quarta-feira, 25 de março de 2015

O Filme dos "LGBT Católicos"


Pois é tem um filme promovendo a aceitação completa pela Igreja Católica dos homossexuais, transsexuais, bissexuais, travestis....(o facebook contou mais de 50 orientações sexuais, depois de 50 resolveu colocar um espaço em branco para ser preechido).

O filme se chama Owing Our Faith e conta com um apoio de um padre chamado Patrick Conroy que alega que a sexualidade é mais do que simples procriação. Mas quando foi que a Igreja Católica negou que exista erotismo na sexualidade? Até onde eu sei, a Igreja diz que este erotismo é ótimo, é divino, mas ele deve ser bem ordenado, aberto e direcionado para a procriação.

Quem fez uma excelente análise do filme foi Rachel Lu da revista Crisis Magazine.

Ela critica o filme em si, a começar pelo fato que não há nenhum debate sério sobre o assunto no filme, no qual a posição da Igreja seria discutida, o filme "é pura emoção" que exige que a Igreja aceito o LGBT.  Como disse Lu, os do LGBT querem "dominar" (to own) a Igreja e não tentar entender a posição dela.

Vejamos uma parte bem importante do argumento de Rachel Lu, no qual ela discute três pontos:

1) a falta de debate do filme. O filme é apenas propaganda do LGBT;

2) Amar uma pessoa não significa aceitar tudo que ela faz.

3) Erotismo e a Doutrina da Igreja.

Dissent Trumps Faith in New “Catholic” LGBT Film




It’s difficult to argue with a film that isn’t working on the level of rational argument. Nevertheless, it’s worth responding to the general thrust and ethos of the film with three important points.
The first relates to the claim, made on the film’s website and in other promotional materials, that productions of this sort are created as part of an effort to “promote open dialogue” about same-sex attraction and related issues. This is exactly the opposite of their intent, and it’s important to be clear on this point. Propagandistic videos of this sort are intended to bypass, or even to shut down, any real or serious discussion of the moral dimensions of same-sex attraction.
In a dialogue, morally relevant issues are stated clearly so that they can be analyzed and considered. What we have here is a long string of emotional appeals. “My gender transition was immensely spiritual to me,” says Mateo Williamson, who self-identifies as a transgendered man. “Sexuality is how we express our inner soul, our inner energy,” enthuses Mike Roper who self-identifies as gay. In a particularly shameful piece of emotional blackmail, grandmother Nana Fotsch urges parents of same-sex attracted Catholics to accept their children’s declared sexual identity and related lifestyle choices or “you’re going to lose them.” (Don’t all of Christianity’s hard teachings have the potential to alienate us from loved ones? Shall we just jettison the whole Catechism right now? Our Lord has some rather stern words about those who prioritize family relationships above the truths of the Gospel.)
Though there’s nothing Catholic about its message, Owning Our Faith pursues a strategy that is entirely consonant with a larger (and thus far, remarkably successful) progressive project. Don’t try to win the argument about sexuality and marriage. Play for sympathy. Appeal to emotion. People today are so thoroughly confused about sex and marriage that they have few defenses against an onslaught of politically loaded sentimentalism. And you can’t lose an argument that you never have.
This leads us to the second important point. Uncomfortable as it may sometimes be, loving people just doesn’t entail approving everything they do. Neither should we accept anyone “exactly as he is,” because of course all of us are sinful, fallen and in need of transformation by grace.
This is not a message that these “owners of faith” want to hear. Katie Chiarantona, one of the film’s representative “straight” contributors, sums up the film’s prevailing view even more neatly by declaring that she cares enormously about the place of homosexuals in the Church because she has many LGBT friends and, “it is unconscionable and unthinkable for me to support an institution that doesn’t celebrate them and encourage them to live fully as who they are.”
Who among us can really say with any confidence that we know who our friends (or we ourselves) really are? This is a dangerous conceit. None of us here below have yet realized our perfected state. Most of us, I expect, still have a significant way to go. But progression towards supernatural fulfillment is not possible if we begin by issuing ultimatums to God about the conditions under which we will accept divine grace.
Such an effort brings to mind the parable of the wedding banquet, in which a king invites all and sundry (including the poor and commoners) to his son’s wedding, but ends up evicting one guest owing to a lack of appropriate wedding attire. Quite obviously, the king in the story is not a philistine when it comes to standing on ceremony; he’s just ushered the local riff-raff into the most formal of state affairs. Nevertheless, the guest who refuses to dress properly is forcibly removed. Clearly there is a lesson about the importance of accepting grace on God’s terms, and not our own. All of us are welcome at the Lord’s table, but we may not simply come as we are. Being Christian means looking for faith to change us, not the other way around.
This leads to the final point. While there is some space for discussing the appropriate pastoral response to deep-seated same-sex attraction, the Church’s broader position on same-sex attraction is perfectly clear. It is intrinsically disordered, and homoerotic relationships are immoral. There is no reason to think that this teaching can, should, or ever will change. Quite the contrary, once one understands the Catholic position on sexuality, it becomes clear that it cannot possibly be tweaked in such a way as to allow disgruntled LGBT activists the affirmation they seek.
Fr. Conroy’s position, as stated in the opening quote, is a straw man. Of course no reasonable person supposes that sexuality is “only about” procreation, if by that we mean that sex should be viewed in a coldly clinical light as a utilitarian means to achieving pregnancy. Clearly, erotic love involves far more than that, and how could it not, given the magnitude of what procreation really is? To even begin to do justice to that tremendous good (the begetting of immortal souls and perpetuation of the human race) erotic love must be a noteworthy thing indeed.
However, the Church has consistently maintained that erotic love, at least among mere humans, must be ordered towards procreation. Every effort to slice and dice the relevant pieces of the conjugal package into more-palatable portions (by sanctioning sex without marriage or marriage without permanence or erotic relationships of multiple sorts that are intrinsically closed to life) has been rejected by the Church, and for good reason. Embracing the life-giving nature of sex is the key that enables Catholics to articulate a noble, elevated and meaningful portrait of erotic love, which makes sex into something more than a tangled mash-up of bodies and emotions.
The conversation that dissenting LGBT Catholics (and their “straight allies”) want to have is already over. On some level they know this, which is why they seek sympathy instead of engagement. But there is some good news. For those who really do love their Church, full participation in its sacramental life is always available. They need do only what all Catholics are expected to do: stop trying to fix our faith, and pray instead for it to fix us.



3 comentários:

Anônimo disse...

A FUNÇÃO DESSE FILME É DE AOS POUCOS INCULCAR O HOMOGLBTISMO!
Imaginemos os “filhos” de casais homossexuais ou glbts; um problema sem tamanho, visto que, de como poderão educar na fé católica os supostos filhos dentro de um bordel, com bons exemplos dos “pais”, preces em “família” e prática adequada da fé católica, inclusive participação do “casal” plena e sem restrições aos sacramentos?
Uma Igreja atraente, no entanto, seria essa atração para reunir mais pessoas na questão estatística, sendo às expensas de sacrifício da doutrina da Igreja, já essa proposta é recente e polêmica, motivos de muitas controvérsias entre os prós e os contras de modernistas, caso acima?
Não se abrirão novos precedentes para outras ações dissonantes do tradicional ensino e pastoral da Igreja?
Aguardemos as decisões do papa Francisco em outubro.
Henoc

Adilson J. da Silva disse...

Boa tarde, nobre Pedro. Hoje é dia 26. Ou seja, estou atrasado para comentar. De qualquer forma faço uma pergunta: o Vaticano já se pronunciou? Eu sei que certa vez Bento XVI, produziu até um documento contra essa porcaria.

Pedro Erik disse...

Não vi nada, meu amigo. Duvido.

Abraço,
Pedro Erik