It Turns Out Andrew Sullivan is a “leading Catholic blogger”

…and it turns out this Leading Catholic Blogger thinks, on the basis of his own obsessions, that Benedict is gay.  And it turns out the MSM thinks this speculation is newsworthy and not ridiculous. Calling Sullivan a “Catholic blogger” is about as sensible as calling a celibate man “gay”.  Sullivan is “Catholic” in the sense that he has never actually formally rejected his baptism and still retains a sort of tribal identity as a Catholic who never goes to Mass and largely hates the Church.  Calling him a “Catholic blogger” is like calling Trotsky a “devout Jew”.  Give me a break.  It would be far more accurate to say “gay blogger with deep loathing for Benedict accuses him of being gay”.

  • Faith

    Only in today’s twisted atmosphere could this kind of thing be taken seriously at all. The world’s gone mad! Andrew Sullivan is warped, crass and nuts. God save us!

  • http://gladius-spiritus.blogspot.ca/ bear

    Yawn. First time I heard the “Benedict is gay” rumour was from some rad trad, sede vacantist, conspiracy theorists. It was the only explanation for his gorgeous secretary.

  • Brian

    Sullivan acts like almost all gay men that I know, like a 14 year old gossipy twit. Every aspect of life for him is seen through the lens of his disordered sexual appetites. He really needs to become an adult.

    • Mike

      Ok, have to agree; what you say you say bluntly but it mirrors my experience. I can’t tell you how many I’ve known who’ve been convinced that this and that and that and this person was secretly in the closet.

  • Chris M

    I can think of nothing to say about Sullivan that would pass even today’s lax TV censors, so I’ll just shut up and pray for him (and myself).

  • SteveP

    Mark, I took a quick poll here and got “Andrew who?” 73.7% of the time. I think you’re doing well on the leading meter.
    .
    Sullivan is the epitome of the absurdity of the gay brand: being self-identified as gay he gives himself permission to speculate other’s orientation; if a non-gay person did the same speculation there would be screams of outrage proclaiming that orientation can only be self-identified never assigned.

  • jcb

    The real question: what is Benedict hiding about his relationship to the Palin family? I’m sure Sullivan will be on that shortly.

    • SouthCoast

      Darn it! You beat me to it!

    • S. Murphy

      He’s Trig’s *real* real mom.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        And a web site devoted to this theory will be on the internet in 3… 2… 1…

      • Julia

        You win the Internet.

  • The Deuce

    “It would be far more accurate to say “gay blogger with deep loathing for Benedict accuses him of being gay””

    It would be even more accurate if you put the words “a tenuous grip on reality and” in there between “with” and “deep.”

  • bob

    Does Sully believe the Holland Tunnel is a secret passage to the Vatican?

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    If memory serves, Sullivan made a rather public renunciation of his faith a year or so ago, amid much hand-wringing and garment-rending, saying he could no longer follow the faith that had inflicted such a deep wound on the gay populace. Or something like that. Having noted that, though, I have to add that some of his reflective spiritual writing on faith and doubt over the years has been quite good, and displayed an honest soul-searching that is to be commended. Maybe some day he’ll come to his senses.

  • “joe”

    so one guy, adam taylor, and perhaps his editor, is the “MSM”?
    is there also a monolithic catholic blogosphere?

  • Stu

    Sullivan is secretly a self-loathing heterosexual.

    • SteveP

      Also, perhaps Sullivan is a closeted Westboro Baptist congregant?

  • Thomas Tucker

    Stu, aren’t they all?

  • Thomas Tucker

    btw, if you had seen the Holy Father in person recentlt, as I did in October, you wkuld know how frail he is and would not be surprised that he needs assistance. After reading Sullivan’s scurrilous piece, I p,edge never to read him again.

  • Elizabeth

    To call him a “leading Catholic blogger” is absurd and classic MSM. But I believe Andrew is actually going to Mass regularly. Since he moved to NYC, he has been attending that radical church in Chelsea that I don’t know much about. He is constantly criticizing the Church, but I wouldn’t say he has repudiated his faith. He spoke pretty eloquently about a year ago, in a little video interview on the Dish, about why he still considers himself Catholic. Said he almost renounced the faith when the worst of the pedophilia scandal was breaking, but was still drawn to go to Mass, not receive, and pray through his bitterness. He sometimes posts the most ridiculous, fringe-y religious stuff but he has his moments of defending the faith (I rather liked his thread “Bury Richard III in a Catholic Church Dammit.” And there was an interesting line in an old debate he posted between himself and Christopher Hitchens: “…when someone asks me, “Why don’t you become an Episcopalian?” …I say, “You have no idea…I could sooner become a Muslim.”)

    I’ve been reading the Dish for several years, since back when I was a pro-choice Episcopalian (a lot has been turned upside down in my life since then). I have continued to read because there is much that is appealing in the way he views the world, and the breadth of his interests. That being said….I am not planning to read him any more. The filth he has spewed about Benedict over the past month has absolutely turned my stomach. I had to stop reading before I got an ulcer. His desperation to justify his own sins by any means necessary is really showing. He has become completely unhinged and paranoid. Pray for him!

  • Melissa

    Why do they publish such slander?

  • Bernie

    The word Gay, pertains to the lifestyle, which is immoral. If a person has same sex attraction (SSA), which I have, it is a disorder and a cross to bear. Many have SSA and we try to live a chaste life and follow the teachings of Christ’s church. Those who are gay, seem to hate the Catholic church, because the church teaches the truths we need for our salvation. Common sense tells us that persons of the same sex cannot marry each other. This cannot be changed by the Church or anyone period. All of us, whether we have SSA or not, have to follow God’s commandments and it seems most gay and non-gay folks don’t seem to want to do this. So, even if Pope Benedict did have SSA, which I doubt, he is still a holy, saintly man who I hope and pray I will someday meet in Heaven.

    • Mark Shea

      All granted. The problem is, there is no way on earth Sullivan can know any of this because the Pope is celibate and does not discuss his sexual orientation. Sullivan is engaging in a) projection and b) malicious rumor-mongering.

      • Bernie

        Yes, so very true Mark.

    • S. Murphy

      Thanks for your witness, Bernie. God bless you.

    • Claude

      This breaks my heart to read. You are not “disordered,” no matter what the Church says. You are just the way you were born, like any person.

      • Mark Shea

        That’s true. He is not disordered. He does, however, recognize that same sex attraction, like gluttony, is a disordered appetite.

        • Claude

          No more disordered an appetite that opposite sex attraction, if we are to relegate sexual orientation to an “appetite.”

          • Blog Goliard

            I agree completely. Opposite-sex attraction can be a mightily disordered and destructive appetite as well.

            It’s not about what one’s impulses are. It’s about how one deals with them…and, more to the point, about what is the morally right way to deal with them.

            • Claude

              Please remind me where the RCC describes heterosexuality as “disordered.”

              While the Church appeals to “natural law” to rationalize its prohibition against homosexual acts, in fact the Church is at war with nature. The destructive and tragic consequences of this misguided moralism are there for all to see.

              • Mark Shea

                Heterosexuality per se is not disordered. Neither is an appetite for food (as distinct from an appetite for dirt or household objects).

                But just as an appetite for food can be disordered by wanting too much or too little of it, so a heterosexual appetite can be disordered by desiring too much, too little, too many partners (i.e., anybody not one’s spouse), no partner, or anything else outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage.

                Your argument turns on a confusion of what “natural” means. Simply because somebody feels a desire does not make it “natural”. An alcoholic feels a strong desire for alcohol, a glutton a strong desire for too much food, a sociopath feels a strong desire to kill his neighbor, a kleptomaniac feels a strong desire to steal, a sex addict feels a strong desire for sex with anyone with a pulse, a necrophiliac for anyone without a pulse. Curbing these disordered desires is not “making war on nature” but making war on disordered appetites that destroy and harm the flourishing of human nature.

                • Claude

                  The heterosexual “appetite” is indulged by a doctrine that encourages sexual intimacy, if within the confines of monogamous marriage and proper intent to procreate. The latter condition, of course, is roundly ignored by the majority of American Catholics.

                  The homosexual appetite, on the other hand, as the ex-Pope expressed it, is “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” and gay Catholics are expected to live a life of self-recrimination and celibacy. To deny one’s sexuality altogether is against nature, and any doctrine mandating such denial is simply wrong.

                  It is not good that the man should be alone.

          • Mark Shea

            No argument from me. Of course, heterosexual appetite can be disordered. In fact, it usually is. And so: fornication, adultery, pornography, masturbation, etc. All of these are expressions of disordered heterosexual appetites.

  • Claire

    Sullivan is ridiculous, but I think that anyone can blog for Yahoo “news”. You probably have more readers than that blogger does.

    • S. Murphy

      I think he’s actually a pretty well-known blogger among news junkies. He was a ‘conservative gay blogger’ before 2008; now he’s probably perceived as liberal for his Obama support. He sees himself as aligned with Conservative/Classical Liberal values in his advocacy for gay marriage. He comes across nuts in his Trig Truther posts, and his Pope Benedict is the pedophile-hider-in-chief posts (when John Allen of the Nat Catholic Reporter thinks Cdl Ratzinger was pretty much the first guy in the uria to wake up and realize that the pedo scandals were a serious problem for the Church, and not just a diocese here and there — he may have been behind the curve, but he got it, and began to address it). He comes across bitterly angry that Benedict hasn’t soft-pedaled the Church’s teaching on gay sex, to the point that it appears to be the motivation for his willingness to accept the assumptions that the Pope was persoanally the architect of a world-wide cover up.
      On other subjects, he’s pretty fair-minded. He did good work investigating torture by US personnel in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Iraq a few years ago. He’s in Greenwald’s camp re Obama and drones, despite his support for Obama, and Obama’s support for gay marriage and the DADT repeal.

  • Michelle

    And, you know, the funny thing is that Andrew Sullivan intends his speculation as an attack on Benedict XVI, as a way of trashing the pope emeritus’s image. Wow! And here I thought that being gay was all rainbows and pony rides. The way he talks, you’d think it was something despicable.

    • Mark Shea

      One of the weirdest features of gay culture is how often gay polemicists use homosexuality as a stigma against the people they attack. Recall Dan Savage reviling kids half his age as “pansies”. And that from the Pope of Anti-Bullying.

  • JimPV

    Yeah, Bernie – God bless. Thanks for your courage!

  • John Penta

    Mark, let’s call this stuff by its proper name, shall we?
    Had Andrew Sullivan written that post about anyone *except* Benedict, it would be libel.
    Really, someone should suggest that somebody take up the sword for the Pope emeritus and file a lawsuit against Sullivan. In the UK, maybe.

    • Mark Shea

      And somebody else should say “Put up your sword.”

  • Zaidagal

    This is an interesting thread – Bernie – I havent heard that distinction before – that “gay” refers to lifestyle, but SSA simply refers to the attraction. I would have used “gay” to simply mean the attraction and “active gay lifestyle” to describe someone who is actively engaging in that kind of sexual activity. Anyway – whether or not Benedict has SSA is really nobodys business. It is not a sin to have SSA – many people do – what we “feel” matters far less than what we “do”. Bernie – I dont know if this is possible – Im interested in talking with celibate people who have SSA – could we be in contact?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/ The Crescat

    On the plus side… read the comments. For once commenters are siding with us. I have noticed this, haven’t you? People are getting weary of the anti-Catholic claptrap. More and more people are coming to our defense… at least judging from comments made on recent news articles about the Church.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X