AmericanPapist Comments
"The Holy See is furious at allegations made by gay activists in the UK that Cardinal John Henry Newman was a celibate gay man."
Umm... I didn't see anything in the article that indicated the Holy See was furious. Maybe the Mail knows something we don't? Or maybe they just like to pretend?
I'd like to see them do a writeup of the Pope doing mundane things. "Pope Benedict clenched the handle of the tea cup will all his strength, violently thrusting it toward his face before slamming it back down on the saucer..."
Apart from the ludicrous gays who claim that everyone is gay, why should we be angry?
If Cardinal Newman was gay, and practiced his faith by abstinence, then that is reason to rejoice and demonstrate that it is indeed possible to be gay and in communion with the Church and Christ's teachings.
Ok, one more time: Good faith obligates us to presume that not only did Newman avoid any homosexual activity, but also that he had normally ordered desires. The ONLY thing that should be entertained to change our minds is hard evidence. These clowns don't have any. What they have is a loopy metanarrative and their evidence doesn't even graduate to the level of salacious gossip. So we need to knock off the, "Well, gee what if? " stuff because we are playing someone else's sick game when we do.
Saying the Holy See is furious is a bit misleading. If he was a homosexual, but remained celibate, there's no reason to for the Holy See to be upset. As far as I can tell, no one claims that he was an active homosexual, only some silly assertions of his closet "gayness".
If he was a homosexual, but remained celibate, there's no reason to for the Holy See to be upset.
There certainly would be if there is no foundation for it, which there isn't. Can we puh-leeeze stop pretending that this is something other than people with an agenda wanting to piggyback on a canonization process with nothing more than sleazy innuendo?
The reason the Vatican needs to address this is to prevent the spread of this baseless rumor, which might, in the long term, undermine the impact of Newman.
Look at J. Edgar Hoover (not that there is ANY comparison between Hoover and Newman, but stay with me for a moment). Everyone "knows" that J. Edgar Hoover was a crossdresser - so much so, that if you ask people who J. Edgar Hoover was, more would say something about his crossdressing than about his tenure at the FBI, his defense of the country against communism, his modernizing of police work (such as the mainstreaming of fingerprinting by starting the FBI fingerprint database). Yet, there is absolutely no credibility to the claims of crossdressing. Effectively, J. Edgar Hoover has been relegated to the punchline of a sophomoric joke.
Unless the myth about Newman that certain lobbies are trying to introduce is addressed and soundly defeated, a similar fate potentially awaits this great, learned and holy man.
Unless the myth about Newman that certain lobbies are trying to introduce is addressed and soundly defeated, a similar fate potentially awaits this great, learned and holy man.
Excellent point and I'll add it will add precedent. Meaning that when anyone in the future is up for canonization, people will scour the writings looking for anything as ammo. If you have ever had to deal with someone obsessed with sex (of any persuasion), you know they have a junior-high locker-room ability to turn anything into a double-entendre. We win this game by not playing.
Commenting by HaloScan
