Read DREADNOUGHTERS' Comments Below and/or Add Your Own V.R.S.N.S.M.V. + S.M.Q.L.I.V.B
So nice to see you firing away! I love all of the accusations of heresy. Canonically, are you allowed to make them?
Not making, repeating,
Not firing, loving.
Not drowning, waving!
Hmmm...
BTW - the Childrens' Crusade was in 1212.
Not sure what you mean?
What are you willing to die for Toby? What do you care about?
You noted I could only think of 20th century examples. The CC occurred in 1212.
Now there's a question that would overfill your comments box. I am not sure I see the relevance of my answer to anybody else either - that would be arrogant.
I didn't imagine your analogy could be serious.
Is it just me or has every candidate been labeled a hardliner/conservative by the media.
To all those commenters who try to persuade you that you can't be a good (or even adequate) Catholic because of homosexual desire - who say that you must place your sexuality before your faith - or, in cruder terms, your dick before your soul - at some point, you just got to let them know that they're chanelling for Satan. They may not know it. Hell (literally), they may. But they're nothing more than Satan's tool on earth.
They're not being "intellectaul" or "philosophical" or "reality-based," they're trying to tempt you with hard dick just like Eve was with the apple.
The struggle in the modern world is to maintain the primacy of the spiritual over the material. Anyone who tries to persuade you otherwise does not have your interests at heart.
Sorry for, as we say, the "adult content" of this post, but I'm telling like it is. Like I've heard it from those tools, too. Like you keep hearing.
The Church is by definition counter-cultural Troy, I suppose it's inevitable.
Thanks Gift. Deinon versus physis was a conflict known even to the Greeks.
All very interesting, dreadnought, but I've got to pull you up on two things.
(1)
The first is that you say: "Of course this does not mean that all non-Catholics are idiots. The Church rightly listens to the counsel of our elder brothers in faith, the beautiful Jewish people, and it confers when necessary for the peace of the world with the other monotheistic religions, namely Mohammedanism and increasingly Sikhism."
I'll ignore the thoroughly old-school use of the word "Mohammedanism", but what of Protestants? Catholics, you might recall, represent only half of Christendom.
(2)
There is one fundamental issue on which Pope Benedict will have to rework the Church's tradition: other denominations' access to Communion. I've laid out why I think that, but as a summary, I fail to see what in the Bible suggests that Communion is to be limited to those who follow the precepts of the inheritors of Peter? Christ gives the Lord's Supper, not anyone else.
in 1986 after former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now new Pope Benedict XVI, issued a letter to the bishops on the "pastoral care of homosexual persons." The letter described gays as "intrinsically disordered" and homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."
John,
Where did you get that awesome pic of Benedict on your header?
Its cool.
DN, according to your new "leader", you are intrinsicly morally evil.
And, for the record, I think I agree with him - you are.
Your views are poisonous to gay and lesbian people and your sexuality is an abomination to God.
You are NOT headed for salvation, my friend - be a REAL Catholic and either abstain completely or change your sexuality, but don't, for everyone's sake make yourself out to be a messenger of God.
No amount of Hail Mary's will get you out of the life you've created for yourself.
For how long are you going to carry on with the notion that you're really a good Catholic with mortal sins, without overcoming those sins?
You can't just continue to "try to overcome your sins" ad nauseum, whilst continuing to fuck men.
Your precious Ratsinger would likely give you a couple of chances (as the Catholic Church does with its paodophile Priests) and then kick you out on your ear.
As for your previous comments about condoms and barebacking - your Church doesn't approve of condom use - just ask the millions of Africans who have lost their mothers, sisters, fathers, children, etc. You say this rule doesn't include homosexuals because you're not meant to be having sex anyway... then practice what you preach, for fu*k's sake, and DON'T. Then, and ONLY then could you speak of being a true Catholic. Suffer, DN... suffer for your belief.
Your Church and it's leaders are committing crimes against humanity just as they did during Hitler's reign with their silence.
The only thing worse than a fool is an educated fool - you make me sick.
Don't worry - he's beyond even his own redemption as a righteous banker.
Inate homosexuality, pride and usury ... hmm - does not bode well for a catholic immortality.
Personally, I'm not going to get all bothered over the panzer pope unless all the kids at World Youth Day turn up in brown shirts.
My position on Protestants is the same as that contained within 'Dominus Iesus'. I suppose that means we listen to the Orthodox, then maybe the Lutherans and less frequently the Anglicans. Many other denominations are seriously deficient.
Re: communion, it is not limited to the followers of St Peter, rather the followers of Christ. Those who wish to be Christian and receive the Godhead under the two species must join Christ's Church.
Jay, from Google I think, I will check the source.
Jacktrade and Annoyed are representative of just the kind of voices that the Church can happily ignore and even polite society should shun. Hate, hate and more hate. The homoactivist lobby are just brownshirts in disguise.
Cole, WYD will be a tremendous outpouring of love and peace. Can you see Derrida or even Hillary Clinton getting that kind of turnout?
Jay, the source is now in the fly over txt box attached to the image mate.
John: Here's some hate, hate and more hate for you. You might remember these as you wrote them:
Andrea Dworkin a "obese, hairy, femmo-nazi should be remembered for being obsessed with rape".
Michael Shiavo's mistress a "whore".
"In my book...non-believers are more likely to be evil than other believers".
"It's the part of me that has learned, through thankfully minimal contact with the underbelly of the gay world, just how depraved and frankly dangerous many seemingly ordinary homosexuals really are. "
I could of course go on - and no doubt you'll counter each example I give - but it's painfully clear to me hate is what's in you heart, not just in those who disagree with you.
You do realize that if you're openly gay, you're not allowed to take communion, don't you?
I don't hate you or anyone else, DN. Just because I think you're young and foolish doesn't mean I hate you.
Hate the sin, not the sinner - remember?
Sam, I never said those things about Andrea Dworkin. The fact that you have misquoted me indicates that you are not interested in serious discussion, but in a slinging match. The latter bores me. Go troll at someone else's blog. We're all full up here. If you have an idea to contribute, then go ahead. I enjoy passionate debate
Downtown, you are mistaken. One who is openly or indeed privately in rebellion against the Church's teaching should not receive communion. Sexual oritentation, however, if you will consult the Catechism or any of the things I have written here, is morally neutral. Don't believe the homoactivists' lies.
Thanks for the condescension Annoyed, you wouldn't mind then if I characterised you as an aging sixities liberal and dismissed you in the same spirit?
I prefer to engage with individual's ideas, not with their ages.
How have I misquoted you when I've copied and pasted directly from your posting?
Pointing out your hypocrisy is not slanging, by the way. But OK, I'll take up your invitation and stop visiting.
Okay, I'm not catholic so you might have to explain this to me good and slow.
- you think homosexuality is a sin in a similar category to heterosex outside marriage
- but not a nasty enough sin to prevent salvation or exclude you from the catholic church or its communion
- you wouldn't advocate a law against homosexuality or that homosexuals be banned from being priests
- and you think that gay men should use condoms to prevent infection
- whereas heterosexual people shouldn't be allowed to use condoms to prevent infection (as they can also happen to prevent conception)?
- and abortion should be illegal?
If this is your position, (and let me know if it isn't) then why is it that in your rendering, homosexuality is a "personal" sin which simply requires spiritual contrition, whereas non-reproductive heterosex should be a "public" sin which comes with legal prohibitions?
Why do heteros have a duty to reproduce whereas you don't? Or more to the point, why do you have the right to enjoy non-reproductive sex whereas hetero women don't?
It looks like you are willing to swallow the hardline view when it comes to others (particularly women) but not regarding yourself. You're happy to paint most gay and lesbian people as sinful and depraved, but yourself as the model of the "good homosexual" living in a continual state of contrition. It is getting really difficult to see the arguments for the egos here.
"Highly evolved ideas".
Well, they haven't moved one inch since the dark ages from what I can see. I mean it, literally, not just gratuitously.
Something has happened to the commens function, trying to fix it...
Sam, don't sulk. And don't lie, the quotation in full, without your disingenuous editing was:
'It appears a particularly cruel legacy, however, that this obese, hairy, femmo-nazi should be remembered for being obsessed with rape...'
and indeed honest DREADNOUGHTERS know I went on to say Dworkin should be read and honoured. Similarly, you've taken me out of context with the other comments. Have you ever seen 'Frontline'?
The Catholic Church, via the agency of nuns and monks in dark cells by candlelight, preserved and transmitted the wisdom of the ancients in science, philosophy, math, etc. The Catholic Church sponsored and encouraged the Renaissance. Si at the forefront of medical research today, funds and operates cuttign edge hospitals, clinics and labs, etc., etc.
Stop parroting mindless slogans Martin and start engaging with the ideas. I know you have a brain, prove it to me mate.
SjuSju, now that is a comment worthy of the name! On the least point, you've got me wrong re ego. I have stated often and I state again, I am not any kind of example for Catholics. Indeed, I am a weak, stupid creature trying to listen to the Church in love. I don't think I personally have any answers at all, rather I submit to the teaching of others and test them with my mind.
Re: your other points, I am preparing a separate post to respond to your questions. Briefly, you've got me half right and you've asked some brilliant questions.
Thank you!
This article (link courtesy of saint) by an Italian journalist said to be well informed lays out some speculations on Benedict's papacy, including the intriguing suggestion (with some supporting evidence) that the Church may revisit its prohibition on condoms.
Mark, strangely enough, I deal with the 'double effect' principle alluded to in the minor section of the Chiesa article in my latest post.
Rather telling that you chose to highlight that section of a very long article.
If the Pope decides condoms are fine then I will submit to his will, but I am not holding my breath.
DN... I wouldn't mind if you called me "an aging sixities liberal" at all. I'm approximately half that age, so as you can see, your characterisation is incorrect.
On the other hand, I stick by my characterisation of you as being young and foolish - both of which you have lived up to quite admirably.
Yes, I came here via a link, Dreaddie, and I saw your post after I'd made my comment and thought it would have been more appropriate there but didn't want to double up.
I highlighted it because I thought it was interesting for a number of reasons.
I think there will be some surprises from Benedict.
As for this "Annoyed " person, if I may ...
It's like the old Smiths song, or dirge (which, I'm sure DREAD's too young to remember) "I Know It's Over": "It's so easy to hate / It takes guts to be gentle and kind"
You, Mr. Annoyed, are a coward. Ranting your hatred from the comfortable anonymity of the internet. What a big boy you are!
I said earlier in this comment thread that people who think like you are tools ... wittingly or unwittingly you re doing the dirty work of forces fo evil. Are you proud of yourself? Preaching that homosexually-inclined folks are beyond God's salvation. You're nothing but a Fred Phelps clone, wearing a different set of clothes.
I'm not beyond salvation. Dread's not beyond salvation. Are we doing all we need to do? Doubtful. But God doesn't demand perfection, only the lack of rejection. I hope you understand.
Homepage
I am not hateful, nor am I male. I'm simply highlighting DN's hypocrisy. I don't care that DN's a homosexual - what I do care about is that he continues to defend a Church which has been responsible for the death of millions of homosexuals throughout time and continues to cast them out based on who they sleep with. Then, DN has the audacity to say he's working on his mortal sin of fucking men - which he no doubt will do for the rest of his life. He obviously thinks it's okay for the new Pope to call him and all other gay and lesbian people "intrinsically evil" and even then, he STILL defends the Church. If he's fucking men, he's not a practising Catholic and shouldn't pretend, through this website, to be one.
He is damning all gay and lesbian people by defending this Chuch's homophobic stance and the truth is, his precious Church would cast him out based on who he sleeps with.
God may not demand perfection, but the Church does and while he continues to sleep with men, he is not a Catholic.
He's a hypocrite.
I hope you understand.
Annoyed, you just rant and rant and still have no new ideas, no constructive debate, not much of anything other than invective and hate.
Funny how the Christ-haters always demand a stricter interpretation of Church teaching than is actually the case. You overreach in your attempt to be earnest and convince no one with your nonsense.
I think you'll understand if I listen first to Christ and then to His Pope before I ever listen to flaccid interepretations of doctrine from an obvious anti-Catholic.
Your comments are so foolish it's not even worth engaging with them. One cannot engage with bile. One can only expel it.
DN... you cannot and never have adequately reconciled your ongoing mortal sins and your faith. I challenge you to do so - to truly explain how you can defend a Church that condemns what you are and continue to do. I suspect that you can't do it, which is why you haven't, to date. By challenging your faith, you must resort to seeing me as hateful - and I'm not. I am simply accutely aware of your hypocrisy.
I'll be very interested to see how your views evolve once you have another 10 years under your belt.
I can't help but wonder if you are full of self-loathing regarding your homosexuality - you constantly talk of the homosexual's evil lifestyle (meth, clubs, sex, etc) and yet you always talk of "them". The fact is, YOU are a homosexual - you cannot divorce yourself from your brothers and sisters because you're a Catholic. You ARE one of 'them' and you engage in acts that are "intrinsicly evil" (words of your Pope).
By supporting the Church so blindly, can you not see that you are calling your brothers and sisters intrinsicly evil, not to mention yourself?
Who does that help? Certainly not the young kid who is struggling with their sexuality - not the young kid who might kill themselves because the Church says they're bad.
Are you planning on a life of celebacy? Do you want to go through the rest of your 60-70 years without ever feeling the physical love of your partner? Do you want that for all homosexuals? Because, that's what you're advocating by supporting the Church.
What shits me about religion is the followers who live in sin and preach to everyone else - this is what you're doing. Until you're celebate, you have no right to preach to others or talk about "them" living sinfully, because, you, my friend are doing exactly the same.
Ha ha! I state and restate that I am homosexual. I am proud of what God has made.
You continue to deliberately mischaracterise the Church's teaching on homosexuality. You also display a worrying ignorance of the mechanism of confession.
My business is my business. This is not some porn blog where I catalogue what happens in my bed. I don't preach, the point of the site is to make sense of my homosexuality in light of my religion.
Please leave your preconceived prejudices at the door mate. I'm not some sort of repressed loser. Anyone can see that. If you cannot battle me on the real grounds, then don't bother setting up a straw man. You convince no-one.
I'm not sure if there is much need for convincing nowadays. It seems to me that the problem is hardly an intellectual conviction or understanding that needs to be articulated, but rather the testimony of witnesses who refuse to go quietly into the night, who refuse to be characterized by their weaknesses, and who announce with confidence that there is One who is more than they are and that He calls all of reality to Himself.
Personally, I think your site is fantastic. I won't pretend to "understand" you because I certainly haven't read everything you've posted, nor have I had the chance to meet you and talk to you (which of course can be rectified) but I can say one thing from a "first impression" of sorts . . . You've got balls. And balls are what it takes to be a Christian today.
Unfortunately most people (liberals AND conservatives) have reduced Christianity to a moralism. The conservatives try to follow the moralism and the liberals reject it, but both have committed the fundamental heresy of reducing Christ to a set of rules and dogmas and ideas.
If anyone here has even opened the gospels and read them they would be certain of one thing . . . sin doesn't keep you from Christ. In fact, the bible is full of stories of sinners who meet Jesus and then "go and sin no more." And so immediately people jump to the "sin no more" part and think that's the point.
Fuck that shit. The point is that they met Him and from there a long drama called "life" ensues. Some, like Mary Magdalene immediately leave their old life behind. In fact, it's often the women who do this, because of the receptivity to the divinity that they were created with. The men, like Peter and Thomas and Judas . . . their struggle is a little more intense, often replete with a few "quo vadis?" thrown in.
DN, I think you are an amazing witness to Christ and His church. Not because you're perfect . . . we have way too many people who think they're perfect already . . . no, I love you because you say "hey, I'm fucked up, and I want an answer to my life."
This is Christianity, in all its messiness, in all its brokenness, in all its transcendence. Because it is the drama of a life full of desire for happiness that recognizes that somehow this desire is attached to the one who said "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." The one who identified himself with what we can know to be true, and who says "if you are alive then I am present." He identifies himself with life . . . all its drama, all its weakness, all its power.
Keep at it dude.
Thanks Stephen! More comments at the other post...
Commenting by HaloScan
