Revised: Actually, Ed Peters makes a good point. If I'm going to criticize the manner by which Vree goes around picking intellectual street-fights, I need to avoid using the same type of polemic. Therefore, I've gone through the following post and edited out as much as possible.
That being said, I honestly am concerned about the state of Dale Vree's soul. I don't presume to judge it, since that is left to God alone. Nevertheless, I cannot see how Dale isn't endangering his eternal salvation through the literary street-fights that he keeps picking.
And that's why rebuking the sinner is a spiritual act of mercy. We rebuke sinners is because we don't wish to see them go to hell. As angry as I am with Dale, I would rather see him go to Heaven than to hell. Homosexual acts are not the only sins that will condemn a soul to hell.
Take a look at how Dale attacks Amy Welborn or David Morrison or Fr. Pavone or Michael O'Brien (this last individual on the eve of a Canadian election where pro-marriage and pro-family forces were being told by an incumbant prime minister that there is no room for us in Canadian politics).
Well, what does the Bible have to say?
OLD TESTAMENT
1) Proverbs 6: 12-19 is very clear:
"A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, scrapes with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.
"There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers."
2) And let us no forget the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue:
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20: 16)
NEW TESTAMENT
Let's look at one of the New Testament passages that coincidentally also condemns those who practice homosexual activity:
3) 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
I pray this doesn't happen to Dale. This is why I prayed for him this morning, as well as yesterday at Mass today when the priest said the words of consecration. I would ask my readers to do so as well.
I've been reading some population statistics and analysis comparing Islamic birthrates vs. others. What it amounts to is the sterility, anti-life homosexualist and abortion movements are actually treasonous. Treasonous because their movements will turn Europe and large swaths of this planet over to the tender mercies of ayatollahs and imams (the off with their heads brigade). Demographics show this could happen in less than 50 years. Now, I don't want my granddaughters to be forced to have clitorectomies and to wear head to toe burkahs (and I don't think they will want to suffer them).
So lets start calling the homosexualist - abortion movements what they are: TREASON to the nations and peoples in which they do their dirty work.
I think Pete Vere is so right, yeah. Dale Vree is definitely going to Hell, and taking everyone who agrees with him with him. Pete Vere ought to know, most definitely.
I was gonna ask you guys what you thought of Vree, et al. at the NOR. I find some of their articles very intellectually engaging: there was a great guest column on the spiritual dangers of Yoga. But most of their stuff, sadly, is excessively vitriolic, particularly in how they deal with people they think not orthodox enough. Heck, they even attacked Pope Benedict as a huge disappointment on gays in the clery. I don't really get what that's about.
It's a shame. As an evangelical conservative Christian, I enjoy reading theological perspectives from Catholic and Protestant thinkers. It's a shame that NOR is descending down the path it is. Or maybe they've been there for quite a while and I didn't realize it.
I'm glad Professor Peters weighed in; at least there's somebody Pete respects enough to listen to! :-)
Besides the rhetorical excesses, I think Pete's made too big a deal out of this whole thing. NOR probably has fewer than 1500 readers in Canada, so it's folly to think Vree's cranky criticism toward O'Brien will have any effect on the current campaign.
The campaign is over, however, its effects were not the issue. The issue was: 1) Vree's tone; and 2) Why did Vree fire on O'Brien when we were fighting for our political lives?
Regardless, these are just side issues to the main one, namely, are Vree's recent actions endangering his eternal salvation? Unless he's insane -- in which case he is no longer culpable, however, he probably shouldn't be editing a magazine -- I think the answer, from Holy Scripture and Tradition, is likely yes.
Pointing this out may make some people uncomfortable, however, not pointing it out leads to unimaginable discomfort to the person who fails to repent. Thus as fellow Christians we have a duty to stop apologizing for Dale's objectionable behavior. We also have a duty to point out to Dale the consequences of his actions.
Certainly, it is legitimate to criticize people's tactics if they seem to be objectively unChristian. However, it is a victory for evil when in response to those tactics we employ them to counter those whom we criticize. Thank you for reconsidering your approach.
Joe Wall says: "The bottom line is that it is wrong and immoral to kill innocent human beings, whether they be German and Japanese civilians or American unborn children, regardless of the excuses given. You can't do evil that good may come of it."
I myself think it's not always wrong to kill innocent humans in warfare since the Bible condones it. Even the jews today could still kill all the male population in a town they attack. Jesus never told them to change this practice. Turning the cheek wasn't something the Isrealites had to adopt in warfare. So if the modern Jewish nation killed all the palistinean males in the Gaza strip, would the Bible condemn it? Thats another reason why Dale Vree was so wrong in condemning How the Jews wage modern day warfare.
God told Joshua and the thousands of Israelite Warriors to kill innocent human beings that were civilians of Canaan. He commanded them to kill the populations of whole towns. That's terrorism. That murder in warfare. What the Jews did would nowdays be called genocide. But would God call it genocide?
Yes, the Geneva Convention is not new. Since the days of the early church we have not liked killing civilians. But does God really care? When he was behind the rains of waging war, he made His People bloody their hands with the deaths of innocent people and unborn babies. Obviously, God at one time made the Israelites brake the Geneva Convention. FDR and Winston Churchill were no worse than Joshua. Except Joshua may not have killed in the 600,000 people. But still, he participated in the "indiscriminate destruction of whole cities."
If he condemn Joshua, aren't we overstepping our bounds? Should we try to be Holier when we wage war than God as leader of his own brutal Holy War? Wasn't his idea to murder entire villages a Just war even though many of his victims were non-collateral civillians?
Later on the Bible tells the Jews that they may kill the entire male population of a town when attacking it. Jesus never said they couldn't wage war this way. Thus,the Catholic Church with it's Just War Theory breaks away from what God intended in warfare. The Jews at least, have no reason to care about others opinion in killing civilians or the Geneva Convention.
Thus, If we are fighting in Iraq and soon perhaps Iran to save Israel from it's enemies, we don't have to listen to Just War Theory either. The Old Testament Laws for waging war still override the Catechism.
The Catholic Church went soft. In WWII when civilians were killed wasn't that different than when Canaanites were killed. Why are we blaming Hitler for the London Blitz, and Churchill, FDR, and Stalin for the German Blitz, and yet we don't blame Joshua, Moses and even God for their Murderous and Preventive Strike Take over of Israel? They all broke Catholic Just War Theory. But so did Joshua. Is Winston Churchill any worse than Joshua? Does Joshua get off easy because there was no Catholic Church back then with their War Theory?
But why Should Catholic Just War Theory Overide the Old Testament? God said to the Jews that they could kill the male population of an entire village. That means old men, young boys and babies. We, the Gentiles, commonly believe many of the Old Testament laws now apply to us. But how come the Catholic Church disobeys this law?
Is it because God had told Joshua to do it, and thus he wasn't taking the law into his own hands like the WWII leaders did? But killing an innocent baby with human hands is still killing a baby, no matter if God told you to do it or not. The man who did the deed should feel no different. And in some ways, the Israelites killed the babies with bloody swords and witnessed it close up. We Americans killed the Germans with bombs. Whats really more gruesome? Is Wins
So I find that Catholic Just War Theory and God's Old Testament Just War Theory don't add up. The bottom line is that it isn't "wrong and immoral to kill innocent human beings" when God tells you to. But does it matter it when he doesn't? And does that mean if we are helping Israel in the Iraq War we should have no blame either?
You may say God has changed since Jesus. But God is the same as he was 4,000 years ago. If he told the Jews to kill innocent humans back then, he may command them to do it again in our modern age.