Michael Coren is a brilliant writer and media personality. He is a powerful culture warrior in today's society, and an earnest and effective advocate for the Unborn. I enjoy his books and television shows. But unfortunately he is contributing to the corruption of our culture by his subtle advocacy on behalf of the "gay" lifestyle (which is based, almost exclusively, on homosexual acts). Out of concern for his soul, and the souls of those trapped in the practice of homosexuality, I must point out my concerns.
I don't say that he purposely sets out to promote sin and moral evil. I believe he is a sincere Christian man with a great deal of compassion for his fellow man. However, for some reason, he seems to have blinders on when it comes to warning his "gay" friends and audience to the moral evil of homosexual acts. Because of his prominent platform in the media, which affords an important role and privilege as an opinion-shaper, he is more accountable to God than most of us "ordinary" folks.
In fact, he could very well help to save many "gay" souls from their continued bondage to moral evil by simply incorporating a warning into the formula he uses on national TV whenever the subject is broached, which is often these days, as the above video makes obvious. How could he do this? ...by way of personal endorsement of the truth of article #2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, up to this point, he craftily avoids.
To put it plainly, I have never heard him say, unambiguously, in his books or on air, that he personally believes that the practice of homosexual acts is intrinsically wrong, a moral evil precisely, and that the continued practice of such acts of grave depravity could well constitute grave sin and threaten the eternal soul of the individual involved. My opinion, at this point, is that he really doesn't believe such an "offensive" notion.
Just yesterday and today I had an exchange with Mr. Coren on Twitter. A portion of the Twitter exchange appears below. Click through to view the full conversation for context or see screenshot just below at end of posting.
@Contra1diction @TheSheepcat Learn some humility & respect & stop demanding & ordering.
— Michael Coren (@michaelcoren) February 13, 2014
I think his last two responses to my tweets were inappropriate, perhaps even rude. I'll let the reader judge, bearing in mind that I was simply asking for his affirmation, his submission of mind and will, to article #2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think any Catholic ought to be eager at any time to provide evidence of that to a fellow Catholic who voices some legitimate concern. In fact, the other party in the exchange of tweets was very quick to provide that affirmation, but Mr. Coren was not.
@Contra1diction @michaelcoren Agree. We ppl w SSA need to hear BOTH "I don't condemn you" (the person) & (re: the act) "Go & sin no more."
— Alan Yoshioka (@TheSheepcat) February 12, 2014
I am preparing a further posting under the same title as this posting, which will provide much greater detail, based on the above video, on my charge against Michael Coren, which, I admit, is a very serious charge.
14 comments:
I have to agree with Mr. Coren here - from the little bit I have so far absorbed. (I saw most of the newscast you are referring to.) He is not on trial and owes no defense of 'how hard he has been on gays.' I think we can take it for granted that he fully espouses the Faith. There is a fine line between being good to people and affirming a lifestyle. I don't think he crosses it. Can homosexuals be in love? Sure they can. Is that fully healthy? No. I don't think we need to worry about Coren. That guy he was interviewing was embarrassing to me as a Christian. "Sodomites", indeed. That's helpful!
Thanks for leaving a comment Colin. I don't doubt that Michael Coren tries to be a good Catholic but I don't think we "can take it for granted" that he is promoting the fullness of the Faith on the subject of homosexuality, particularly in recent episodes of The Arena. That's precisely my point, and the purpose of this posting. As far as crossing the line is concerned, I think we cross the line when we fail to provide a complete picture of Catholic teaching on an weighty moral issue.
Check back later to read my next posting which will go into greater detail. Thanks again.
Brilliant post! Dead on!! I too have noticed equivocation on this topic by Coren. He seems to - alas - tailor his commentary for his audience. No! The Faith must be always presented with total clarity.
What a great blog you have! Keep up the great fight for the Faith. I shall be joining your Twitter feed and promoting your blog at Toronto Catholic Witness.
Yes, this insidious pandering to the monstrous evil must stop.
Thanks for your comment Barona. And thanks for the Follow on Twitter! Let's keep an eye on each other while we promote the fullness of the Faith.
It was recently on The Arena that Coren said the following: "I'm certainly not anti-gay, I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman".
What does he precisely mean?
This is evasive. His recent attempt to defend his position in an article written for SUN media only highlights even greater ambiguity.
Good to read that, besides myself and Barona, other Catholics are speaking out on Mr. Coren's pussyfooting when it comes to sodomy, pederasty, lesbianism - not "gay" or "same sex attraction", as Coren would contend.
A commenter at my blog mentioned that he got a comparably dismissive response when he challenged Coren on Twitter. It's good to be the king.
There seems to be much worry across crossing lines, or not, or whatever. It is this very worry about crossing the line, balancing on it, of not being confident enough in Catholic teaching so as to confront the issue directly, by stepping over the into enemy territory, which I see as the problem. So long as there is this guarded, ambiguous approach, the homolobby will keep making more and more strides, become more and more strident. It is also the means by which the sodomite subculture has embedded itself into the Church and its institutions. If anything, Coren's approach only conceals and protects the homolobby.
Coren is right, your comments are demanding and lacking in humility. Who appointed you to question other Catholic's beliefs? Why not assume that he as a practicing Catholic affirms Church teaching? If there is not evidence to the contrary you are out of line and flirting with the sin of slander.
Love is by definition wanting what is good for another person - you can't want what is harmful or 'unhealthy' for someone and be acting loving towards them. If homosexual acts are harmful, bad or 'unhealthy' you can't want someone to preform such acts and call that a loving relationship.
If a relationship is based on what is harmful it is not loving... if homosexuality is 'unhealthy' then a relationship is not loving insofar as it is a homosexual relationship.
As for the word sodomite being unhelpful, well, Augustine said: " a friend speaks bitterly and loves; a deceptive foe flatters and hates" so if a harsh word is unhelpful or not is far from clear...
I disagree with coren but to say he is 'complicit in the destruction of souls' is just wrong... He has been and is one of the few voices in mainstream media that defends christian morality - he is not perfect but he is very good . You should rethink the tittle...
Many thanks for commenting.
Josh Canning: I'm not sure if you are a Catholic or not and so you may not be aware of Catholic teaching in this regard. There is only ONE Catholic set of beliefs. We don't all get to make up or follow our own. As Catholics we are required to adhere and live up to the fullness of our Faith as presented in the official teachings of the Church, to the best of our understanding. Because none of us do that 100% of the time we are bound to watch out for our fellow Catholic and help them along if we see they are off the path. The duty to do this is expressly noted as a part of our Catholic calling and the process used is termed fraternal correction.
I reached out to Michael Coren by Twitter for a simple affirmation of Catholic teaching on one particular point but he rebuffed me quite pointedly. I did not initiate the conversation on Twitter. I simply replied to an existing conversation on the same theme and my comment and question was very much relevant I thought. I was simply seeking clarification. Was that demanding and lacking in humility? In view of the information shared in this comment to you I think not.
Now as far as "evidence to the contrary", I believe there is sufficient evidence to the contrary to warrant my posting. I am still working on my follow up posting which will detail that evidence and my concerns.
Please keep in mind that my concerns are directly related to the question of the safety and salvation of souls, not simply a disagreement or a challenge over personal preferences.
I invite you back to read my follow up posting.
All the best
Nathan, suppose you are walking along an abandoned road and you see a man at a distance approaching you in a car, travelling at high speed. It looks to you like he doesn’t realize the bridge ahead has been washed away but, for whatever reason, whether because of indifference, or doubt, or uncertainty, or whatever, you fail to do anything to get that driver’s attention and to warn him. Within a minute or two, sure enough, he plunges off the bridge and is killed. Would you say you are complicit in that man’s death? You could have done something to save his life but for whatever reason, you didn’t. Being complicit simply means you had a part to play in the outcome; it doesn’t mean you were fully responsible.
I quote again what I said above in my posting:“To put it plainly, I have never heard him say, unambiguously, in his books or on air, that he personally believes that the practice of homosexual acts is intrinsically wrong, a moral evil precisely, and that the continued practice of such acts of grave depravity could well constitute grave sin and threaten the eternal soul of the individual involved.”
Have you heard him ever say that the practice of homosexuality is an evil that could send someone to hell? I know he is a writer and media man, not a preacher but he has no problem speaking of the evil of abortion. Yet when speaking of “gays” nearly always—if not always—his words lend legitimacy to homosexual acts. Such an approach is not in accord with Catholic teaching, which, as I’ve pointed out above has a two-fold formula, numbers 2357 and 2358 in the Catechism.
I could quote the Bible on the subject of warnings as well but it sounds as though you may be well aware of such.
I’ve already spoken of my high esteem for Michael Coren and, indeed, he is one of the few who defend Christian morality. However that doesn’t give him a free pass altogether and immunity from deserved criticism. In the end, being a Catholic means that the welfare of souls is our supreme concern. In regard to the practice of homosexuality he hasn’t, in my opinion, shown evidence of that. In fact, I believe the contrary is true, thereby making him one of many high profile players in the media who are not warning souls of the grave dangers they face because of “gay” sex.
I've heard Micheal Coren say that he does not affirm homosexual behaviour. He uses language he thinks appropriate and caring for struggling persons... If I say I can't affirm someone's behaviour i can't be complicit in their behaviour or the consequences that may follow...
Nathan, I think you are arguing there from an exception and in any case that's a far cry from CCC #2357. I can't ever recall hearing Coren make such a statement as you indicated and I've listened to him dozens if not hundreds of times, and not from the point of view as a critic, but as a “follower”, although I won't argue the point. Perhaps a time or two he did say it but in my experience he certainly doesn’t emphasize it to his audience. Watching him on the air you sure don't get the idea that he believes it!
But look at the video in my posting and tell me in this whole debate, which really has Coren hot under the collar, where he says anything like you indicated. This video—and his associated Sun News article discussing the show—seems to represent the apex to date of his ranting about "hatred" toward "gays" but fails even once to qualify that homosexual behaviour is wrong. Apparently even that little tiny bit of objective truth is too much to have inserted somewhere in the conversation.
Mr. Coren has a very unique platform, granted to him by God, and has sizeable influence over people's thinking and thereby over the formation of their conscience. God will hold him accountable therefore to a greater degree than He would for an ordinary joe.
Finally, getting back to the illustration of the man racing towards his death on the bridge, suppose you called out, even loudly, to him as he was passing and said, "I don't approve of what you're doing..." would that fulfil altogether your duty to try to save him? It may not be a perfect comparison but I believe the point is valid.
Post a Comment