiring) anticatholicism in the Italian press) But first, I should tell you sm.
    In Italy there is a little percentage of the taxes (equal to 8 out of one thousand, 8/1,OOO) which has to be paid but anyone can decide to which “organization” or charity and so on they want to pay it. Among the many options there is the Catholic Church. The entire sum of the 8/ 1,000, which can be deliberately and optionally devolved to the Catholic Church, goes, I repeat entirely, to financing Church-supported charities, like centers for the homeless and so on(within the Italian territory).
    Nevertheless the Italian daily La Repubblica, in 2007 tried to put this into question and started off a ” journalistic inquiry” which was carried out for months on end.La Repubblica, in the inquiry tryed AND FAILED to portrait the Church as a double-sided institution,which tries to enrich thanks to the 8/1,000 and in other ways.The question is: WHY DID THE LA REPUBBLICA “INQUIRY” FAIL?( And keep in mind that La Repubblica is the second most read daily in Italy ) But, thanksfully in Italy we have the daily Avvenire, which is a Catholic daily, which is very informative also as far as politics, economics and current affairs is concerned, but gives an extensive coverage of the Church as well.The Avvenire daily demolished and debunked La Repubblica’s charges. Since Avvenire based itself on facts in doing so, La Repubblica for some time ignored the newspaper, and went on as usual. Then the president of the Conference of Italian bishops spoke out publically denouncing the libels. The editor of La Repubblica in the autumn of 2007 wrote on a front page editorial that the Italian conference of bishops was trying to gag the press. The Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana(which has a high circulation) also proved that the “inquiry” was groundless. Avvenire released a book which could be bought for free together with the newspaper which examined every accusation by La Repubblica and debunked every of it. The Italian Catholic tv channel TV2000 also exposed the lies which had been spread (some other newspapers(i.e Il Manifesto and L’Unità)-fortunately a minority- had supported La Repubblica but many others didn’t or even criticized the paper. In the end La Repubblica gave up, because it understood it was losing credibility.

  • SpeSalvi23

    I cancelled all weekly magazines and my daily paper about 9 months ago. Don’t know if the anti-catholic bias is more obvious to me as a convert – or maybe I’m simply reading it now from a different perspective.

    I have a subscription to a catholic paper now – I think the only ‘real’ catholic paper across the German speaking part of Europe. I’ll gladly support them with actually paying for the subscription, instead of reading their online platform.
    I love it!! Also, because I find myself shouting out loud: yes!!! That’s it!!! You’re so absolutely right!!
    Now, obviously it’s important to read critical pieces and opinions, but pay for the out in the open hunt for the Catholic Church and people living acc. to the Catechism!! NOPE. Sorry! don’t think so!!

    The only problem we have is, I think it’s the same as in all big EU countries – to bypass the national broadcast channels. In Germany we’re forced to pay for them. They are the worst gloating, pleased with themselves Catholic bashers you can ever find…. But that’s another topic!

    fd: it seems that we need to send Don Camillo to the headquarters of LA REPUBBLICA. I think he’d be the right person to handle them. :-)

  • fd

    Spesalvi 23, you are definitely right! Long live don Camillo! Do you know that in “Light of the world” the Pope says he watches the Don Camillo movies sometimes after dinner with his helpers ?

  • M. Roi

    Br careful in how you present Church teaching regarding homosexuality. Yes, the disire is disordered. But so are any number of the desires you and I and the rest of the world experience. This is a consequence of Adam’s fall but it is also the occasion of sanctity and merit if, with God’s grace, we struggle against them. As an orthodox Catholic involved with education and counseling, I’m sick to death of how so many “conservative” Catholics portray the homosexually tempted as blighted and blemished. Temptation is NOT sin!

    On another note. Pope Benedict is a gentle, scholarly man who loves cats and classical music and who was a failure at sports. He definitely would not pass many people’s test for “masculinity”, big deal! After years of counseling I’ve seen homosexual men are very “manly” and heterosexual men who are quite feminine. But if the pope is homosexually oriented, who cares, so long as he is faithful to chastity. I’ve grown weary of the controversy and wonder whether we should turn our collective attention to more important matters than the possible nature of the Holy Father’s sexual temptations.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>