Fr. Walter Cuenin is at it again. Speaking at an event at a United Church of Christ in Lexington, Mass., entitled “God, Gays, and Faith: Journeys Through Challenging Terrain”, he mangled history and the Catholic faith in service of his pet ministry justifying homosexuality.
In answer to the question of why he regularly speaks out on LGBT faith issues, given that it can be risky for Catholic priests to do so, Cuenin, who is the chaplain at Brandeis University, talked about how it’s impossible to take any message about homosexuality from the Bible. “There really is nothing in the scripture that deals with homosexuality,” he said, adding that the idea of love between two men or two women is a relatively “modern construct.”
Meanwhile, added Cuenin, who was removed from the pastorship of Our Lady Help of Christians Church in Newton in 2005 in a move widely seen as punishment from the Boston Archdiocese for his open ministering to LGBT people, moral law is constantly evolving. “All you have to do is look at something like slavery,” which was morally justified by clergypeople from the pulpit, to see how mores shift over time.
First things first, let’s deal with the whopper that Scripture says nothing about homosexuality. How about Romans 1:24-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:10 or 1 Timothy 1:10 or Genesis 19:1-29. But of course homosexual activists have answers for all these, no matter how the answers bend logic, common sense, biblical literacy, theological scholarship and Lord knows what else. I’ve even heard the claim that since the words homosexual and homosexuality don’t appear in the Bible that’s somehow significant. There are lots of words that don’t appear in the Bible, but then they often called them by different words in the past.
Then Cuenin throws the whopper that the idea of “love” between men or women is a modern idea. Really? I bet the ancient Greeks would be surprised by that as would the Romans who were vocal in their disgust at the Greek tolerance for it.
But however you interpret the Scripture, Tradition is very clear, is it not? Not when you’re a “progressive” theologian who twists Church teaching at will, throwing out red herrings galore, like the claim that the Church “supported” slavery and changed her teaching. Not so.
But what do you expect from the priest who went before the Massachusetts Legislature a decade ago and testified that the Church’s teaching does not merely allow for gay marriage, but demands it on the basis of, get this, social justice.
I’m glad he’s no longer pastor of Our Lady Help of Christians Parish where he had a pulpit from which to spread his heretical teachings, but I wonder why the Catholic students at Brandeis University must be subjected to it.
Technorati Tags: Catholic | Boston | doctrine | dissent | homosexuality |
“…but I wonder why the Catholic students at Brandeis University must be subjected to it.”
In other words, as has been asked by others on this blog before, “Why does Cardinal Sean continue to tolerate this walking, talking scandal of a priest??” It is really troubling.
Provision has been made for changing terms, even, by the description of homosexual acts in Rom 1;26-27.
“God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity.”
How much clearer could Scripture get? And what possible good “spin” could the homosexuality advocates put on that message? This goes way beyond whether or not it is still an abomination to eat shellfish, which is always the response I hear from them. And which, of course, I can’t answer directly, but I’ll be more than happy to quit eating shellfish if that’s their concern.
It’s MADDENING when priests teach that the Bible says nothing against homosexual behavior, because their tolerant message is always heard and proclaimed, whereas our truthful priests, who are in the majority, are not heard. Urg. Crunch, crunch, crunch.
Would it be wrong to think of those who support homosexuality as the Stone Age Fundamentalists and those who do not as the people who have advanced and moved into the future?
People of Da Nile?
I had a rather amusing conversation with my former pastor about this clown Cuenin. Suffice it to say, most of the priests in the Archdiocese understand what an ass he is.
Of course, Scripture doesn’t say anything about female genital mutilation either. I have yet to hear anyone citing that fact as evidence that the practice is morally inconsequential.