Arms, and the Man(?)
By Thomas Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The funniest thing -- and it's a heated competition -- about the New Left is that everything frightens them. John Ashcroft frightened them. Don Rumsfeld. Fluoride in tap water. The new season of Dragon Tales. (The correct response to that is disgust, not fear.) And so on.
To that end: The Dread Rises.
I care less than nothing for your sexual preference; but for the love of the God you claim to worship, be a frigging man. Some excerpts:
This was a statement as much as a selection. And the statement is that the church is circling the wagons. They simply could not have picked a more extreme candidate. And that tells us something important. ...
What this says to American Catholics is quite striking: it's not just a disagreement, it's a full-scale assault. ...
I expected continuity. I didn't expect intensification of the fundamentalism and insularity of the current hierarchy. I expect an imminent ban on all gay seminarians, celibate or otherwise. ...
And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning. ...
The hard right has now cemented its complete control of the Catholic church. And so ... to prayer. What else do we now have? ...
So quick? So soon? What can that mean? Ratzinger?? The dread rises.
Grow a pair, huh?
A better, funnier, more thorough take here, and up; and here.
Update [2005-4-20 17:32:59 by Thomas]: The Dread Continues to Rise. I have to wonder at the paucity of the man's catechesis, or feel rising dread that my memory might become so poor when I pass 40.
who were hoping that the church would elect a new pope who would agree with their points of view. This is the height of egotism. And the media followed along. So we have the "cafeteria catholics" of the US, of whom Andrew Sullivan is a prime example, who follow some of the teachings but ignore others when they conflict with their personal desires. Another example is John Kerry, who says he is a practicing Catholic. In a speach last year Kerry said that murdering babies was a personal choice. Kerry said that as a caothlic, he believes that life begins at conception. Not 15 seconds later he said that he supports abortion rights. So, in other words, it's okay for a woman to kill another human being because that human being would cause her a few months months of discomfort. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this. But if you truly believe that life begins at conception, then to think that abortion is okay means that you believe that murder of innocent children is fine. Hence Ratzinger's ruling that politicians who support abortion rights should not receive communion. And he's right in this. People who believe in the murder of innocent children (which is an accurate description of someone who believes that life begins at conception, a basic tennet of the Catholic Church, but that abortion is fine) should not receive church blessings.
And even worse, in the church's viewpoint, there are millions of European catholics who are becoming even more secular than the US.
With the drifting of large portions of Europe and American away from the basic foundations of Catholic teachings and the perversion of the church for political purposes as happened in areas of South America, why is it a surprise that the Cardinals chose a man who is known for enforcing church discipline?
I know we've had this discussion time and time again on RedState, but I simply cannot come to grips with the "reform" wing of the Roman Catholic Church.
If they don't like the rules of the Church then why don't they simply go down the street to the Episcopalians. The Episcopalians will be happy to welcome them and the ritual is very much the same so they don't have to tax their brains and learn a lot of new stuff. The last time I looked there were no instructions from Rome to hold Catholics in the Church at gun point.
But instead, much like our liberal brethren, they continue to whine about things. For the "reformers" its the Church "is not listening to them", or "not coming into the 21st Century", ad nauseum. For our liberal brothers its "Bush doesn't listen to anyone (i.e. them)", "Bush is a fool", ad nauseum.
They are both cut from the same cloth: "I am intellectually superior so I am right and you are wrong --- simply do as I say and everything will be fine."
Newt Gingrich was right. The motto of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die", not "Live Free or Whine About It."
not of Andrew Sullivan, whom I cannot respect (he demands that he be allowed to follow his conscience; why then does he not do so, and leave the Church?). Rather, I am interested in your assessment of someone (whom I never heard of before) who seems to be rather more thoughtful in his critique. Whats your take, especially with regard to conscience and moral guilt?