From Fr Z's Blog
UPDATE 31 Dec 2019
Fr. Sichko’s response…
___Originally Published on: Dec 30, 2019
Over at his place, Fr. Dwight Longenecker has a post which challenges, by asking, whether every family is a “Holy Family”. He has reacted to some unfortunate tweets by a priest of the Diocese of Lexington, Fr. Jim Sichko.
Sichko wrote on Twitter:
Not good. A “family” that is founded on sodomy is not a “family” and it is not holy. Using that term, “family” in such a context is corrosive.
Sichko throws some other confusing terms in, like, “sanctioned… unlicensed”. Who knows what he means.
I think we can all grasp that all sorts of people can form close groups like a family, bound together in charity. We can, with great care, use “family” equivocally. I don’t think many will object to that. There is a phrase from English law: “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. I think that, within proper limits, that’s not such a bad way to look at even oddly shaped “families”.
If a married man and woman can adopt children and form a family, then why not even other sorts of adoptions, provided that, again, true charity and holiness are pursued and, of course, not actively violated. I have in mind, just as an example from pop culture, the charming movie The Blind Side based on a true story about a southern protestant white family who adopt a seriously huge black kid (future NFL) who has no home or real family other than in the mere biological sense.
Active violation of charity and of the truth of nature and what it means to be family is what is going on when homosexual sodomy is a component of the relationships. Sadly, this does have to be spelled now, even for some tweeting clergy… even non-Jesuit tweeting clergy for a change.
What is deeply troubling is that a Catholic priest – and not even a Jesuit! – will not adhere to the truth when talking about people who merit compassion and charity without… well… muddling completely the concept of marriage and family. Unmarried people aren’t like the Holy Family. They don’t form holy families properly understood. They might be on their way to forming a family which is holy, through – for example – striving to be continent, but if they are just living together, nope, sorry, not yet. Homosexual “couples”, if they are having physical relations… nope, sorry, not at all. This is friendship that has been twisted or it is mutual use, which cannot, by definition, be holy.
No one will quibble much with single parents doing their best, I think. Some are single because of mistakes in the past. Others are single because disease or accidents or war took one of them. Let’s leave aside the profoundly selfish women who, shunning marriage and natural relations, simply want what they want, namely a baby, and they opt for the artificial insemination thing. Babies aren’t pets or new hand bags.
What is at the heart of the problematic scenario Fr. Sichko paints is the old Senecan adage that errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum… to err is human, but to persevere in error is diabolical. To call something wrong right because you will it so is diabolical. It is the overturning of truth, the fruit of the “father of lies”.
People get themselves into all sorts of trouble and difficult situations. But to persevere in them, to refuse to takes steps to correct them, that’s not good.
Back to Fr. Longenecker and his good insight.
At his place he posted this, which rings true.
[Sichko’s tweet] pretended to be a message to raise our awareness and compassion for those who live in irregular and difficult family situations. However, anybody can see that it was really a lame attempt to to normalize homosexual unions by putting gay couples into a victim category.
The tactic works like this:
1. paint someone or some group as a victim of discrimination
2. push some guilt buttons to raise “compassion” for that group. Note that this is not true compassion. It’s just guilt wearing a compassion mask so the person doesn’t feel so guilty anymore
3. Raise the compassion to the level of advocacy
4. Advocacy must mean acceptance
5. Acceptance must mean condoning
6. Condoning must lead to celebrating.
That’s a good summary.
What’s next? There is another step, you know.
What’s the phrase from English constitutional law? “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”?
What Fr. Sichko supported in his tweets, and what Fr. Longenecker exposed, is the twisting of that flexible and charitable principle into another paradigmatic phrase, which reflects the totalitarian objectives of those who push the homosexualist agenda, namely, the next phase of the scheme:
“Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”
As Fr. Longenecker points out, by creeping incrementalism they move from victimhood to celebration. In one more step, with the totalitarian jack boot bearing down, celebration will be forced. Even participation.
To be candid a few priests and bishops will have to be put up against the wall, “pour encourager les autres”, as Voltaire explained.