Wow, it's possible to be too whacked out for the comfort of the U.S. Catholic bishops! Who knew?

No, Satan, please don't make me gay! No, Satan . . . no! Well, now you've gone and done it, haven't you, Satan? Doggone you, Satan!

by Ken

When it comes to hate-based, ignorance-filled authoritarian bigotry and craziness, you'd figure maybe there's no such thing as "too much" when it comes to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, right? Well, if you're standing up, hold on to something, 'cause I'm gonna tell you, you're wrong! Apparently saying out loud, in a public place, that Satan personally turns gay people gay -- well, it's too much. Who'd-a thunk it?

I'm thinking it's still OK to believe it, just not to say it out loud in a, you know, public place. It turns out that forgetting this distinction can cause even the most devoted, wacko hench-hater lapdog to be subject to a hot-potato drop from the bishops.

Bishops' aide resigns over gay devil column

BOSTON (AP) -- The author of a newspaper column suggesting the devil may be responsible for homosexuality has resigned from his job with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

A spokeswoman for the Roman Catholic bishops said Friday that Daniel Avila (AH'-vee-lah) offered to step down and his resignation was accepted Friday.

Avila's column appeared a week ago in The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston. Avila had written that there's evidence suggesting the devil is responsible for same-sex attraction. Gay rights groups and others condemned the column.

The newspaper withdrew the article from its website Wednesday. Avila apologized for any pain the column caused. He said his views did not represent the position of the bishops' conference.

Avila had worked on policy and research for the bishops in Washington.

Sorry, we're coming in at the end of the story, more or less, after the Pilot's earlier effort at damage control didn't work. It was worth a shot, though, having the lapdog in question just take it back. That happened Wednesday, day before yesterday, when the webmaster replaced the original post by Daniel Avila with the following:

Daniel Avila
Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction

Editor's Note: Daniel Avila issued the following "Retraction/Apology" Nov. 2 in regard to his opinion piece "Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction" which was published in our Oct. 28 edition. In addition to echoing Mr. Avila's statement of regret, The Pilot also wishes to apologize for having failed to recognize the theological error in the column before publication. The Pilot has removed the column 'Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction'from its Website.

Retraction/Apology from Daniel Avila

"Statements made in my column, 'Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction' of October 28, do not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The teaching of Sacred Scripture and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and have inviolable dignity. Likewise, the Church proclaims the sanctity of marriage as the permanent, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman. The Church opposes, as I do too, all unjust discrimination and the violence against persons that unjust discrimination inspires. I deeply apologize for the hurt and confusion that this column has caused."

Can you believe that that didn't end the hubbub? So today poor Daniel had to walk the bishopric plank. The surprise to me was that this schnook had some sort of actual position with the bishops to make a public show of resigning from. According to today's AP piece, you'll note, he "had worked on policy and research for the bishops in Washington." I'm told that he was in fact "policy adviser for marriage and family" for the Bishops' Conference's Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. And did a splendid job of it, I'm sure. As I've pointed out many times, given the caliber of the people allegedly "defending" marriage, could the institution ask for any deadlier enemies?


NATURALLY YOU WANT TO KNOW: WHAT CONSTITUTES
TOO CRAZY/VICIOUS/WHATEVER FOR THE BISHOPS?

Since, as noted above, you'll no longer find it on The Pilot's website. Regrettably, I can't tell you where exactly Daniel crossed the line, or what exactly that line is, but here's the piece of psychotic blithering that got him in such hot water.

Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction
Daniel Avila
Posted: 10/28/2011

More than once I have heard from or about Catholics upset with the Church for its insistence that sexual relations be limited to marriage between husband and wife. Does not this moral rule force people with same-sex attraction into lives of loneliness? If they are born that way, then why should they be punished by a restriction that does not account for their pre-existing condition? God wants everyone to be happy, and for persons with same-sex attraction is not their happiness to be found in the fulfillment of that attraction? Some seek to change the Church's teaching on marriage or have left the Church because of it. They believe either that God through the Church ignores the needs of people or that the Church misunderstands what God desires.

That is, if God causes same-sex attraction, and yet commands that it not be satisfied, then this is divine cruelty. Or, if God causes same-sex attraction, then it must be the divine will that those with the attraction should act on it and it is the Church that is being cruel in its teaching or at the very least tragically mistaken about what God wants. In either case, the belief that the Church is wrong on this issue starts from a faulty premise. God does not cause same-sex attraction.

The best natural evidence of what God causes and wants for us is our genetic code. Science has isolated certain genetic combinations that are typical to human creation and development. The most basic and the first genetic expression is that which occurs at our conception, when at the same time our individual human life begins our sexual identity as male or female begins. That which is genetically encoded, for believers, points to a codifier, and communicates through its design the codifier's intent. Interpreting from a spiritual perspective the genetic code which supplies our sexual difference, we have to conclude that God wants us to be male or female.

No one has found a "gay gene." Identical twins are always, of course, the same sex, providing further proof of male and female genes. If there was a gay gene, then when one twin exhibits same-sex attraction, his or her identical sibling should too. But that is not the case. The incidence of finding identical twins with identical same-sex attraction is relatively rare and certainly not anywhere near one hundred percent. Something other than the hardwiring found in the genetic code must explain the variance.

So what causes the inclination to same-sex attraction if it appears early and involuntarily and "who," if anyone, is responsible? In determining the answer to the "what" question, the most widely accepted scientific hypothesis points to random imbalances in maternal hormone levels and identifies their disruptive prenatal effects on fetal development as the likely and major cause.

The most recent and most comprehensive discussion of this research is found in a book published earlier this year by a scientist who also happens to be a gay-rights advocate. Even though it discounts other environmental factors that other scientists believe also may play a role, Simon LeVay's publication, "Gay, Straight and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Attraction" is worth the read.

LeVay is not interested in the "who" question and describes same-sex attraction as just a variation among other human inclinations. Catholics do not have the luxury of being materialists. We look for ultimate explanations that transcend the strictly physical world and that stretch beyond our limited ability to mold and reshape reality as we know it. Disruptive imbalances in nature that thwart encoded processes point to supernatural actors who, unlike God, do not have the good of persons at heart.

In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture's account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God, these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God's handiwork.

Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God. Applying this aspect of Catholic belief to interpret the scientific data makes more sense because it does not place God in the awkward position of blessing two mutually incompatible realities -- sexual difference and same-sex attraction.

If in fact this analysis of causation and culpability is correct, then it opens new perspectives on the Church's teaching in this area. Being born with an inclination which originates in a manner outside of one's control is not sufficient proof that the condition is caused by God or that its satisfaction meets God's purpose. Furthermore, a proper understanding of who is really at fault should deepen our compassion towards those who experience same-sex attraction and inform our response to the question of loneliness. Ultimately, an accurate attribution of responsibility for same-sex attraction frees us to consider more fully the urgent question of why sexual difference matters so much to God. These matters will be addressed in my next column.

Daniel Avila formerly served the Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts and now lives and works in the Washington, D.C., area.

It's obvious that the bishops aren't going to have an easy time replacing this clown.

Footnote re. mythical "anti-Catholicism": I know that I'll be accused of being "anti-Catholic." Is there any point in asking the accusers for once in their lives -- and it would probably be a first -- to use their godforsaken brains and pay the tiniest bit of attention to what's going on around them? Sorry, I had to at least ask.

#