Thursday, December 30, 2010

Wuerl: No Position On Gays In Military

According to Donald Cardinal Wuerl, the Church "has no position" on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military.  You can watch the Fox News interview here.

What??!?!?!  If the Church can have a "position" on nonsense such as the DREAM act (and thank the Good Lord that it fizzled), how on earth could it not have a position on that question?  Mind you, the question is about whether or not gays should be allowed to serve openly, that is to flout their mortally-sinful lifestyles.  And the Church supposedly has no position on that?

Cardinal Wuerl's "hands-off" attitude was not shared by Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Service.  This past June, he urged Congress not to repeal the DADT policy.  He stated quite clearly - and correctly - that "Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals" in response to "merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed forces at a time of war."  Of course he and his chaplains are only dreading the human wreckage that they'll have to clean up now that perversion can be openly practiced and foisted upon our soldiers. 

Pray for our bishops that they all will stand firm in the face of evil.  Too many aren't.


  1. As a Catholic who is faithful to the holy Magisterium of the Church, I want to defend Cardinal Wuerl's words during his interview with Fox News. He stated that the decision to allow those with homosexual inclinations to serve openly in the military must be looked at from the Church's eye. With the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, men and women who had homosexual orientations were considered different than the heterosexual-oriented people--which is clearly a violation of their dignity. If a person with homosexual inclinations so much as mentioned that he had these inclinations, he could risk being kicked out of the military. So the Cardinal was right where he said people had to have the dignity they deserved. Yet the Cardinal affirmed the Church's teaching on human sexuality when he said that homosexual acts were gravely wrong. He never said that it was okay for those with homosexual inclinations in the military to act on these inclinations. In fact, he said the opposite. He simply affirmed the dignity of those individuals as having the same dignity of all people. It is not wrong to say there is not an official position for the matter because the matter has to be looked at for what it is. It was right to not be prejudiced against those with homosexual orientations but it is wrong for allowing openly gay relationships in the military. I just think that the writer of this blog judged the Cardinal too harshly and didn't understand what he was actually saying. Thank you.

  2. At best, the Cardinal's stance is at serious variance with that of Archbishop Broglio, who by virtue of his responsibilities is more acquainted with the ramifications of gays serving in the military.

    Service in the military is NOT a civil right. There are many conditions that can render one unfit to serve in the military - some physical, some psychological, and some having impact on the other service people. Homosexual inclinations are amongst them, for reasons understood by the archbishop of the military.
    In my opinion, it is grossly naive to believe that the repeal of DADT will not open the doors to unfettered homosexual relations in the military.

  3. I agree with Brian C. While I believe that it is wrong of the government to perform a sort of social experiment in the military during a time of war, it is not immoral to allow homosexuals to serve openly. Remember, it is homosexual acts that are sinful, not homosexual orientation. Honestly RDCC, you dislike the fact that Cardinal Wuerl will not enfore Canon 915 (I agree with you on this), and so you look for every opportunity to criticize the man, even if there is not a problem in what he said.

    I did not read Archbishop Broglio's comments denouncing the repeal of DADT in the same manner you did. If my understanding is correct, you interpret it in such a way that he says it is morally wrong; it seems to me that he is saying that it is the wrong time and wrong setting for liberals to try to please their base.

  4. Michael, I believe there is a great problem with what he said about gays in the military being open. Why, why would they be "open"? And again, it is not an item of human dignity or civil right to serve in the military. I have impediments that would disqualify me from military service. Does that mean I lack in human rights or dignity? Of course not! The real reason they want to be "open" in the military is not that difficult to understand.

  5. See this blog's post on January 12th. It turns out that the Vatican did make some very clear statements regarding gays in public roles - including the military.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.