Due to the somatic and psychic delights derived from deviancy homosexuals are rendered spiritually blind to such an extent that they desire the Providence of Rhode Island more often than they remember the Providence of God.
In relaxing the strictures of Fast and Abstinence, Holy Mother Church brought a curse down upon herself in the form of a relative restriction of Grace granted unto her by God, and as, Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Yea taught, the problems we have with clerical queers is due to our laxity...
... It was with this intention, that Pope Benedict the Fourteenth, alarmed at the excessive facility wherewith dispensation were then obtained, renewed, by a solemn Constitution, (dated June 10, 1745,) the prohibition of eating fish and meat, at the same meal, on fasting days.
The same Pope, whose spirit of moderation has never been called in question, had no sooner ascended the Papal Throne, than he addressed an Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic world, expressing his heartfelt grief at seeing the great relaxation that was introduced among the Faithful by indiscreet and unnecessary dispensations. The Letter is dated May 30th, 1741. We extract from it the following passage: “The observance of Lent is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it, we prove ourselves not to be enemies of the Cross of Christ. By it, we avert the scourges of divine justice. By it, we gain strength against the princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly help. Should mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it would be a detriment to God’s glory, a disgrace to the Catholic religion, and a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted, but that such negligence would become the source of misery to the world, of public calamity, and of private woe.” [Constitution: Non ambigimus.]
More than a hundred years have elapsed since this solemn warning of the Vicar of Christ was given to the world; and during that time, the relaxation, he inveighed against, has gone on gradually increasing. How few Christians do we meet, who are strict observers of Lent, even in its present mild form! The long list of general Dispensations granted, each year, by the Bishops to their flocks, would lead us to suppose that the immense majority of the Faithful would be scrupulously exact in the fulfilment of the Fasting and Abstinence still remaining; but is such the case? And must there not result from this ever-growing spirit of immortification, a general effeminacy of character, which will lead, at last, to frightful social disorders?
The destruction of the modernist revolution within the Catholic Church during the 1960s resulted in the baptising of Laxity as a vital principle for the putatively best-educated Catholics ever and we are reaping perversity as a result of that modern insane error which is a clear and dramatic rupture with the past.
From the epicene effete ecumenists to queer clergy with their coterie of Fag Hag pro-abortion Sisters, there is a ceaseless parade of perversion marching before our eyes but if there is one Cardinal or Prelate who reads the great Dom Prosper Gueranger and puts into practice the practices of Traditional Catholicism then he has been kept out of the Pulpit and away from this or that ineffective congress.
This is a message the Catholic Church is, almost literally, dying to hear.
Bravo Mettei! And as to the relaxation of the fasting regulations, both before Mass and during Lent, Evelyn Waugh would have quite agreed.
So many things have been made "options," as RR-D has often pointed out, that the various disciplines and practices eventually just got dropped. For example, how many Catholics do you know who still observe the Friday penance. Alternatives to abstaining from meat have been made available as "options," but who does these? Does anyone remember this practice anymore?
Make a thing easy like serving at the altar at a Novus Ordo Mass, and all the boys drop out and let the girls do it. Make it demanding and preserve the masculinity of the guild, as is done in the Traditional Latin Mass, and boys will flock to serve at these liturgies.
I can't explain the psychology, but I know it works. And it's more than a gender thing. It's a spiritual thing.
You see this is what I'm talking about. Our Lord certainly did not use vitriol in dealing with either the woman at the well or the one about to be stoned: "Go and sin no more." But you in all your pastoral wisdom find it expedient to call for the lost sheep in an abusive tongue.
Mr. Allen, while God judges the heart, I think he expects his servants to be discerning. Otherwise would he have asked us not to "cast [our] pearls before swine"?
Just curious: have you ever witnessed up close the Gay Pride Day parade in NYC or San Francisco?
No I have not; such a spectacle would turn my stomach. But that's not the point:
"And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him. And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town." (Luke (51-6)
"Do not imagine that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have come to bring a sword, not peace." (Mt 10:34)
"Then he will say to those who are on his left hand, in their turn, Go far from me, you that are accursed, into that eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you never gave me food, I was thirsty, and you never gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you did not bring me home, I was naked, and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison, and you did not care for me. Whereupon they, in their turn, will answer, Lord, when was it that we saw thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? And he will answer them, Believe me, when you refused it to one of the least of my brethren here, you refused it to me. And these shall pass on to eternal punishment, and the just to eternal life."
The point is otherwise, as you suggest. You mocked my statement that some "lost sheep" don't want to be found, by sneeringly suggesting that I and IANS know precisely who they are. (Yes, sneeringly. Think you're above that, do you?)
So you drag out the red herring about not judging the heart, a truism that will get nobody anywhere. What does the red herring dragger intend? Do do away with all judgment? Please. When you say that the spectacle of a "Gay Pride Day parade" would turn your stomach," you're already judging. Finding yourself amidst such a parade, wouldn't you also be sick of perverts?
There's a difference between "judging" in the sense of "discerning" and in the sense of "condemning." When Jesus in Matthew 6 says "judge not that you be not judged," he is telling us not to condemn others. In Matthew 16 when he says "When in evening you say it will be fair weather, for the sky is read; and in the morning, it will be foul weather today; for the sky is red and lowering," he is noting the powers of discernment of those who can predict the weather. There are other examples.
The Samaritans in your Lukan text did not receive Christ, so they left and went into another town. They made a judgement call. They discerned that these Samaritains weren't open to the Gospel. They discerned that these "lost sheep" didn't want to be saved.
In other passages, Jesus tells his disciples that if a town doesn't receive them, to "shake the dust from their feet" and depart.
He must have expected people to know when they encountered "lost sheep" who didn't want to be saved. At least not then. And that's the sum of my point.
If you don't object to this point, the only point you have left to object to is the blunt language of IANS, unless you'd find a point to object to anything he said just because his identity was IANS, which would be pretty silly.
'They made a judgement call. They discerned that these Samaritains weren't open to the Gospel. They discerned that these "lost sheep" didn't want to be saved.'
You're darn right I sneer at your presumptuousness. You conveniently overlook the last line of my quote where Our Lord admonishes the sons of Thunder not to usurp His authority- which is exactly what you and your ally are doing (under aliases to boot). When you use hate speech ('Fag Hag') you are moving well beyond hating the sin. You are wishing ill for the sinner himself. Again, who are you to decide who is to receive grace? There may have been Samaritans in that very town with whom Calvary would resonate. lest we forget who the Samaritan woman at the well was: the 1st human soul to whom our Lord revealed his true identity, the first evangelist, bringing the Good News- TO OTHER SAMARITANS, despised people.
Yeah 2 can play at this game, but it will be a cold day in Hell before either one you hate mongers beats me at it. I can tell by your very language that you have yet to fully appreciate the Gospel message: God is love and love is kind it does not incite violence with hate speech. There is a difference between being blunt and dehumanizing others.
IANS can fend for himself. as for myself, I presume nothing as to who should or should not receive God's grace. That is for God to decide, not me.
I believe only that the Lord expects us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, and that the first part of that proposition embraces discernment about when we should shake the dust of our feet, cease casting pearls before swine, and commend recalcitrant scoffers and mockers to the judgment of God and abandon them, as St. Paul abandoned and cast off the man living in sin with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5:1-13).
Why do you insist on turning every disagreement into an issue of racism or homophobism or some such irrelevancy?
Where have I suggested that Samaritans as a race do not deserve God's mercy? Where have I (or IANS) suggested that homosexuals as a class do not deserve God's mercy?
Who is being presumptuous here? Are you capable of admitting that you your own admitted "sneering" at others' supposed presumptuousness does not itself involve a presumptuous judgment of their heart?
"Hate speech" may take many forms. Even if your screed against IANS lacks overt name-calling, it bears all the hallmarks of hatefulness. Yet those who use strong language and use "names-calling" to refer to others may not be motivated by hatefulness. What makes "gay" loving and "fag" hateful? Even calling a person involved in an immoral lifestyle "damned" may be no more than an accurate adjective by which to describe him in that state (and therefore even loving, if it can be intended to call him to his senses).
What about Jesus' language toward the Pharisees, I wonder. He called them all sorts of ugly things. Was he condemning them as a "class"? Clearly not, since there were those among them like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea who were members of Sanhedrin and/or Pharisees.
And do us all a favor in these comboxes and get off your hobby horse of lobbing gratuitous ad hominems against IANS. I, for one, value his comments -- well, at least as long as they don't fall into ad hominems against you as well.
You remind me of, Candy, a girl I dated one time who was, understandably, unable to get over me.
Is that you, Candy? You know I married Kathy; and I am still as in love with her today as I was back then and all of your sly courting of my via the insult (like a jejune boy who lightly pushes the girl he secretly desires) will come to no avail.
Start by giving me up for Lent and then, maybe, you can break the addictive habit that results from reading my robust, rebarbative, rhetoric that delights in the ruction the cultural marxists loathe.
I do not want to leave you bereft of all hope and so I want to write that there may come a day, after you repent of your race-denial and return to reality, when I am willing to respond to your attention-seeking actions but, for now at least, I am going to do all I can to help you keep your promise to leave me alone.
Dear Anonymous Bosch. Thanks for the defense. Liberals love the cultural marxism of speech codes with a far greater intensity than they hate The Sins crying to Heaven for Vengeance and so they label as hate speech anything that the Christ-denying academy disapproves of.
The post-Christian political actions of such liberals in the long-run are, essentially, as bereft of spiritual meaning as the observation that in the Land of Midgets, Dustin Hoffmann, could lead the NBA in rebounding, has meaning in the field of sports.
Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics
http://www.tesm.edu/pubs/writings/articlee4ad
By David Mills
Most well-read Christians know the two most famous stories of the early Church's approach to dialogue. St. Polycarp tells us that the apostle John once went to the public bath in Ephesus and found inside a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. John ran out crying, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."
Polycarp himself once met the heretic Marcion walking down the street. Marcion hated the creator-God of the Hebrews, and to get rid of Him had tossed out the Old Testament and much of the New and rewrote the bits he kept. Marcion asked Polycarp, "Do you know me?" and Polycarp answered, "I do know you. You are the firstborn of Satan."
Their Reason
By and large, modern Christians do not speak like this, though we have teachers as hostile to the Faith as Cerinthus and Marcion. Many of them speak with the authority of chairs in theology and of "reverend" before their name, and publish books the vulnerable, the naive, and the gullible read and believe. These teachers are just as dangerous to peoples' souls as the great heretics of the first centuries, but we do not speak of our heretics as the great saints spoke of theirs.
You know on 2nd thought, AB, I think that I'll just lose all respect for you and IANS and desist from reading your submissions. I know most of the Trad stuff now anyway; the rest I can learn from a more benign source. So feel free to continue speaking uncharitably about your fellow men; you won't have Robert Allen to kick around anymore. "If thine eye offends thee cut it out."
What have I possibly said to offend you? Please tell. You can't possibly be so thin skinned that you can't tell the difference between a philosophical argument and a quarrel with each side lobbing ad hominem grenades at each other.
"Trad stuff"? "Dehumanizing others"? "Hating the sinner"?
What have I said to deserve being treated like a leper? What have I said that is "uncharitable"? And just whose eye are you intending to cut out? (the logic of Jesus' statement would imply one's OWN, and I sincerely hope you are not fixing to harm yourself.)
It seems to me that this combox discussion has ventured far afield from the original topic of PP's post. It all started with your response to IANS's comment: "I am SO sick of perverts." Did it not. But what is a "pervert" but someone with a gravely "disordered" sexual inclination, which is the language used by the CCC. Would it have elicited a different reaction if he had said "I am SO sick of deviants"? The words all mean the same thing. Really ...
Yeah it would have made a difference; but, you know, I probably would have let 'pervert' go. What really stuck in my craw was 'hag': where I come from, you don't make fun of a lady's appearance. Now I have said my peace. "Most likely you go your way and I'll go mine."
17 comments:
Due to the somatic and psychic delights derived from deviancy homosexuals are rendered spiritually blind to such an extent that they desire the Providence of Rhode Island more often than they remember the Providence of God.
I am SO sick of the perverts.
http://tinyurl.com/3pe89pe
Fearless. Trad Prof takes on homosexuals.
In relaxing the strictures of Fast and Abstinence, Holy Mother Church brought a curse down upon herself in the form of a relative restriction of Grace granted unto her by God, and as, Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Yea taught, the problems we have with clerical queers is due to our laxity...
... It was with this intention, that Pope Benedict the Fourteenth, alarmed at the excessive facility wherewith dispensation were then obtained, renewed, by a solemn Constitution, (dated June 10, 1745,) the prohibition of eating fish and meat, at the same meal, on fasting days.
The same Pope, whose spirit of moderation has never been called in question, had no sooner ascended the Papal Throne, than he addressed an Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic world, expressing his heartfelt grief at seeing the great relaxation that was introduced among the Faithful by indiscreet and unnecessary dispensations. The Letter is dated May 30th, 1741. We extract from it the following passage: “The observance of Lent is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it, we prove ourselves not to be enemies of the Cross of Christ. By it, we avert the scourges of divine justice. By it, we gain strength against the princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly help. Should mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it would be a detriment to God’s glory, a disgrace to the Catholic religion, and a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted, but that such negligence would become the source of misery to the world, of public calamity, and of private woe.” [Constitution: Non ambigimus.]
More than a hundred years have elapsed since this solemn warning of the Vicar of Christ was given to the world; and during that time, the relaxation, he inveighed against, has gone on gradually increasing. How few Christians do we meet, who are strict observers of Lent, even in its present mild form! The long list of general Dispensations granted, each year, by the Bishops to their flocks, would lead us to suppose that the immense majority of the Faithful would be scrupulously exact in the fulfilment of the Fasting and Abstinence still remaining; but is such the case? And must there not result from this ever-growing spirit of immortification, a general effeminacy of character, which will lead, at last, to frightful social disorders?
The destruction of the modernist revolution within the Catholic Church during the 1960s resulted in the baptising of Laxity as a vital principle for the putatively best-educated Catholics ever and we are reaping perversity as a result of that modern insane error which is a clear and dramatic rupture with the past.
From the epicene effete ecumenists to queer clergy with their coterie of Fag Hag pro-abortion Sisters, there is a ceaseless parade of perversion marching before our eyes but if there is one Cardinal or Prelate who reads the great Dom Prosper Gueranger and puts into practice the practices of Traditional Catholicism then he has been kept out of the Pulpit and away from this or that ineffective congress.
This is a message the Catholic Church is, almost literally, dying to hear.
Bravo Mettei! And as to the relaxation of the fasting regulations, both before Mass and during Lent, Evelyn Waugh would have quite agreed.
So many things have been made "options," as RR-D has often pointed out, that the various disciplines and practices eventually just got dropped. For example, how many Catholics do you know who still observe the Friday penance. Alternatives to abstaining from meat have been made available as "options," but who does these? Does anyone remember this practice anymore?
Make a thing easy like serving at the altar at a Novus Ordo Mass, and all the boys drop out and let the girls do it. Make it demanding and preserve the masculinity of the guild, as is done in the Traditional Latin Mass, and boys will flock to serve at these liturgies.
I can't explain the psychology, but I know it works. And it's more than a gender thing. It's a spiritual thing.
I am Supercilious said:
"I am SO sick of the perverts."
"Fag Hag Sisters ...."
You see this is what I'm talking about. Our Lord certainly did not use vitriol in dealing with either the woman at the well or the one about to be stoned: "Go and sin no more." But you in all your pastoral wisdom find it expedient to call for the lost sheep in an abusive tongue.
No, Mr. Allen, he did not then "use vitriol." He certainly did, however, in many other cases, especially against sins of hypocrisy.
As to Sodomites themselves, however, what was God's response? Merely to rain down fire and brimstone upon them.
Some "lost sheep" don't want to be found.
There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
'Some "lost sheep" don't want to be found.'
And you and IANS know precisely who they are.
Mr. Allen, while God judges the heart, I think he expects his servants to be discerning. Otherwise would he have asked us not to "cast [our] pearls before swine"?
Just curious: have you ever witnessed up close the Gay Pride Day parade in NYC or San Francisco?
No I have not; such a spectacle would turn my stomach. But that's not the point:
"And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him. And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town." (Luke (51-6)
Two can play that game, and will get you nowhere.
"Do not imagine that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have come
to bring a sword, not peace." (Mt 10:34)
"Then he will say to those who are on his left hand, in their turn, Go far from me, you that are accursed, into that eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you never gave me food, I was thirsty, and you never gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you did not bring me home, I was naked, and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison, and you did not care for me. Whereupon they, in their turn, will answer, Lord, when was it that we saw thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? And he will answer them, Believe me, when you refused it to one of the least of my brethren here, you refused it to me. And these shall pass on to eternal punishment, and the just to eternal life."
The point is otherwise, as you suggest. You mocked my statement that some "lost sheep" don't want to be found, by sneeringly suggesting that I and IANS know precisely who they are. (Yes, sneeringly. Think you're above that, do you?)
So you drag out the red herring about not judging the heart, a truism that will get nobody anywhere. What does the red herring dragger intend? Do do away with all judgment? Please. When you say that the spectacle of a "Gay Pride Day parade" would turn your stomach," you're already judging. Finding yourself amidst such a parade, wouldn't you also be sick of perverts?
There's a difference between "judging" in the sense of "discerning" and in the sense of "condemning." When Jesus in Matthew 6 says "judge not that you be not judged," he is telling us not to condemn others. In Matthew 16 when he says "When in evening you say it will be fair weather, for the sky is read; and in the morning, it will be foul weather today; for the sky is red and lowering," he is noting the powers of discernment of those who can predict the weather. There are other examples.
The Samaritans in your Lukan text did not receive Christ, so they left and went into another town. They made a judgement call. They discerned that these Samaritains weren't open to the Gospel. They discerned that these "lost sheep" didn't want to be saved.
In other passages, Jesus tells his disciples that if a town doesn't receive them, to "shake the dust from their feet" and depart.
He must have expected people to know when they encountered "lost sheep" who didn't want to be saved. At least not then. And that's the sum of my point.
If you don't object to this point, the only point you have left to object to is the blunt language of IANS, unless you'd find a point to object to anything he said just because his identity was IANS, which would be pretty silly.
'They made a judgement call. They discerned that these Samaritains weren't open to the Gospel. They discerned that these "lost sheep" didn't want to be saved.'
You're darn right I sneer at your presumptuousness. You conveniently overlook the last line of my quote where Our Lord admonishes the sons of Thunder not to usurp His authority- which is exactly what you and your ally are doing (under aliases to boot). When you use hate speech ('Fag Hag') you are moving well beyond hating the sin. You are wishing ill for the sinner himself. Again, who are you to decide who is to receive grace? There may have been Samaritans in that very town with whom Calvary would resonate. lest we forget who the Samaritan woman at the well was: the 1st human soul to whom our Lord revealed his true identity, the first evangelist, bringing the Good News- TO OTHER SAMARITANS, despised people.
Yeah 2 can play at this game, but it will be a cold day in Hell before either one you hate mongers beats me at it. I can tell by your very language that you have yet to fully appreciate the Gospel message: God is love and love is kind it does not incite violence with hate speech. There is a difference between being blunt and dehumanizing others.
Mr. Allen,
IANS can fend for himself. as for myself, I presume nothing as to who should or should not receive God's grace. That is for God to decide, not me.
I believe only that the Lord expects us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, and that the first part of that proposition embraces discernment about when we should shake the dust of our feet, cease casting pearls before swine, and commend recalcitrant scoffers and mockers to the judgment of God and abandon them, as St. Paul abandoned and cast off the man living in sin with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5:1-13).
Why do you insist on turning every disagreement into an issue of racism or homophobism or some such irrelevancy?
Where have I suggested that Samaritans as a race do not deserve God's mercy? Where have I (or IANS) suggested that homosexuals as a class do not deserve God's mercy?
Who is being presumptuous here?
Are you capable of admitting that you your own admitted "sneering" at others' supposed presumptuousness does not itself involve a presumptuous judgment of their heart?
"Hate speech" may take many forms. Even if your screed against IANS lacks overt name-calling, it bears all the hallmarks of hatefulness. Yet those who use strong language and use "names-calling" to refer to others may not be motivated by hatefulness. What makes "gay" loving and "fag" hateful? Even calling a person involved in an immoral lifestyle "damned" may be no more than an accurate adjective by which to describe him in that state (and therefore even loving, if it can be intended to call him to his senses).
What about Jesus' language toward the Pharisees, I wonder. He called them all sorts of ugly things. Was he condemning them as a "class"? Clearly not, since there were those among them like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea who were members of Sanhedrin and/or Pharisees.
And do us all a favor in these comboxes and get off your hobby horse of lobbing gratuitous ad hominems against IANS. I, for one, value his comments -- well, at least as long as they don't fall into ad hominems against you as well.
Peace, AB
Dear Mr. Allen. A few days ago you wrote this..
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=5044756253413804435
and now you are back again today pursuing me.
You remind me of, Candy, a girl I dated one time who was, understandably, unable to get over me.
Is that you, Candy? You know I married Kathy; and I am still as in love with her today as I was back then and all of your sly courting of my via the insult (like a jejune boy who lightly pushes the girl he secretly desires) will come to no avail.
Start by giving me up for Lent and then, maybe, you can break the addictive habit that results from reading my robust, rebarbative, rhetoric that delights in the ruction the cultural marxists loathe.
I do not want to leave you bereft of all hope and so I want to write that there may come a day, after you repent of your race-denial and return to reality, when I am willing to respond to your attention-seeking actions but, for now at least, I am going to do all I can to help you keep your promise to leave me alone.
Dear Anonymous Bosch. Thanks for the defense. Liberals love the cultural marxism of speech codes with a far greater intensity than they hate The Sins crying to Heaven for Vengeance and so they label as hate speech anything that the Christ-denying academy disapproves of.
The post-Christian political actions of such liberals in the long-run are, essentially, as bereft of spiritual meaning as the observation that in the Land of Midgets, Dustin Hoffmann, could lead the NBA in rebounding, has meaning in the field of sports.
Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics
http://www.tesm.edu/pubs/writings/articlee4ad
By David Mills
Most well-read Christians know the two most famous stories of the early Church's approach to dialogue. St. Polycarp tells us that the apostle John once went to the public bath in Ephesus and found inside a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. John ran out crying, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."
Polycarp himself once met the heretic Marcion walking down the street. Marcion hated the creator-God of the Hebrews, and to get rid of Him had tossed out the Old Testament and much of the New and rewrote the bits he kept. Marcion asked Polycarp, "Do you know me?" and Polycarp answered, "I do know you. You are the firstborn of Satan."
Their Reason
By and large, modern Christians do not speak like this, though we have teachers as hostile to the Faith as Cerinthus and Marcion. Many of them speak with the authority of chairs in theology and of "reverend" before their name, and publish books the vulnerable, the naive, and the gullible read and believe. These teachers are just as dangerous to peoples' souls as the great heretics of the first centuries, but we do not speak of our heretics as the great saints spoke of theirs.
You know on 2nd thought, AB, I think that I'll just lose all respect for you and IANS and desist from reading your submissions. I know most of the Trad stuff now anyway; the rest I can learn from a more benign source. So feel free to continue speaking uncharitably about your fellow men; you won't have Robert Allen to kick around anymore. "If thine eye offends thee cut it out."
Dear Mr. "moral high ground" Allen!
What have I possibly said to offend you? Please tell. You can't possibly be so thin skinned that you can't tell the difference between a philosophical argument and a quarrel with each side lobbing ad hominem grenades at each other.
"Trad stuff"? "Dehumanizing others"? "Hating the sinner"?
What have I said to deserve being treated like a leper? What have I said that is "uncharitable"? And just whose eye are you intending to cut out? (the logic of Jesus' statement would imply one's OWN, and I sincerely hope you are not fixing to harm yourself.)
It seems to me that this combox discussion has ventured far afield from the original topic of PP's post. It all started with your response to IANS's comment: "I am SO sick of perverts." Did it not. But what is a "pervert" but someone with a gravely "disordered" sexual inclination, which is the language used by the CCC. Would it have elicited a different reaction if he had said "I am SO sick of deviants"? The words all mean the same thing. Really ...
Yeah it would have made a difference; but, you know, I probably would have let 'pervert' go. What really stuck in my craw was 'hag': where I come from, you don't make fun of a lady's appearance. Now I have said my peace. "Most likely you go your way and I'll go mine."
Post a Comment