More Dangerous Than This Parade?:
Soviet Tanks in Red Square
An evidently unhinged person exclaimed today that the first gay pride parade in Riga — all 50 marchers — represents a greater danger to Latvians than did the Soviet Union:
To a packed basilica holding tens of thousands of Catholics on Monday, Latvian Cardinal Janis Pujats warned that homosexual militancy is more dangerous than the militancy experienced by the war-torn country in Soviet times. “In Soviet times we faced atheism, which oppressed religion; now we have an era of sexual atheism,” he said. “This form of atheism is even more infectious and dangerous, spiritual values disappear in a swamp of sexual irregularity.”
Under Soviet rule many tens of thousands of Latvians were executed by the Soviet state. Thousands more were enslaved in the Gulag. Latvian national identity was almost extinguished.
More Frightening Than This Parade?:
Soviet Subjects on the Way to the Gulag
The cardinal’s bizarre and morally incomprehensible remarks were also reported in the Catholic World News and in Mosnews. The Baltic Times has a different story about the proposed gay pride parade in Tallinn, which won’t be banned, although, “A Narva-based member of Pro Patria wrote that it would be inappropriate to carry out the parade at a time when Estonia has been hit by a helicopter crash with fourteen victims.” Um, right….
Tom chided Latvian Cardinal Janis Pujats, who “warned” that homosexual militancy is more dangerous than the militancy experienced by the war-torn country in Soviet times.
Pujats claimed: “In Soviet times we faced atheism, which oppressed religion; now we have an era of sexual atheism,” he said. “This form of atheism is even more infectious and dangerous, spiritual values disappear in a swamp of sexual irregularity.”
I agree with Tom that this Pujats fellow is completely off base. But, to be fair, who better than a Catholic Cardinal is aware of “swamp[s] of sexual irregularity”?
RL
Repugnant.
I have to say that I think that Ross’s comment is more than a wee bit unfair. I don’t know whether the Latvian church engaged in the kinds of abuse or covering up of abuse of children that Cardinal Law countenanced in Boston. So I wouldn’t want to tar Mr. Pujats or the organization he runs. I would find it unjustifiable for someone to compare even the blatantly wrong behavior of that small percentage of priests in the Roman Catholic Church (and those who coverd up their crimes, such as Cardinal Law) with the horrors of Soviet occupation and the Gulag. Such a comparison of mass murder and heinous criminality with child abuse would be a sign of moral stupidity; how much more so when there are no victims at all, as in the case of people who just want to be with each other and to be left alone?
But I digress. I honestly don’t think that Ross’s point is a fair one, despite my frequent agreement with his views. Pujats’ remarks would be shockingly idiotic even if there were no cases whatsoever of sexual wrong doing in his church.
Well, it seems I have yet to master the difficult rhetorical challenge of irony…
RL
Point taken. I was merely so shocked by the trivialization of the evil of Soviet occupation by the morally challenged cardinal that I failed to see the irony. Sorry, Ross.
For the moment, I think Mr. Pujats should be thankful that he can have and express an opinion, and he is completely entitled to one. But going overboard with his affirmations is another thing.
I consider that the Church (not only the catholic one) should be reformed, because it’s not keeping up with the changes in the society, and ends up in dogmatic and ideological conflicts. It should learn to be more tolerant and let people exercise their free will without placing a stigmata on them.
The Catholic Church isn’t the only one where cases of sexual irregularity occured, so that subtle accusation is rather out of line.
Ovidiu,
I think you are right when saying Church should reform and adopt a more open-minded approach of life. However I do not believe Mr. Ross Levatter was accusing anyone of anything, let alone the Catholic Church of the unfortunate acts of some of it’s servants; he was just making a witty remark and pointing out that “the one totaly free of sins should be the first to throw the stone”;I personally enjoyed that.
And I thought the Church was ment for the sinners not for those without-sin, what good could it do to them? Isn’t Church supposed to be closer to the so-called “sinners” and try to bring them on the “right path”, not put more distance between them and “the right path” by criticising them? I’m just wondering…..
If you gentlemen will permit me, I hope to shed some light on why Cardinal Pujats would come to the conclusion he did, which can be summarized as: a sexual form of atheism is more threatening to the Church and society in general, than the overt threat from Soviet atheism.
First, I’d like to examine my understanding as to why Mr. Palmer and others in this forum would find the Cardinal’s thoughts offensive. Mr. Palmer, let me know if I am safe in assuming that you are either an atheist or agnostic when it comes to belief in God, particularly belief in the Trinitarian God. Based on that assumption, you would either deny or are uncertain about the whole concept of three of the four finalities that Catholics believe in. All can except death as a finality, but not necessarily God’s judgment, Heaven, or Hell which can only be reasoned in the human mind by faith. In light of this view, it is perfectly reasonable to categorize Cardinal Pujats’ comparison as “a sign of moral stupidity.” Without God’s judgment of sin as taught by the Catholic Church as a compass, one would have to use a different methodology of discerning lesser and greater evils. Using human political judgment without God’s revelation, it is right to determine that the political and economic tyranny, and mass murder of the Soviet gulag to be a grave offense to the rights and dignity of the people subjected. In the limited realm of politics, there is rightly nothing wrong with any sexual agendas whether homosexual or not. In other words the secular and political powers have no right nor any legitimate power to infringe upon the rights of these groups or individuals (this is a view I share with all other libertarians).
What needs to be understood about Cardinal Pujats’ view (a view a share as a Catholic) is that his reasoning is based on a given assumption based upon his faith. The Cardinal’s faith derives from the Catholic belief in the Gospel of the Incarnation, Resurrection, and complete Revelation of Jesus Christ. With that revelation comes an important given of four final things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. For the Catholic, the distinction between heaven and hell is Christ’s judgment of unrepentant mortal sin. As Catholics, we believe that if we die unrepentant and in a state of mortal sin, Hell (eternal death and damnation) will be our final judgment.
Based on the view of the final judgment as taught by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Pujats’ reasoning is not a sign of moral stupidity. In light of the spiritual battle the Church sees between man and the forces of Satan, the Cardinal’s conclusion is reasonable, but arguable. In light of the final judgment, which social and political force can sway more people and the faithful toward the bondage of mortal sin, an overt force like totalitarian communism or a more subtle movement like from certain political sexual agendas? Under which scenario can Satan claim more souls to mortal sin? In the Cardinal’s opinion, homosexual groups have much greater influence than the Soviet communists did. Even though the communists killed many Christians and physically destroyed many Church’s, while a homosexual advocacy group does no such atrocities, it doesn’t say anything about the communist’s effectiveness at enticing individuals to mortal sin as defined by Christ and His Church. It is the effectiveness of homosexual groups (including other sexual agendas, birth control, abortion, etc seekin sexual moral license) causes real fear for the Church in its ongoing battle for souls.
A good illustration of the Cardinal’s conclusion is a legend about a conversation between St. Francis of Assisi and Satan. Satan asks the saint, “what sin do you think I have claimed more souls with?” The saint ponders knowing the trickery of the devil, but eventually concludes, “murder.” Satan says, “That’s what most people think, but the vast majority of those who suffer eternal damnation are those who steal.” The point is that while man’s secular judgment rightly has greater penalties for murder than theft, they are both mortal sins in the eyes of God. Thus, without repentance, the merit is eternal damnation. The same goes for fornication, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, theft, or simply intentionally cursing the name of the Lord. Please note that while I condemn these sins as wrong (some of which I have personally engaged), I do not condemn those who engage in them. The Christian is not called to use the stone, but to use his heart to convert.
While I know you all may disagree with the Church’s definition of sin, at least understand how its definition could lead it a Cardinal to make such a conclusion, one I happen to agree with. I also understand that this view will be seen as bizarre, but the Christian view will always be unacceptable to the natural inclinations of man. I can understand this inclination, as I am a mortal man whose “spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” But with the demands of Christian charity I must condemn the sin, and not the sinner.
With my fellow sinners, I am commanded to love [agape] them, not merely tolerate them as Ovidiu Neacsu suggests. Toleration is not necessarily love. The secular virtue of tolerance, will not yield a Christian the kingdom of heaven, whereas the Christian virtue of charity will.
To those who suggest that the Church needs to get with the times do not realize that to do so, the Church would cease to exist. To do so, all the claims of the Church would be invalid. And if the Church did so, well then I might as well become an atheist.
At minimum, I hope I have been able to explain why a Christian could reasonably come to the conclusion of Cardinal Pujats.
Anca Rusu is right, the Church is of and for sinners.
Please understand how the Cardinal could reasonably make his conclusion based on the given assumptions of his faith. I am not asking that you believe these assumptions, just understand them.
It would be interesting to see what a gay Roman Catholic, such as Andrew Sullivan, would say about “sexual atheism”. It seems to me a rather excessive characterization even by RC standards.
My understanding is that the correct Christian view on salvation can be roughly paraphrased as follows:
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man goes to heaven but through Jesus who died on the cross for all man’s sins (i.e. good works and deeds alone don’t cut it). Unless man recognises what Jesus did and accepts Him as his/her personal saviour he will not have eternal life in Paradise. The *ultimate* mortal sin then is the rejection of Jesus’s sacrifice, if a mortal sin is what prevents man from being with God forever.
I would have thought on this basis that a bigger threat to man’s salvation is a regime that preaches (and has the power of force if needed) that there is no God, the very God one must repent to and follow in order to be saved.
“Isn’t Church supposed to be closer to the so-called “sinners” and try to bring them on the “right path”, not put more distance between them and “the right path” by criticising them?”
Dear Anca,
Regardless of Cardinal Pujats statements, it seems rather odd to me how one could ever try to bring “sinners” to the “right path” without criticising the behaviour judged to be sinful. Criticism and persuasion are not coercion.
Just as all those who disagree with the Church’s teachings should be expected to criticize Catholics so should Catholics be expected to criticize what they regard as sinful acts. Liberalism and moral relativism are not the same thing or even necessary parts of the same whole.
Very enlightening commentary by Casey Khan,although I disagree with the Cardinal’s (and Casey’s) conclusion.
To me, the most troubling aspects of the referred political movements are not the advocacy/support of particular types of sexual conduct between consenting adults (however sinful one may consider them to be) but their close relation with the socialist mindset (of which communism was the most terrible historical materialization).
Mr. Khan’s commentary was interesting, although not very compelling. Here’s a little test: If Mr. Pujats believes that a gay pride parade is more dangerous than Soviet communism and if, per impossible (at least, if you don’t believe in miracles) he were offered the following choice, which would he choose?
A) Riga will have no more gay pride parades and the Soviet Union will be resurrected and will reincorporate Latvia;
B) Riga will have an annual gay pride parade and the Soviet Union will not be resurrected and Latvia will continue as an independent and free nation.
If a gay pride parade is in fact a greater danger (and it seems from the context that the cardinal and others favored having the police break it up) than Soviet communism was, the cardinal would choose A. If that’s correct, there is a word, much out of favor in our modern relativistic age, to describe such people: evil.
To respond briefly to Casey Khan’s thoughtful comments, if this really is the Cardinal’s justification for his comments, then it rests on a fallacy. Namely, that gay activists are “converting” people to homosexuality or otherwise making homosexuality more common. The wider acceptance of gays in Western countries may have slightly increased the number of people who engage in homosexual conduct (or even those who merely sin in their hearts, to use Jimmy Carter’s phrase) but I doubt by much. The available evidence suggests pretty strongly, for men anyway, that homosexuality is biological in origin. It is more about gays being accepted for who they are and not being treated as second class citizens. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, it seems this agenda is not in conflict with Christianity, which condemns only sins and not sinners.
Moreover, I would imagine that Communist oppression has done far more to turn people away from Christianity than gay activism (here I’m taking the claim at face value that someone who “becomes” gay is violating the tenets of Christianity). Granting health benefits to domestic partners in gay relationships, after all, does not make sinners out of straight Catholics.
Mr. Palmer that’s a good test of how compelling my argument was, but I hope to show the errors in the test to defend the argument. You offer a number of conditional statements with a final necessary conclusion, which argues that if all of your sufficient conditions are met, then such people, like Cardinal Pujats, are evil. Thankfully none of your sufficient conditions are true or possible.
You offer an extreme binary choice which you admit impossible, especially if you don’t believe in miracles. So, according to your argument if one were to believe this binary choice to be possible, then one would believe in miracles (contrapositive of above). The problem here is that miracles are miscategorized as a possibility that one will be given a binary choice of only two evils. Miracles are properly understood (regardless of belief in them) as a “wonder of a particular kindÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦ performed by some supernatural power as signs of a special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God (Catholic Encyclopedia).” Thankfully under your test the binary choice cannot exist, and not only because of a lack of belief in miracles. Even with the belief in miracles, a binary test of evil is not something that can be ascribed to miracles. As such it is not possible that Cardinal Pujats would be offered in reality (whether of the believer or non-believer) the binary choice of two evils. Given the choice the Cardinal, assuming he is acting in accordance to the Magisterium of the Church, would have neither scenario A nor B offered by you, Mr. Palmer; to do so would be an evil act. Of course he may choose to have a free and independent Latvia, with no totalitarian regimes around, but that choice does not have to have another condition attached to it.
Going back to a simple model of your argument, if all these sufficient conditions are met, then people, like Cardinal Pujats, are evil. I have at least shown the contrapositive, that Cardinal Pujats is sufficiently not evil, because, necessarily, none of your conditions are even possible to meet. That was a fun test. (As a side note, no true believing Christian believes that any of God’s creation is evil, rather it is the choices made by His good creation that could be evil. This tenet is a great reality that helps not only in toleration, but love.)
Now moving beyond the test, I wish to comment on Mark’s assertion of a fallacy, “Namely, that gay activists are “converting” people to homosexuality or otherwise making homosexuality more common.” I do think that Mark is correct in criticizing this point, as my earlier comments may have pointed to a phenomenon of homosexual “conversion.” I did say that homosexual groups are more effective than communists at enticing individuals to mortal sin. To clarify the concerns of the Church in this matter, it is not so much to concern of enticement particularly to homosexuality, but much more of the concern that these groups are enticing people to believe that homosexuality is morally valid and permissive. To believe such (that a sin is morally permissive) would be heretical (dogmatic belief in something which contradicts Church teaching) and a mortal sin in the eyes of the Church. If homosexuality is considered morally valid under Church teaching, then so would all other sexual acts. Birth control, fornication, masturbation, and all other matters of adultery would be permissive. Thus it follows that those who are petitioning the Church for a homosexual permissiveness, is a real threat to the Church’s Magisterial teachings.
Why this case is relevant to the Cardinal, is in large part due to many taking part in the parade attend an Anglican service (http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/16Aug2005_news31.php). As the Cardinal says, “If gays and lesbians had gone to a church to repent their sins, we would have welcomed it. But this parade was intended to show off their sin. Why did they do it in a church? To show how absurd they are?” Although the service is with our separated brothers in Christ, the Cardinal is making a point about a very real trend that has come about not only within Protestant circles, but also in the Catholic Church. In the US alone, the Rainbow Sash movement is trying to get Church authorities to set aside Church teaching, by abusing and disrupting the sacred liturgy for their selfish ends. In some cases, rebellious priests and laity have set out campaigns for the Church to accept such immorality (to use some current examples: Jesuits at America magazine, and Mr. Andrew Sullivan). The Cardinal’s concern is for the Church, and he believes that the very real homosexual movements both inside and outside the Catholic Church and all of Christendom, are more effective at pulling away more souls to Satan, than are the communists. Put another way very influential and convincing individuals like Andrew Sullivan are much more effective than brutish communist thugs, at convincing the faithful that sin is really moral.
I look forward to the next test. (If anyone is interested in sexual ethics and the teachings of the Catholic Church check out John Paul II’s Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0819873942/qid=1124394111/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2048163-4464903?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Let me put the question in a slightly different form, omitting my regrettable mention of miracles. Miracles refer to occurrences that are otherwise impossible. The resurrection of the USSR is highly unlikely (miraculous in popular parlance), but not impossible. It would not require any act of the “supernatural.” So it would not require an actual miracle.
Real people have faced hard choices among “evils” many times. Posing hard choices is not unfair. I’ve posed a choice in a style compatible with the scholastic form of inquiry. It helps us to determine which among two options one really prefers, all else being held constant. Which would you or the Cardinal prefer: an annual gay pride parade in Riga and no USSR, or the rebirth of the USSR and no annual gay pride parade in Riga? It’s not a trick question. It shouldn’t even be a hard choice to make — for decent people, that is.
I think that the cardinal may be correct — in some sense — that gay pride is a bigger threat to the church than was Soviet communism.
Communism as practiced by the Soviets taught that the individual should be be unquestionably obedient to the hierarchy; so does the Catholic church.
On the other hand, gay pride — or any other sort of pride in one’s individuality — implies an utterly incompatible doctrine of individualism.
“Which would you or the Cardinal prefer: an annual gay pride parade in Riga and no USSR, or the rebirth of the USSR and no annual gay pride parade in Riga? It’s not a trick question. It shouldn’t even be a hard choice to make — for decent people, that is.”
You’re right that it is not unfair to pose a hard choice, but I think there need to be some more qualifiers on this choice. If you mean to make this choice as a positive endorsement of scenario A or B, then as Christians neither the Cardinal nor myself could take part in this choice. If the consequence of not making this choice, as a positive endorsement of either one, is death then as a Christian that is what we are called to face. Death to the world becomes a choice.
If you will permit the choice in the proper context of what the Cardinal and the Church are concerned with in this case, then yes there will be a choice, but the choice will be of which adversarial scenario would the Church prefer facing off with. In this context, I think the Cardinal would prefer to deal with the Soviet opponents as they made much easier adversaries (your second choice, rebirth of USSR etc). Hence his conclusion, “This form of atheism is even more infectious and dangerous, spiritual values disappear in a swamp of sexual irregularity.”
I also would think it to be easier to face off with the Soviet communists. But I think the greater challenge of facing off with the subtleties of political homosexual movements is preferable (your first choice) and more rewarding. That said, my preference of dealing with your first choice does not change my conclusion that they are a more formidable adversary in the battle for souls than the Soviets.
Also, in the proper context of chosing (prefering) an opponent, the Cardinal’s choice does not make him evil or lack the decency of civil society.
Choosing between two things one doesn’t desire is clearly not the same as endorsing one of them as being “good.” It’s just not as bad as the other. Smaller versions of such choices are a regular feature of life.
I simply don’t understand Mr. Khan’s penultimate paragraph: “I also would think it to be easier to face off with the Soviet communists. But I think the greater challenge of facing off with the subtleties of political homosexual movements is preferable (your first choice) and more rewarding.” Why is it preferable as a “greater challenge”? In any case, even if for inexplicable reasons, Mr. Khan makes the correct choice and predicts that the cardinal would make the choice of slavery, oppression, and murder in order to eliminate a gay pride parade.
We have a different conception of evil, then. If willingly choosing the imposition of mass murder, execution squads, slave labor, and the oppression and degradation of Soviet communism in order to rid Riga of an annual gay pride parade is not evil, what is?
Mr. Khan states:
“If homosexuality is considered morally valid under Church teaching, then so would all other sexual acts. Birth control, fornication, masturbation, and all other matters of adultery would be permissive”
First, I don’t think “permissive” and “permitted” are synonyms, and believe Mr. Khan means the latter.
Second, might I suggest, in the interests of comity, that although granted the Church opposes all these things, perhaps they might just want to focus for the time being on fornication, masturbation, and the use among Catholics of birth control. I suspect each of these occurs more frequently in the population than does homosexuality, so my recommendation allows the Church to economically marshall its forces, so to speak.
Then, after the Church has rid the world–or even that portion that pays nominal homage to the Church–of fornication, birth control and the dreaded evil of masturbation, it could once again focus on the evil of homosexuality. I suspect even gay advocates might find this suggestion an agreeable compromise…
Peaceably,
Ross L.
“Which would you or the Cardinal prefer: an annual gay pride parade in Riga and no USSR, or the rebirth of the USSR and no annual gay pride parade in Riga?”
As a libertarian with a conservative inclination I’m no fan of gay parades, but I would prefer a million of those to the rebirth of the USSR (or even to the establishment of a communist regime in Latvia).
“If homosexuality is considered morally valid under Church teaching, then so would all other sexual acts. Birth control, fornication, masturbation, and all other matters of adultery would be permissive”
I believe Mr. Khan meant “permissible”.
It is also worth noting that the Church admits “birth regulation” as long as it is done by methods which are in conformity with “objective criteria of morality”.
CCC 2368: “A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.”
“If homosexuality is considered morally valid under Church teaching…”
Another thing: it is very important for Catholics to distinguish between “homosexual acts”, which are contrary to natural law according to the Church’s teachings and “homosexuality” as such. As far as the inclination is concerned, it is considered a disorder, but one that calls for self-control and chastity, not necessarily leading to morally condemnable acts.
A final note on the subject of upholding the Church’s teachings: from my relatively regular contacts with Catholic clergy and theologians I regret that so many of them (fortunately not all) seem frequently more inclined to exclude people from the Church then to properly explain the Church’s positions in a manner that is as inclusive as possible.
One should never forget that mortal sin primarily derives its nature from its opposition to charity. Self-righteousness is almost always a dangerous path for the soul of all of us sinners.
“We have a different conception of evil, then. If willingly choosing the imposition of mass murder, execution squads, slave labor, and the oppression and degradation of Soviet communism in order to rid Riga of an annual gay pride parade is not evil, what is?”
Mr. Palmer, that was my original point, I was trying to illustrate to you that your ideals of morality are quite different from Christian ideals. In my first comment on this, I ask to seek understanding of your view on morality. To reiterate, I am assuming that your view does not take in to account 3 of the 4 finalities in Christian theology, namely Christ’s Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Your concern and understanding of morality is purely secular and political. From that point of view, it is natural to conclude that Soviet communism and oppression is far worse than a gay pride parade. In fact, from the limited sphere of politics and the human jurisdiction of justice, it is correct to call the Soviet gulag of mass murder a infinitely greater crime than a gay pride parade.
I would agree as a libertarian than in this limied sphere, that a gay pride parade is NO crime (I cannot attest this for the Cardinal, he’s most likely a statist). I would also agree that it would be evil to exact from human justice greater penalties on a gay pride parade than on mass murder, something which I think Cardinal Pujats would agree with as well. So assuming the limited sphere of human justice, I think Cardinal Pujats would agree with you Mr. Palmer that a communist dictatorship is a greater evil than a gay pride parade. From this limited world view your conlcusion is correct.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that neither Cardinal Pujats, myself, the Pope, or any other Catholic Christian looks at the world or morality soley from this limited view. Our view, while taking into account human justice, is also based on the four finalities of Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. From the view of the Kingdom of Heaven, which tactical measures of the Devil are more effective at seducing man, turning him away from God to mortal sin? Overt measures like Nazi and Communist dictators, or more seductive measures by groups pushing sexual immorality? I think all Christians would agree that seduction is a more effective tactical measure than overt assaults. This I think is the heart of the Cardinal’s, as well as John Paul II’s, lament against these movements.
So call Christians strange and bizarre because the assumptions are so. But please understand that there is no justification for accusing the Cardinal or any other Christian of “moral stupidity” or evil in this scenario. Based on the assumptions of Christianity, Cardinal Pujats’ reasoning, although arguable, is reasonable. Hence it is not stupid. If Cardinal Pujats only accepted a strictly secular view without the assumptions of Christianity then I think we can call such a conclusion “moral stupidity” and evil. Mr. Palmer, while your view of morality is limited to the secular, Cardinal Pujats’ and all other faithful Catholics is necessarily not.
Regards and have a good trip to MPS-Iceland.
Mr khan says: “Please note that while I condemn these sins as wrong (some of which I have personally engaged)”
This is something that I have noticed about religious people: even though they know that something is wrong, they sin, only because confessing in front of the priest resets their counter to 0 and gives them peace with themselves.
It is a wide spread fallacy, a misundestanding of the institution of the Confession.
“I think the Cardinal would prefer to deal with the Soviet opponents ”
As I said before, the Cardinal would find it rather difficult to express his opinions in the soviet communist regime, not to mention dealing with it. In order to have parishioners coming to his church, he would need one, and the people should be able to freely choose their religious identity.
Communism brought terror, disquised slavery, oppression. It took away any kind of freedom, including the freedom of speech, by shutting down people through violence.
It is such times that bring out the best in human beings, but they also bring out the worst in some of them. People would lie, sell their own family for their lives, they would spy and betray on their friends. One could not even speak of his own beliefs in front of his friends, this is how perverted the society becomes under oppression.
Nobody really knows how many churches were demolished, how many people were killed or how many childred have been turned into obedient robots.
I would surely prefer to be able to choose my sexual identity, even if I would have to live with the only heterosexual woman on earth than not being able to think or to act as I please.
Very interesting site! Cool site, good job!