Sunday, December 26, 2010

DADT Repeal: Lessons Not Learned

Interesting, but not surprising, that even recent horrifying history had no effect on the DADT-repeal discussion.

Homosexual relationships caused a deep fracture in the priestly male fraternity. Pseudo-intimacy and intrigue replaced the outward looking evangelization of apostolic brotherhood. Bishops were unwilling to discipline the abusive priests under their charge. The Communio became divided. Religious leaders hid their own homosexual proclivities. The worst priests desacralized the liturgy and their vows and their priestly identity, while good priests often became isolated, fearful, and rigid. All priests were maimed.

All that is true, of course, and all that was revealed in the last years of the 20th Century. The implications for 'unit cohesion' are more than a little obvious--except to those who will not see.

More at the link.

HT: Fr. Z

5 comments:

capper said...

For most people, warfare and religion are exclusive of each other. For the ones it's not, think extremists, such as bin Laden.

Where do you fall, Daddio?

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, all the gays in the military running amok and lowering morale in the process. Having previously served with open homosexuals, only one thing mattered...in service to our country we trust one another!

If anything, the military CAN learn from the RCC. Do not what they do!

Grim said...

For most people, warfare and religion are exclusive of each other.

That's an extraordinary claim. I can think of any amount of evidence on the other side of it: from the provision of chaplain corps in all major armies in the field; the recognition of the status of same by the Geneva Conventions; the regularity of religious symbols on military graves; etc.

I don't claim to know "most people," but I would be very interested to know how you structure that category. It won't be true true if "most people" are "most Americans," or "most Westerners," or "most people alive in the last 100 years"; and the category only becomes more hostile to your proposition the wider you make it (e.g., "most people alive in the last 1,000 years").

"Most people I know"? That might be true, but it's a small circle.

John Foust said...

I think there's a sale on distinctly masculine bonds of obligation down at the Tool Shed, down on Murray Ave.

Anonymous said...

Religion is certainly a part of war in that the ones fighting the battle make the claim that "God is on their side". The combatants take comfort in believing they are on the right side of the moral equation.

The reasons why nations go to war are usually for political reasons, although religion was the catalyst during the Muslims and Christians "tussle" during the Crusades.

Perhaps Capper is trying to say that a religion, by its very definition, what it stands for, ought to be the instigator for war, i.e. "my religion is better than your religion, and if need be I'm going to kill you to prove my point". Dad29 has made that implication in previous posts.