The Web Gallery ( http://www.wga.hu/ ) is full of Catholic resources.
New Catholic: Thanks!
Phillip, do you have a "Blosser for Pope!" mug with cartoon by an obedient latter day Carpaccio?
That I might consider buying.
Lovehandles:
Why would we want a married pope?
Chris,
Why wouldnt we want one? Might give him a nice dose of reality.
Please explain.
How would it give him a dose of reality, and probably more to the point, what would that dose of reality inspire him to change?
I should have asked Christopher, who designed the mug, to drop the "The" in "The Pertinacious Papist." It misleadingly suggests precisely the error that Mr. "Lovehandles" makes, of supposing that the matter is intended to celebrate me. It's not.
"Pertinacious Papist" on a mug is intended for anyone who identifies with the spirit of "pertinacious papism," which entails two things: (1) being a papist, i.e., die-hard non-revisionist Catholic, and (2) having a degree of pertinacity or 'ATTITUDE' about it. Let me also assure my readers that there's no money being made on these mugs. If one's designs were pecuniary, he would hardly make use of the services of "CafePress," which produces and markets the mugs. The mugs are for the enjoyment of my readers, provided they like them.
Which brings me to a relevant point. If anyone can think of a better logo or design, please suggest it. I've already had one reader write in suggesting a pertinacious papist standing besides a barbecue grill with a beer in one hand and skewer in the other -- the skewer having on it alternating pieces of vegetable with identifiable figures of Hans Kung, Richard McBrien, Andrew Sullivan, Joseph O'Leary, etc. It's a thought. Rather to the point, I might add, if shamelessly so.
You arent a true papist until you've chanted sectarian slogans on the Parkhead terraces during the Glasgow derby.
Maybe you could design a mug with a depiction of Rangers' midfield hardman Terry Hurlock being sent off during a particularly tense derby match in the late 1980s.
That would work even for me.
But the Catholic Church isn't a sect
Chris,
The slogans can be sectarian.
Examples?
Chris,
Well, admittedly the worst sectarian songs come from the Protestant Rangers supporters. For example they sing,
"Hail hail! the Pope's in jail, he's hanging from the rafters, the dirty fenian bastard!"
Celtic, on the other hand, content themselves with "The fields of Athenry" and other such delights as the "Celtic Song":
"Sure it's the best darn team in Scotland !
and the players they are Grand,
"We support the Celtic"
'cos they are the finest in the land.
We'll be there to give the bhoys a cheer
When the League Flag flies,
And the cheers go up 'cos we know the Scottish Cup
is coming home to rest at Paradise!"
Seemingly innocent, but I think the aggressive reference to Paradise actually borrows from the hell-fire Scottish tradition of inter-faith combat, and is thus essentially sectarian in itself.
What do football chants have to do with being a loyal Catholic?
What does singing in a choir have to do with being a loyal Catholic?
I don't understand your question, -- I don't know if it's meant to answer mine rhetorically or if you merely chose to ignore my question. Please advise.
Chris,
Please allow the wisdom seed of my question to first settle in the fertile earth of your mind, and then, once the seed has germinated, to contemplate at the flower which has revealed itself in your consciousness.
But isn't playing and rooting for soccer a mortal sin? :-P
In otherwords, lovehandles, you've become what I believe is called a troll. Instead of answering my question you resorted to patronizing me with waffle-worded, melifluous nonsense.
Celtic content themselves with Fields of Athenry? Um no. Having visited each Parkhead and Ibrox each several times, and always as an away supporter I can tell you that you are not even close to correct.
Beckwith:
Welcome.
Not having ever endured the spectacle of a live football match (between Celtic and anyone, for that matter), and having last followed organized football when Diego Maridona was much in the news, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the two-sided monologue you and lovehandles are having. Am I correct that lovehandles hasn't answered my question?
Chris,
The passive aggressive tone of your questioning is somewhat tiring. If you have a serious question, rather than a veiled (or not so veiled insult) I would be glad to respond seriously. In the meantime please stick to singing soprano in your choir.
Beckwith, are you a poor unfortunate hibs fan?
SECTARIAN ANTHEM
NOTRE DAME OUR MOTHER TENDER KIND AND TRUE
PROUDLY IN THE HEAVENS GLEAM THY GOLD AND BLUE
GLORY SHINES AROUND THEE GLORIOUS IS THY FAME
AND OUR HEARTS FOREVER PRAISE THEE NOTRE DAME
AND OUR HEARTS FOREVER LOVE THEE NOTRE DAME...
"I don't understand your question, -- I don't know if it's meant to answer mine rhetorically or if you merely chose to ignore my question. Please advise."
Chris, he chose to ignore your question.
Ok then, chaps,
"What do football chants have to do with being a loyal Catholic?"
Although they seem to be important to those who do the chanting, in fact all they are doing is affirming tribal identities in a manner familiar to scientists of social anthropology.
So in fact the Celtic fans could chant "Ratzinger! Ratzinger!" whenever their team scores a goal, but it wouldnt necessarily make them better Catholics (nb. they do not have a centre forward called Ratzinger, this is humour on my part).
The chants are not very important to me personally, or indeed, I suspect to anybody other than themselves.
But then we dont seem to agree about what constitutes a "loyal Catholic", so perhaps you would beg to differ.
Thats okay as well, its a broad Church, big enough for all of us.
There are some specific Celtic chants, which I do hope no "loyal Catholic" would ever consider singing. One goes:
"Give me joy in my heart keep me Catholic,
Give me joy in my heart I pray,
Give me ammo in my gun see the Orange bastards run,
I'm a member of the IRA"
And then there is:
"Hi ho, hi ho.
It's off to work we go.
We work all day for the IRA.
Hi ho, hi ho, hi ho, hi ho."
Disgusting stuff.
Chris,
As a peace offering, I have adapted one of the celtic chants in your name:
"Celtic sing are you listening?
And his head it is glistening,
He is our lord,
although he's bald,
Walkin' in a Garton-Zavesky wonderland!
There's only one Garton-Zavesky!
There's only ONE Garton-Zavesky,
He's always there,
He's got no hair,
Walking in a Garton-Zavesky wonderland!"
... doesnt scan quite as well as John Hartson, but there you go.
Actually, I just noticed that Chris isnt bald as such, just slightly receding. He is, however, rather short (Napoleon complex anyone?, sports a beard and appears a little overweight, so heres a revised chant:
"You short, fat beardy bastard!
You short, fat beardy bastard!"
Imagine singing that in the choir.
Jordan,
Would you care to e-mail me a photo, and I could devise a suitable chant for you?
*S*
Sir:
I do not sport a beard. Strike one for truth.
Chris,
Sorry old bean, I must have got you mixed up with Gerry Adams.
Philip:
Given the very personal nature of the attacks by "lovehandles", can you intervene either to require names of people or to desist from what amount to ad hominem attacks?
okay, that's enough for you, Lovehandles. Hand me your keys and I call you a cab. You're in no state to drive, let alone post at a religious weblog.
Chris,
On the subject of personal attacks ... over the few months I've visited this blog I've been called a troll and a drunkard, a fat liberal, and a paedophile. I have also been accused of heresy, and told I should either be burnt at the stake or will rot in Hell.
Now, who's been getting personal?
I've lurked and posted here over the past few months and I remember all of these incidents to which you refer. Chris was not involved in any of them, that I recall, so it seems to be you who has been getting personal, not Chris.
Now, you have been called some of those things -- I recently referred to you as a internet troll, which is certainly how you've behaved here. The "drunkard" incident is, I suppose, my joke posted right above your latest comment.
You have also, like Fr. O'Leary, advocated the heresy of women's ordination, so the shoe definitely fits there.
The "paedophile" incident caused quite a lot of negative fallout here. As I recall, the person who allegedly called you a paedophile strenuously denied it, and then you pretended to be his employer here and sent his employer an anonymous email complaining about his comments at this blog. He then said if he knew your real identity he would pursue legal action, and you responded by threatening to contact his ordinary about his supposedly uncharitable behavior. I think he also posted a comment impersonating you. Along the way, both you and this person were temporarily banned from posting here. He subsequently apologized and you accepted his apology.
Yeah, it was an ugly incident. You behaved very badly and the other party didn't behave much better. Hopefully we won't see anything like that again here.
Lovehandles:
I have no idea if you are a fat person, liberal or otherwise. I described your conduct as being like that of what I believe is called a troll in cyberspace; Jordan simply said that your behavior was comparable to that of someone who had had one drink too many -- usually because of senseless babbling -- and so he offered to call you a cab. Clearly he doesn't mean a literal cab, nor did he call you an alcoholic; he merely observed that it was time for you to leave because your conduct was inappropriate.
I don't remember anyone saying anything to you about paedophilia.
If you are guilty of heresy, formally or materially, this is not something we should avoid saying to you. The traditional place for heretics is Hell. Who offered to burn you at the stake.
None of these "attacks" are personal. None claims to know you personally. You, on the other hand, by calling me a bastard, insult my parents.
Speaking of personal attacks, didn't you recently pronounce your professional judgment that Dr. Blosser and myself and our ilk are psychologically and emotionally dysfunctional? It seems you're apt to fall back on the ad hominem when folks criticise or disagree with you.
"You" in my previous comment refers to Lovehandles.
Chris, several months ago when Lovehandles first appeared here, I think some commenters here made jokes about burning heretics. I don't remember the context of the jokes, though.
Chris,
My calling you a "bastard" would fall into Jordan's category as a "joke". It was not a genuine attempt to question your legitimacy, as a cursory glance at the context (ie. a football chant) will quickly tell you.
Of course you are entitled under the right to free speech to call me a heretic and opine that my proper place as such is in Hell. But I'm not sure the Church teaches that people who believe in the ordination of women will go to Hell, and given your own behaviour I'm not sure either that you are very well qualified to pass judgement on my eternal soul.
Jordan,
Yes, thats a fair assessment of what transpired with Mr. Olar, except for one thing. He explicitly said that I "seemed to know alot about abusing altar boys", and then refused to recant his statement. This is the kind of thing I've got used to in here.
Now, you and Chris may consider me to be a troll - I do not, and as such take the remark to be a personal insult. You also advised not to "feed the troll", but then have manifestly done otherwise - which makes me think you are a rather weak person who cannot follow his own advice.
Finally, on the psychological comments I made in an earlier thread - whether you like it or not I was simply repeating what some leading psychologists have said in regard to fundamentalists in general, and applying it to your case. If you care to feel personally insulted about this, I suggest you take it up with the psychologists themselves and stop trying to bully somebody who you disagree with into leaving a free forum.
"Yes, thats a fair assessment of what transpired with Mr. Olar, except for one thing. He explicitly said that I 'seemed to know alot about abusing altar boys', and then refused to recant his statement."
Ah yes, I remember that now. But at the time I didn't think it necessarily constituted calling you a pedophile, and I'm still of that opinion, though it certainly can be construed that way. As I recall, before Mr. Olar's remark about how much you seemed to know about the sexual abuse of altar boys -- and Mr. Olar didn't seem very happy with your mentioning the topic -- you had made a few references to priests abusing altar boys in the course of some negative comments about the Church or John Paul II, or something like that. Subsequently you said that you are yourself a former altar boy who was a victim of clergy sex abuse.
"You also advised not to 'feed the troll', but then have manifestly done otherwise -"
Oh now, maybe I just wanted you all to myself. (Kidding!!!)
"which makes me think you are a rather weak person who cannot follow his own advice."
I certainly am a weak person. I don't think there's any doubt about that. If you knew me, you'd surely agree.
"Finally, on the psychological comments I made in an earlier thread - whether you like it or not I was simply repeating what some leading psychologists have said in regard to fundamentalists in general, and applying it to your case."
Yes, as I said, you resorted to the ad hominem, changing the subject from the ideas to the purveyors of the ideas.
"If you care to feel personally insulted about this, I suggest you take it up with the psychologists themselves and stop trying to bully somebody who you disagree with into leaving a free forum."
I'm not trying to bully you or anyone else into leaving this forum. I'm just floccinaucinihilipilificating in regards to the content of your participation here.
Lovehandles:
Do you have a name?
I would prefer to use a name instead of a cute moniker, as evidenced by the fact that I don't hide my own identity.
So much of psychology nowadays is psychobabble -- such as this silly description of fundamentalists in general. As my school chaplain said, with just a twinkle in his eye, "Don't you know, if you go to Church more than once a week, you're a fundamentalist, according to [Janet Reno]"
Yes, we take our practice of religion seriously, because we can't do otherwise and be honest. We don't condemn you. I haven't condemned you yet. Heretic is an ugly word, but this is partly because it describes an ugly thing. It is not my place to judge the state of your soul, but as I have tried to point out previously nonsense and non-Catholic thought trying to pass itself off as authentically Catholic do not need to be tolerated or "dialogued with" or whatever, but identified and avoided.
Error has no rights.
Forget "pertinacious". We have been described by various and sundry heroic, pose-striking rebels of the faith as backward, primitive, vicious, brutal swamp-things. How about a "Sons of Torquemada" design? Jerry, if you're out there buddy, would you consider posing on my rack? I'll untie you after the pictures are taken, honest.
Poor misunderstood darlings ... all you really want is a good old-fashioned candlelit church, a heady waft of incense in the nostrils, and a priest trying (but not too hard) to carry a tune in Latin ...
Chris,
I dont believe thats your real name, its just too far fetched, and whats it more doesnt scan. I also dont believe you dont have a beard, but thats a matter of conscience between you and your God.
Jordan,
"Yes, as I said, you resorted to the ad hominem, changing the subject from the ideas to the purveyors of the ideas."
A scientific delineation of an individual's psychological profile based on known behavioural traits within the stated belief system of said individual will always both "address the man" AND the argument, and will thus be, if you insist on taking things literally, partly "ad hominem".
However, your rather unfortunate contention that psychologists or political scientists cannot arrive at general theories about specific groups of people without having met them would be like me arguing that I cant be sure the Pope is really a Catholic because I have never met him.
Sadly your errant logic is rather typical of the backward, primitive, vicious, brutal swamp-things in here.
"However, your rather unfortunate contention that psychologists or political scientists cannot arrive at general theories about specific groups of people without having met them would be like me arguing that I cant be sure the Pope is really a Catholic because I have never met him."
I have never made any such contention. I have merely stated that YOU cannot psychoanalyse ME, and your completely erroneous diagnosis proves it.
Now, how about you quit wasting our time with your bumbling attempts at mind-reading and actually deal with the arguments, ideas, and premises that your interlocutors and opponents put forth.
"Sadly your errant logic is rather typical of the backward, primitive, vicious, brutal swamp-things in here."
Ug. Oog. Me ortodoks katlick. Oog boog. Ug.
Jordan,
Of course I cannot guess the specific root cause of your own personal malaise, but I can make an educated general guess based on sound psychological research. This is all I have attempted to do.
The last time I dealt with a specific argument in here, ie. the rather spurious attempt to justify the non-ordination of women priests, I was met with silence. Perhaps you could go back to that thread and actually respond to the points I made rather than creating straw popes.
nb. You are not an "orthodox" Catholic, you just like to think you are, for deep seated psychological reasons which, not surprisingly, you are unwilling and perhaps unable to even contemplate. Personally I find the likes of Father O'Leary, with his willingness to nuance the teachings according to the needs of the age without compromising on the essentials, to be far more orthodox than you nostalgic "radicals".
"Of course I cannot guess the specific root cause of your own personal malaise, but I can make an educated general guess based on sound psychological research."
That you think I have "personal malaise" only goes to show how unqualified you are to try to read people's minds and hearts. One thing seems evident, though -- you don't seem to suffer from an excess of humility.
"The last time I dealt with a specific argument in here, ie. the rather spurious attempt to justify the non-ordination of women priests, I was met with silence."
What spurious attempt do you mean? What part of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis don't you understand?
"nb. You are not an 'orthodox' Catholic, you just like to think you are, for deep seated psychological reasons which, not surprisingly, you are unwilling and perhaps unable to even contemplate."
Thank you, Pope Lovehandles the First and Last of the Wholly Roaming Catheterised Faith Community.
Okay then, I really do have some reasonable important things to attend to, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of this unedifying time-suck of a non-discussion. It's had it's moments, and you'll remain in my prayers, of course, but I just can't justify continuing this any further.
Philip:
Is Lovehandles here for comic relief?
Chris, I like to think that a lot of my responses to Lovehandles are for comic relief, but then my wife tells me I've got a groan-inducingly awful sense of humor.
Jordan,
Nice attempt at being patronising, but as you admit yourself you are a terribly weak person, so will you really be able to resist having the last word?
Commenting by HaloScan
