Well there's controversy in Britain. From the Indepent Online Edition a few hours ago:
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales sacked a senior aide because he was gay, it was reported last night. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was personally involved in the dismissal of his personal press officer, according to The Mail on Sunday.A spokesman for the Cardinal declined to deny the claim last night, fuelling controversy over the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality.
The new equality minister Ruth Kelly, who is a member of the Catholic Opus Dei sect, has appalled leaders of Britain's gay community by failing to say whether she believes being gay is a sin.
Well if she says yes, they're going to be angry. If she says no, they'll say she's lying and still be angry. She'd just as soon not hog the spotlight they so desperately desire by saying anything herself. At any rate, to answer the question we would have to know what precisely the phrase "being gay" really means. If it means that someone has a tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex, then the answer is no. No one is guilty of sin for being a certain way. One might however act on impulses in a way that is sinful. And typically, the term "gay" has the connotation not just of having an inclination but of acting thereupon. If "being gay" thus means actually living out a gay lifestyle then yes, of course, the Church teaches that "being gay" is a sin. And that's all these reporters had to do was pick up a Catechism and look for themselves.
Of course, they didn't want to know what the Church teaches. Apparently they wanted to know whether equality minister Ruth Kelly believed it to be a sin. This of course is something she has no obligation to tell a bunch of snoopy reporters because it has nothing to do with her job.
Oh but according to Peter Stanford at the Guardian Unlimited they are when you're a member of Opus Dei, as Kelly is. Stanford gives his spin on Kelly's troubles with the press.
the beleaguered Blairite contralto is in difficulties as Secretary of State for Communities, as she was at Education, because she is said to be a supernumerary (or associate member) of the secretive and ultra-conservative Catholic group Opus Dei. According to The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei is a bunch of sinister monks willing to murder to keep the church going. The truth is different but still disturbing.
Whoa! Now I have to wonder, if it weren't for all the Catholics and other Christians out there campaigning night and day to expose the DaVinci Code as the fraudulent anti-Catholic hack-job that it is, do you think he would have bothered to point out that DVC was wrong about Opus Dei? The campaigns must be doing something. It forces even those who are determined to malign Opus Dei to footnote their slander. "We still think they're sinister and hiding something, even though one of our fellows has obviously gone and damaged our collective credibility by writing some second-rate flop supposing this order is composed of psychotic albinoes."
So what's the "different but still disturbing" truth about Opus Dei?
Opus Dei may not murder - claims that it had a hand in the premature death of Pope John Paul I in 1978 after just 33 days have been disproved - but its core belief is that in your everyday work (Opus Dei means 'work of God') your prime duty is to convert the people you come into contact with to the traditional beliefs of the Catholic Church. They call it fishing and are quite open about doing it.
So again, since we don't have any evidence to really support our claim that Opus Dei wants to subjugate the world, we'll just engage in the spin in which we've specialized for so many years. Even when Mr Stanford gets into the part that is supposedly the truth he distorts it. The prime duty of a member of a member of Opus Dei is to lift up every activity of his life on a daily basis to the glory of God, and to witness to the grace of Christ through prayer and good works. What others in his life do with that witness is up to them. Human beings don't convert. It's the Holy Spirit that speaks to people. It's just the Christian's job to be a witness, not to twist arms, and Opus Dei is clear about that in a way that Stanford is not, which makes him not much better than Dan Brown.
There was at least one person who made pretty good sense in the media uproar, as recorded in the Independent:
Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP, defended the Cardinal. "I don't think that the Cardinal had any choice. The Church's teaching is very clear. It would be difficult if you had a press secretary explaining the teaching, while at the same time violating it."
Leave a comment