…at being called out for their brownshirt tactics by Cardinal George. Cardinal George doesn’t back down. Good for him.
The cardinal’s actions in this case reveal him to be a man of zero class or decency. He was not responding to “brownshirt tactics” by anyone. He seized a moment to make a sleazy and calculated and unprovoked attack on an entire class of human beings. The issue at hand was not even an archdiocese-level issue. It was something within the scope of the local pastor. He could have left it at that and said something to the effect “I support my priest’s concerns and I hope this can be worked out in such a way as to honor our freedom to worship.”
But no. He went straight for vicious and took a gratuitous jab at people, likening them to the most murderous terrorists organizations this country ever produced. It’s basically a half-step away from Godwin’s Law and a Nazi analogy. It’s absurdly inappropriate in 99.999% of ANY debates. It spits on the memory of those who suffered and died under such regimes, and it pretty well negates whatever credible point you may have had.
Given the chance to re-assess his choice of words, he instead affirmed that he really did mean to be that mean-spirited. The sickest and most absurd aspect of the whole thing is that his comments had no bearing in the reality of the situation. I live in this area, so I’m familiar with the facts on the ground.
This is not, and never was, about a protest targeted at this parish or the Church in general. It is about the Gay Pride Parade of many years standing which had to be re-routed because it became too large of an event to be contained within its old space. The new route happened to pass by Our Lady of Mount Carmel. It was not targeted to do that. In fact, you can’t travel any distance down any sizable street in Chicago and NOT encounter a Catholic Church.
This was not about any past or present conflict between confrontational or extreme elements of the gay community and the church. It was about traffic and logistics. The parade historically started at mid or late morning. The church on the route, not unreasonably, had concerns about parishioners being able to attend morning services without the gridlock of traffic and rope-off streets that parades inevitably produce.
That’s not an existential conflict. It’s not anybody being “brown shirts” about anything. It’s not even a very complicated matter of negotiation. The parade organizers agreed to start at noon. The church wraps up its services, the parade goes on. If I’m not mistaken, they made that concession before George re-iterated the spirit and words of his prior spite.
His words throughout this affair have been as deliberately un-charitable and un-Christ-like as it was possible to be short of physical violence or obscene hand gestures. Nor can I excuse it on the theory that maybe he just had a bad day, or two. I’ve followed the arc of his career in this area, and met him in person once. Even in that short encounter, he struck me as a man who is soft-spoken and obviously highly intelligent, but also a man who has the capacity to be smarmy, condescending and dismissive.
Those sorts of qualities have increasingly come to define the leadership of the Church in this country. Rather than attempting to stand above the fray of the long-knife street brawl that is modern partisan politics, the Church has opted instead to hire better brawlers. It is largely for that reason that I went from being a de-facto ex-Catholic to one that demanded, and received, a formal written separation.
Anyone may arrange to separate from the Church’s official records pertaining to membership. Piece of paper. Circular file. Done.
That’s not “separating.”
“Separating” can only be done by you. Separating is walking away. And, nore importantly, staying walked away.
You walk away. Then you come back and try to “fix” what you walked away from. That undoes the walk away.
You walk away; you stay walked away. That’s what walking away means.
One who has separated will be found doing anything, anything but visiting and posting on Catholic blogs.
It’s not over.
It’s not over ’til it’s over.
Good luck with that.
P.S. I think we have here a case of a young lamb who has left the fold and wandered into a mud hole, has been injured, and is stuck. The Shepherd is calling him. The lamb knows his voice, but is afraid. The mud has hardened; he’s in a great deal of pain, and it’s growing dark, and is temperature is dropping; the lamb is afraid the Shepherd won’t help him or protect him from the cold and the darkness. So he stays in the mudhole and cries to the Shepherd that he wants to stay in the mud, and to leave him alone.
Despair. But the Shepherd won’t leave him alone. So the inured and stuck lamb orders the Shepherd to destroy the records of his membership in the fold. And the Shepherd obligingly tears up a piece of paper, but still stands there, calling to him to come out of the mudhole, and to let the Shepherd carry him back.
It’s agony, and it’s torture.
Because the Shepherd won’t, if the lamb refuses. He doesn’t force Himself on us. But He doesn’t go away, either.
He continues to call, gently, sweetly, winsomely.
And that’s the worst agony and the worst torture of all.
P.P.S. Nowhere to run; nowhere to hide.
He hasn’t given up on you yet.
Thanks be to our most Merciful Lord and Savior!
Yeah but Cardinal George is part of the mud hole.
No, persons are not the mudhole.
Sin makes up the mudhole.
We become mired in sin and in sinful habits. We’re stuck. Sin becomes the air we breathe and the food we depend on. And we’re afraid that coming up and out from sin will kill us.
That’s why Jesus said, “He who lays down his life will find it, but he who clings to his life will lose it.” Because we become so bogged down in lives of sin that we come to believe sin is our very life.
But it isn’t. And Jesus keeps trying to tell us that.
Are we willing to listen?
Here’s the tricky thing with separation, Marion. For good or ill, my former church is still an important center of gravity in the culture and politics of the country in which I live.
Unless I become apathetic and refuse to engage any issue, I will find myself dealing with Catholicism in the public sphere from time to time. I do so only to the extent that their actions in the world affect me or issues I care about. I also visit and post on Muslim blogs and atheist blogs and mathematicians blogs and lesbian blogs from time to time. Doesn’t mean my soul is yearning to be any of those things. Important and interesting issues arise where they arise and often have implications far beyond their source.
As to my separation, that is what it is. It’s been 25 years since I’ve agreed with even a majority of the core tenets of Catholicism or practiced the faith in any sense of the word. I married in another tradition and in fact serve as clergy in another tradition, and neither George nor any other man had anything to do with that. It was the result of the discernment of my own conscience and I am quite content and happy where I am.
If you follow my postings for any length of time, you will see that I am not trying to bend the Church’s beliefs or practices to suit my preferences in any way. I stay out of the insider baseball stuff. I don’t care if they want to ordain women or not, or if they use this liturgy or that, or if they accept homosexuality or gay marriage. At some point though, the Church and its leaders become actors in the public domain, and are fair game for commentary in that role.
My own formal defection, the piece of paper as it were, was just my way of stating for the record that this organization does not speak in my name and should amend its own records to reflect that. Even before they abolished the procedure last year, it was an action that had very limited consequences in Canon law, but that wasn’t the point for me.
Is it sort of silly and pathetic for one guy to shake his fist in the wind by such a gesture? I suppose it is. My departure certainly won’t shake the foundations of the Catholic world the way, say, Henry VIII’s leaving did. Won’t even cause a murmur. I did it simply because a man should stand for his principles on the merit of those principles, and not because they line up with whatever cultural wind is blowing at the moment.
It’s actually not possible to leave the Catholic Church. Even a person who no longer believes or practices their Catholic faith remains a Catholic and subject to Canon Law. For a period of time there was a provision to submit a written “act of apostasy” to the diocese and be officially removed from membership in the Catholic Church (the reason was so that a Catholic in good standing who wanted to marry someone who was a fallen-away Catholic, would be able to do so validly). This possibility has been removed from Canon Law.
Yeah I know. When I completed my paperwork, the only canonical effect it had at that time was to exempt me from the requirement for a Catholic form of marriage, which I had already violated anyway three years prior. It didn’t purport to “un-Catholic” me. Still, it was a formal acknowledgment of my decision to leave the Earthly body of the Church. Supposedly they were to make an annotation on your baptism record noting that fact. That was good enough for me. I think the notion of irreversible membership via infant baptism is questionable theology at best, but I had no illusions about winning that battle.
I will say I think it’s one of the main reasons the Church is bedeviled by so many “CINO” Catholics. When you have hundreds of millions of people who you claim as members who are not there by informed consent, but rather accident of birth, there’s little sense of investment or obligation to orthodoxy…
I don’t agree with the above. His statement sounded more nuanced than is being indicated. Gay-Parades that go near churches are intending to provoke. It’s not like it’s a parade of Courage members saying “Come out as chaste”, it’s pretty clearly “Your views of sexual morality are inferior to ours.” So in that sense it is a protest of an Anti-Catholic nature. However not all Anti-Catholic things are alike and I kind of do think analogies to “Brownshirts” or “KKK” are at least kind of unhelpful or unwise.
The KKK didn’t simply have objections to elements of Catholic theology. They didn’t march to say “The Reformation was Right we’re glad we’re Protestants.” They hated Catholics and wanted to, at least, limit their immigration to the country. They also killed Catholic priests or supported them being killed. So a KKK march came with an element of “threat of violence” that I think only a few gay groups would. And the Brownshirts also killed or assaulted people in service of totalitarianism. They didn’t just act persnickety or even demanding.
This isn’t some irrelevant history either as there are still totalitarian nations where Catholics face imprisonment or death. Heck there have even been Radical gay groups, like “Bash Back” or “ACT-UP, that have attacked Catholic churches. So I think if one jumps to “Fascist/KKK” too quickly one risks losing credibility when actually talking of genuinely similar groups.
It was a dumb comment, maybe made offhand without really thinking about it, but still dumb. His further comments just double down on the stupid.
“Stupid” as in “dead on the money,” yeah!
I should mention that “by the above” I meant Kenneth. I think he’s too harsh on him.
Also I do understand that there’s a special sensitivity in the case of Illinois as gay-activists there are kind of pressing on Church adoption services. Still I do think “KKK” or “Brownshirts” is disproportionate and too easy to be misunderstood. I do think proportion matters. Saying something offensive to me isn’t the same as punching me in the face. (I have a brittle-bone disease so punching me in the face would do more damage than about any name-calling)
I had the unfortunate experience of clicking a link that had photos of a gay pride parade. Don’t tell me they aren’t trying to assault those who disagree. The performance of public sex acts is an assault on the sexual development of kids and the rights of their parents to guide them into maturity. It’s extremely harmful and often more difficult to recover from because of the unseen nature of the damage done. These parades aren’t festivals of human dignity, but an attempt to force people to participate in a culture they may or may not want.
There are plenty of homosexuals who are willing to argue their position on gay matters with dignity and logic. They are deserving of dicourse while the PRide people aren’t interested. In fact I’d go as far to say that the Pride people are exactly the closed minded bigots they claim the leaders of the Church to be.
The Cardinal was spot-on in his assessment. God bless him, and may there be many more like him.
You needn’t worry Brian. If 12,000 years of recorded history is any guide, our species will never run short of men like Cardinal George.
Brownshirts in Chaps Brownshirts in Habbits
Homosexual parades would probably be more widely accepted, or even welcomed, if they weren’t blatent agitations to the Church. The one parade I saw, which included nuns with “toys” was so disgusting, so profane that I had to walk away from fear of nausia. Advice: respect the Church, the Church will respect you.
Mark, a Gay Pride event is not a KKK march, and you know it. Even if the Cardinal doesn’t have the courage to admit he was wrong, there is no reason for you to defend his bigoted, baseless statements.
Neither the Cardinal nor Mark said, “The Gay Pride event is a KKK rally.”
To allege that they did so, is to tell a lie.
The Cardinal compared the decision to schedule the Gay Pride event, which displays banners, costumes and staging intended to be deeply offensive to Christians, and especially to Christians with young children , such as nudity, simulated sex acts, and blasphemous slogans, on a route past which Catholic parishioners on their way to Sunday services at their local Catholic church on a Sunday morning couldn’t avoid seeing the public lewdness and blasphemy intended to offend them.
And that is precisely what the KKK used to do: parade, displaying offensive banners and slogans, and known to offend Catholics, on a route past which Catholic parishioners on their way to Sunday services at their local Catholic church on a Sunday morning couldn’t avoid seeing the what was intended to offend them.
The Cardinal’s comparison of the Gay Pride decision to route their parade so as to offend Catholics on their way to Mass on Sunday morning, with the KKK’s former habit planning their marches so as to offend Catholics on their way to Mass on Sunday morning was apt, fitting, astute, and incisive.
It was, in a word, dead on.
Marion– thank you. That’s exactly it. And frankly, anybody who thinks a Gay Pride march is just a bunch of sedate, appropriately-attired, thoughtful people who happen to be homosexual walking peacefully down the street is kidding themselves…
Are there extreme and offensive folks in the gay community who live to offend or provoke the Church. Yeah, there are. But that still falls well short of any reasonable comparison to the KKK, and it was never part and parcel of the concerns surrounding the parade until George decided to raise it out of the blue. The drag queen nuns and provacateurs are a tiny minority of the procession.
There are far more politicians and chamber of commerce and ordinary folk, and in any case, the outlandish queens still have a First Amendment right to express themselves, even offensively, on the public way so long as they break no laws. The organizers gave ground to ensure that the church services would be over. There was no basis in reality whatsoever for George to characterize this as a legitimate concern about gays seeking to intimidate his parishioners.
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and see how your moral reasoning plays out. Some Catholics in both distant and recent history have chosen to do despicable things – kill doctors, kill their neighbors for being Jewish or protestant. A distinct minority, but real all the same.
If my local church were to say, hold an Ocktoberfest in the parish parking lot and I had legitimate concerns about parking and traffic, would it be fair game to gratuitously throw in a jab with allusions to the KKK because “we all all know how those folks are when they get together in numbers?” If the Catholic press or Bill Donohue then demanded an apology and stuck to my guns and told them, in so many words, to stuff their apology, would I get adulation as a folk hero from this blog or any other collection of decent human beings for “standing up to the Catholic brownshirts?”
If you’re going to do the porno nun thing in the parade, great. Just remeber to do a porno Mohamed as well. Keep it balanced.
I’m not on the porno nun float committee, or even associated with the parade in any way, but I’ll pass the suggestion along.
If I may. Personally it I think it probably wasn’t a great comparison. And I can see why it would offend people. How do I see this? Because the progressive domination of our public debate has established that if you don’t support this or that left leaning stance on an issue, you are open to being called/compared to 1) Nazis, 2) Hitler, 3) the KKK, 4) bigots, 5) racist, 6) sexist, 8) homophobe, 9), well, you get the point. And that, to me, is offensive (and a bit lazy and cowardly as well).
The good Cardinal, compared to what I hear from top gay rights activists, was rather calm about it all. He didn’t compare them to the KKK, as is done almost around the clock for anyone who doesn’t believe the dogmas of non-heterosexual normality. He merely said the tactic of messing with a Catholic service has been done before. Should he have? Could he have found a better comparison? But it’s still a universe kinder and more balanced than the comparisons so often used by the very groups that are now so outraged.
If Catholics did some “Chaste Pride” or “Joy of Marriage” parade that went down streets with gay-bars I think at least some gays would complain and compare it to Fascism or Islamism or other groups that killed gays.
I complain some because I think Cardinals do have to be more circumspect and loving than a gay-activist needs to be.
They should be. But it remains to be seen that this was unloving. That, again, accepts the modern approach to the debate that we’re the ones who have to prove something, and they’re the ones who by default start with the assumptions that have to be disproven.
You say the gay community would call Christians Nazis if a pro-family parade occured? They call Christians that now. Without the parades. Was his statement prudent? Maybe not. But it’s no way near the general rebuttal of Catholic teaching on the subject.
Anyone want to know that? Watch how gay rights activists in the MSM are treating GOP candidates over the gay issue. I know, I know, it’s only the GOP. Still, the things they say – that such views are ‘stupid’, ‘wrong’, ‘evil’, and so on – are not just aimed at the GOP candidates, but aimed at the very idea that homosexuality is wrong. And that’s a far cry worse than what the good Cardinal said.
I do note how the media is extremely one-sided on this matter. I remember an interview with Mormon author Orson Scott Card where the interviewer, a lesbian I believe, compared him to the KKK and the like. And I’m sure media types, if they were aware of her, would applaud that.
Still that they get away with making stupid analogies doesn’t mean we need to as well. If we don’t need to prove anything we don’t need potentially confusing analogies. Just say “we believe a Gay Pride Parade celebrates mortal sin. It is roughly as provocative to have it near us as it would be to have a ‘Parade of Muhammad paintings’ go by mosques.” Or something. The KKK brings up specific historical association that I don’t think are necessary or helpful.
It would be better to compare to the Westboro Baptists then. When you bring up the Klan, and I can’t believe he’s too ignorant to know this, you’re bringing up an image of violence not just offensiveness or blasphemy.
Now if these parades involve “assaulting” as indicated, sexual assault would mean like grabbing bystanders and force them to perform sex acts, than they should simply be illegal. It wouldn’t matter whether they’re specifically offensive to a religion in that case. I’ve just not sure I’ve heard much on them involving raping people.
You won’t hear of them raping people either. It’s a parade, not the Sack of Rome of 1527!. It’s a bunch of queens taking an excuse to dress to the nines and have a pageant. It’s a bunch more straight people taking advantage of any excuse to drink beer on the public way in the summer and take in a party. Above all it’s a chance for politicians to curry favor with one of the dozens of influential demographic minorities they need to keep their paycheck.
Well I really didn’t think so, I was sort-of being facetious.
I guess it’s more that even looking at porn is seen by Catholics as sinful so if the parades even involve the pornographic it’s enticing members to sin. Particularly if they’re church-goers who have some tendency to SSA or are the kind of heterosexual-men who can be tempted by watching lesbian stuff.
This kind of stuff can be tricky. Many Muslims believe just looking at a picture of Muhammad is idolatry so even some of the nicer Muslims objected that depictions force them to sin. However I don’t really agree with the idea of banning depictions of Muhammad. Although I feel like pornographic imagery is not really the same thing as it’s harder to see how it could happen innocently. Still this is a religiously pluralistic society so if the Hindus want to march with their phallic statues I don’t know that I’d object. (Seeing “Gay Pride” as akin to a pantheistic or pagan religion is as far as I go, but farther than I think many Catholics would) It’s hard balancing different religions rights at times.
Excuse me Mark, don’t sound so sure of yourself, before you actually know what you are talking about!
Here in Sydney Australia, we have the largest Gay Parade in the world. It’s called the Gay Mardi GRAS- a copy of what is meant to be a celebration before Lent. Lent is a Catholic preparation for Easter.
The gays in the parade dress up as the order of Nuns, who care for members of the gay community who have developed full-blown AIDS and are dying. They mock them in the most disgusting and vulgar manner. No respect for their habit or the love and care they give to the destitute and dying homosexuals who have contracted AIDS through their lifestyle. It’s not the gays that are looking after their own- is it?
So you work out who are the bigoted pigs here?
You don’t need to pretend to be nuns to help dying people. If I dressed up in a Lama-robe and helped Tibetan refugees I’d still, in some ways, be mocking their religion.
If they want to help people with AIDS, great! Just do that, you don’t need the mocking theatrics. I think/hope at least some of those people were jeering their theatrics not their charity.
Theatrics? What do you know about them anyway???
They’re a silent order of nuns Kenneth!
No gay lala broadway dancing and acting…haha
Again, you demonstrate a typical blinkered ignorance. Frankly by the amount of “opinions’ you have posted on this topic, you are just like those “screamers” Bishop George was eluding to. That’s really annoying, and bigoted.
What are you doing on a Catholic blog posting twenty-odd comments, if you have already handed in your paperwork for resignation from the Catholic Church….? I find that odd.
I guess I find it amusing that a movement based on saying anyone who doesn’t accept the beliefs of the gay rights movement is a bigot, and comparing them to anything from slave owners to Nazis, suddenly has folks crying their eyes out because the same was done back. And not even that. He merely points out what some, such as MSNBC, seem to forget – that the KKK was against Catholics just the same, and had its day marching to disrupt Catholics in a way this parade seemed aimed at doing. Maybe not the most PC statement to make, but then I notice that supporters of gay rights and other progressive causes don’t worry about being PC in how they speak of those who don’t conform to their values.
George’s characterization of the KKK as being anti-Catholic was factually true, but it didn’t come up in any reasonable context of discussion. The Klan was not even remotely an element of the debate until George chose to insert it in a ludicrous fashion.
His “logic” was as follows: The KKK was opposed to the Church. Some elements of the gay community come into conflict with the Church. Therefore the gay community (and thus the parade participants), are morally equivalent to the KKK. That’s a grotesque and deliberate twisting of logic and the facts by a very highly educated man who certainly knew better.
It’s also true that a number of people in the gay movement have chosen to resort to the lowest common denominator of political discourse, and to characterize their opponents as Nazis and to otherwise conduct themselves in truly classless ways.
In the strictest sense I suppose it’s “fair play” for the cardinal to do the same. That said, one might hope that a man presenting himself to the world as a Vicar of Christ would want to hold himself to a somewhat higher standard of conduct and discourse.
Some elements of the gay community call their opponents Nazis. Almost all call those who don’t conform to their idealogy regarding non-heterosexual behavior bigots.
And I don’t think it’s a matter of fair play. I’m merely taken by those who make calling anyone who doesn’t agree with them bigots at best, suddenly all bent out of shape when a rather mild version of the same is thrown back their way. I would like to think maybe, just maybe, those elements of the gay community who once strutted under the title ‘we’re the tolerant ones’ would take a deep breath and say ‘maybe it isn’t evil and/or stupid to not see it our way and so we should stop insisting it is’.
Again, I can see where a better choice of words might have been more prudent. From what I can see, he was pointing to the tendency of the KKK to march in front of Churches (and, of course, other things) to this parade. He seemed to be comparing tactics, rather than ‘if you oppose the Church you’re like the KKK which also opposes the Church).
But since there is certainly a not-too-small element of the gay community that seems to prefer these heavy handed approaches to debate, his statment might not have been as wrong as some believe.
Ever read old KKK propaganda? They too berated the Catholic Church for bigotry and intolerance.
Back in the early 1990s “gay” activists vandalized the Catholic cemetery in which some of my relatives are buried. It affected something like 100 gravestones.
Two of those relatives actually had run-ins with the Klan in the 1920s. The parallel wasn’t lost on me.
Lots of activists stopped doing that not because their hatred for the faith subsided, but because such actions were counter-productive to their goals.
Catholics have always been a minority in the U.S. The failure to voice concern about blasphemers and provocateurs decades ago has meant the diminution of public decency and morals, not to mention our freedoms.
Cardinal George was correct. God bless him!
If you or the cardinal want to stick by the analogy, that’s your right, but I think it’s time to put up or shut up where the facts are concerned. By that, I mean it’s time to do the apples-to-apples comparison and see how it weighs out.
How many cases can you document where gays, clearly motivated by a gay agenda, murdered Catholics for being Catholic? How many prevented Catholics from owning homes, going to school, casting votes or serving on juries or giving testimony in court? And for how many generations?
How many churches have been bombed by gays? How many hijacked the criminal justice system and used it with impunity to beat, torture and imprison Catholics on meritless charges? How many prominent Catholic leaders have been shot down by such activists with tacit approval of the wider community and no meaningful investigation of the crime?
If you or the cardinal or any of his people can demonstrate any degree of proportionality in the facts of this matter, than yes, it’s fair to make comparisons between the gay movement and the klan.
So here’s the meat and potatoes of my challenge: The Tuskegee Institute says 4,743 people were lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968 – the time period between the formal creation of Jim Crow segregation and the Civil Rights Act. They were all victims of the culture of the KKK, if not actual sworn members.
So here’s the deal. If you or the cardinal can document even 10% of that number in cases of gay on Catholic extrajudicial killings, I’ll shut up. In fact, I’ll personally apologize to the Cardinal, in person if he’ll receive me, and I’ll do so live on the Catholic television station of your choosing. 10% would still fall way short of proportionality, but I’m willing to spot you all a bunch of points in this game.
In fact, if you can document even 1% – that’s 47 such hate-based killings, I’ll buy you a fifth of 15-year old Glenlivet French Oak Reserve scotch.
If his eminence can’t demonstrate these minimal levels of evidence, I would suggest it’s time for him to retract or rephrase his statement, or else see it be recognized by reasonable people for foolishness.
Although I think the remark was unwise there are difficulties with what you’re saying. For starters gays, particularly the type to parade about it, are much less numerous than Catholics. The Westboro Baptists I don’t think have killed any Catholics. Not that they’re analogous to gay-activists, but the point is that the number of crimes being small can be due to size and strength rather than virtue.
Also we’d need to know how many gays were killed by Catholics, in the US as if we go international other issues can occur, to get the proportionality issue in full. I don’t know that you really gave a stat on that.
Still after Proposition 8 there was certainly several instances, by gays or gay supporters, of threats or property damage of Catholics. They’re not that hard to find. ACT-UP once broke into a Church and committed Eucharist desecration. I’m not sure I can think of a Catholic organization, in modern times, that’s broken into gay establishments and busted up things.
Well for what it’s worth, it looks like he made an apology earlier today. It may have been an apology under duress, ie simply because it was going to keep dogging him in press conferences, but it’s still good he made the move. It was a senselessly bad characterization of the issue.
That was wise. I imagine several here will be disappointed though.
Kenneth, when are we going to see members of the Gay community apologize for their perverted mockery of the Christian faith….?
Or are they precious princesses with glass jaws, who can’t handle what they have dished out under the guise of “protests or equality” for decades…?
I’m waiting for my apology…!
We Catholics will never receive an apology for the hurt and offense caused by the public displays of homosexualist activists.
Our culture has now degenerated to the point where those who mock holy religion in the most vile manner, have carte blanche to do as they like, without excuses, without apologies.
Just as it was in the days of Sodom of old. As it was in the days of Gomorrah.
Faithful Catholics, know where the mountains are, and have a go-bag packed and at the ready. Have gas in the tank and your cell phone charged.
The Day is coming.
People in the country have always had the freedom to mock religion in general or specific religions. It was hardwired into our Constitution from day one as freedom of speech.
Gays are very far from the first to exercise that freedom in this manner. Many of the revolutionaries and founders had some choice things to say about organized religion. If you doubt that, read some of the stuff by Tom Paine someday.
Freedom of speech ain’t always pretty, but it sure beats the alternative. In countries where government enforces religious virtues, like the Middle East or Reformation Europe, people really did need go-bags, and they rarely made it to the mountains in time.
Homosexual activity is disgusting, immoral, and destructive. Those who promote it hate human beings.
Its unloving to promote what is sinful and destructive among sick and disordered people.
The Church is right. The homosexual KKK is wrong.
That’s fine as long as we don’t have to support, admire, or celebrate them. I don’t admire Tom Paine or Jefferson.
In fairness though what I’ve seen of Melissa Etheridge, and a few others, they’re okay with that. I think a good deal of gay people are perfectly reasonable and willing to accept not every church is going to embrace what they feel they need. But as with everything the most public element is sometimes a bit obnoxious.
The gay ministry folks who have been after George for this did strike a conciliatory tone after his apology. As to the most angry and militant factions of the gay community, my guess is that you’ll never get an apology from them.
That’s unfortunate, but I still think if Catholics, especially bishops, want to hold themselves out as Christ’s representatives, they ought to aspire to be better their haters, even if it would be “fair” to do otherwise.
Will you be convinced once one of the homosexual KKK members kills one of us faithful Catholics?
Will you be convinced once the homosexual KKK makes us martyrs?
Methinks you won’t.
I’d be convinced that would at least put them on the same spectrum for comparison. It would still not equate the systematic and widespread terror that defined the Klan, but you or the Cardinal would at least have some basis for voicing that sort of concern. A parade going by a church surely does not.
I do not recall the specific details, but an organized gay group found everyone who had materially donated to Prop 8 and harassed them, by among other things trying to get them fired. In Canada, the “human rights” commission–without allowing a defense or trial by jury–attempted to fine a pastor, force him to write a public apology, and prevent him from speaking about homosexuality ever again.
More practically, since when does the inability to succeed morally absolve one of a crime? The KKK would not have been peachy-keen if they did not break the law out of the fear that the law would break them. Neonazi is an insult, though I have yet to hear any serious success in anything beyond parading in the streets with swastiskas.
Or is it only actual, current violations of the law that count? I can find 47 or more death threats, kidnapping threats, rape threats, etc from those in this movement. Those are most definitely illegal.
kenneth, kenneth, kenneth………
Try and understand.
The Cardinal was not saying the gays were going to lynch Catholics.
The Cardinal was saying the gays were going to parade their morally depraved and gratuitously offensive blasphemies- precisely *aimed* at Catholics- right down the street in from of a Catholic Church.
You know, sort of like……
Sort of like the KKK used to do.
PS: Word to the wise.
It would be a highly inadvisable thing to ever allow the sewer of hatred against the Church- which is a deeply virulent, rapidly growing evil within the gay movement- to *ever* metastasize into the kinds of tactics the KKK eventually *did* employ.
It would take a very great deal to wake up the Catholic Church in this country, re-unify Her, and awaken Her from Her lethargy and slumbers.
But that would do it in a heartbeat, and it would be the single worst mistake the gay movement ever made.
It was still a fool thing to say in the context of the facts at hand. Not least because the parade had nothing to do at all with targeting the church for any angry outburst of any kind. This is not, and never was, a protest march of any kind.
The cardinals statement was completely disconnected from the reality on the ground. It made no more sense than if a gay person had said a similar thing about an innocent Catholic fundraiser or parade. “I’d hate to see the angry elements within the Church metastasize into the kind of tactics used in the expulsion of Jews from Spain or the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
It was just that level of absurdity in context of the parade. In the context of a different conversation, it would have been fair game to speak out about the hatred displayed toward the Church by some corners of the gay community.
It still would not have been accurate to suggest that those elements are functionally the same as the KKK or in any imminent danger of being so. Some gays have shown a propensity for angry words, and even some property damage. That is still light years away from the magnitude of terror employed by the Klan.
The Klan was about rule through murder and the credible threat of murder, a shadow government which held complete sway in the areas where it took hold. It was a terror movement every bit as effective and deadly as the Taliban is today in the Swat Valley. Even if the great bulk of the gay community were inclined to such violence (they are not), they would be very hard pressed to make themselves into an armed movement which would ever bear comparison to the Klan.
Go to Joe.My.God’s blog. Homosexual activists hate the Church and ALL of her members. They want to see us burn.
Its that simple. They are the KKK of the modern age.
If they’re that scary, how is it you’re able to keep speaking out against them? The Klan would have burned you out of your home by now…..
Funny you should say that. I have already been threatened with bodily harm and death several times for supporting the truth.
It must have been a coincidence that they had Human Rights campaign equal stickers on their cars, rainbows, and were using foul language. Must have been a coincidence.
Homosexual activists are the new KKK. They are violent, irrational, and hate-filled bigots.
Yeah, well that’s the difference. The real Klan didn’t threaten people “several time” or do so by yelling insults from a passing car.
The Klan never made empty threats. If they gave any warning at all, it was a burning cross in the front yard, two dozen hooded guys on horseback or pickup truck (including the sheriff) and ONE verbal warning given with a gun at your head in front of your wife and kids.
If you didn’t mend your ways, the wife and kids were treated to the site of your mangled corpse hanging from a cottonwood tree or laying in a local stream bed.
I have a hard time believing the local queens in your city driving around with equality stickers add up to all that, or even a fraction of that.
For all your hatred of the gay movement, you’re still glossing over some BIG distinctions. Your encounter with gay activists makes you mad. I suspect an encounter with the old klan would have had the most of you reaching for a dry pair of trousers and a train ticket north, not a blog entry….
Hey, doofus, I didn’t say they yelled at me from a car. I was threatened face to face and I took that threat seriously.
Homosexuals are disturbed. Homosexual activists are violent and irrational. They are the new KKK.
Again, the fact that you’re still around to call people “doofus” on a chat board gives the lie to the idea that your gay antagonists are anything like the Klan of old…
Homosexual activists are the new KKK.
And where are all the “moderate” homo voices out there speaking out against Dan Savage, Joe.My.God, Wayne Besen, and the acts of sodomy which take place in “pride” parades?
The homosexual KKK will not stop.
I see violence, church burnings, and assaults in our future. Prop 8 was the beginning.
Irrational disorder breeds irrational behavior.
When archbishops need police escorts in their own cathedrals…the comparison of the homosexual activists to the KKK is not only correct, it is an equivalency.
There are no better people, nay SAINTLY people, on this planet that homosexuals who follow Church teachings and fight off temptation – remaining chaste and in full-communion. These are the people homosexual activists DESPISE. Them, and those who have CHANGED their orientation – ex-gays. Homosexual activists, the new KKK, HATE these people and they HATE the Church for loving them.
Homosexuals who are chaste and follow Church teaching – especially those who struggle – are saints in my book.
Those who hate them for not parading their inclinations or acting upon them are hateful. That includes homosexual activists and their enablers.
For my part, if a gay man or woman believes they should live a chaste and celibate life for religious or other reasons, I won’t hate them. It makes me no never-mind what they do in that regard.
I do reserve a certain amount of ridicule for the “ex-gay” ministries and the discredited psychologists who offer conversion therapy because it’s scientific hogwash, but people can always make choices about how they act on their sexuality, or not.
Oh that’s sweet, but I imagine they’re still people like everyone. There’s still all the regular non-sexual foibles everyone has to manage. And as chaste heterosexual may occasionally find themselves lingering on certain TV channels I imagine chaste homosexuals sometimes find themselves lingering on something homoerotic on occasion. (Which can be more difficult in a way. If I was caught lingering on some hetero love-scene I’d be embarrassed, but if I was caught lingering too long on a homo love-scene I might still be a tad afraid. Some have made it clear to me that they feel you shouldn’t even admit such temptations and don’t think well of things like “Courage.”)
Sigh. The local media would not let him go. The left/gay media piled on and plotted this bulllying attack. An article at HuffPost revealed this web of coordination. They still plan a demonstration outside the Cathedral tomorrow. It seems to me that the demonstration is exactly an example of gays marching in the street against the Church.
Thank you for this invormation Peggy. Things are beginning to make sense now. Non of this is a coincidence.
Here is the HuffPo article. No, they didn’t intend to tell us how they did it, but they are proud of their success. And I read just a bit a go that the demonstration was cancelled. That was wise on their part. I don’t know when the parade will occur. It will be interesting to see whether there are any attempts to tamp down on anti-catholic mockery that is part of these parades.
The parade is set to go on at noon, as far as I know, which was moved from earlier in the morning precisely so that the members of that one church would not have to deal with the parade traffic or participants.
That’s the tragic irony in all this. The one real grievance was settled quickly and was in no way any kind of epic Catholic-Gay conflict.
George made an apology Friday, one that was clearly motivated more by external pressure than a real change of heart. The gay movement in Chicago is very media saavy, and so they did, in a sense, engineer the widespread awareness of George’s remarks. Once there, however, it was public opinion that forced his hand. The majority of the public saw his ludicrous remarks for what they were.
The HuffPo article raises a crucial point that has been lost in all this. George’s senseless attack did more to discredit his Church in one day than the most extreme anti-Catholic gays could have done in a year. A $20 million professional produced TV anti-Catholic smear ad campaign could not have achieved what George did over the span of a few days. Sometimes I think he would play Russian Roulette with a full cylinder just to prove he’s a hard enough man to do it!
I read the article a little differently.
Notable for their blasphemy, impurity, and insults to the Holy Name of God, as well as for their pride, and their implacable hatred of all virtue, the public activities and writings of so-called gay activists do, paradoxically, contribute something for which we Catholics ought to be grateful.
The Church has, sadly, in recent decades seen fit to cease – or at least greatly to reduce the frequency and severity of – her warnings against the realities of Hell and of Satan – the spirit who loathes God, the things of God and all men.
Now, when the unfortunate souls in the so-called “gay rights” movement exhibit their horrifying animalistic spectacles, and their blasphemies and their hatred of God and of the Church, one thing ordinary Catholics are able to see with their own eyes and to hear with their own ears is the sad reality that, yes, the Evil One does very much exist, and prowls throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. And that Hell does very much exist, and a portal to that nightmare-world of the lost does open up before our very eyes, and into which we may see for ourselves a foreshadowing of the multitudes who, having forsaken God by giving themselves over to vile, loathsome, and degrading practices and refusing to repent, now utter in their despair atrocious shreiks and horrifying bellows against God, against the Church, and against mankind still on Earth. That’s what “Gay Pride Parades” ought to look like to Catholics: a vision of very Hell itself.
And that these very visions of Hell itself propose one day soon to arrive on the streets before our churches is perhaps a Providential method of the Almighty to remind the People of God – since the clergy have not been doing so recently – that Hell is a reality; that sin and death and damnation are to be discussed carefully and reverently; and that the faithful are to be mindful of these things always, day and night.
When was the last time you heard all four of the Four Last Things – Death, Judgement, Hell, and Heaven – discussed during the homily? Watch a video clip of a so-called “Gay Rights” parade for 30 seconds and, I think you will see unfolding before you unmistakable evidence of the first Three.
I appreciate your thoughts Marion. I am haveing trouble remembering when lewd and lascivious public behavior became a civil right or free speech.
Plenty of deeds that are perfectly legal, even touted as “civil rights”, are numbered among The Sins That Cry Out To Heaven For Vengeance. These are (1) Willful Murder (e.g., the “civil right” of abortion); (2) the Sin of Sodom (about which see Ephesians 5:3); (3) to Defraud the Laborer of His Wages; and (4) to Oppress the Poor (e.g. to make usurious loans to people who can least afford to repay them.)