C-Fam has been doing a nice work of exposing pro-abortion and pro-sodomy activities, groups and individuals around the world. But now, its director Austin Ruse did a recent un-nice work of exposing one of our people — namely, Dr. Scott Lively —, accusing him as a “boogeyman” used by homosexualist groups. In his article “Anatomy of a Mythical Boogeyman,” Ruse employed indeed a mischievous ruse to justify a moral cannibalization of Lively and his reputation.
Gay activists are not really afraid of Scott Lively. They know he’s had little to no effect overseas. He is their invention, a vehicle to keep their base riled up and the direct mail checks flowing.
Based on rumors, Ruse also belittled Lively:
He has bummed around the pro-family movement for many years but has never really been accepted by the mainstream groups. I am told he does not work well with others. One major pro-family figure told me that Lively is just as happy attacking other pro-family people as he is going after the LGBTs.
A Catholic attacking an evangelical. Something new?
So if gay activists choose a valid victim (Catholic Ruse) to trash, we are supposed to defend him. But if they choose an invalid victim (evangelical Lively), are we supposed to trash him too?
Last year, Matt Barber (who is not an unknown leader in the pro-family movement) wrote an article published on WorldNetDaily (which also is not unknown in the pro-family movement) defending Lively:
“As did Christ, Scott Lively speaks absolute truth, in absolute love, with absolutely no fear of personal destruction or even death. He loves everyone, whether friend or foe, Christian or pagan, straight or gay. For example, Scott and his family took into their home and nursed, both physically and spiritually, the late Sonny Weaver, a former homosexual who died, as so many have, from AIDS – a natural consequence of unnatural behavior. Sonny became homosexual after being raped at 7 years old by a gay man in a local YMCA. He became a former homosexual after accepting Jesus as Lord of his life.”
Ruse’s boogeyman piece received an intelligent answer from a fellow Catholic named “bonaventure,” who said:
You do realize that the homofascist organizations like HRC, GLAAD, etc., refer to you no differently than they refer to Scott Lively?
Maybe Lively is “marginal” (i.e., has a small, unconventional, protestant/fundamentalist ministry, etc). And maybe he doesn’t get along too well with the more mainstream pro-life ministries (many of which opposed various state level Personhood amendments). So what? So what if he doesn’t share your humor, or doesn’t appreciate listening to Timothy Dolan’s “jokes” on different pro-life organizations’ board meetings?
You should have shown Scott Lively under a better light in your article, rather than scoff at him — which is no better than elevating him to be the chief boogeyman. Because, on the other side of the culture war, you are as much a boogeyman as Scott Lively is. In fact, you may even have your own “crimes against humanity” federal lawsuit badge of honor soon…
Seriously and without sarcasm: rather than presenting Scott Lively under the negative light as you did in your article (correct me if I am reading too much into it), you should have rather contacted him somehow, and joined him on a common front with whatever force and influence you actually HAVE.
Another reader, Nicola M. Costello, commented:
Why gratuitously trash Scott Lively, a leader on our side of the issue Mr. Ruse?
Homosexualist group GLAAD has a malicious bio sketch of Ruse, basically describing him as a version 2 of Scott Lively. Should now we treat Ruse as boogeyman 2?
Homosexual blog JoeMyGod, in a post titled “Austin Ruse To Scott Lively: You Can’t Sit With Us,” said about the Ruse-Lively imbroglio: “Delicious, delicious, delicious.”
In their ruses against Lively and in their “Crimes Against Humanity” lawsuit against him, homosexualist groups want a cannibalization of Lively and much more. Now will they use Ruse’s boogeyman piece as an evidence that pro-family groups are destructive and self-destructive?
In his answer titled “Taking ‘Friendly’ Fire,” Lively said:
“Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky taught his followers to 1) pick a target to be the symbol of their opposition, 2) freeze the target in place through unceasing propaganda, and 3) publicly destroy the target to set an example to those who oppose them. I’ve somehow become that target: the sacrificial scapegoat of the LGBT movement. And, short of a miracle of God, I will be publicly destroyed, if not through the ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ lawsuit then by some other means. If we have learned nothing else about the agitators of the modern LGBT movement, we know they are as relentless and implacable as their ancient counterparts in Sodom, who would not desist from their siege of Lot’s home even though they were struck blind by God.”
Above all, Catholics and evangelicals know, in their Bibles, that Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot survive. He said:
“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.” (Luke 11:17 ESV)
What about a pro-family kingdom cannibalizing itself? Can it survive?