Article Image
IPFS News Link • Sexuality: Sex and the Law

The Effect of Normalizing Homosexuality by Alan Keyes

• World Net Daily
In a column the Denver Catholic Register published online yesterday, Archbishop Charles Chaput offers a faithful, common-sense defense of the Archdiocesan policy that led the Sacred Heart of Jesus parish school in Denver to exclude children being raised by two lesbians from continuing their education at the school beyond the current year. The gist of his reasoning is simple: "Our [Catholic] schools are meant to be 'partners in faith' with parents. If parents don't respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult if not impossible." He takes great pains not to disparage the lesbian couple involved, concluding simply that "Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will. They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children."

In any previous epoch, the archbishop's clearly reasoned and politely articulated statement would be taken for what it is – the understandable declaration of a policy consistent with the tenets of the Catholic faith and necessary for the integrity of a Catholic pedagogical institution. But we live in an era when elite forces are pushing with calculated zeal to consolidate what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of values." And they do so with the very attitude that characterized the insane but insidiously mesmerizing rants of the German immoralist Hitler found so inspiring. It is an attitude of deep antipathy toward a "straw man" caricature of Christianity, one wholly indebted to the stunted, petulantly adolescent insistence that there is no God because we are not Him.

The normalization of homosexuality constitutes the cutting edge of this anti-Christian revisioning of right and wrong. It represents the utter rejection of the notion that we exist as part of a God-ordained whole whose nature has authoritative relevance to our understanding of the form and substance of human community. According to this view, such natural features of human existence as the bodily distinction of males from females have no more significance for moral understanding than other merely physical aspects of human appearance, such as skin color or the shape of one's eyes.

On this account religious schools can have no more right to discriminate against children being raised by homosexuals than they have to discriminate against children from black or Oriental backgrounds. And the contention by a Catholic bishop that religious tenets justify such discrimination has no more validity than the similar claims once made by leaders of South Africa's Dutch Reformed Church that their religious beliefs required racial segregation.

Archbishop Chaput's internally logical, consistent exposition of Church policy, however respectful of persons, does not address this fundamental challenge to the Church's position. He argues that the Church's policy is required for Catholic schools in his archdiocese to provide an education consistent with the tenets of the faith. But what the proponents of homosexual normalization continue to insist is that the tenets of the faith are inconsistent with the requirements of equal justice, in light of which supposedly discriminatory actions, based on merely physical differences, do not arise from a religiously based moral judgment, but from an immoral prejudice. They argue that, like racial and ethnic prejudice, such actions should not be tolerated in any decent society.

But the Christian moral understanding that insists on a concept of family that respects the functional, procreative purpose of the distinction between males and females does not arise from some questionable interpretation of verses here or there in the Bible. It is connected with the Bible's understanding of the relationship between human beings as such and the Creator God, as well as what it presents as the first premise and authoritative purpose of human existence. "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. … And God blessed them: and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply. …"

The first premise of human existence ("in the image and likeness of God created He them") asserts a substantive connection between the way God is and the way human beings appear to be. But without Eve, Adam was not complete. The male and female forms of human being are thus essential to the fulfillment of God's intention, which is that human beings represent the image and likeness of God. The male-female distinction is therefore not an incidental aspect of human appearance. It is a statement about the way God is – quite literally the theological premise of human existence.

To demand that people of biblical faith disregard the substantive import of the male and female forms of human being is therefore to demand that they surrender what the Bible presents, as it were on its first page, as the first premise of the unique relationship between God and humanity. This is not just an attack on religious freedom, it is an effort to cut off the Christian faith at its root and set it on the path of inevitable extinction. Insane as he ultimately was, Nietzsche would be pleased to see the fulfillment of his most prized intention.


For more from Alan Keyes visit Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by Curtis Scott
Entered on:

I agree with the notion that religious bigots should be able to EXCLUDE from their group/s anyone whom they choose to EXCLUDE. That's simply freedom.  What I find astonishing are (2) things:

1) Lesbians who are STILL CATHOLIC. I would think that the Church's position on the matter would be seen for what it is & people of GOOD FAITH (pun) would leave such an institution.

2) Keyes bizarre theology & rant about Adam, Eve & the alleged connections he thinks the texts make.  IF Mr. Keyes was to actually READ the Scripture -- he'd discover that EVE was made from the body of Adam.  So -rather than Adam being incomplete without Eve ... Adam's statement speaks volumes "Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone".  Hmmm.  Adam said that Eve was made of HIM.  Last time I checked, -the Greek term that means "ALIKE" was "HOMO".  The concept of "HETERO" doesn't enter human sexuality at all in the Scripture.  That is -- until you get to the Book of Jude. Jesus's half-brother, -Jude wrote that Sodom was punished because of  "HETEROs Sarx" -going after "Strange flesh".  Imagine that.  Scripturally -- the gender are "HOMO-SARX"...LIKE FLESH.  And, if Mr. Keyes was to read Galatians ...say chapter 3, verse 28 ... He'd discover that the Apostle Paul said that "IN CHRIST" there was "NEITHER ... MALE AND FEMALE".  It seems obvious to me that if you collapse the very notion of GENDER, then what also vanishes is the notion of SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  And the "Clobber Passages" from Leviticus (20:13) that are constantly cited about man not laying with mankind as with a woman; --Most scholarly Rabbi's believe that it is a specific prohibition against AnalSex.  And that's all it forbids. And note the glaring fact that there is no similar prohibition in the Torah about woman laying with women ... nothing!  Likewise, this reading of the Levitical text reframes texts like Romans chapter 1 ... making Paul's scathing dissertation against (NOT Same-Sex Affection) no other but AnalSex (Women putting aside the natural use & doing the deed with men ... and likewise men doing the deed with men).  And according to the CDC & WHO ... that act has an EXPLOSIVE ABILITY (+5000%) to spread sexually transmitted diseases! Wow! Now ... when you consider that of the (2) great commandments (Love God & Love People) that "LOVE WORKS NO ILL TOWARD ITS NEIGHBOR"...  Have you ever notice how the word "ILL" sounds like the word "ILL"?  The fact is that there are a growing number 0f groups today who understand what was written in the sacred texts & more importantly WHY.  There is even a secular -yet Christian/Jew friendly group of men called "G0YS" -spelled w. a zer0, -who have taken a lot of time to analyze where the religious right & the liberal left have BOTH gone wrong.  Interesting reading --but for the mature, for sure.  G0YS: G00GLE 'em!   

Comment by Doug Nusbaum
Entered on:

Seriously... Does anybody listen to the Catholic Church any more.  Can anybody think of a single instance where they have been in charge of children where they have not tortured and raped a large number of them?   And these are not isolated incidents but systemic abuse of children.   

And of course, if they have the power, they also destroy indigenous people.   It is hard to imagine an institution that is more anti life than the Catholic Church.   But that is kind of what you expect from an entity whose core beliefs involve ritual symbolic cannibalism.  That is what eating the flesh and drinking the blood of humans is correct?

Comment by Shepard Humphries
Entered on:

I made a video that sheds some light on this...

Comment by Steve Fuller
Entered on:

Thank you for posting this.