I originally posted this the other day, left it up for a couple of hours, and then took it down. I think I’ll post it again now with some further caveat. As you read the thread itself, by its author, Mathoma, it is very coarse and not full of the love and graciousness that I know Christ would extend to any of us; any of us sinners. It is obviously speaking to the particular sin of homosexuality and other variant sexual sins and idolatries, and the lines that Mathoma appeals to evince some viable ones; I think. Again, the way it is presented is not in a way that I think the Christian should present this to the ‘world.’ But I can also recognize that it comes out of a source of frustration and within the heat of the battle that continues to ensue as the world falls deeper and deeper into the abyss from whence it has been spawned.
If you can’t tell by now I am very traditional when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, and all sins. I believe they need to be repented of, and that we stand before the Holy God who will accept nothing less; i.e. a repentance formed in the heart of Christ for us by the Spirit. It is interesting, Christians have no place to affirm others in what God has clearly made known as sin. Christians aren’t God, God is. Christians aren’t the Lord, the LORD is. This is not simply a matter of ‘positioning’ as if this is a gray-area in the Kingdom of Christ. There are some things that are black and white, and homosexuality and its status as an affront to God’s holiness is a black and white issue. It cannot simply be relativized by asserting that ‘good people on either side arrive at differing conclusions’; this is not a matter of relativity, it is a matter that is clear. The fact that homosexuality just is what it is in the culture does not mean that it ought to be or that it should even be recognized as a legitimate form before God; this is the height of natural theology.
So I share the following with my own perspective in mind, and with the caveat that I am not affirming the way that Mathoma presents his ideas.
The following is an approximately thousand word tweet tweeted by a tweeter who goes by the name, Mathoma. I don’t know Mathoma, but his tagline says he is a “Medical student by day, wannabe mathematician by night”; and I surmise that he is Catholic from other indicators. The following tweet has been retweeted, as of the typing of this post, eighty-six times, and liked over three hundred times. I am reproducing his tweet by permission of the author. He uses some profanity (as descriptor of liberals), and speaks rather tersely. He is writing against homosexuality and the pervasive sexual promiscuity and porneia that are seemingly ubiquitous in the framing of the global culture. He is presenting things in ways that will offend many, and makes appeal to an Aristotelian-shaped ‘virtual ethics,’ which is strong among Thomist Catholics; along with an Augustinian ‘reproduction argument.’ But I wanted to lift it from Twitter, and present it to anyone who might happen upon my blog, along with regular readers, and see what types of responses it might garner (if any). I haven’t attempted to break it down into paragraph breaks, but left it as one long continuous tweet, as I encountered it on Twitter. Here you go.
Many cannot understand why ‘fanatical’ right-wingers are so strongly opposed to homosexuality. One reason is that homosexuality is a total repudiation of any sane sexual ethics. It rejects the notion that the sexual faculty is for procreation. Because it’s not for procreation, people who can’t even in principle procreate can ‘get married’, so it rejects the institution that safeguards the family and rearing of children. The rejection that sex is for procreation combined with the shitlib idea that just as long as two people consent, anything goes (and make sure you have a good time) leads to promiscuity at insane levels. It’s quite logical. If sex is just for pleasure and homosexuals cannot possibly procreate then why not just cycle through as many partners as you can? The liberal who thinks by enabling *that* he’s going to be making people happy in the long run is quite deluded. Those who have been edified by material more enriching than “American Pie” know that promiscuity eventually leads to despair and self-loathing. The liberals are leading those who practice homosexuality straight into the abyss. And someone who lives that lifestyle can be nothing other than a liberal. The liberal controls the homosexual through base passions (these are the supposed intellectuals, remember) and therefore such a person can be easily controlled and manipulated. Check out E. Michael Jones’ “Libido Dominandi” if you want more on that thesis. That’s why ‘homosexual’ is also a statement of one’s political affiliations and those who live such a life are a political force, not just ‘some guys minding their business’. What they do and believe is necessarily corrosive to society. Another repugnant aspect of the homosexualist (if you will) when combined with our pornographic society is the conflation of ‘philia’ (brotherly love) with ‘eros’ (as in ‘erotic’). C.S. Lewis talks about this in “The Four Loves” if you haven’t heard of this, the other two being ‘storge’ (generic affection) and ‘agape’ (charity/love of God). One is quite blessed if he has a deep friendship with someone of the same sex and have great love (philia) for them. But this does not imply that the friendship turn into a love (eros) affair. In our pornographic society, deep affection is erroneously taken to be ‘eros’. I think Lewis points this out as well, but many when reading old texts will try to accuse people of engaging in homosexuality (I do this too) when they hear they have a deep friendship with someone of the same sex. But we oftentimes only interpret such a thing in this way not because it’s true but because our minds are so polluted in this area. (The ‘I do this too’ in the above tweet refers to the accusing not to the engaging in homosexual practices … ambiguous statement there.) topkek I mean look at the way those living this life are captivated by pornography, like pride parades. When it comes to thinking about ‘love’ these guys have intellects that are filled to the brim with filth. I tend to think the total collapse of virtue, taking chastity and modesty down with it, produces this proliferation of homosexuality; it’s a symptom of a more fundamental disease, not an isolated phenomenon. It along with the other sexual degeneracies such as fornication, co-habitation, contraception, abortion, all have at their root the implosion of virtue, specifically chastity and modesty. It’s just one of many downstream effects. Pornography is a non-starter in a society in which modesty is cultivated. And no pornography means much less filth sloshing around in our minds. Notice the wisdom of virtue ethics (and Church teaching) and notice the utter stupidity of liberal ethics: We have a problem, P: Virtue ethics: Okay, let’s cut off *all* the antecedents to P and develop habits that encourage the associated virtue. We have a problem, P: Shitlib ethics: Well let’s just not call it a problem or remain silent as to whether it’s a problem at all. What we can do is tolerate P and just try to introduce things piecemeal to repair all the mess that P could cause. P: ‘people want to have sex contrary to what happens in a marriage’ Virtue ethics: Subordinate the passions, increase one’s chastity, modesty, and prudence. Notice how the answer applies just as well if one had a desire that, when acted upon, would constitute a homosexual act. Shitlib ethics: Well let them. See what happens. To say ‘no’ would to be quite illiberal and authoritarian. >What happens when they have children out-of-wedlock? Who needs marriage anyway? Get rid of it. And we just could kill the kid before it’s born and give people condoms. >But what happens when people aren’t reproducing at replacement levels and women are so damaged by all this fornication that they cannot remain in a marriage? Just import immigrants from the third-world. Divorce isn’t a big deal anyway, not like the kids don’t take it well. I’ll leave it to another thread to discuss the stupidity of *identifying* with a *feeling*. It’s useful for identity politics and the shitlibs to manipulate people by playing on their base passions though. Feelings are extremely pliable, for better or for worse, and can be thrown all over the place. Let’s remember how Dante depicts the lustful in his “Inferno”: It would seem that the liberals would like nothing more than to make that a reality, where everyone can be thrown around by the hellish winds of lust if ‘muh body’ wants it or ‘muh rights’ permit it.
I am not a proponent of ‘virtue ethics,’ but I think it is possible to reify the principle in virtue ethics or at least abstract its basic premise about the role of virtue in making a virtuous people who make virtuous decisions, and place that in a more Christ concentrated theological-anthropological form, and it would only strengthen such an appeal. But that said, Mathoma offers a line of logic; do you see it? What do you think about this? There are many moving parts at play—again, it’s a tweet, and thus for compression’s sake must be as non-verbose as possible—but as you string them together do you think Mathoma is onto something? Are you concerned that his tact will only make any semblance of an argument elusive to the homosexuals? I actually don’t take Mathoma to be making an argument or appeal (at least with the goal of being persuasive) to proponents or participants in the homosexual or any other sexually immoral lifestyle (Coram Deo); I take what he has tweeted as an expression of his own line of reasoning towards a rejection of homosexuality and other immoralities of like kind. This is not to suggest that Mathoma is not making an argument, but to note that the tact or voice it is made in won’t probably be persuasive to his opponents; although his type of terseness might well appeal to some, even to some homosexuals (even if they end rejecting his line of reasoning, for whatever reason).
I also found it interesting that Mathoma writes this, “The liberals are leading those who practice homosexuality straight into the abyss. And someone who lives that lifestyle can be nothing other than a liberal. The liberal controls the homosexual through base passions (these are the supposed intellectuals, remember) and therefore such a person can be easily controlled and manipulated. Check out E. Michael Jones’ “Libido Dominandi” if you want more on that thesis.” I haven’t read Jones’ work or thesis, so I cannot comment. I do know that there are many ‘conservative homosexuals’, but my guess is that the thesis has something to do with a genetic line of reasoning that leads to a ‘liberal’ or maybe better ‘progressive’ mindset that is associate with enlightenment rationalism and romanticism which finally leads or gives expression in what we now call the ‘sexual revolution’ of the late sixties into the seventies. So it might be counterintuitive to say ‘conservative homosexual,’ even if such homosexuals have a conservative orientation when it comes to politically expedient issues of the day; even so, the thesis that homosexuals are necessarily liberal might simply entail that in order intone the language of “identification” as homosexual means that at as a first step, epistemically, one must have already granted that such things as human sexuality are in fact societal constructs rather than a given from God alone. And so, even if a homosexual identifies themselves, politically, with “conservative” platforms, at a prior level they first, at least in an abstract way, must affirm certain liberal or turn-to-the-subject premises (premises that preclude that God, at an ontological level, is the one who gets to determine what sexuality entails) before they latterly can assert a conservative political identity; which would, in my mind, require some internal dissonance, even if that dissonance is so murky to the adherent of such an approach that they cannot critically identify it themselves.
Anyway, what do you think about Mathoma?