The “Hate” Canard: Is Opposing Sexual Immorality and its Purveyors a Matter of “Hatred”?

Hate vs. “Hate”…

The “Hate” Canard: Is Opposing Sexual Immorality and its Purveyors a Matter of “Hatred”?

Our society is saturated with political correctness. The leftist thought police has long tried to commandeer what vocabulary the populace is “permitted” to use. The idea behind it is that the way we speak necessarily influences how we think, and so self-censorship in words quickly leads to self-censorship in thoughts.

Contemporary man has long replaced reason with emotion. This is why we see such absurd phenomena as transgenderism in our day. It is also the reason why those who defend the natural law and the completely rational idea that there cannot be more than one true religion, are accused of “hate/hatred”, “anger”, “fear/phobia”, “insanity”, or “extremism.” People have simply lost (or never learned) the ability to reason and to reason correctly. They prefer to feel instead. And whatever makes them feel bad, is bad.

This phenomenon is widespread in Western society, and the average pewsitter in the Novus Ordo Sect as well as its leftist apologists, academics, and pundits are no exception.

Take Massimo Faggioli, for example, an Italian historian, theologian, and author who teaches at Villanova University in the United States and writes for various online publications. He is upset at the fact that the homosexualist Jesuit “Fr.” James Martin — appointed five months ago by “Pope” Francis as consultor for the Vatican Secretariat for Communications — has recently gotten severe backlash from various culture warriors on and off the internet who are sick and tired of the perversities Martin promotes, defends, or happily tolerates (the latest being his idea that sodomites should be allowed to kiss one another at “Mass”).

Earlier this year, Martin — also known as “Hellboy” — published the book Building A Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. That the book is building a bridge to hell does not bother the author in the least, and of course his infernal work has received the endorsement of Vatican “Cardinal” Kevin Farrell, Francis’ new frontman for family and life issues, as well as that of other “Catholic” pseudo-authorities.

With all the bridge building, however, it looks like a few bridges have now been burned for Martin. Not everyone is willing to sit idly by as Hellboy carries his perverts’ gospel to the ends of the earth. In fact, opposition to “Fr.” Martin has recently become so vociferous that he has had a number of previously-scheduled speaking engagements canceled, as reported by Church Militant, the conservative Novus Ordo news site famous for slamming and exposing everyone except “Pope” Francis.

Clearly displeased by these developments, Faggioli published his article “Catholic Cyber-Militias and the New Censorship” in the Sep. 18, 2017 edition of La Croix International. To attack Martin’s opposition, Faggioli uses the the favorite leftist vocabulary: Those who vehemently oppose Hellboy and try to neutralize his infernal influence against a wicked, timid, or indifferent Novus Ordo episcopate are “cyber militants” (whatever that means) and “extremists” (ooh!) that are part of a “fringe” (like the early Christians?) and who are filled with “anger” (righteous or unrighteous?) and “hatred” (definition, please?) and “intimidate” (justly or unjustly?) those who invite the pristinely orthodox butterfly of luv, James Martin, to speak at their event.

We note, too, that Faggioli accuses those evil cyber crusaders (whose intent is only to defend orthodoxy and good morals) of “verbal violence” — a term that, once again, appeals to the emotions rather than to reason, thus dispensing with the need for clear definitions and sound argumentation. Besides, using a term like “verbal violence” allows Faggioli to insinuate guilt by association with those who are physically violent — a connection entirely unwarranted but, one may suspect, not entirely unintended by the author. The consequences of such rhetoric could soon be disastrous — and yet, he is the one complaining about “censorship”.

With all the accusations of “hate” or “hatred” constantly being thrown at real Catholics and others who upset or threaten the politically correct social mores, it is time we took a good look at the real meaning of hate. What is the definition? What actually constitutes (and therefore doesn’t constitute) real hatred?

The following is an excerpt of what is perhaps the best, most exhaustive, and most up to date pre-Vatican II moral theology manual in the English language: Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities by the Dominican scholars Fr. John A. McHugh and Fr. Charles J. Callan (imprimatur 1958). It is available in print (volume 1 here and volume 2 here) and in electronic format.

Here is what Fathers McHugh and Callan write about the sin of hate, first considered in general and then specifically with regard to one’s neighbor (we’ll skip hatred of God):

1296. Hate.—Hate is an aversion of the will to something which the intellect judges evil, that is, contrary to self. As there are two kinds of love, so there are also two kinds of hate. (a) Hatred of dislike (odium abominationis) is the opposite of love of desire, for, as this love inclines to something as suitable and advantageous for self, so hatred of dislike turns away from something, as being considered unsuitable and harmful to self. (b) Hatred of enmity (odium inimicitiæ) is the opposite of love of benevolence, for, as this love wishes good to the object of its affection, so hatred of enmity wishes evil to the object of its dislike.

…

1304. Hatred of Creatures.—All dislike of God is sinful, because there is nothing in God that merits dislike. But in creatures imperfections are found as well as perfections.

(a) Hence, dislike of the imperfections of our neighbor (i.e., of all that is the work of the devil or of his own sinfulness), is not against charity, but according to charity; for it is the same thing to dislike another’s evil as to wish his good. Thus, God Himself is said to hate detractors, that is, detraction (Rom., i. 30), and Christ bids His followers hate their parents who would be an impediment to their progress in holiness, that is, the sinful opposition of those parents (Luke, xiv. 26). Only when dislike is carried beyond reason is it sinful. Thus, a wife who dislikes her husband’s habit of drunkenness so much that she will not give him a necessary medicine on account of the alcohol it contains, carries her dislike to extremes.

(b) Dislike of the perfections of nature or of grace in our neighbor (i.e., of anything that is the work of God in him), is contrary to charity. Thus, God does not hate the detractor himself, nor should children ever hate the person of a parent, or the natural relationship he holds to themselves, no matter how bad the parent may be. As St. Augustine says: “One should love the sinner, but hate his vices.”

1305. The same principles apply to dislike of self. (a) Thus, one should dislike one’s own imperfections, for they are the enemies of one’s soul. So, contrition is defined as a hatred and detestation of one’s vices, and it is a virtue and an act of charity to self. (b) One should not dislike the good one has, except in so far as it is associated with evil. Thus, one should not regret one’s honesty, even if by reason of it one loses an opportunity to make a large sum of money; but one may regret having married, if one’s choice has been unfortunate and has made one’s life miserable.

…

1308. Is it ever lawful to wish evil to self or to others? (a) It is not lawful to wish anyone evil as evil, for even God in punishing the lost does not will their punishment as it is evil to them, but as it contains the good of justice. Hence, it is contrary to charity to wish that a criminal be put to death, if one’s wish does not go beyond the sufferings and loss of life the criminal will endure. (b) It is lawful to wish evil as good, or, in other words, to wish misfortunes that are blessings in disguise. Thus, one may wish that a neighbor lose his arm, if this is necessary to save his life.

1309. One may easily be self-deceived in wishing evil to one’s neighbor under the pretext that it is really good one desires, for the true intention may be hatred or revenge. Hence, the following conditions must be present when one wishes evil as good:

(a) On the part of the subject (i.e., of the person who wills the evil), the intention must be sincerely charitable, proceeding from a desire that the neighbor be benefitted. Thus, it is lawful to wish that a gambler may meet with reverses, if what is intended is, not his loss, but his awakening to the need of a new kind of amusement. St. Paul rejoiced that he had made the Corinthians sorrowful, because their sorrow worked repentance in them (II Cor., vii. 7-11). Of course, the desire of a neighbor’s good does not confer the right to wrong him, for the end does not justify the means.

(b) On the part of the object (i.e., of the evil which is wished to another), it must be compensated for by the good which is intended. It is not lawful to desire the death of another on account of the property one expects to inherit, for the neighbor’s life is more important than private gain; but it is lawful to wish, out of interest in the common welfare, that a criminal be captured and punished, for it is only by the vindication of law that public tranquillity can be secured (Gal., v. 12).

1310. Is it lawful to wish the death of self or of a neighbor for some private good of the one whose death is wished? (a) If the good is a spiritual one and more important than the spiritual good contained in the desire to live, it is lawful to desire death. Thus, it is lawful to wish to die in order to enter into a better life, or to be freed from the temptations and sinfulness of life on earth. But it is not lawful to wish to die in order to spare a few individuals the scandal they take from one’s life, if that life is needed by others as a source of edification (Philip., i. 21 sqq.). (b) If the good is a temporal one but sufficiently important, it does not seem unlawful to desire death. Thus, we should not blame a person suffering from a painful and incurable disease, which makes him a burden to himself and to others, if, with resignation to the divine will, he prays for the release of death; for “death is better than a bitter life” (Ecclus., xxx, 17). But lack of perfect health or a feeling of weariness is not a good reason for wishing to die, especially if one has dependents, or is useful to others.

1311. Is it ever lawful to wish spiritual evil to anyone? (a) Spiritual evil of iniquity may never be desired, for the desire of sin, mortal or venial, is a sin itself (see 242), and it cannot be charitable, for charity rejoiceth not with iniquity (I Cor., xiii. 6). It is wrong, therefore, to wish that our neighbor fall into sin, offend God, diminish or forfeit his grace, or lose his soul. On the contrary, we are commanded to pray that he be delivered from such evils. (b) The good that God draws out of spiritual evil may be desired. Some are permitted to fall into sin, or be tempted, that they may become more humble, more charitable, more vigilant, more fervent. It seems that the permission of sin in the case of the elect is one of the benefits of God’s predestination, inasmuch as God intends it to be an occasion of greater virtue and stronger perseverance. It is not lawful to wish that God permit anyone to fall into sin, but it is lawful to wish that, if God has permitted sin, good will follow after it.

(Fr. John A. McHugh & Fr. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 1 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], nn. 1296, 1304-1305, 1308-1311)

Such are the facts about the nature of hatred. One can easily see that this has nothing whatsoever per se to do with defending the moral order against perverts and their abettors and working to prevent the advance of their wicked ideology through legal and morally licit means.

We must also keep before us that hate can be a motive but it can never be a physical action (unlike stealing, adultery, or calumny) — yet this is precisely what it is gradually being injected into the public’s consciousness as.

Applied to the case of “Fr.” Martin: To say that contacting a “Catholic” university and asking them to cancel a speaking engagement for someone who promotes grave immorality, constitutes “hate”, is sheer nonsense. It is rhetoric, not rational argumentation. Although one could claim that hate is the motive for such an action, this would at least be rash because it would impugn the moral character of the agent without sufficient evidence. After all, any number of motives other than hate — understood in the proper sense of the term as defined above — could be envisioned.

We all know that the reason why there is a “cyber militia” in the Novus Ordo Sect in the first place is that its pseudo-clerics, who (falsely) claim to be the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, aren’t doing what the real Catholic Church would require them to do: defend orthodoxy and sound morals from all enemies, especially people like Hellboy. For this reason it is now lay groups and movements that are stepping up.

Although the Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church but (probably) the “operation of error” predicted by St. Paul (see 2 Thess 2:3-11), many of its members do not realize this. There are many good-willed and pious adherents of Francis’ church who mistakenly believe it to be the Catholic Church and are trying, as best as they know how, to stem the tide of apostasy the false hierarchy has been inflicting on them all since Vatican II.

For more information on the true Catholic position on hate, please see the following posts:

• Who’s the Hater now? True vs. False Charity
• Are we just full of “Bitter Zeal” and “Venom”? Can We Only Attack an Argument and Never a Person?

It’s a good thing James Martin wasn’t around 2,000 years ago. Could you imagine what he would have said to a certain Jesus of Nazareth when He used the following not-so-sensitive language?

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves. Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it: And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

(Matthew 23:15-35)

 

I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.

(John 8:37-55)

If Hellboy had been present to hear all these things, can you imagine how he would have reacted? He would have run away screaming, “Ah, the hate! The hate! The hate!” Interestingly enough, the people at whom Our Lord directed these rebukes would eventually cry out: “Crucify Him!” (see Mk 15:13-14). Opposition, rebuke, and criticism — even fierce — are one thing. Genuine hate is quite another.

Opposing James Martin using any legally and morally licit means is not wrong. In fact, it is highly commendable. It is simply a kind of spiritual self-defense against a man who only has an infernal bridge to sell us.

Image source: composite with elements from unknown and international.la-croix.com (screenshot)
License: fair use