My Differences with Modern Catholicism

Catholic Answers is a forum based in the diocese of San Diego in which we get answers from among others Fr Vincent Serpa OP and the beautiful Michelle Arnold.

First off, I must say that I am an Apologist and not a Theologian:

Quick Question: What is the difference between an apologist and a theologian?
(answered by Michelle Arnold)
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-an-apologist-and-a-theologian

She quite correctly compares it to the difference between a scientist (for theologian) and a science teacher (for apologist). I would have preferred science journalist to science teacher, since Chesterton was a journalist, but that is as it may be.

I must also add that my theological knowledge is such that I sometimes get into apologetics against people on Catholic Answers. For instance here, a question answered by Michelle Arnold too:

What vocation may a homosexual pursue?
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-vocation-may-a-homosexual-pursue

She answers that if marriage and priesthood are out of the question, there are other vocations such as tertiary of some order. My answer would begin with asking why marriage should be out of the question at all. A homosexual is not someone incapable of physically enjoying sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, for if someone were really capable of sodomy or lesbian things but not of coitus of a normal kind, that would be due to demons rather than to his or her natural predisposition. No, it is someone who persistently falls in love with people of his own sex. Now falling in love with someone does not necessarily involve marrying that someone, but even marrying someone does not necessarily mean falling in love with that person. So, a homosexual man could very well marry a woman whom he never fell in love with first. In fact I know of one who did and who has three daughters. A Mormon featured recently on Life Site News. A Mormon who kept falling in love with boys when he was younger (hence homosexual), but who nevertheless due to his belief felt that sodomy was out of the question.

When last debating on Catholic Answers Forum, I opened a thread, exactly on this theme and it was deleted. It was after I copied it to my blog Assorted Retorts that I found the article on Life Site News and put a link to it in the comment section. To anyone speculating on whether I got into debating this question due to being homosexual myself, I recommend some other words of mine on the same comment:

"Invalid thread": Is marriage of two people, one or both of whom is homosexual, but of opposite sex possible?
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2012/05/invalid-thread-is-marriage-of-two.html

All the heterodoxy of Modern Catholicism, even heresy, is in the assumption that marriage is impossible. That has nothing to do with regarding "gay marriage" as possible, except at inverse ratio: since I do not think ordinary marriage is out of the question for homosexuals, though it may be more difficult for them to achieve, neither do I think gay marriage would make them more equal to other citizens, in matrimonial questions, and that is one major point less in favour of gay marriage, not that I think it would have been a sufficient reason if it were true.

Saying as a theologian or as a priest that such and such must not marry (at all, "not even" a real marriage with someone of the opposite sex) because he is homosexual IS an unjust discrimination against homosexuals, and one which also backfires against people who are unjustly stamped as homosexuals. Which happens now and then to have been - obviously to me - my situation.

The situation in which a wife is abandoned by a husband who finds out that he is homosexual has little to do with this. There was an example on the thread before it was deleted. He obviously thought of himself as heterosexual when marrying that lady. All possibility to avoid that kind of tragedy lies in better crystal balls or horoscopes for finding out what presumed and self-presumed heterosexuals are really homosexuals. In other words it cannot be avoided and it is only superstition such as psychology that promises to do so.

And this brings us to Fulton Sheen. He was a friend of the founders of AA, he endorsed AA. He also endorsed specifically Gaudium et Spes:

Did Fulton Sheen support Vatican II
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/did-fulton-sheen-support-vatican-ii

I withdrew my FB like from the Fulton Sheen page when finding out he endorsed AA. It is demanding something like the twelve steps of - monastic - humility of laymen, not due to a monastic vocation, but due to personal disaster. It is also, according to its twelfth step reversing the humility of "self-knowledge" (of a denigrating kind) into the arrogance of presuming to know someone else is an alcoholic. A bit like the arrogance of psychologists presuming to know someone else is homosexual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Boulogne-Billancourt
Feast of St Frederic of Utrecht
(martyr for the criticism of
Queen Judith of Bavaria)
18-VII-2012

PS, one other occasion of conflict between me and Catholic Answers is Geocentrism. I was banned while defending Geocentrism, and two other defenders of Geocentrism were also banned. I was denied getting their emails so as to keep in contact with them even without the forum being such.