Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
Write something in jest in 2008 and somebody writes it in earnest in 2012.
In the first few pages – available to read online for free on Amazon – the author calls Obama’s mother a Virgin.
From what Amazon will let us read, the contents seem to range from cringe-inducing to nauseating, with some borderline blasphemy as well as passages that arguably cross that line.
Episcopal priest living in Massachusetts…..that’s all I needed…..
He’s one of the clergy at Trinity Church in lower Manhattan. That church supported Occupy Wall Street until the occupiers were kicked out of Zuccotti park and tried to occupy an empty lot owned by Trinity. The church won’t let them do that so now they’re lambasting Trinity for owning expensive real estate, blah blah “1%” blah blah blah… etc.
Actually, a former Jesuit now married to an Episcopalian priestess and living in New York city.
A Frontpagemag.com article says he is “The Reverend Mark Bozzuti-Jones, a priest for pastoral care at Trinity”
Tragicomic coincidence that this author’s name is Mark, too.
There ARE no coincidences. “Bazutti”…nice pseudonym, Mark. Like so many Catholic converts, secretly longing to be Italian. As so often, “satire” is a fig leaf to self-consciousness allowing one to reveal one’s most secret beliefs, beliefs SO secret we don’t even confide them to ourselves.
…agreeing with SDG…nice one, Mark…
This may be the inflection point in our culture where the satirist transitions to the fool. “Our life-defining texts must be porous and we must be imaginative in our engagement with them.” Porous life-defining texts – Yikes!
After that, he writes, “Yet this book be a reminder not to so credit sacred texts or cultural icons that they lead us to hatred and violence in the name of God.”
Unless that hatred is directed toward Birthers, apparently. From page 49:
“And it was there in Honolulu that they gave birth to a son and named him Barack Hussein Obama. And those who question his place of birth are liars and deceivers and racist in their thinking. Their actions do nothing but prove their malicious content and only confirm that no one ever knows where and why the Spirit blows.”
(I’m not a Birther, btw.)
But Obama worship is just a Republican myth, right?
I’d advise those in glass houses not to throw stones:
A bronze bust of the President does not constitute idol-worship.
“It’s not idol worship when WE do it!”
Then I guess the images of presidential busts on Google prove that Americans also worship George Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Ford… etc.
Again, nothing particularly religious about a bust. It’s certainly not in the same class as a “gospel” which states the following about Obama:
“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, because he is ths son of the Spirit and those who see whim will know the Spirit, because he and the Spirit are one.” (p. 4)
I know some Evangelicals went gaga over Bush 43, but they would never have said something like that about him.
Sorry for the typos in the quote from the book. I couldn’t cut-and-paste it so that’s what I get for typing hastily.
Okay, so it’s a bust of a former president. Not a particularly religious image and in no way inappropriate. Many historical figures get busts made of them and a Potus is in that category. Just google “bust president” and check out the Images page. You’ll see a variety of presidents, from Washington to Gerald Ford to Obama, and that’s just on the top page.
Mhmm. And what is this then?
Something a bit different from a bust. I’m pretty sure Mark wasn’t happy with Jesus Camp, either. We’re quite critical of that kind of thing on this blog, whether from the Left or Right.
Kind of like this?
This one is pretty good, too:
Umm, Mark complained about that picture on his blog years ago. Too bad you weren’t reading back then.
It”s directed at partisan Republicans who make fun of “Obama worship”. If Mark isn’t one, its not directed at him.
There’s a fine line between being a partisan Republican and putting a halo of glory around your God-King Barry Sotero.
But I’ll let Hollywood do the talking… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0
And to think that he was educated by Jesuits, and this is how he turned out… shocking.
But not surprising in the least:
Reading between the lines…
The Divine within=I am divine therefore whatever I do is divine so I can do what I want…
Created in His image=when He agrees with my worldview (as well as Obama’s)…or God is in my image (as well as Obama’s)…
I realy want a job in the Obama administration
This may be a variant of “Johnson’s First Law of Episcopal Thermodynamics,” applied to society in general. The original version is: “Every joke you make about The Episcopal Organization™ eventually comes true.” It would appear that said law has much wider application than merely an increasingly small Protestant denomination.
Pax et bonum,
I think someone who is in a church that is still up to its neck in child rape allegations should refrain from commenting on the faults of other people’s denominations.
“SHUT UP!”, he explained.
Considering that both Mr. Topfer and I are former Episcopalians and have friends and/or family still within that community, we will feel free to comment to our hearts’ content, thank you very much.
And I’ll keep saying that hippy-dippy theology and vaguely leftist politics are a lot less offensive than a systemic covering up child rape.
The Church has cleaned house on the cover-ups. Still waiting for the homosexualists to answer for the grand theft of souls belonging to all the children they’ve indoctrinated with their propaganda parade…
How exactly are gay pride parades any more offensive than the heterosexual debauchery at Mardi Gras or Spring Break?
Oh, those are also offensive, I agree. But then, they’re not suing the Church for refusing to take professional photography of their sins.
Is anyone here defending heterosexual debauchery? That’s wrong, too.
I don’t hear Roman Catholics harp on mari gras and spring break quite like they do on gay pride parades.
I’ve heard remarks from priests about that. It just never made the news.
I’ll defend debauchery. I just need a minute to get dressed, first.
This is why you’re my favorite.
Homosexuality and Heterosexual promiscuity are equally wrong. Much as you might want to spin it that way, the Church isn’t just out to hurt LGBT folks and kill kittens.
“And I’ll keep saying that hippy-dippy theology and vaguely leftist politics are a lot less offensive than a systemic covering up child rape.”
I agree. Except that’s not what you said.
Allegations are one thing, but the vast majority of child rape in the Church is the work of homosexuals.
No, it was the work of pedophiles. Pedophiles that your church protected, sheltered, and enabled.
Homosexual is an orientation towards being attracted to adults of the same sex.
Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, or heterosexuality. Pedophilia did have a lot to do with the RCC for a very long time, though.
So “Same Sex Attraction” doesn’t mean what it says? Sounds like it means “Same Sex Attraction”.
Eighty percent of victims were males between the ages of twelve and sixteen. That is not pedophilia, but ephebophilia.
The Church sheltered them at the time (not anymore), because psychologists said that it was not a crime, but an illness.
As for coverups, how about how the media usually ignores abuse by coaches, teachers, and other professionals that aren’t priests. The thing that surprised me most about Penn State was that it was in the news, at all, what with there being a conspicuous absence of clergy.
The abuse scandal doesn’t have anything to do with the comment. You simply threw it in there as an ad hominem. Neither reasonable nor rational.
It’s worth bringing up whenever someone who believes they belong to God’s Own Church (literally) criticizes another religious organization. Given the thousands of children raped and tortured thanks to the enabling from your hierarchy, Roman Catholics should be walking around in sackcloth and ashses for the next century instead of continuing in their arrogance.
There’s no reasoning with your hatred.
Remind me again, where do we make claims to being more moral people? We’re all aware of our own failings and the failings of our Church as an institution.
The RCC claims its the voice of God on Earth.
Just because the Magisterium cannot teach error doesn’t mean Catholics are sinless. Even the pope goes to confession.
Which, as we’ve told you countless times, DOESN’T GIVE US ANY CLAIM TO BEING MORE MORAL PEOPLE.
Oh, all Catholics? Even the vast majority who are innocent and ignorant of the wrongs? That’s truly realistic. Send us a picture of yourself on the street corner in sackcloth and ashes to atone for the Muslim children murdered by our government.
So when will the public school teachers be joining the penance parade? A lot more pedophiles, and a lot more coverups. And a LOT more stonewalling…
Kind of like the MILLIONS murdered by atheists in the last 100 years?
An example of Law’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law, right?
That’s just what a Nazi pedophile would say 😀
Good thing I’m not one, then. 🙂
And child “abuse” is a euphemism It was the rape and torture of children by priests.
What’s the euphemism for religion-free folks like Stalin and Mao murdering millions of people? We can play tu quoque all day.
No, YOU can play tu quoque all day!
YOU CAN PLAY TU QUOQUE ALL DAY TIMES INFINITY
If I was a Communist you might have a point. But I’m not.
That’s a pathetic cop-out. Well then. Let’s abstract. You’re a human. Humans have done terrible things. So, photo of you on the corner in sackcloth and ashes atoning for all the wrongs ever committed. I’m waiting.
And if we were abusers, or if it were germane to the discussion you’d have a point. That’s what Ivan was trying to say. Trying to beat us with whatever stick you have handy is getting rather tiresome.
I know you’ve got some issues to work out and you genuinely need to vent. Just don’t pretend you’ve got some special claim to rationality. Your arguments are garden-variety internet athiest fare, and we’ve all grown tired of them.
“And child “abuse” is a euphemism It was the rape and torture of children by priests.”
Topic: Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, and John Wayne Gacy. When will the homosexual community deal with its systemic problem of serial murder?
Add Luka Magnotta, who tortured and killed kittens as well.
Not to mention Julius Streicher and most of the Brown-Shirt brass during the Third Reich.
Tu quoque is the shizz.
Anyway, the point behind this tu quoque is that there are bad people in every group. Yeah, a few priests have done horrible things but so have a few gays. Talk about glass houses….
Uh, its not a “few priests” doing horrible things to children. It’s the cover up by the authorities.
Kind of like your coverup of atheists who do bad things?
You mean the government authorities? The ones covering up the rampant abuse in the public schools?
And it’s not just murders of humans but torturers of animals. See, we can play this game all day but the point is you should think twice about throwing stones at others when your side isn’t morally pure, either.
Kind of like the rape and torture of children by atheists?
I hold Religion Free Realist directly responsible for this. Ashes. Sackcloth. Streetcorner. Now.
About the time the Freedom From Religion Foundation admits to the 4% of it’s members who are also members of NAMBLA, right?
@Religion Free Realist, have you read Mark’s rules for commenting? “Conduct yourself as you would in my living room and you’ll generally be just fine.” Do you routinely go into Catholic homes, sit down on the sofa and start attacking your hosts? You must be a real hit at parties.
It seem that the only reality for Realist is that there were priests who sexually abused minors and others who covered it up. This fact seems to mean that Realist is morally superior to any Chtistian. Even the chosen name of Religion free Realist smacks of a self serving sense of moral (and intellectual) superiority to those who hold to a religious view (almost exclusively Christian…one wonders if he is as critical of other faiths). You see he/she is free of the bonds and restraints of the unrealistic and suppressive/oprresive nature of religion. Realist is a realist…not hindered by the backward and mytholigical thinking of knuckledragging religionists, for Realist only reality matters. If realist comes across as smucg and obnoxious it is clearly because we rubes and miscreants are too mystified by our reality denying faith. We should be kinder to him/her as it is obvious that Realist is only trying to help us to come to reality.
Look… any time Religion Free Realist or any other troll makes the comments about the abuse scandal, they have just signified they’ve run out of intellectual ammo and have lost the argument.
Game over Religion Free Realist….you lose.
I’m not so sure about that. He trolled with an off-handed comment and managed to hijack the entire comments thread with tired rehashes. He’s been a successful troll, and he never had an argument to lose.
You’re right about that, he certainly suckered me in. Next time I’ll try to head his game off with an admonition to not feed the troll 🙂
I don’t see how RFR won any of the arguments above. All his/her objections were met and answered so s/he just gave up trying to defend each one. A forfeit is not a win.
You misunderstand. It’s not that RFR never lost an argument; it’s that RFR never had an argument to begin with, thus RFR “never had an argument to lose”. Andy, Bad Person means that RFR’s purpose was to irk and annoy rather than discuss, and mission accomplished in that regard.
I’m pointing to my nose right now, but the stupid internet doesn’t have that emoticon. Yet.
Good call. I have bad internet reflexes in that regard. Seriously, responding to Law’s Law is like an allergic response for me.
I think in the Catholic blogosphere it’s more commonly referred to as “Anderson’s corollary to Godwin’s Law.” But yeah, it easily gets hackles up, and that’s the point of it.
I think the attempt was to “educate” the troll…however I do see what you mean about how it was hijacked. RFR’s arguments just kept repeating themselves which is why I jumped in and said what I said.
Back on topic.. every good author quotes himself in the beginning of his books, right there with Bible verses. I think Lewis and Tolkien were particularly fond of the practice.
A liberal friend of mine once told me (in all seriousness) that I should “kneel down and kiss Obama’s feet” to thank him for giving us health care coverage.
The infatuation that many display for this man goes from amusingly annoying to downright frightening.
… if I had hair, perhaps I should use it to dry off my tears on those feet.