JAWOHL! BLITZKRIEG DER AMCHURCH, MEIN PAPA!!
VERITAS! VERITAS! VERITAS!
What is this crazy picture all about?
About that crazy picture:
Didn't Rod Dreher recently say what a lot of us had been thinking, that the next pope would have to be a General Patton in matters of governance? Well, General George Patton III fought nobly in Vietnam, and was slimed for his efforts by Duvall's parody of him in Coppola's gotterdammerung of self-hatred, "Apocalypse Now". I love the picture, thoroughly appreciate the reference, and rejoice at the sudden attack of moral clarity visited upon our princes of the Church.
I didn't realize the history behind the Duvall character, which is most interesting. Thanks, Ralph R-D!
I can't get to your son's Ratzinger fan site -- has it been overwhelmed by visitors?
Probably had to be taken down to be renamed the Pope Benedict XVI fanclub.
Pardon me. But I find the "crazy picture" posted to your website to be a very sad introduction to the election of the new pope. The radiance of love that flows from Pope Benedict XVI's presence in no way is akin to the arrogance portrayed in the "crazy picture" of Lt. Killgore in Apocalypse Now. For Heaven's sake: "the smell of napalm in the morning!" "Panzerkardinal!" "The Grand Inquisitor!" These are gastly images of brute power, power torn from the very heart of truth. They have nothing to do whatsoever with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the concrete life of a person, no matter how you intend them. It would seem your disposition to theology would find greater comfort with the thoughts and practices of that dear gentleman from Massachusetts, Cotton Mather, than with Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI.
Should you have an audience with the new German Pope, and explain to him the manner in which you greeted his election, I am certain he would be deeply offended. "Panzerkardinal," indeed!
I am a regular reader of Pontifications and a reporter for Agence-France Presse, in Rome to cover the papal story. I am putting together a blog reax roundup and would like permission to use Philip's. Could he please contact me urgently via email or on +35796 362602.
Albion, you have my permission.
Jerry, I understand some people don't appreciate my mix of piety and humor. Sorry about that. Panzerkardinal is what his enemies called him, a term of opprobrium. Grand Inquisitor has negative connotations from histories like Mel Brooks' films, but as for me and my house, we've read enough about Tomas de Torquemada to think about promoting his case for canonization, and "Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" (Ratzinger's previous title) is simply another name for "Grand Inquisitor." Soli Deo Gloria.
Panzerkardinal, no more! Panzerpapst!!!
As a recent convert to Catholicism, I was extremely nervous with this Conclave!
What a waste of anti-acid and aspirin! God has always guided His Church and He will always guard Her.
Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto!!!
I'm aware of the references you make to my comments above. I nevertheless appreciate the tone and texture of your response. I am grateful.
I stumbled across your site early this year -- as well as those of your sons. I check them daily. You, and they, perform an important service and one I greatly appreciate.
My only caution is that in exercising the art of communicating we not let exurberance tarnish the critical truths we are trying to illuminate.
In my work, I try to be guided by reconciliation -- but a reconciliation rooted in truth. We have a crisis of intellect, and of truth, in the West which is more fundamental than the moral crisis that captures our attention.
For this reason, it is not enough merely to state the truth. We must also go the extra step and try to intellectually reconcile those with whom we disagree. Through a process of refining and deepening our language and concrete witness, we can move ourselves -- and the nation -- forward, albeit slowly, hesitatingly, and painfully.
In the grand scheme, I am firmly persuaded that our responsibility is to bring the ongoing dialogue about the dignity and freedom of the human person to a place that does not yet exist in America. In this effort, one of our most precious assets will be those with whom we disagree.
Their presence is the Holy Spirit's gift to us precisely because they help move the dialogue forward to deeper insight, more refined logical articulation, and a more concrete expression.
Having said all that, I'm fully confident that the Holy Spirit will suffuse the Church with a wisdom that not even the brightest among us will foresee or comprehend.
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning ... The smell -- you know, that gasoline smell -- the whole hill -- it smelled like ... victory."
... what a frankly disgusting image to use to celebrate the election of a supposed holy man. To reply on your own terms, however, what I and many other liberal Catholics are smelling with this election are the rotting corpses of Africa's children who have been given a fresh death sentence with this conservative stitch-up.
BLITZKRIEG DAS DUMKOPFEN VON AMCHURCH, BITTE! SCHNELL! SCHNELL!!
"loveehandles"
Pope Benedict Dead African children
Yes, the connection is obvious...
The fact that our dear Holy Father is so hated is a wonderful sign of Christ's presence in his Church [The world hated the Lord and also hates His faithful disciples]. His enemies hated Pope Wojtyla, too, and hate him even more.
Long live Pope Benedict!
What about Uganda?
What are these "liberal" Catholics everyone keeps referring to? LIberalism is a proscribed heresy. Are there also Arian Catholics, and Nestorian Catholics, and Pelagian Catholics, and Protestant Catholics?
Brother, I rejoice with you as well. In my heart I love Cardinal Arinze because he was Baptized and Confirmed by Blessed Cyprian Tansi in Nigeria; and also Cardinal Housar because I am Ukrainian and my uncles knew him--but Benedict XVI is so comforting to me, and I know that the holy Spirit has chosen him because he alone can man the helm of our ship through these turbulent waters. His homily the day before he was elected showed the world that he was willing to defend Truth, depsite the heresies of the world.
I too am trying to get on your son's website but it's crashed!
But please brother, that opening picture and quote are so unfitting as these others have noted. If anything, all they do is give more fodder for those enemies of the Church who are already calling our holy new Pope horrendous things because of his nationality and history as a youth. (How they could do that I have no idea--our blessed Pope risked death to desert the army, but, you know how these people think....)
It would make sense to replace the first photo with the photo of our new Pope.
VIVA IL PAPA!
Pax et Bonum.
*LOL* so liberalism is a prescribed heresy now? Jerry Falwell would be proud of you!
Might I remind you that the last Pope turned a blind eye to an awful lot of "liberal" practices ... he avoided making the use of contraception in Western Europe a major issue (but not in Africa, I wonder why?) ... and in Africa itself he turned a blind eye to local priests who could not quite keep their vows of chastity ... and on the matter of protecting paedophile priests in the USA I will say nothing.
Furthermore, if I recall correctly there have been several instances of Popes overturning the supposedly "infallible" teachings of their forebears, and I confidently predict that the same will happen again with regards to contraception, women priests, and married clergy. Of course the time may not be right now for this spiritual evolution, but it will come.
I do not hate the new Pope, any more than I did the last one. But I do feel pity for the millions of people in the 3rd world, the Catholic women, and the clergy who might be effected by the continuation of the so-called doctrinal purity espoused by conservatives within the Church.
(Insert suitably pompous Latin phrase here)
Lovehandles,
Perhaps you should check out ECUSA. No one there will tell you what to believe about anything at all!
BTW -- your recollection is incorrect. No infallible teaching has ever been "overturned." Cough up an example or move on.
Tom C, and what about the blind eye turning? I take your silence as agreement *G*
lovehandles,
It's not the Pope's job to micromanage what is going on in every parish. That is primarily task of the local clergy and especially the local bishops.
Though I would have liked to see JPII get more involved in many of these issues, it has no relevance as to Church doctrine.
Failure to discipline never equates a change of doctrine.
As for examples of the infallible authority of the Pope being overturned, I would draw your attention to the infamous case of Pope Sixtus V and his supposedly infallible Bible.
In 1590 Sixtus declared that, "By the fullness of apostolic power we decree and declare that this edition [of the Bible], approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching, and explanations."
Unfortunately the book was full of blatant errors, which scholars dared not openly criticise for fear of being excommunicated. Only after Sixtus' death was the version discretely decomissioned by his successor Bellarmine, who in his autobiography stated that those errors had been deliberately introduced by Sixtus himself!
So much for Papal infallibility. Next question, please.
John Paul II would have been fully aware of what was going on in Africa and the USA. He could easily have instructed local bishops to intervene. Its just a cop out to claim otherwise.
The example given of tells nothing against infallibility. For convenience's sake, I'd be obliged if I could get the source of the quotation.
It provides no example of an infallible teaching of faith and morals.
It gives no example of that infallible teaching being changed.
It also provides no ex cathedra statement, no infallible statement of the ordinary magisterium, or no argument why the approval of a biblical text is to be considered "infallible" or irreversible.
As the poster hopefully is aware, infallibility does not mean every decision or teaching of the pope is infallible, or necessarily the right prudential decision, the privilege is more limited than that.
Consequently, I don't see how the example given is any example of teaching on faith and morals being changed, or a negation of "infallibility." The decision does not satisfy the requirements of an ex cathedra decision. Whatever one thinks of it, it is not relevant for this discussion.
Cheers.
lovehandles,
The 1590 translation put togehter by Sixtus was NEVER officially promulgated or released. Nor, as Brier has pointed out, does the 1590 translation fit within the scope of infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council.
What JPII should or shouldn't have done as a disciplinary matter is not the point of this thread. All Popes can be criticised for taking or not taking particular actions. That tells us nothing about doctrine.
You are obviously a protestant, and so I wonder why you are so bothered by the election of our Pope.
Only after Sixtus' death was the version discretely decomissioned by his successor Bellarmine, who in his autobiography stated that those errors had been deliberately introduced by Sixtus himself!
St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine was never the "successor" of Pope Sixtus, as he was never elected to the Supreme Pontificate. Moreover, he taught the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks "from the chair" (see Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council 1869-1870), so clearly he knew that this incident, with which he was intimately acquainted, did not disprove Papal Infallibility.
Brier, I am aware that only "ex cathedra" statements are considered to be infallible. Therefore here are some examples of Papal error in this area, concerning Galileo and the Assumption of Mary:
(1) One place where an infallible Pope made a very serious, fallible error, was in the condemnation of Galileo's proposal that the earth was not the center of the universe, but only one small planet rotation around one small sun. The Pope felt very secure in thinking that this theory contradicted the plain words of scripture, he had no problem in condemning it.
So, what happened? In the year 1609, Galileo, after studying the works of Copernicus, studied the heavens through a telescope. He discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe, but only a small planet rotating around one of perhaps millions of suns. Galileo observed the planet Jupiter, and the fact that its satellites revolved around that planet, not around the earth.
A sincere believer in Scripture, Galileo began to suspect that then-current interpretations of Scripture with respect to earth and sun were incorrect. He said as much in a 1613 letter to Castelli, a professor at the university at Pisa. This letter came to the attention of the Pope, and thus began the great debate. Having discovered that the Roman Catholic doctrine that the earth is the motionless center of the universe was false, he de-facto challenged Papal authority in a matter of 'faith and morals.'
Thus did Galileo encounter the Roman Catholic office of Inquisition. Rome's initial rebuttal was that "The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered at least erroneous."
So here we have an official, 'ex-cathedra' declaration by a pope, regarding the content of Holy Scripture. This 'infallible' ruling was binding on all. It was also very wrong!
(2) Next up, we have the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. However, in 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius had issued an "ex cathedra" decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring a doctrine (which was later to be accepted) to be a heresy!
Many Catholic theologians have had a problem with the doctrine of papal infallibilty, the most famous perhaps being Kung. This is hardly surprising when you consider that in 1864, for example, Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscie
... Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate".
This seems to go against the idea of "free will", dont you think?
"*LOL* so liberalism is a prescribed heresy now? Jerry Falwell would be proud of you!"
No, it's a proscribed heresy, not a prescribed one. You, of course, would prescribe it, but God condemns it.
"Might I remind you that the last Pope turned a blind eye to an awful lot of 'liberal' practices ... he avoided making the use of contraception in Western Europe a major issue (but not in Africa, I wonder why?) ... and in Africa itself he turned a blind eye to local priests who could not quite keep their vows of chastity ... and on the matter of protecting paedophile priests in the USA I will say nothing."
Why do you act as if you think it is wrong for priests to sexually abuse people? Liberalism and sexual morality are like oil and water. If you believe contraception is not sinful, then you have no grounds to object to ANY sexual sin, no matter who commits it with whom.
"Many Catholic theologians have had a problem with the doctrine of papal infallibilty, the most famous perhaps being Kung."
On the contrary, there have never been any Catholic theologians who have ever objected to the doctrine of papal infallibility. Of course, there have been many FORMER Catholic theologians who've done that.
"Pope Pius IX 'infallibly' declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship as 'insanity,' 'evil,' 'depraved,' and 'reprobate.'"
See? There you go -- liberalism is a proscribed heresy, just like I said. You're not as ignorant of the Catholic faith as you seem -- you just reject the Catholic faith, that's all.
"Next up, we have the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. However, in 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius had issued an 'ex cathedra' decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have 'infallible' popes declaring a doctrine (which was later to be accepted) to be a heresy!"
Sorry, but you need to do your homework. Gelasius' decree, which was not ex cathedra, did not condemn the doctrine of the Assumption. Rather, it listed spurious and heretical books (kind of an early form of the Index of Forbidden Books), including some that purported to relate the story of the Assumption. Same with Hormisdas. They didn't condemn the doctrine, just forbade the spurious books.
Really, do you think the Popes are so dense as to not even check to see what previous Popes have said before decided to define a dogma?
"Brier, I am aware that only 'ex cathedra' statements are considered to be infallible."
Nope -- infallibility does NOT only apply to ex cathedra statements. The Church is graced with infallibility both when she teaches extraordinarly AND ordinarily. All faithful Catholics believe in the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.
Jared, Jared ... *sigh*
"No, it's a proscribed heresy, not a prescribed one. You, of course, would prescribe it, but God condemns it."
You know nothing about me, but thanks for correcting my spelling oh great one! Makes you feel good, right?
"Why do you act as if you think it is wrong for priests to sexually abuse people?"
Because it is wrong! Do you think otherwise?
"Liberalism and sexual morality are like oil and water."
This is a political statement. Do you have any statistical proof that "liberal" priests and lay people are more sinful than conservatives?
"Of course, there have been many FORMER Catholic theologians who've done that."
Former according to your definition, not theirs!
"See? There you go -- liberalism is a proscribed heresy, just like I said."
You would make a great infallible pope, Jared!
Poor conservatives, so full of doctrinally led bile towards "liberals" ... I do hope you will accept the "liberal" Pope who is to come ... *S*
oh, and Jared, what about Galileo? *S*
I'm with many previous posters here-- the "Apocalypse Now" reference is bizarre and incongruous. I think it's disingenuously obtuse of you to claim that it's simply there as "humor", as if those who object to the inclusion of brutal and savage imagery as part of a discussion about a Christian figure are being unreasonably touchy. Please.
You are being disrespectful to your audience and confusing your own message. To my mind, you are either afraid to own up to your viewpoint, taking refuge in rhetorical confusion or you are simply inept at expressing yourself. If the only value of your reference is to be funny, it isn't very funny at that. Nor is it particularly clever.
I think it's significant that you use the pop reference of a movie, whose stylized portrayals posses glamorous stylizations and an objectified depiction of the violence and horror of war. We are inured to the the content of movies by virtue of conditioning. Consider a moment if you instead were to include a poignant quotation from Heart of Darkness. Suddenly it's not so funny, is it? Or maybe it would be to you, as you've already demonstrated an off-color and insensitive mentality.
You would be much better served by simply assuming the stance that your inclusion of such material suggests. From what I can tell, you think the Catholic church has become too inclusive and tolerant of "liberal" ideas and values, particularly in America. This is a perfectly valid viewpoint, and I don't dispute it. It is a theological question of supporting Roman Catholic dogma and tradition. Your pope dictates the standards of your observance and the behavior of his followers, and does so from the top down. So what's the big deal? Roman Catholicism is not a path of elective observance or a product of enfranchised popular representation (unless you happen to be a cardinal). In short, when it comes to being Catholic, you either Take It or Leave It.
That doesn't excuse or explain the offensive content of your post. Seems to me that a Catholic would be more interested in why so many of his brothers and sisters in faith feel abandoned by the head of their church, and seek to foment understanding and wisdom, not sow discord and sound his little trumpet of victory and judgement. How reassuring it must be for you to be free of fault.
I have a bible at home, where all the words Jesus said are highlighted in red. It's a funny thing, he never mentions a lot of this crap. It's almost like it wasn't important...
Leaving It
Regarding Galileo, here is the short version:
- The 1616 condemnation of Galileo's Copernicanism was a juridical decision of the Congregation of the Index, which does not have dogmatic authority.
- The 1633 condemnation was not concerned so much with any science or doctrine, but rather with the fact that Galileo had manifestly violated his 1616 sentence. Plus, it didn't even receive the pope's signature.
Neither of these was an "ex cathedra" decision.
To expand a bit, it was not exactly the Copernican system that Rome disagreed with. Copernicus himself was never condemned, and his "Six Books on the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres" was published at the instigation of a number of high-ranking churchmen, and was dedicated to Paul III (presumably with the pontiff's permission), in order to protect it from criticism within the academic/scientific community. It was put on the index in 1616 (as a result of Galileo's first trial), but with the proviso "dum corrigatur" ("until it should be corrected). The corrections demanded were that five or ten sentences which presented the Copernican system as proven be altered so that it be presented as a possible hypothesis. That's it. The changes were made in 1620, and publication was permitted (although it was not formally removed from the index until the mid-18th Century).
The big problem was not that the Copernican universe contradicted the Bible, but rather that something contradicting the Bible was being taught as if proven, when there was not sufficient scientific evidence to back it up. Galileo’s evidence was something of a mixed bag. The moons of Jupiter and the phases of Mercury and Venus were both pretty strong evidence of heliocentrism, and sunspots were a good argument against the incorruptibility of the sun. But he ignored Kepler’s laws (which had been published by 1609), he argued that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon; and some of his other proofs were very dubious – for instance, he used the tides as one of his proofs for the motion of the earth, ridiculing Tycho’s suggestion that they were the result of some influence of the moon (as would later be demonstrated by Newton’s theory of gravitation). So the Cardinals found it objectionable as a scientific theory, not just on the basis of scripture, and were concerned to permit the spreading of (what they saw as) an unscientific theory which seemed to contradict the Bible. They were willing for it to be taught & debated as a theory among scientists, until such time as there might be sufficient proof – St. Robert Bellarmine himself said in a letter to one of Galileo’s associates that they should be content to be asked to demonstrate that their system explains all celestial phenomena, before simply categorically asserted, and that if it were fully proven, “then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of scripture which appear to be contradictory, and should rather s
and should rather say that we have misunderstood these than to pronounce that to be false which has been proven.” (Letter to Foscarini, April 12, 1615). The concern became particularly grave in light of the fact that Foscarini & Galileo were publishing their arguments in Italian, so that those without sufficient training to make reasonable judgment were being presented with this not-yet-proven theory as if it were fact.
In any event, I’m not suggesting that the condemnation was right; it clearly wasn’t (I could point out that, in fact, Galileo was wrong, and the sun is not in fact the center of the universe; but that would be a fantastic piece of sophistry & misdirection on this point). I’m just trying to contextualize things a little bit, because we have inherited a long tradition of post-Enlightenment anti-Catholic propaganda which tries to pitch these things as “big bad Churchmen stomping out the brilliant advance of scientific progress.”
I have to agree that the Apocalypse Now reference is both in horribly bad taste and is, frankly, really dumb. Pope Benedict does not need a lot of macho super-Catholics going around bragging about how he's going to put a smack-down on heresy. That feeds into the liberal propaganda wholesale.
For Pete's sake, would all the "poor taste" folk lighten up?!? This is a blog: some edgy irreverence is part of the game... game, as in, do not make all the associations literal ones. Catholic online apologetics suffers from over-seriousness (witness these posts) or poorly-realized humor (envoy). This site is such a relief, and so fantatsic. Thank you Mr. Blosser.
AND THANK YOU LORD, FOR A CONCLAVE I NEVER, EVER WOULD HAVE DREAMED POSSIBLE!
Praise God! PRASIE GOD! *PRAISE GOD!*
And bless and fortify the ministry of one only human, former Cardinal, Josef Ratzinger.
Amen.
"You know nothing about me,"
Other than the facts that you referred to yourself in your first post above as a liberal Catholic, and have espoused the heresies that contraception is not immoral and female ordination is not only possible by required, no, I don't know much about you.
"but thanks for correcting my spelling oh great one!"
You're welcome. I always try to be helpful.
_"Why do you act as if you think it is wrong for priests to sexually abuse people?"_
"Because it is wrong! Do you think otherwise?"
Of course not. I'm just wondering why you don't have any problem with the sexual sin of contraception but you have a problem with sexual sins committed by priests. After all, there's hardly any logical reason to object to sexual misconduct of any sort if you think contraception is not a sin.
_"Liberalism and sexual morality are like oil and water."_
"This is a political statement."
Is it? I thought it was a statement having to do with religious and moral principles. Liberalism is about the unfettered will of the individual. Sexual morality requires the fettering of the will of the individual.
"Do you have any statistical proof that 'liberal' priests and lay people are more sinful than conservatives?"
Why do you ask? Does it necessarily follow that because liberalism is opposed to Christian moral principles, liberals will be more sinful than non-liberals? Sin is a spiritual problem, not a political one.
_"Of course, there have been many FORMER Catholic theologians who've done that."_
"Former according to your definition, not theirs!"
You seem to think too highly of me. I'm just a lay Catholic, one among a billion. It is the Church herself, not just me, who has said they are no longer Catholic theologians. Kung himself has been stripped of that monicker.
"You would make a great infallible pope, Jared! "
Thanks, but I'm afraid I'm not able to be ordained a bishop, so you'll have to put your hope in someone else.
"I do hope you will accept the 'liberal' Pope who is to come."
Oh, but if a liberal ever were elected Pope, he'd face only two options -- become orthodox, or die. The Holy Spirit would never let him destroy the faith.
"oh, and Jared, what about Galileo? *S*"
What about him? What does his case have to do with the doctrine of papal infallibility?
"Pope Benedict does not need a lot of macho super-Catholics going around bragging about how he's going to put a smack-down on heresy."
Oh, I don't think he's going to put a smack-down on heresy. I expect he will do his duty and oppose it to the best of his ability. But I thought the Apocalypse Now stuff was pretty funny. Perhaps I don't take myself seriously enough.
One problem with the Apocalypse now quote is that it directly contradicts what Blosser said in an earlier article (replete with a big photo of some guy from Cheers in an Oliver Stone movie) about the so-called "Culture of Death":
"People were offended when Pope John Paul II referred to ours as a "culture of death." Yet who can possibly contend that we are not head over heels in love with death? Our love affair with death comes out in the violence of the action movies we love, our television programming (both of which consume unquestionably too much of our time), our guns, our language ..."
Maybe Blosser should read his own articles sometimes? Too funny ...
I guess death is okay when we decide who dies: Iraqis can die, but US soldiers cannot, African children can die, but a vegetable like Terri Schiavo cannot etc etc ...
Jared,
"Liberalism is about the unfettered will of the individual"
... taken to its extreme that may be true, but I dont think even you could accuse the "liberal" Portugese cardinal who warned of the "cold hand of doctrine" of having surrendered to the unfettered will of his desires ...
... and are you honestly suggesting that morality only exists within the conservative wing of the RCC?
You need to get out a little, theres a big world out there, you might even like it!
I have come to this blog through The Guardian - oh dear, I am one of those people I suspect you would call a 'secular fundamentalist', if it was you I heard on BBC Radio 4 yesterday. The liberal founding fathers of America must be turning in their collective graves. John Adams, if the biography I have just read is any guide, would be appalled at your intolerance of other peoples' views - even from within your own church! Then again, I suppose he was one of those heretical protestants, wasn't he?
As for the picture on the blog, and as we're all having a laugh, isn't the chap wearing the wrong uniform?
"Maybe Blosser should read his own articles sometimes? Too funny ..."
And maybe you need a new sense of humor or something?
"I guess death is okay when we decide who dies: Iraqis can die, but US soldiers cannot, African children can die, but a vegetable like Terri Schiavo cannot etc etc ..."
Um, "we" decided that Terri Schiavo must die -- she didn't just suddenly die with no apparent cause. She was snuffed out, tortured to death, because she was deemed to be life unworthy of life. Now, if you really think Terri Schiavo should have been tortured to death, then please stop your posturing about Iraqis being killed or African children dying. If you think Schiavo's murder wasn't immoral, then you obviously can't have any moral objection to the deaths of Iraqis and African children. In fact, you really ought to be applauding them.
_"Liberalism is about the unfettered will of the individual"_
"... taken to its extreme that may be true,"
On the contrary, that's its very essence. That's why liberalism has always opposed Christian morality.
"but I dont think even you could accuse the 'liberal' Portugese cardinal who warned of the 'cold hand of doctrine' of having surrendered to the unfettered will of his desires ..."
Which teachings of the Catholic Church does this Portugese cardinal deny?
"... and are you honestly suggesting that morality only exists within the conservative wing of the RCC?"
Of course not. Anyone who read my words would know I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying that liberalism is contradictory to Christian morality. I'm also opposing the attempt to impose secular political categories on the Church. We don't have "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics. We have unfaithful and faithful Catholics.
"You need to get out a little, theres a big world out there, you might even like it!"
I've been there, and found it extremely cramped and stifling to the soul. The Church, on the other hand, has turned out to be infinitely larger, wider, roomier, loftier, than the big world out there. I would invite you to get out of your shackled template and thought and action and give the Church a try -- you might even like her!
"And maybe you need a new sense of humor or something?"
You appear to have Veritatis splendor so far up your ass that you forgot how to laugh *S*
"Um, "we" decided that Terri Schiavo must die -- she didn't just suddenly die with no apparent cause. She was snuffed out, tortured to death, because she was deemed to be life unworthy of life. Now, if you really think Terri Schiavo should have been tortured to death, then please stop your posturing about Iraqis being killed or African children dying. If you think Schiavo's murder wasn't immoral, then you obviously can't have any moral objection to the deaths of Iraqis and African children. In fact, you really ought to be applauding them."
This is sophistry of the most pedantic kind. First up Schiavo wasnt "tortured" in any literal sense (she could feel nothing) or "murdered" under any legal definition of the term (her life support system was simply discontinued). If she wasnt murdered or tortured, there is no valid comparison to be drawn between her and the millions of Africans who are dying because Catholic conservatives cant get used to the fact that in the real world people have sex. Ok, it might be sinful, but thats the reality, and by not preventing the little children from suffering you yourselves are committing the greater sin.
"On the contrary, that's its very essence. That's why liberalism has always opposed Christian morality."
Aha, NOW I see what you are doing! You are creating a straw man by equating liberalism with "liberal catholics" : of course any fool knows that philosophical liberalism is generally antipathetic to religion and vice versa. So lets make it nice and easy for you : "liberal catholics" are not the same as philosophical liberals.
"Which teachings of the Catholic Church does this Portugese cardinal deny?"
Maybe you could answer that one for yourself? What do you think he meant by the "cold hand of doctrine"?
"Of course not. Anyone who read my words would know I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying that liberalism is contradictory to Christian morality."
Here you are still talking to the straw man that you created yourself to discredit "liberal Catholics".
"I'm also opposing the attempt to impose secular political categories on the Church. We don't have "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics. We have unfaithful and faithful Catholics."
I would be an unfaithful Catholic in your eyes than turn a blind eye to suffering. Its a conscience thing, have you ever heard of one of those things?
"I would invite you to get out of your shackled template and thought and action and give the Church a try -- you might even like her!"
This is just garbled nonsense - would you like to put it into grammatical English for me, please?
correction:
I would RATHER be an unfaithful Catholic in your eyes than turn a blind eye to needless suffering. Its a conscience thing, have you ever heard of one of those?
Caput tuum in ano est
lovehandles
Joe,
If someone made a joke about abortion, would you lighten up? If someone made a blasphemous joke about the Virgin Mary, would you lighten up? Militarism is an expression of the culture of death. It is not funny, unless it is being ridiculed.
"If she [Terry] wasnt murdered or tortured, there is no valid comparison to be drawn between her and the millions of Africans who are dying because Catholic conservatives cant get used to the fact that in the real world people have sex. Ok, it might be sinful, but thats the reality, and by not preventing the little children from suffering you yourselves are committing the greater sin."
Yes, people in the world have sex. Even Catholics do sometimes. But people in Africa aren't dying because they're having sex, they're dying because they're having irresponsible sex, for the most part. Not to mention the fact that condoms can fail, even if they were moral. Uganda is a case in point - they have been vigorously promoting abstinence, and guess what? They have the lowest rates of AIDS in Africa. A coincidence? I find it ironic that liberals are the ones promoting contraception in Africa when it is so contrary to the culture there, which welcomes and celebrates children. The same people who decry "cultural imperialism" are now doing it themselves.
At any rate, people holier than I have said that a single moral evil is worse than any physical evil. Is it OK to do something immoral to prevent another evil - to kill an innocent child, for example, if that would stop an earthquake? The end does not justify the means. If the pope allowed condoms, how would this stop AIDS? Their use hasn't stopped it so far, in fact it's increasing in those countries where condom use is high. And anyway, I've always wondered why liberal Catholics are so concerned that the pope is against this since (a) he's totally irrelevant to the modern world, (b) no one (except pathetic self-styled "Conservatives" like us) listens to him anyway, and (c) supposedly the teaching will change as soon as we get a reasonable pope in office.
I've also wondered why there's disagreement with the pope mainly, if not only, on sexual morality. I mean, the Church got it right with 9 out of the ten commandments. No one is agitating for making stealing, lying, or murder suddenly OK (well, there seems to be some disagreement about the last one). But with the 6th commandment - boy, somehow, the Church really dropped the ball on that one. If the Church can't be trusted on that, why trust her on anything else?
"You appear to have Veritatis splendor so far up your ass that you forgot how to laugh *S*"
On the contrary, I've been finding you spectacularly hilarious.
"First up Schiavo wasnt 'tortured' in any literal sense (she could feel nothing)"
How do you know she couldn't feel what her murderers did to her?
"or 'murdered' under any legal definition of the term (her life support system was simply discontinued)."
Yes, but we Catholics put God's law and the natural law ahead of man's law. An evil law is no law at all.
"If she wasn't murdered or tortured, there is no valid comparison to be drawn between her and the millions of Africans who are dying because Catholic conservatives cant get used to the fact that in the real world people have sex."
But since she was tortured and murdered, and you say what was done to her is good, you have no right to complain about Africans dying of AIDS as a result of sexually immoral acts that you say are moral. In fact, you have their blood on your hands as a result of your approving of the sinful acts that spread AIDS and result in the deaths of innocents.
"Ok, it might be sinful,"
Well, at least you're open to the possibility that God might be right and you might be wrong, so there's hope for you.
"Aha, NOW I see what you are doing! You are creating a straw man by equating liberalism with 'liberal catholics': of course any fool knows that philosophical liberalism is generally antipathetic to religion and vice versa. So lets make it nice and easy for you : 'liberal catholics' are not the same as philosophical liberals."
So liberal Catholics aren't really liberals. Sure, whatever you say.
_"Which teachings of the Catholic Church does this Portugese cardinal deny?"_
"Maybe you could answer that one for yourself?"
That's not very likely, since I don't know who you're talking about, or if he's is really a heretic as you claim he is.
"What do you think he meant by the 'cold hand of doctrine'?"
I have no idea. Do you? I don't know who said it, or when, or in what context.
"I would rather be an unfaithful Catholic in your eyes than turn a blind eye to suffering."
Why do you bother caring about suffering if you refuse to believe what the Church teaches? Why not be consistent and reject all of the truth instead of just the parts you arrogantly presume to call false?
Catholics are required to cultivate a properly formed conscience that assents to all that God reveals and teaches through the Church. Ever heard of a properly formed conscience?
"I would invite you to get out of your shackled template of thought and action and give the Church a try -- you might even like her!"
"Militarism is an expression of the culture of death. It is not funny, unless it is being ridiculed."
War, however, is not always an expression of the culture of death, but is sometimes a moral obligation and an act of charity. Since it's not an intrinsic evil, I don't have any problem with humor that refers to or derives from war experience.
Remember, we're in the Church Militant, and we're at war with principalities and powers and the spiritual forces of darkness.
Jared,
Don't sweat it, man. Arguing is fun and all, but as Cardinal Newman once said, no one is converted by syllogisms.
A better way to go is to challenge the liberals to name a single saint who thought as they do. Did Mother Teresa claim that she knew better than the Church? How about St. Francis of Assisi? St. Augustine? You can name any one you want.
And saints aren't those who've been honored by the Church for simply "towing the party line" - they were demonstrably the most generous, the most faithful, the most daring, the most loving, the ones closest to Christ. And what was their attitude towards the pope and Church authority? Something very different from what I see coming from the liberal Catholics out there.
So I humbly suggest that we don't get too worked up over all this. The beauty and radiance of the saints are there for all to see, and an integral part of their holiness was a love for the Church and the Holy Father - not the Church the way they would like it to be, or the kind of pope they would prefer, but the one Christ established and the vicar He chose. True, some of them admonished the popes at times, but a hostile attitude towards Church authority was totally foreign to their thinking.
Right on Jared!
[what I and many other liberal Catholics are smelling with this election are the rotting corpses of Africa's children who have been given a fresh death sentence with this conservative stitch-up]
Like you give a damn, you modernist scumbucket. What about the billion aborted babies rotting in landfills somewhere that your modernist friends tolerate under the titles of 'freedom' and 'choice'. You wage war on the helpless and unborn, we wage war on evil.
This is war, and it is a war for people's souls, their eternal damnation or salvation and you are on the losing side.
We SMELL Victory!
OK. It's not worth arguing about. But the spirit that lies behind this "joke" is as much an enemy of the Gospel as anything on the liberal side.
Goodness, you really are a bunch of fairies! I'm glad Christians in Spain weren't like you when Christendom had to push the Moors into the sea and fight for survival on its southern borders.
You people clearly cannot read the signs of the times. The tide has turned the devil is losing, the knives are out and with the election of this Pope it will become apparent that has failed to destroy it from within.
The world is going to turn on the Catholic Church and try to destroy it from without. Our beliefs will become hate speech and then hate thought. I'd expect persecution and wars to break out before the decade is out.
Don't you see the irony here? That Benedict XVI who told us that JP2 was the Pope of the third secret, in his estimation, might be the "man in white" himself.
It's called Righteous Anger for a reason you Modernist Scumbucket babykiller.
Aha, some true colours at last!
Let me remind you Greg, it goes something like this:
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned, I called lovehandles a modernist scumbucket"
*LOL*
Edwin, are you a doubting liberal or something??
The infallible Jared just told you that military jokes are okay because you guys are all holy warriors for Jesus. And Greg proved his point by calling me a scumbucket.
You just cant argue with that kind of profound theological exegesis *S*
I'm amazed at these responses. For the moment, I have only a generic response that I've offered in the form of new post in defense of my sense of humor: Apologia pro lepos in iocando mea.
"Don't sweat it, man. Arguing is fun and all, but as Cardinal Newman once said, no one is converted by syllogisms. "
Of course. I just have a little too much fun sometimes yanking heretics' chains.
So, Greg, how about you help me gather some kindling for tonight's heretic barbecue?
"Edwin, are you a doubting liberal or something??"
FYI, Edwin is an Episcopalian.
A most excellent jape, say I.
Jared, I knew that already. It was an example of "liberal" humour. Shame you guys always have to take everything so literally.
Given this propensity for literal belief, perhaps you guys would be better of with Jerry Falwell ... you seem so obviously to have joined the Protestant camp!
btw, it must have really hurt you good Republicans when John Paul came out against the Iraqi invasion. Best thing he ever did in my opinion *S*
Vescere bracis meis
"btw, it must have really hurt you good Republicans when John Paul came out against the Iraqi invasion. Best thing he ever did in my opinion *S*"
Who are you talking to? Ain't nobody over here but us Jacobites!
God save King Francis II!
"Given this propensity for literal belief, perhaps you guys would be better of with Jerry Falwell ... you seem so obviously to have joined the Protestant camp!"
What a hoot! But I would expect someone who dissents from the Apostolic Faith to find it difficult to distinguish between Catholics and Protestants. You so obviously have joined the Protestant camp.
Qui vir odiosus ...
Had an enormous laughter reading Jared and Greg's comments.
Lovehandles- They hit you right between the eyes with all the infalibility stuff and you're still going. I wonder whether you are into sado or something.
PB- Humour is good. Picture great. Too many "pietist" out there. Carry on. I read you every day.
Currez, sado? is that like monks whipping themselves? yeah, I love all that old traditional stuff, dont you? *G*
We're on to you, Lovehandles. You're lifting your insults from Insultmonger.com, aren't you?
Bingo!
Terri Schiavo didn't feel anything? Then why did her "husband's" lawyer make such a point of saying that they were giving her morphine and decorating her room with her favorite things? As a physcian I can say that one ought to have more humility towards the real level of our knowledge in saying dogmatic things about the state of awareness of the sick and injured.
But you see, the "lovehandles" of the world need to insulate their consciences from feeling the pain that sin causes, so they try to reassure themselves that starving and dehydrating a severely disabled person to death is painless and humane, or that a severely disabled person cannot feel pain. This need for self-deception testifies to the fact that their consciences recognise that it is evil.
No Lovehandles, you got it wrong once again. The thing you describe is called "penance". Any Catholic knows that (but then I might be including you in the wrong group). It is done for love of Our Lord. What you do is "sado" as it is done for love of yourself.
Strange kind of penance ... but maybe the monks had done some really sinful stuff ... like abusing altar boys?
You seem to know an *awful lot* about abusing altar boys, L.H.
Thats right Jared, I'm just a regular self-deceiving babykilling paedophile liberal modernist scumbucket protestant who should be burnt at the stake *S*
Lovehandles: I can appreciate your compassion for African babies and your concern for victims of predatory pedophile priests. What I don't quite understand is why you would want to continue to identify yourself with an institution so oppressive (in your view) as the Catholic Church. Why do you? And what about you makes you a Catholic?
No, lovehandles, you got it wrong again. There is no need to waste a perfectly good stake in burning you. We count on Hell for that matter.
L.H. says she is an "Old Catholic," which either means "cradle Catholic" or is an admission that she's not a Catholic at all, but a member of the sect that formed in rejection of the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility in 1870. Whichever is the case, she certainly seems to be an Old Catholic in spirit if not in fact.
"Thats right Jared, I'm just a regular self-deceiving babykilling paedophile liberal modernist scumbucket protestant who should be burnt at the stake *S*"
Or as someone who values economy of words might put it, "a heretic."
"I can appreciate your compassion for African babies and your concern for victims of predatory pedophile priests."
From where I'm viewing things, I have yet to see any evidence that L.H. really has compassion for African babies and concern for victims of predatory pedophile priests. Looks to me like L.H. has brought them up only a means toward the end of attacking the Catholic faith.
pb, I was baptised, confirmed, and married in the Church, and my son was also baptised. I was educated by nuns and Benedictine monks in the UK. I am a Catholic whether you (or indeed I) like it or not, or at least until I am excommunicated (have you ever heard of an online excommunication, btw?) *S* True, I dont recognise myself in much of what has happened to the Church since the Second Vatican Council, its that "cold hand of doctrine" I dont like, but I'm far from alone in that, and there aint nothing you can do about it!
Well done btw for getting on CNN, but I was wondering, are you familiar with the sin of pride by any chance? *G*
pb, I was also wondering if you get a kick out of watching your attack poodles (Jared and the rest) commit sin after sin on your premises? *S*
Lovehandles: As Peter Kreeft says, there are ultimately only two kinds of people in the world: saints who recognize they are sinners, and sinners who think they're saints. Indeed, I recognize the sin of pride in myself, which is one reason I make a habit of going to confession.
As to "attack poodles," all they say about you might well be true, and your compassion for African babies and such may all be sham; but I give you the benefit of a doubt for the same reason that you ought not presume to judge them guilty of sin.
You say you don't recognize much of yourself in what has happened since V-II. Why not? Did you prefer the Church under Pius XII or John XXIII? Hard to imagine. You think the Church ought not to have doctrines at all? Or only less "cold" ones, perhaps like those who would like to make the Church over into an AmChurch which, like the Anglican Church doesn't give a rip what anyone thinks or does and tolerates anything except Republicans and nonrevisionist Catholics?
You know what? I probably understand you guys better than you do yourselves.
You are most likely all converts to the Church, and probably converted either because you were leading pretty unsavoury and sinful lives and wanted to get some direction (this would probably apply to Jared), or you were unsatisfied with the contradictions within your original religious group and wanted to get some authenticity.
You were probably also all seduced by RCC ritual and reassured by a healthy dose of dogma, but are now making the fatal error of mistaking ritual and dogma for truth.
You basically dont know what it means to be a Catholic in the real world, and you are not imbued with Catholicism in the same way as those of us who were born into it and who sometimes struggle to reconcile our consciences with what we genuinely see as errors emanating from the Church leadership.
You think that your new found zealousness is proof of your devotion to the cause. Problem is, theres a very fine line between being a zealot and a pharisee ... and I think we all know what the Bible says about pharisees.
pb, you know what I think already. I dont have a problem with the core teachings re. Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Trinity etc etc ... these are what I would call a-temporal truths and are not up for discussion. What I cannot accept is when a blind insistence on dogma leads to unnecessary suffering as in the case of Africa. Thats just the way it is, and you'd better get used to hearing these worries, because despite your wishes THEY AINT GOING TO GO AWAY!
"You know what? I probably understand you guys better than you do yourselves."
Unfortunately it is impossible for someone who does not believe the Catholic faith to truly understand others, so that rules you out, L.H. You need to give up your rebellion against Christ and His Vicar and come back home.
"You are most likely all converts to the Church,"
Dr. Blosser has made no secret that he's a convert. I'm a convert too, as Dr. Blosser mentions in his list of converts here on his weblog (scroll down a bit). Hopefully you'll be given the grace of conversion too.
"and probably converted either because you were leading pretty unsavoury and sinful lives and wanted to get some direction (this would probably apply to Jared),"
I do not deny that I am of all men the greatest of sinners, so I do not object to this characterisation of my previous life.
"or you were unsatisfied with the contradictions within your original religious group and wanted to get some authenticity."
Yes, it became obvious that the sect in which I was born and raised was a purveyor of heresy and deception. By God's grace, I was brought to Holy Mother Church and enabled to believe and profess the faith.
"You were probably also all seduced by RCC ritual and reassured by a healthy dose of dogma, but are now making the fatal error of mistaking ritual and dogma for truth."
Again you demonstrate that you aren't really a Catholic, not in any meaningful sense. If one thinks it is possible to mistake dogma for truth, then one does not hold and profess the Catholic faith.
As for being "seduced by RCC ritual," it's taken me a while to get accustomed to the Church's ritual life. I think, now that I've been a Catholic for several years, it's starting to feel more "natural" to me. Also, I probably have always had a weird attraction for chant, though at the same time it kind of freaked me out. More and more I see the exquisite beauty of the Church's liturgy.
"You basically don't know what it means to be a Catholic in the real world,"
Ah, I love finding people who think their omniscient or mind-readers. As I've said before, I've been finding you pretty hilarious, L.H.
"and you are not imbued with Catholicism in the same way as those of us who were born into it and who sometimes struggle to reconcile our consciences with what we genuinely see as errors emanating from the Church leadership."
Yes, cradle Catholics who refuse to believe what God says are obviously superior to converts who believe Him. Do you realise how arrogant you sound when you say things like that?
Converts like us seem to make you uncomfortable. But then it can be hard for someone on the way out of the Church to understand why someone would want to come in.
Believe me, I appreciate the struggle with conscience. Unlike you, I used to believe that EVERYTHING the Church says and does is wrong -- you only think MOST of what the Church says and does
is wrong. But I have faith that "God is true and every man a liar," and that God Incarnate guides and guards His Bride so that she is protected from doctrinal error. You do not.
"You think that your new found zealousness is proof of your devotion to the cause."
I assure you that I have no new-found zealousness. All our lives, I and my brothers and father (they're all non-Catholics, mind you) have had the predilection for sarcastic barbs and in-your-face challenges. You'd have to know my family. But we also have the capability for conciliation and politeness -- when we try, that is.
"Problem is, theres a very fine line between being a zealot and a pharisee ... and I think we all know what the Bible says about pharisees."
Thank you. And in all seriousness, let me recommend that you examine yourself to see if you can detect the similarities between the Pharisees, who were confident they knew better than Jesus, and yourself, who think you know better than His Bride Holy Mother Church.
"I don't have a problem with the core teachings re. Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Trinity etc etc ... these are what I would call a-temporal truths and are not up for discussion. What I cannot accept is when a blind insistence on dogma leads to unnecessary suffering as in the case of Africa."
By what grounds do you regard the doctrines pertaining to Jesus, Mary, and the Trinity to be non-negotiable, while the doctrines that contraception is always sinful and that women cannot be ordained both can and should be changed? If you do not believe the Church when she teaches about contraception and the impossibility of women's ordination, why would you believe what she says about Jesus, Mary, and the Trinity? After all, haven't those doctrines also brought great suffering into the world -- families broken up through religious dissension, heretics tortured and burned at the stake, infidels slaughtered by Crusaders? Shouldn't we just ditch those teachings rather than cause more suffering through the sword that Jesus said He came to bring?
Jared, you just dont get it, do you?
Its not only the heretic individual "L.H." who has a problem with the "cold hand of doctrine", but a significant number of Catholics, including many Cardinals from within the conclave who voted for your
beloved "Panzer-Pope" (still a disgusting image, whichever way you cut it).
Indeed, it seems the only thing that got Ratzinger enough support was his promise to moderate the hardline of the previous administration.
Its also interesting that unlike cry-baby cyber saints like you, genuinely holy and important people within the Church are doing their utmost to present him as less hardline than his caricature would suggest (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/
2005/04/20/POPE20.TMP) so I for one am waiting with interest to see what transpires.
Maybe your Fuhrer will dissappoint you after all.
Anyway, what are you holier than thou dudes going to do? Exommunicate half the Catholic Church? I somehow doubt it *LOL*
And btw Jared, ego te absolvo for your harsh and judgemental words *S*
"Indeed, it seems the only thing that got Ratzinger enough support was his promise to moderate the hardline of the previous administration."
And you know this how?
Wow, talk about wishful thinking. You guys must be really desperate if you've started reassuring yourselves that His Holiness struck a deal to compromise the Apostolic Faith in exchange for his election. The reports I've read suggest that he probably got at least 100 of the 115 votes, well over the two-thirds majority he needed. Not exactly your scenario of him barely getting enough votes.
And it just goes to show how alienated you are from the Gospel when you talk about how "hardline" John Paul II's pontificate supposedly was.
"Its also interesting that unlike cry-baby cyber saints like you, genuinely holy and important people within the Church are doing their utmost to present him as less hardline than his caricature would suggest"
Sorry, but you're really behind the curve on this one. Anyone who has actually paid attention to His Holiness' time as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and has read even some of his writings, would know that he is much less hardline that the modernists' caricature of him would suggest. Indeed, you can even read Dr. Blosser's weblog and see the short list of heretics who have been disciplined by the CDF during John Paul II's pontificate, and the light penalties imposed on them. So apparently you think Dr. Blosser and Karl Keating are "genuinely holy and important people within the Church."
"Maybe your Fuhrer will dissappoint you after all."
Perhaps. But he's more likely to frustrate and aggravate you than he is to disappoint me.
"Anyway, what are you holier than thou dudes going to do? Exommunicate half the Catholic Church? I somehow doubt it *LOL*"
I doubt it will come to that. More likely you and your friends will gradually migrate to the Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists and similar groups, making the Church a bit smaller -- and the remaining millions and millions of Catholics will grow in the grace of our Lord.
"And btw Jared, ego te absolvo for your harsh and judgemental words *S*"
And I forgive you for your advocacy of heresy and your uttering of so many arrogant and judgmental words, and pray you will seek the Lord while He may be found, so that you may soon hear "ego te absolvo" from one of His priests.
And this --
http://www.cwnews.com/offthereco...lay&
recnum=2663
-- definitely says it best!
http://popeiswrong.blogspot.com
B-16 pops my spleen!
Sad day when humankind still buys this crap.
Very true. It's very sad indeed that anyone would believe the drivel posted at that weblog you linked to.
I went to Ian Pecheur's gutbustingly funny New York Times parody that Jared Olar linked to a few comments up, and then I went to "David Hume's" pope-bashing weblog, and laughed even harder. Pecheur's tweaked the liberal/dissidents for their complaint that Cardnal Ratzinger's election was "a missed opportunity."
And then what do I find when I pop over to "David Hume's" anonymous weblog but this gem:
"Okay, it's none of my business, really. He's not my Pope. But Ratzinger? A doctrinal hard-liner? What a lost opportunity."
You just can't make this stuff up.
The commentator under the name of Lovehandles has regrettably had to be banned from this website for grave and unethical (and arguably criminal) behavior toward another commentator behind the scenes. While this site is devoted to free and open discussion of ideas, unethical behavior cannot tolerated.
ah, the expected (and unjustified) online excommunication ...
Well, lovehandles, in that email you sent attempting to get me in trouble with my employer in retaliation for my disagreeing with your opinions, you said you wanted to use the cloak of anonymity to avoid getting in trouble at this weblog for your unethical, immoral actions. So it's obviously not unjustified.
Oh, and your impersonating my employer and forging a reprimand was an especially nice touch. You should know that if my employer knew who you really were, and if you lived in the United States, we would notify law enforcement authorities and have you prosecuted.
Jared, it looks like your employer agreed that posting slanderous accusations like :
"You seem to know an *awful lot* about abusing altar boys, L.H."
about another indidvidual was not something he wished his paper to be associated with *S*
btw I learnt everything I know from Karl Rove and the Grand Inquisition.
Have a nice day!
Quit telling lies, lovehandles -- or have "progressive" "Catholics" moved beyond the moral principle that spreading falsehoods is wrong? My employer hasn't agreed with your anonymous libel. I had Dr. Blosser remove my employer's information from this weblog to prevent especially vindictive people like you from finding it so easy to send false and deliberately misleading claims to my employer in retaliation for my stating opinions (on my own time and my own dime, mind you) with which they disagree. I did not ask Dr. Blosser to include my employment information here -- that was his choice. Contrary to the lie you told my employer, I am not here presenting myself as a representative of my employer. Contrary to the lie you told the readers of this weblog when you impersonated my employer in a deliberate, wilful attempt to destroy my reputation and endanger my job, I do not participate here on the company's time, and my employer has not reprimanded me for doing so.
Now, as for your concern about the alleged accusation that you say is slanderous -- since there is no such person as "lovehandles," which is merely a fictitious electronic entity, it's not possible to slander it. Come out of hiding, whoever you are, and then you can see whether anyone here might slander you. And while you're at it, you can also post your employment information too, so someone who is particularly vindictive, unethical, and immoral might attempt to endanger your livelihood the way you did.
Or better yet, since Dr. Blosser has made it clear that you are forbidden from participating here, you can do the Christian thing and find a new hobby.
Jared, as someone who expressly accused another person, under a pseudonym or not, of being a paedophile, you are not in a position to tell me what is ethical and what is not. YOU crossed the line when you said that, YOU raised the bar, and YOU have (I hope) been taught a salutatory lesson.
fyi I did not tell your employer that you were representing him on your site, merely that you had a link to to him next to your name.
I have no intention of "coming out of hiding", because I know exactly what you people are capable of. I also suggest that you take your murderous thoughts about burning heretics to a good progressive priest that he may offer you absolution for your anger and your sins.
Oh, and Jared, here is an exert from the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. As you claim to be a member of the Church, perhaps you might like to think about it before you next accuse somebody of being a paedophile:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt 18:6; cf. I Cor 8:10-13.) Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing. (Cf. Mt 7:15.)
*S*
Now for my part, Jared, I am prepared to forgive you for calling me a paedophile and tempting me to err into sin. Are you man enough to do the same?
... and btw, if as you say it is impossible to slander "a fictitious electronic entity", by the same token it must be impossible to "prosecute" one *G*
Of course, as you well know, I did not "expressly accuse" anyone, real or fictitious, of being a pedophile. Falsehoods remains false no matter how often they are repeated. But I do find it very interesting that "lovehandles" would construe my observation as an "express accusation" that "lovehandles" is a pedophile.
"YOU have (I hope) been taught a salutatory lesson."
Oh yes, I've learned a valuable lesson about one particular cowardly individual who congratulate himself or herself for being a better Catholic than, well, God. I've learned just what measures this self-righteous person is willing to take to silence opposing opinions.
"fyi I did not tell your employer that you were representing him on your site, merely that you had a link to him next to your name."
I know perfectly well what you wrote. Among the false and misleading statement in the anonymous libel my employer and I received from "lovehandles," we find the following:
"At the Blosser site there is a link next to Mr Olar's name which takes you to [his employer]. In other words Mr Olar is advertising his status as [employee] for your organ. . . . I would imagine that you would prefer not to have your newspaper associated with this kind of activity. . . . (I would prefer to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals on the site in question)."
At the same time, you posted two messages here impersonating my employer. He was not at all pleased that someone would try to damage his reputation the way you tried to do, and per his wishes and my own, I had Dr. Blosser delete your messages.
Since your true nature has been revealed, I think you're pretty much out of credibility here.
"I have no intention of 'coming out of hiding,' because I know exactly what you people are capable of."
Yeah, we might, I don't know, call the police or something and report your cybercrime. You might be held accountable for your actions, something a "progressive" like yourself would never be able to stand for.
What cojones. "Lovehandles" has already shown what he/she is capable of.
"I also suggest that you take your murderous thoughts about burning heretics to a good progressive priest that he may offer you absolution for your anger and your sins."
There you go again acting like you can read people's minds. Probably more like a case of projection.
Thankfully my parish has no progressive priests, only Catholic ones -- but in any case, we Catholics believe that the sinfulness of a priest does not affect the validity of the the sacraments, so there's hardly any need for me to find a heretical or lapsed Catholic priest for me to confess to.
But I do strongly recommend that the individual calling himself or herself "lovehandles" gets to the confessional really quick for what he or she did on Sunday.
"2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil."
For example, claiming that the Church's teaching against cont
For example, claiming that the Church's teaching against contraception is false and should be changed, or claiming that the Church's teaching is the cause of African children dying of AIDS, when in fact it is disregard of Church teaching that has caused those deaths. Those are perfect examples of scandal, O "lovehandles living in a glass house."
"Now for my part, Jared, I am prepared to forgive you for calling me a paedophile and tempting me to err into sin. Are you man enough to do the same?"
The person hiding behind the name "lovehandles" need not forgive me for something I didn't do, but I forgive that person for what he/she did to me.
Of course, for the good of that person's soul, I may still report his or his misconduct to the appropriate authorities, but I still forgive that person.
"... and btw, if as you say it is impossible to slander 'a fictitious electronic entity,' by the same token it must be impossible to 'prosecute' one *G*"
Well, you understandably would hope so, O craven one.
"You seem to know an *awful lot* about abusing altar boys, L.H."
Jared, ok, you are right. You only expressly IMPLIED I was a paedophile, hmmm ...
I am wondering what "crime" have I committed exactly? Impersonating your employer, the poor innocent soul? Sure I found a name and used it to jerk your chain, and I found it funny, just like Blosser and the rest of you right-wingnuts found the Napalm reference amusing.
I would just say that your chain is all too easily jerked, and also that progressives and the extreme-right obviously dont share the same sense of humour. Or maybe the said fundamentalists are good at giving it out, but just can't take it in return ...? *G*
And I'm also wondering which is worse, telling your employer the truth (for you were indeed advertising your status as a staff writer on the "Pekin Times"), or treating somebody as a child molester?
Finally, and despite all your threats, how exactly do you hope to prosecute me? Maybe you can carry out a nice imaginary trial in your twisted and violent mind, where I end up being burnt on the stake with John Kerry and all the other political heretics.
It seems to me that your threats are as empty as your theology.
*S*
The only way you can be prosecuted is if we find out who you really are, but you're too much of a coward to attack your hated enemies out in the open.
And I'm not at all surprised that you do not understand at all the gravity of what you did to me and my employer.
Finally, though you like to smear Catholics as individuals who are eager to burn you and your friends at the stake, actually this Catholic wishes only for your conversion from your heresies to Catholicism. In all seriousness, I encourage you to repent now, before it is too late.
And a little English primer for the individual hiding under the monicker of "lovehandles": Someone mentioning one's occupation at a website and "advertising" one's occupation are not at all the same thing.
So which is worse -- lies and deceit, or truth?
And is it really possible to
"expressly" IMPLY something?
Jared, yes it is possible.
Someone might imply something in a roundabout way, saying for example that "at the time the altar boys were abused, lovehandles was not on holiday in the Seychelles as he claimed" or conversely do it in a more blatant fashion, as was the case with your "You seem to know an *awful lot* about abusing altar boys, L.H.".
A little lesson on the usage of the word advertisment. There are at least two ways we can use this word.
The first is when somebody literally "advertises" their services, eg. "ex-priest seeks employment, anything considered".
The second is when we say something like, "Jared advertised his presence by emitting a loud fart".
When I said you were advertising your appartenance to Rick Wade's "Pekin Times", I was using the word in the latter sense.
I do hope that this clears things up for you.
*S*
... a last word regarding the matter of whether or not one can "expressly imply" something ...
On the Catholic Bible Study website,
www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/virbirth.htm
we find the following sentence,
"In their genealogies the two Evangelists EXPRESSLY IMPLY that Joseph's relation to Mary's Son was that of a legal or foster father."
*S*
You know what you have to do to put an end to this, "lovehandles." Do you have the courage to do it?
So Jared, you want me to blink first, and to actually APOLOGISE to you? *S*
It takes two to tango, and you invited me to the dance when you made your altar boy accusation.
I tell you what, you say "sorry lovehandles for calling you a paedophile", and we'll see what we can manage on this end.
If, however, you mean that the only way of "ending" this is for me to move on, you can forget it. Why would anyone pass up the chance to interact at a site which reached the last 5 in the "most intellectual" Catholic blog competition?
*S*
So, I can't apologise for something you know I didn't do. But you really need to accept responsibility for what you actually did do, in attempting to damage or destroy the reputations of me and my employer, and to endanger my own ability to put food on the table for my children.
You claim to care so much about African kids. Do you have the same solicitude for kids who live on another continent and whose skin may be of a lighter hue?
Jared, you appear to have a congenital inability to admit when you have done something wrong. It is quite staggering that in the face of all evidence to the contrary you maintain that you committed no sin in calling me a paedophile.
You really need help.
... and as for the heart rending sob story about your poor kids, maybe before you called me a paedophile you should have considered all the children who have been abused by paedophile priests protected by the likes of Ratzinger.
"Lovehandles," you appear to have a congenital inability either to comprehend the English language or to admit when you have done something wrong. It is quite staggering that in the face of all evidence to the contrary you maintain that you have been called a pedophile.
It's also unsurprising that you are unable to show the slightest trace of contrition for your repeated misconduct. It's also not a shocker that you are back to blaming Pope Benedict XVI for the sins which your favorite "progressive" bishops helped to encourage through their dereliction. Like I said before, you seem to know plenty about pedophilia -- but I daresay not as much as you think you know. You probably know far less than I do.
And of course, since you cannot comprehend English, you will mistakenly read "You probably know far less than I do" as a confession that I am a pedophile.
You're such a rolicking good time, L.H.
You know what, Jared? It doesnt surprise me in the least that you feel no shame in dragging your children into this. And the sad thing is that you are not really worried about them at all, but rather about your own status as top dog at this pathetic little blog *S* I actually feel sorry for your kids, that their father is prepared is prepared to stoop so low as to use them as a weapon to get the upper hand against a "fictitious entity" like me.
fyi If I told you what I know about paedophilia and the Catholic Church I would be entering very personal territory. Maybe that one piece of information will help you understand why I took exception to your telling me "You seem to know an *awful lot* about abusing altar boys, L.H.". I actually used to be an altar boy, Jared, were you? And have you ever had a priest's dick stuck in your mouth, Jared? No? Well I have.
So maybe now you understand why I won't be posting personal information on sites like this anytime soon, and maybe you understand that you wont be getting an apology out of me after what you said.
Sorry, but I treat everything the individual hiding under the monicker "lovehandles" posts here as fiction unless it's demonstrated otherwise.
Whoever you are -- seek professional help soon. It's now obvious to me at least that you can't understand what you're doing, so I expect God will take that into account, and so will I. I will have no further interaction with "lovehandles."
Jared, I think it only fair to warn you that I will be contacting your diocesan Bishop shortly. Any individual setting himself up as a defender of the faith by treating people as heretics and paedophiles both damages the Church, and needs a reminder about the fundamentals of what it means to be a Christian. I hope that somebody will have a quiet word in your ear in due course.
First you try to damage or destroy the reputation of me and my employer through your anonymous libels, and repeatedly post your anonymous fictions and scurrilous tales here. Now you say you're going to tell on me to my bishop. Go right ahead. You haven't got a shred of evidence that would support your libel -- just the rants of one or more disturbed individuals going by the internet pseudonym of "lovehandles."
Just remember to use your real name, or names, this time -- like my employer, the bishop won't pay any attention to wild accusations coming from anonymous sources.
And just to warn you -- I have been saving the evidence of your unethical and criminal actions here. When you contact my bishop using you real name, or names, I will inform the diocesan curia that I intend to file a lawsuit for defamation of character against my so far unknown slanderer(s). If the curia cannot or will not supply your contact information for the serving of legal papers, I will inform them that I will be unavailable for "quiet words" until I know who my accusers are, and I will show them the evidence of what you have been doing here for the past week or so.
You want to play hardball, buddy, then batter up.
Come to think of it, I think it is incumbent on me that I obtain my bishop's help so that he can tell your bishop (assuming you have one, that is, since there's no proof that any information you've posted here is true) that you've been damaging the Church, and need a reminder about the fundamentals of what it means to be a Christian, on account of your advocacy here of women's ordination and contraception. If it is necessary to contact the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about you, then so be it.
So please do let my bishop know who you really are.
tra la la ...
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
