|
May 03, 2005
The unfilthy faithful versus the faithful filthy?
When WorldNetDaily and Andrew Sullivan agree on something, I think it's at least worth mentioning in a blog post. Whether or not such agreement constitutes a "consensus" may be debated. But what they agree on is that there's a coming showdown on homosexuality within the Catholic Church. According to WorldNetDaily, Sullivan -- "the famous commentator who once pretended to be conservative" -- has "figured it out." "Sullivan denounced the new pontiff as a 'Grand Inquisitor' who had 'declared a war on modernity' and would launch an 'attack on individual freedom.' Yes, the famous commentator who once pretended to be conservative has figured it out: the Catholic Church is now going to be in forthright moral opposition to the 'modernity' of homosexual priests and the 'individual freedom' of molesting young boys" – a reference to the clergy-sex scandal that has plagued the church.I have no way of evaluating either the claims made in WorldNetDaily or the claims made by Andrew Sullivan. (For starters, I don't know what Pope Benedict is going to do.) While I don't think homosexuality equates with "filth," I suppose many do, and they think that moral revival means homo removal. Far be it from me to advise the Catholic Church, WorldNetDaily, or Andrew Sullivan. I can only speak for myself when I say that there's too much preoccupation (on both "sides") with religion as the enemy of sex. If you don't agree with a religion, either don't join it, change it if you can, or quit. Likewise, if you don't like a particular form of sex, then don't have it, or quit. Whether it's religion or sex (or drugs for that matter) barring harm to others, there's as much a right to do a thing as there is not to do it. Aren't my soul and my penis my business? If so, then why should I concern myself about the penises and souls of others? And unless I want to have sex with them or join their churches, why should they concern themselves with mine? For the life of me, I'll never understand why these things have to be so emotionally charged. All I know is, they are. And it gets old. posted by Eric on 05.03.05 at 03:44 PM
Comments
Hear hear! Live and let live. "Toleration" doesn't mean "acceptance", it just means that your dislike doesn't excuse you when you beat up a kid and leave him on a fence in Wyoming. Darren · May 4, 2005 07:43 PM The reason that these things are emotionally charged is this: Those of us who are gay are under constant threat of having equal treatment under the law removed from us. We are also hammered incessantly by people who say terrible, false things about us. We are also under constant threat of violence from authorities and from society at large. We have every reason to be afraid, nervous, cautious, frustrated, angry, hurt, and confused. All emotions. That's why "these things" are emotional. Thaw out your heart. Instafaggot · May 9, 2005 07:45 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I've always been fond of this reasoning of Catholicism's stance on homosexuality (as explained in the Catholic Catechism), mainly because the letter it was in answer to was particularly vile and obnoxious. (N.B. I am not the Rob Durbin listed as one of the authors. As I was a member of the newspaper staff, I felt it inappropriate to comment on a letter to the editor.)