LegalWorks Apostolate - Counsel for a Culture of Life

Sexual Revolution Has Been A Weapon of Mass Destruction

Contraception Began Our Slouching Towards Gomorrah

By Father Jerry J. Pokorsky

Many people are struggling valiantly with a same-sex attraction and, in their resistance to sin with God's grace, are living holy, even saintly lives. But we never should refer to folks suffering in this way as "gay." The "gay" word should be reserved for those with homosexual attractions who are promoting the homosexual lifestyle as normal, even normative.

We all have painful memories of the Church's child abuse crisis that came to a head in Boston in 2002. The cultural sewage of the sexual revolution seeped into the Church over the last 50 years and it was met with a very ugly form of clericalism that included denials and cover-ups. Along with the dereliction of duty of many churchmen, was the problem primarily "child abuse" or was it the homosexual exploitation of teenage boys (i.e., "young men")?

The American bishop' study of the abuse problem (the "John Jay Report") is revealing, but hushed up by the John Jay Report itself. While the majority of clergy sex-abuse victims are post-pubescent boys, the researchers who completed the second John Jay Report concluded that same-sex attraction was not a significant factor in the crisis. But Al Notzon III, who has ended his term as chairman of the bishops' National Review Board in June 2013 said, "The majority of victims are still post-pubescent males ? When you hire an independent researcher [group], they reach their own conclusions. I don't agree with their conclusion in this instance -- when 83% of cases are male on male" (CWN - May 29, 2013).

Is there evidence of this exploitation? In his June 2002 Catholic World Report article, Michael Rose wrote: "Archbishop Weakland also endorsed and permitted, at least since 1980, a four-week series titled 'Homosexuality and Its Impact on the Family.' This workshop was taught by a Milwaukee priest, Father James Arimond, who also served as the chaplain of the Milwaukee chapter of Dignity, and was a regular columnist for Wisconsin Light, a member publication of the Gay and Lesbian Press Association. A two-page promotional flyer authored by Father Arimond stated that the Catholic Church's moral theologians held 'differing viewpoints on the morality of homosexual acts.'

"It continued: 'When making a moral decision . . . ultimately it is the individual's conscience which must be his or her guide. A Catholic may in good conscience make a decision not in total agreement with Church teaching and still remain within the Church if they do not deny any point of divine and Catholic faith and do not reject the teaching authority of the Church. An example of this is the millions of American Catholics who have decided on a moral stance different from the teaching of the Church and use artificial means of birth control, yet remain Catholics in good standing.'"

In 1990, Father Arimond pleaded no-contest to fourth degree sexual assault charges involving a teenage boy. The attentive Catholic reader ? will recognize Father Arimond's appeal to individual conscience to justify homosexual behavior as the same argument used by dissident priests -- even bishops -- and laymen after Pope Paul VI issued Humanae vitae, the encyclical reaffirming the Church's teaching on the immorality of contraception. Many parishioners remember those days of dissent. With very few exceptions, the dissenters were never called to accountability or suffered any ecclesiastical sanctions. Even conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. dissented on the Church's teaching (although he reconciled with the Church in his twilight years).

What is the effect of dissent? In conjugal relations ? and by the very physical construct of the marital act -- the marital bond is always related to the possibility of a baby. Contraception separates marital bonding from the baby. By effectively ruling out the possibility of babies, the marital act is reduced to an act of mutual excitement.

But why should mutual excitement ? be the sole domain of married folks? The contraceptive philosophy that separates babies from bonding makes it possible for everyone to experience the "Joy of Sex" (as one author titled his very popular impure book in the 1970s). Why limit the nature and type of sexual behavior?

After the introduction of "the Pill" ? in the 1960s and widespread dissent by priests and laity alike, it was no surprise that the sexual revolution including the "gay rights' movement gained traction. The institution of marriage has suffered a relentless cultural attack for over 50 years. Of course, the Church saw it coming. The modern popes, especially Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, have written elegantly and persuasively on the dignity of marriage and the immorality of contraception.

It seems the tipping point for our culture in the "gay rights" movement took place in the 1980s. When AIDS appeared in the "gay community" the initial reaction was a kind of return to sanity. Gay bathhouses were shut down. There was good reason to hope that such a deadly disease would wake up a sex-obsessed culture and we would repent individually and as a nation.

But the AIDS crisis took a curious and diabolical turn. Instead of applying the remedies of chastity and good morality to the problems of the promiscuity and drug abuse responsible for spreading the disease and polluting the nation's blood supply, the "solutions" became a matter of technology and politics. The slow progress in finding a cure for AIDS was considered an act of discrimination and "hatred of gays." As the virus spread ?as many of us recall ? a good deal of the population including innocent children were put at risk. Many died. It was commonly suggested that AIDS is not really a "gay disease" nor was did it necessarily suggest that the infected person was guilty of promiscuity or drug abuse.

Of course, the reasonable answer should have been, "Yes, a person with AIDS is not necessarily guilty of immorality, but someone was ultimately guilty and responsible. How else did the virus enter into the blood supply or otherwise infect innocent people?"

Hence, the "gay community" became "victims" of a "homophobic" society and government. With the introduction of drugs that would postpone the devastating effects of AIDS, gay bathhouses were reopened. The widespread promotion of condoms -- for use by adolescents on up -- became part and parcel of the "sex education" programs of government schools. Even Catholic schools were pressured to have similar immoral "family life" programs for young folks. Any opposition to the gay agenda was labeled "extreme right wing," "homophobic," and even "hateful." Politicians ? and even many in the Church ? were paralyzed in fear in confronting the evil and usually remained silent.

What has been the result? As the gay agenda gained in prominence, the contraceptive ideology corroded the family. In the United States the breakdown of the family accelerated. Nearly 60 million abortions have taken place since 1973 in the U.S. Children born out-of-wedlock is inching up to nearly the 50% rate, and much higher for poor sociological groups. Divorce is at a 50% rate and spikes to 75% when cohabitation takes place before marriage. The rate of couples entering into marriage plummeted, with couples instead choosing to "live together" without the "oppressive bond" of marriage. Promiscuity skyrocketed but the very word has become taboo.

Yet in 2013, it seems that the only social group promoting "marriage" is the "gay community"! Of course the promotion of "gay marriage" goes beyond securing the usual economic rights of marriage (health benefits, retirement, inheritance, etc.). The real goal is a continued cultural revolution in favor of sexual promiscuity -- sex anywhere and with whom you choose.

And they want our children. What is the evidence? Immediately after the Supreme Court rulings, the New Yorker had a cover story that depicted the Sesame Street characters "Bert and Ernie" snuggling as they watched a television reporting the story. Of course, the infamous children's book, "Heather Has Two Mommies" provides the game plan of the gay agenda. Indoctrination into the gay agenda must begin with our children and continue through high school through the instrumentality of corrupt "family life" curricula. In addition, laws will necessarily change with respect to the stewardship of children. A child will no longer necessarily belong to his mother and father (obviously there is only one or the other or neither in "gay" marriages). But care of the child will increasingly be governed by the intrusive regulations of the state. The implications of that for our families bear thinking about.

Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is pastor of St. Michael's parish in Annandale, Virginia, and serves on the Board of Directors of Human Life International. He co-founded CREDO, A Society of Priests Dedicated to the Accurate Translation of the Liturgy, as well as Adoremus - Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy. You can find Father's two-part lecture on liturgical renewal here.

Under the category "We have to laugh or else we would have to cry"

Father Pokorsky provides the following humorous asides:

* Never trust an atom. They make up everything.

* A Buddhist monk approaches a hotdog stand and says: "Make me one with everything".

* A Roman walks into a bar, holds up two fingers, and says: "Five beers, please."

comments powered by Disqus
Read or Contribute to the Veritatis Splendor Blog
Recent Legal Developments

WitnessWorks Foundation
For a Culture of Life

4 Family Life Lane
Front Royal, VA 22630