It's Aquinas College's right to cancel a pro-gay speech by IGF contributor John Corvino, of course. And it's fair, if lamentable, for them to cancel on grounds that they don't want to hear views that conflict with Catholic moral teaching. They're a Catholic school, after all.
But it's not fair for some folks at the college to say, as they apparently are doing, that they're cancelling because Corvino is antagonistic to Catholicism and to academic standards. In fact, nothing could be further than the truth. Corvino's many writings here at IGF make clear that he writes with exceptional fairness and rigor. In fact, he provides a model of the kind of fair-mindedness and avoidance of personal attack which, apparently, some at Aquinas could stand to bone up on.
52 Comments for “Ad Hominem at Aquinas”
posted by Bobby on
Gays giving speeches at catholic colleges makes as much sense as blacks giving speeches at Klan meetings. It’s a waste of time, even though some catholics are social liberals, and some catholic colleges are quite progressive, gays are generally not welcomed unless they agree to be celibate. The Pope is the head of the church, that means every catholic school, college, hospital, must follow his dogma to the letter or risk losing funding.
So I’m sorry Corvino got screwed, but maybe this will teach him to think twice about giving speeches at catholic colleges.
posted by Rob on
or risk losing funding.
What funding? Just how much money are these catholic colleges are receiving from the Vatican Bank? There’s already been four major waves of catholic schism (Eastern Orthodox, the Protestant and Anglican Reformation, the Old Catholic from the First Council, and the Mel Gibson extremist bunch from the Second Council. Might as well have a fifth one.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
A Catholic university, like my own alma mater, faces an ongoing conflict between the Roman Church’s authoritarianism and the impulse toward intellectual freedom inherent in any academic institution. As polls of American Catholics show, the authoritarianism is on the losing end of this in the marketplace.
Mother Church may consider itself above market considerations, but its heavy-handedness only exposes its impotence. In a free country, the Church fathers cannot enforce obedience, which means following them unquestioningly. They cannot increase their flock without engaging people’s honest questions, but if they do engage those questions, they are at a disadvantage because of the datedness of their outlook and the rigidity of their doctrine and their organizational structure.
The Church is an unaccountable old-boys’ club, many of whose leaders have not only covered up but facilitated decades of child sexual abuse by priests. Their moral authority is little more than an embroidered vestment. Unfortunately for them, their addiction to authoritarian methods that no longer work makes them resemble Edward Scissorhands, stuck with the wrong tools. Even when they want to caress us, all they can do is cut.
It is rather sad how hollow the Church has become. Its brightest lights, ironically, are the very members it finds most vexing–the lay members and clergy like the gay-focused New Ways Ministries who pursue pastoral ministries regardless of their inconvenience to internal Church politics. I am happy to report that this coming Thursday, in the midst of Benedict XVI’s visit to Washington, my gay activist group, GLAA, will be honoring Dignity/Washington at our annual reception. Like it or not, the flock has taken up the shepherd’s staff itself, because the inescapable fact is that we are not sheep, and too many of us have gotten into the habit of using our God-given brains to think for ourselves. Without its guns and the rack, Mother Church is powerless against that.
posted by Bobby on
“What funding? Just how much money are these catholic colleges are receiving from the Vatican Bank?”
—I am sure that some of the money gets there before it even reaches the Vatican Bank, we’re not just talking about Catholic Churches, we’re talking about universities, hospitals, and all kinds of charitable institutions. Besides, I think every catholic hospital/college is owned by the church.
Can there be another schism? I doubt it. Most religions don’t have a Pope. Muslims have individual Imans, presbyterians have their reverends, the C Church is heavily centralized, even organizations within the church like Opus Dei have to uphold their values.
I think it’s a losing battle. From my experience, the best thing to do is ignore the church completely. Fight them only when hot issues like same-sex marriage are on the table.
posted by Amicus on
The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Everyone take some suitably righteous postures!
Tomorrow, John will be back on the menu, again.
posted by Charles Wilson on
This action should make Log Cabinettes everywhere take pause, because if even Corvino can’t get a hearing then all of your attempts to meet them halfway (which is what the Cabinettes call a conference on the 10 yard line) are for nothing.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson offers: “This action should make Log Cabinettes everywhere take pause, because if even Corvino can’t get a hearing then all of your attempts to meet them halfway…”
Now, there’s some pigheaded gay slave talk from down in the rows, howing for the Democrat Plantation masters, yessiree.
ChasW, firstly, the LogCabineers aren’t Catholic. Second, the laity of the Catholic Church are overwhelmingly Democrat or Independent (Rasmussen’s poll puts US Catholics at 41% self-described Democrat, 43% self-desribed Independent, 22% self-described GOPer, balance non-responsive)… so, you’re not only pigheaded on beating up the LCRs… you’re also WRONG again on the facts.
In a rush to condemn Michigan’s Aquinas College –and as RJRosendall unsuccessfully attempts, the entire Catholic Church leadership– the little ol’ fact left out of this equation is the uproar the cancellation has caused on campus and the spirited debate the AC President’s decision has created within the student body and AQSaint (college paper).
What might have served JC’s visit to Aquinas better was if he or the event sponsors had put together a two-sided debate on the issue(s) rather than JC’s single sided lecture/talk. Frankly, the appearance of balanced debate might have served the event better than trusting in JC’s reputation as fair, balanced or moderate.
On a little poll of the AC paper, the question is asked if JC should have been allowed to come to talk on campus… the polling indicates 3 to 1, yes… even if it is a small sampling.
I know for some here, it’s impossible to pass up an opportunity to bash the Church leadership, or conservatives (which Aquinas College is not), or religion in general… but, frankly boys you are barking up the wrong tree. Aquinas College is to the farLeft in the Catholic Church (hint: it’s Dominican and decidedly pro-globalist)… so, you all are really barking up the wrong tree. And as for the nonsense that they get their money from the Pope… Good God, are you really THAT dense?
But bark you will. Hell, there’s the anti-Catholic thing. There’s the anti-conservative thing (wrongly judged, btw). And there’s a chance to slam the Pope. Gheez, you guys probably thought it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Of course, leave it to gays to use an unloaded gun… forget to check for fish… or notice simple facts like the barrel is out of water. LOL.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Furthermore, given the namecalling by “real gays” like Charles Wilson against observant gay religious people, why should the Catholic Church believe a word Corvino has to say? It’s obviously not reflective of what gays and lesbians believe; Corvino himself has stated what “real gays” like Charles Wilson say about him.
Me, they call na
posted by Rob on
There’s the anti-conservative thing (wrongly judged, btw).
How is it ‘wrongly judged’?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Nice to see North Liar Forty* return. I wonder what new lies he’ll be telling now.
* On the “Malcontent” website, North Liar Forty wrote the following: [Sen. Maria} Cantwell and her fellow Democrats said Foley was a pedophile and insisted that it wasn?t good enough for the law to take care of him; there had to be a public excoriation, and his presence meant that all Republicans supported pedophilia and had to be punished.
When I asked North Liar Forty to either provide a link to the speech in which Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile,” he screamed and shouted and stamped his little feet. But the cows never came home: He neither coughed up the evidence nor retracted his lie. Thus the sobriquet, North Liar Forty. Girlfriend, if them flip-flops fit, wear ’em!
posted by Charles Wilson on
What might have served JC’s visit to Aquinas better was if he or the event sponsors had put together a two-sided debate on the issue(s) rather than JC’s single sided lecture/talk. Frankly, the appearance of balanced debate might have served the event better than trusting in JC’s reputation as fair, balanced or moderate.
Two sided. Now that would be a treat. John Corvino could argue that Log Cabinettes promise to dress neatly and keep in the shadows, and the other side could suggest the gilloutine. The Catholic school would allow the gilloutine but not Corvino, who would then politely ask that he be allowed to speak in a two-sided debate in, oh, 500 years.
How pathetic.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson offers: “The Catholic school would allow the gilloutine but not Corvino, who would then politely ask that he be allowed to speak in a two-sided debate in, oh, 500 years.”
Yeah, 2 sided… it sometimes creates balance in the dialogue. Now I know, that’s a radically inappropriate stance or even value for someone like you who is so deeply entrenched in slavery on the Democrat Plantation, but balance is good ChasWilson. Sometimes it leads to truth and enlightenment. But then, you don’t want that… you just want to bash Catholics, LCRs, conservatives, Bush, the military and our allies or anything else that doesn’t get the GayLeft stamp of approval.
You have a very jaundiced view of the world, ChasW. I’ll skip underscoring your patently offensive bigotry that screams through the Church bashing nonsense.
I wonder if your unbridled hatred of anyone not from the GayLeft Democrat Plantation stems from some base self-loathing issues on your part? You really need to let go of the anger, boy-o.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 writes, “Furthermore, given the namecalling by ‘real gays’ like Charles Wilson against observant gay religious people, why should the Catholic Church believe a word Corvino has to say? It’s obviously not reflective of what gays and lesbians believe….”
Treating John Corvino as a representative of either gays in general or members of Log Cabin makes no more sense than referring to “real gays.” John should be judged by his own distinguished record, not subjected this guilt by association with ND30’s or anyone else’s ridiculous false generalizations. And how can Corvino’s speech, not yet given, be (in ND30’s words) “obviously just a propaganda speech,” based on what other people do or say? This is even more baldly irrational than I would have expected.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob asks: “‘There’s the anti-conservative thing (wrongly judged, btw).’ How is it ‘wrongly judged’?”
ChasWilson purports to claim that LCRs can’t get even to the discussion table with conservatives and GOPers… and Aquinas College President’s choice to exclude a single-sided advocacy presentation by JC is proof of that -in ChasWilson’s unique stretch of the imagination.
He’s wrong on his anti-conservative suggestion –Aquinas College is not a conservative college… unless you transport it to SF or NYC maybe.
Aquinas has a strong, vibrant gay community linked with the greater Grand Rapids community.
AC students are protesting -as is the school newspaper’s entire editorial staff– the President’s decision on JC.
The school is firmly in the Dominican tradition; trans-globally concerned, diversity practicing, etc. Last term, a symposium on “Poverty as a Tool of 21st C Imperialism” brought out over 660 students for a 4 hour debate on campus (I was part of the panel).
Aquinas isn’t conservative.
LCRs aren’t considered conservative by anyone with a wit’s brain within the Party… even though some inside the LCR are claiming newly hatched conservative credentials in order to raise money from gay conservatives… which ain’t going well.
So, ChasWilson’s implication that JC’s inability to get heard at Aquinas is proof that conservatives aren’t interested in dialogue isn’t true on a host of grounds. Hence, he’s “wrongly judged” Aquinas & the LCRs & the ACPrez’s decision as some indication of conservative’s receptiveness to gay dialogue.
He’s once again barking up the wrong tree.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJRosendall offers: “A Catholic university, like my own alma mater, faces an ongoing conflict between the Roman Church’s authoritarianism and the impulse toward intellectual freedom inherent in any academic institution.”
Given Aquinas College’s liberal traditions, maybe you should spend more time condemning and clucking over “Liberal Elitists” at a (Catholic) midwestern college unwilling to give JC -a moderate gay voice- the opportunity to be heard. Afterall, we know the real reason Aquinas chose not to host the event… it’s because JC doesn’t follow the GayLeft line on AllThingsLiberallyConsidered… it had as much to do about the college’s Catholic orientation (sarcasm off) as you cluck it does about authoritarianism, excesses of the Mother Church, or use of the rack to control the churchgoing.
The Catholic angle, if conclusive, would be practiced at all Catholic colleges in America -you know, because that Mother Church and her evil authoritarian ways are so dominant and unyielding. Why haven’t you claimed that Benny16th has had the Vatican re-oil the rack used on Galileo in case Benny needs it to keep those liberal American Catholics in line on his visit?
Afterall, if Aquinas didn’t toe the line, Rome would have cut off all that funding (lol), sacked the President (lol) and confiscated and burned any forbidden books in the library. After a photo-op of a modern day mendicant on the rack of course. Evil Mother Church.
What good is a rack to the Mother Church if it isn’t utilized? Right RJR? Please take off the tinfoil cap, it’s hurting your reception of reality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Charles Wilson makes his bigoted hatred of any other gay people who disagree with him obvious.
John Corvino could argue that Log Cabinettes promise to dress neatly and keep in the shadows, and the other side could suggest the gilloutine. The Catholic school would allow the gilloutine but not Corvino, who would then politely ask that he be allowed to speak in a two-sided debate in, oh, 500 years.
How pathetic.
Hence why his attempts to accuse me of lying become even more hilarious; he says that about everyone, including John Corvino, who disagrees with him.
And in answer to your question, Richard, that’s why Corvino’s speech is obviously propaganda. You yourself admit that Corvino is not representative of the gay community, which, as Charles Wilson demonstrates, openly mock and insult Corvino. His speech and words are not representative of what the gay community believes or practices; they are simply a pretty story, dressed up for marketing appeal.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “And in answer to your question, Richard, that’s why Corvino’s speech is obviously propaganda. You yourself admit that Corvino is not representative of the gay community, which, as Charles Wilson demonstrates, openly mock and insult Corvino. His speech and words are not representative of what the gay community believes or practices; they are simply a pretty story, dressed up for marketing appeal.”
This continues to make no sense. I did not say Corvino’s views are not representative of the views of “real gays,” I stated (A) that raising the question of representativeness made no sense, and that referring to “real gays” also made no sense.
Corvino speaks for himself. Why is the question of who else agrees with him relevant at all? And how can the answer to that question, one way or another, possibly show his remarks WHICH YOU HAVE NOT SEEN “simply a pretty story, dressed up for marketing appeal”? Don’t his views deserve to be evaluated on their own merits? You have confidently made conclusions about his remarks sight unseen. Don’t you realize how foolish that makes you appear? Apparently not; you are too busy pretending to score points to bother paying attention.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And how can the answer to that question, one way or another, possibly show his remarks WHICH YOU HAVE NOT SEEN “simply a pretty story, dressed up for marketing appeal”?
(smiles)
Don’t his views deserve to be evaluated on their own merits?
Of course.
Which needs to include the fact that the gay community disagrees with him, doesn’t support him, and in fact namecalls him as “na
posted by Charles Wilson on
Hence why his attempts to accuse me of lying become even more hilarious; he says that about everyone, including John Corvino, who disagrees with him.
Poor North Liar Forty. He made a specific allegation about Sen. Maria Cantwell. It was a lie. He knows it was a lie, and he kept repeating it. People who repeat their lies are liars.
By the way, North Liar Forty, how’s things going with your buddy, Matt Sanchez? He’s a great spokesman for the Cabinettes, don’t you think?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(smiles)
With apologies to MI-Matt, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, if you would argue in a civil manner for once, there would be general amazement.
No, evaluating Corvino’s views on their own merits does NOT need “to include the fact that the gay community disagrees with him, doesn’t support him,” etc. There is no monolithic “gay community.” Some people agree with Corvino (including many here at IGF), and some do not. Your need to make sweeping generalizations is no more enlightening than your attempt to hold me responsible for postings by other persons unless I respond to them.
posted by dalea on
If Corvino had a contract, as almost all major speakers do, he can sue. Religious freedom is not a license to break solemn vows.
By presenting itself as a Catholic institution, AC becomes part of the Universal Church. Which means it is obligated to uphold the Magistrum. And eligible to receive donations from RC members. So, in a round about way, the RC does fund AC. It is part of the club. And now the management of the UC is taking notes and micro-managing. Sad situation for the religious at AC.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJRosendall advises: “ND30, if you would argue in a civil manner for once, there would be general amazement.”
O M G!
Richard, I’m guessing in your bigoted world it is civil to call the Catholic Church “Mother Church”. (patronizing git) Further, to smearingly spew on about the priest scandal in a thread that has not one bloody thing to do with that horrible scandal. (I can hear you now… what? what? I only spoke the truth) And then, given your own penchant for demanding “real gays” adhere to your GayLeftOneTruePoliticalFaith, further smear the Church’s leadership for relying on either authoritarian rule or the rack to make the faithful believe (moral teaching doesn’t rely on rule or the rack, it begins with “do as we do”).
Right, there’s some merit in giving advice, RJRosendall… but you first have to practice that advice on yourself before pulling an Obama (condescendingly instructing others on what to do when you know little of your audience)… and Yes, pulling an Obama, even for his supporters, is a bad thing.
Practice what you preach… heal thyself, first, boy-o. Bigot.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Matt, if (as someone who was raised in the Catholic Church) my referring to “Mother Church” strikes you as unforgivably nasty, you must be posting your messages from a fainting couch. Give me a break.
This thread was about a Catholic institution rescinding an invitation to a gay speaker. Church leaders and opinion-makers have for years blamed gay people for the priest sexual abuse scandal, which is a slander on top of a non sequitur. Those of us who chose to live our lives honestly and affirmingly outside the rectory walls have done far better than those inside. For example, gays in many cities have established organizations (like DC’s SMYAL and NY’s Hetrick-Martin Institute) to protect and help sexual minority youth rather than exploit them. Since this thread deals with the interface between a gay speaker and a Catholic institution, my bringing up that scandal is perfectly relevant. The abuse in question is not only true, it and the way Church leaders handled it are revealing of the corruption of the Church hierarchy. It is NOT a smear to mention this decades-long criminal enterprise in explaining why I think the Church has no moral authority. Civility does not require avoiding legitimate (and in this case, in my view, crucial) criticism. Opposition to or criticism of an organization does not prove bigotry. Bigotry means prejudice and intolerance toward those of other views. I offer reasons and not mere bias, and I have written many times in a respectful and substantive way, including a lengthy, footnoted article in 2002 in response to the priest pedophile scandal. This was a serious examination on my part–highly critical, no doubt, but not a mere exercise in name-calling. When you call people bigots falsely, you devalue the word.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Asking North Liar Forty to “act in a civil manner for once” is like asking the Bush administration not to be a pack of lying thieves for once.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Perhaps so, Charles, but I am trying to practice the audacity of hope. I am even hoping that His Holiness’ red shoes will dance him to the nearest survivor of priestly sexual abuse where he can humbly wash the guy’s feet and beg forgiveness on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJRosendall, while I commend your creative ability and prevaricating capacities to spin a connection between the priest scandal and this thread, the connection doesn’t exist except in your limited and congenitally impaired faculty.
Right, you meant nothing smearingly evil by bringing up the taint of that scandal… ummm, is that a ForSale for the Brooklyn Bridge in your hand? Perfectly appropos with a piece on Aquinas College “spokesmen” taking issue with JC’s probable presentation.
Right, you meant nothing smearingly evil in the lines about rule and the rack as the only way the Church leadership may instruct the faithful… oh yeah, you’ve done a whole lot better than the priests… is that why you’re shoulder deep in resentment, bitterness and spite toward the Church you claim to have raised you? I wonder if this is just the garden-variety form of anti-religion hatred that spews from the many gays or do you have your own unique brand of hate?
Or is this just trying to find some new connection with the GreatBarryO? You know, bitterness… the “clinging to religion” resentment. But you’re right… opposition to an institution like the Church doesn’t prove bigotry; in your case, your words above do prove you’re a bigot. A hatefilled, biased bigot and you do the word proud.
While you might think you maintain a position in “holding the center”… the truth is your continued bashing of the Church, religion and Catholics is simple, dirty, ugly bigotry. Spin it all you want and, at the end of the day, all you have is a dizzy bigot. And a garden variety gay.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson, I know this is off-topic except you brought it up (see how that works, RJRosendall?), what is with you and MattSanchez? I’ve was unable to locate any reference to NDXXX defending Sanchez, much less supporting him.
http://www.cplsanchez.info/
I wonder if there’s more than a little jealous envy playing out in your mean-spirited and spiteful blog creation? Usually gay people who have this kind of animus toward someone it’s because they harbor a deep seated secret lust for the target? Is that it?
I hope there’s a special blog award for greatest fictional gay blog… ’cause you earned it. Rather than promote it, I’d think you’d be ashamed of its creation… opps, my bad, for shame one needs a functioning conscience.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, if you would argue in a civil manner for once, there would be general amazement.
LOL….and every time Charles Wilson posts, that statement becomes more and more hilarious.
Meanwhile, I think Benedict should simply point to the north, where Richard’s allies in the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario are arguing as follows:
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass ? no political party has opposed it ? but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Matt, your repeated name-calling does not me a bigot make. You seem an awful lot more offended by my accurate and fairly restrained comments than you are by the harmful actions by the Church’s authoritarian and unaccountable leaders. This is perverse and out of balance.
As to ND30, he now refers to some group in Ontario that I have never heard of as my “allies.” He just cannot stick to criticizing me for my own positions. In this case, the guilt-by-association is particularly ridiculous in light of my own record of strong opposition to pedophile groups like NAMBLA. I played a role in expelling them and similar groups from the International Lesbian and Gay Association in 1994. In connection with that effort, in which I represented both my own local group GLAA and the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses, I wrote a column strongly criticizing NAMBLA which appeared in several gay papers. In any case, why not find some group that advocates erotic murder and cannibalism (I recall reading about some German fellow being arrested for this a few years ago) and blame me for that. Or just make something up. Alternatively, you could return to reality and stick to criticizing me for my own writing–not for what I fail to write, and not for what others write.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In this case, the guilt-by-association is particularly ridiculous in light of my own record of strong opposition to pedophile groups like NAMBLA.
But perfectly obvious given the fact that you never once in that entire paragraph criticized the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario for doing the same thing as NAMBLA.
When confronted with bad behavior by your fellow liberal gays and lesbians, Richard, you have an odd habit of frantically digging into your article archives, rather than simply condemning their behavior in the here and now.
It almost makes one wonder if those articles are anything more than propaganda on your part, since you certainly can’t seem to act on the sentiments expressed in them now.
posted by Mark on
Richard:
I don’t always agree with you, but you deserve some sort of an award for putting up with ND40’s continued guilt by association idiocy and keeping civil about it.
posted by Mark on
ND30:
I take it that your position is that anyone who you think is a “liberal” has to condemn any other absurd, immoral or ridiculous position taken by any other “liberal,” whether or not they have any association with them. By that token, I DEMAND you criticize every gay “conservative” who has uttered something outrageous or anti-gay.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJRosendall offers: “Matt, your repeated name-calling does not me a bigot make.”
We agree on that point. What makes you a bigot are your words and comments, Richard. Face it: you’re one of those intolerant, GayLeft anti-religion bigots. It’s good you support BarryObama -he’s right down your alley.
Your words, Richard. It’s all about the bigot here.
“Mother Church” -no need for the fainting couch, Richard.
“its heavy-handedness only exposes its impotence” -like in the case of Aquinas College where they PRIDEFULLY have a culture of Safe Zone… whose logo includes unabashedly gay symbols in the logo! So much for Richard’s heavy-handedness of the evil, diabolical Catholic Church, eh?
Hey Richard, read about the policy here… see the symbols for yourself because I know you won’t rest until, like all good gay Doubting Thomases, you actually get to put your own fingers in the wounds. Oh ye of little faith.
http://www.aquinas.edu/students/safezone.html
“The Church is an unaccountable old-boys’ club” -we’ll have to tell that to the 800 FEMALE religious orders and over 1,065,000 religious women who serve in those orders. Go ahead, Richard, tell ’em. How about the 475 religious women who serve as leaders of Catholic hospitals, colleges and human service agencies in the US? Eh, Richard?
“Without its guns and the rack, Mother Church is powerless (against thoughtful examination)” -I thought you learned that moral teaching rests partly on “doing as we do” in practice… it’s why I pointed out to you that you should heed your own advice to NDXXX before you try telling him how to behave. The rule and the rack went on sale at Ebay under JPII… I think the GayLeft bought both and are using it them with witless abandon.
By the way, Richard, did you know that in late February Aquinas held a lecture on campus with themes similar to JC’s standard presentation? The school-sanctioned lecture and discussion was on the topic of “Is Gay Sex a Sin”… about 325 students attended and it was a two hour discussion that lasted 3 1/2 hours. Did you know which side got the most applause? Those arguing the negative.
Go figure; that mean ol’ Catholic Church in control of everyone’s thoughts. Or it’s the rack, I tell ya!
Richard, you aren’t a bigot because someone rightly calls you that… you’re a bigot because of your own words, comments and ideas. Ugly, intolerant and typically GayLeft.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Perhaps so, Charles, but I am trying to practice the audacity of hope. I am even hoping that His Holiness’ red shoes will dance him to the nearest survivor of priestly sexual abuse where he can humbly wash the guy’s feet and beg forgiveness on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.
You’re a better man than me, Richard!
ChasWilson, I know this is off-topic except you brought it up (see how that works, RJRosendall?), what is with you and MattSanchez? I’ve was unable to locate any reference to NDXXX defending Sanchez, much less supporting him.
I’m glad you asked that. At one point in the whole Matt Sanchez Republican Man-Whore scandalette, Matt started posting the lie that I have “AIDS dementia.” This was derived, no doubt, from a posting I made on a different blog about my late partner, who before he died had suffered from dementia. (I am HIV-negative, and have said so many times.)
Along the way, your buddy North Liar Forty taunted me about my partner’s death. Nice guy, North Liar Forty. Hope it never happens to you or anyone close to you. I really do, in spite of your assholery. It’s a bad way to go.
I wonder if there’s more than a little jealous envy playing out in your mean-spirited and spiteful blog creation? Usually gay people who have this kind of animus toward someone it’s because they harbor a deep seated secret lust for the target? Is that it?
Your friend Matt Sanchez ain’t my type. I don’t “lust” for him, and I sure as hell don’t envy the poor loser. I only went to the effort of exposing him because the wingnut fringe looked like they wanted to make him into a media figure.
Who knows, maybe they’ll still try. But if Mateo is going to become a wingnut star, he’s going to become a wingnut star whose full story is public. Not just his porn, but his prostitution, the story of which he and his friends have unsuccessfully sought to suppress.
Hey, free marketeers, I thought the free flow of information is central to your blessed capitalism. Better go brush up on your Adam Smith, y’hear?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Incidentally, when you click on your friend Mateo’s Excellent Top site linked above, be sure to click on the “Hear My Voice” link. I preserved your friend’s voice, which I’m sure you’ll recognize. Together with the ownership records of the site, the link is iron-clad.
And if you’ll browse the Evidence Locker, you’ll find a whole lot more information tying your friend to prostitution, including his own acknowledgements in an article that he wrote and in a radio interview.
Interestingly enough, North Liar Forty is on the record scorning gay promiscuity. But not when it comes to his lying, hypocritical, Republican whore of a buddy, Matt Sanchez. I know all of that sounds harsh, but it happens to be true.
The real question here ought to be why North Liar Forty, and his Log Cabinette friend, Michigan-Matt, are so eager to defend such lowlife simply because they are wingnuts. Have you no standards, my dear Cabinettes?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I take it that your position is that anyone who you think is a “liberal” has to condemn any other absurd, immoral or ridiculous position taken by any other “liberal,” whether or not they have any association with them. By that token, I DEMAND you criticize every gay “conservative” who has uttered something outrageous or anti-gay.
Feel free to cite examples, and if I think they’re worthy of criticism, I will.
The problem gay liberals have, Mark, is that they think everyone else is hamstrung by the fact that they can’t criticize one of their fellow ideologues. You think you’re forcing me into a corner, when in fact, you’re only giving me the opportunity to demonstrate the hypocrisy of liberal gays who drone on about “arguing in a civil manner” and being “against pedophilia” when the CLGR and Charles Wilson do quite the opposite right in front of them
Along the way, your buddy North Liar Forty taunted me about my partner’s death. Nice guy, North Liar Forty. Hope it never happens to you or anyone close to you. I really do, in spite of your assholery. It’s a bad way to go.
LOL….so the logic here is because your partner is dead, you should be allowed to be as hateful towards others as you like, and whenever you’re cornered, dig up his body as an ironclad excuse for your behavior.
Hey, free marketeers, I thought the free flow of information is central to your blessed capitalism. Better go brush up on your Adam Smith, y’hear?
Which is why you’ve gone to such extreme lengths to closet your own identity and delete enormous portions of the forums on your website. 🙂
Interestingly enough, North Liar Forty is on the record scorning gay promiscuity. But not when it comes to his lying, hypocritical, Republican whore of a buddy, Matt Sanchez.
You seem to be of the mind that I should be upset at Matt for doing something that he has repudiated, expressed remorse over doing, and frankly stated wasn’t a good idea.
Therefore, by your logic, any gay person anywhere who has ever contracted HIV, like your partner, should be scorned and condemned for their promiscuity.
But of course, Charles Wilson would never condemn gay promiscuity — only gays who have repudiated promiscuity, like John Corvino.
posted by Charles Wilson on
so the logic here is because your partner is dead, you should be allowed to be as hateful towards others as you like, and whenever you’re cornered, dig up his body as an ironclad excuse for your behavior.
No, that’s your allegation, you supercilious twit. Want to know why you could hold the next Log Cabinette convention in a phone booth? Go look in the mirror.
You seem to be of the mind that I should be upset at Matt for doing something that he has repudiated, expressed remorse over doing, and frankly stated wasn’t a good idea.
Your hero Matthew Sanchez has denied being the man-whore that he was, and for all we know, still is. Of course, as a Log Cabinette, you are accustomed to shilling for liars.
by your logic, any gay person anywhere who has ever contracted HIV, like your partner, should be scorned and condemned for their promiscuity
This is what you, North Liar Forty, have done every chance you get. Except when the man-whore is a lying Republican who denies that he is, or was, a homosexual just like you.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Headline: ChazWilson Loses Mind.
Wow, Chaz… you’ve really jumped not only the proverbial shark, but the shark pack, the ocean and the entire Earth with these last triades and fuminations. You are positively in outer space on your own! Yeow, boy-o you need some therapy. The envy and jealousy you have for MattSanchez is apparent. I just hope your fixation hasn’t crossed the line into a pathological condition that precludes the immediate benefits of meaningful therapy.
Back on topic, I’m guessing that now you’ve exposed your underbelly of intolerance and hatred, you’re doubting the wisdom of your earlier judgment on the Aquinas College/JC visit canceled?
Or do facts still not matter to you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, that’s your allegation, you supercilious twit.
One backed up by the fact that every time you are cornered and called out for your behavior, you go into your “waah, waah, my partner’s dead, I shouldn’t be responsible” routine.
You are quite useful, though; the more you spew your “Log Cabinette” namecalling, the more of a fool and a hypocrite you make of Richard “Civil Manner” Rosendall and people like Mark, and the more justified you make Aquinas’s decision not to host a propaganda speech by someone who even gay community members like yourself call “na
posted by Charles Wilson on
One backed up by the fact that every time you are cornered and called out for your behavior, you go into your “waah, waah, my partner’s dead, I shouldn’t be responsible” routine.
One more lie from the North Liar Forty. I’ve never asked for sympathy or done and sort of “waah, waah, my partner’s dead” thing anywhere. Your buddy, Matt Sanchez, found a reference to his death on my personal blog, and used it as the basis of a lie that I have AIDS and dementia.
You, North Liar Forty, picked it up and amplified it. I protested your and Sanchez’s tactics. They were, and are, despicable, you as you and your Log Cabinette buddies are despicable. There no lie you won’t tell, North Liar Forty.
You and Michigan-Matt and Matt Sanchez and all your friends are the voice of gay Republican liars and hypocrites. Have a good long look at yourselves.
posted by Charles Wilson on
you’ve really jumped not only the proverbial shark, but the shark pack, the ocean and the entire Earth with these last triades and fuminations. You are positively in outer space on your own! Yeow, boy-o you need some therapy. The envy and jealousy you have for MattSanchez is apparent. I just hope your fixation hasn’t crossed the line into a pathological condition that precludes the immediate benefits of meaningful therapy.
Back on topic, I’m guessing that now you’ve exposed your underbelly of intolerance and hatred, you’re doubting the wisdom of your earlier judgment on the Aquinas College/JC visit canceled?
Or do facts still not matter to you?
What do you do for a living, Matt? Write propaganda for Karl Rove? You haven’t offered a single fact. Your posing as a gay “moderate” is a laugh. Anyone who does a Google search on your name, along with your buddy North Liar Forty (who goes by North Dallas Thirty on-line, even though he lives in San Francisco), will quickly see that both of you are wingnuts.
posted by ModerateGay on
“I’ve never asked for sympathy or done and sort of “waah, waah, my partner’s dead” thing anywhere”
Charles do you think people are blind? You are the one who brought him up in this thread.
posted by ModerateGay on
By the way this whole thread sucks, a plague on all you foul-mouthed babies. But Charles is the worst.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ModerateGay, I agree with you about the thread. For my part, I apologize for contributing to the thread moving off-topic and sounding “baby-ish”. My comments about Aquinas College’s true nature, defense of the Church and factual corrections of others related to the thread’s topic, will stand.
Thanks for the remonstration and, again, my apology for my part.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Yup, this thread does suck. Unfortunately, North Liar Forty his Log Cabinette wingnut liars can’t help but spew their lies wherever they go. They really ought to save it for the next telephone booth convention of the Log Cabinettes.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I notice that Michigan Matt thinks it’s terrible to mention the Catholic Chuirch molestation scandals. As long as it’s done by a bunch of wingnuts, priests or otherwise, Matt, North Liar Forty and all their wingnut friends are in favor of it. If it should become a scandal, which is to say if someone should want to tell the truth, they find the truth despicable.
Sorry, guys, it’s ain’t the Middle Ages anymore. People are going to tell the truth even if the Log Cabin Society doesn’t want them to.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s see, Matt makes a public statement of apology; Charles Wilson throws a screaming fit and tries to blame everyone else for his behavior.
And I notice neither Rosendall or Mark seems to be willing to stick up for or defend Charles Wilson any longer.
Good enough.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I wonder how someone who is not mentally retarded or deranged can persist in making a charge that has been definitively refuted. That is all I will say about ND30’s pathetic and despicable “debating” tactics.
As to the Pope’s visit to Washington, the Washington Blade Blog (at http://www.washblade.com) has a story about the Pope’s encounter with Dignity (they stood alongside the route he was traveling in the Popemobile holding up a large banner, and he waved to them). At the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Benedict spoke rather well about the “deep shame” of the priest pedophile scandal. Unfortunately, talk must be matched by action, and the coddling of Cardinal Law in a cushy post in Rome is at odds with Pope’s stated commitment to reform.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJRosendall, you have a penchant for taking things out of context and then spinning them endlessly to suit your own special needs.
The issue I clearly addressed to you earlier in your bigoted remarks above was about YOU bringing up the priest scandal in a thread about a liberal Dominican college canceling JC’s presentation. It was your attempt to posit hatred and bigotry in a thread that had nothing to do about either.
The piece had nothing –absolutely not one single thing– to do about the demerits of the priest scandal. It had not one thing to do about the immorality of that horrible series of sins and pattern of cover-ups which put the Church’s youth in serious harm’s way. Not one thing, Richard. You knew it; but it didn’t stop that penchant for spin on your part.
And now, you point to Pope’s comments as some kind of debate “proof” that you were, afterall, correct. LOL.
Nice try.
The issue was YOU advancing the priest scandal in an effort to smear the Church and Church leadership in a thread that had nothing to do with Church leadership. In fact, the sitting bishop in Grand Rapids (home to Aquinas) wasn’t even involved in the decision to cancel JC’s appearance. The decision was made by the college’s president.
The month prior, the campus held a widely attended talk on “Is Gay Sex a Sin” and I reported on that above. Your likely position and sentiments on that talk was solidly supported by those in attendance and by 2/3rds of the panelists.
The college has a very progressive “Safe Zone/Safe Haven” program that includes, in a logo seen all over campus, signature symbolic elements used by the LGTB community nationwide. I pointed you to where you could read about the policy and see the logo for yourself.
Et cetera, et cetera.
Instead, rather than admit your error and apologize (the civil thing to do, Rosendall), you prefer to spin the issue into some twisted vindictation of your sick, bigoted comments.
How very GayLeft of you. And appalling. Expected. But appalling.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX wisely notes: “Let’s see, Matt makes a public statement of apology; Charles Wilson throws a screaming fit and tries to blame everyone else for his behavior.”
Frankly, NDXXX, I didn’t expect ChasWilson to “get it” or accept responsiblity for his behavior -as called out by ModerateGay’s observation.
ChasWilson and his friends have an over-arching moral principle: No one should hold them responsible for their conduct. That would be judgmental and against the great liberal tradition of doing whatever pleases them, irrespective of the cost to society.
ChasWilson would be the first to point out that the words “personal responsibility” aren’t in the Constitution so he can’t be held to account for his actions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I wonder how someone who is not mentally retarded or deranged can persist in making a charge that has been definitively refuted. That is all I will say about ND30’s pathetic and despicable “debating” tactics.
More spin, no critism or condemnation of gay “rights” groups who endorse and support adults having sex with underage children as “common” and normal.
Talk must be matched by action. Isn’t that what you said, Richard? Why won’t you condemn gay and lesbian groups who endorse having sex with children RIGHT NOW?
Furthermore, given your support and endorsement of Charles Wilson and his tactics, what becomes immediately obvious is that the only thing you consider “pathetic and despicable” are people who disagree with you.