A Most Unusual Catholic

by on

Boston's Saint Anthony Shrine is not your typical Catholic experience. Scott Pomfret, a gay porn writer and SEC attorney who is a lay lector there, writes of when a blue-haired lady approached a Franciscan friar before Mass and pointed to the announcement for the Gay and Lesbian Spirituality Group in the weekly bulletin. She asked angrily, "What's next? You going to have a support group for prostitutes?" The friar replied, "Why? Did you want to join?"

Since My Last Confession is Pomfret's witty and probing account of his struggle with his faith in the context of the same-sex marriage fight in Massachusetts. He attempts to confront Cardinal Seán O'Malley over anti-gay dogma that includes a declaration that Rome's opposition to adoptions by gay couples cannot be disputed.

Along the way he encounters the organization Roman Catholic Womanpriests; O'Malley's motto, "Quodcumque Dixerit Facite" (Do Whatever He Tells You); the macabre reverence within the Church for relics of the saints; and a politically correct Dignity service in an Episcopal church basement. "Before approaching the sacred sawhorse for our consecrated pitas," Pomfret writes of the service, "the Marist reminded us that there was a gluten-free 'host alternative' as well as consecrated grape juice for those with 'special needs.'"

Pomfret provides sidebars explaining everything from Catholic vocabulary to clerical garb to excommunication to Butler's Lives of the Saints. He also lists clues as to whether Cardinal O'Malley is or is not gay (he calls it a draw), and gives a short history refuting the claim by the Massachusetts Catholic Conference that marriage has remained unchanged for millennia as a union between one man and one woman.

Mentioning that he and his partner commit what the 1878 Baltimore Catechism calls one of "the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance," Pomfret notes that putting consensual sodomy on a par with willful murder is "a tad extreme." He points out that the Vatican's chief exorcist in 2002 called the Harry Potter books "satanic," and observes dryly, "Nice to know the Vatican was holding high-level consultations about protecting children from fictional characters while subjecting the same children to predatory priests." Irreverence here is not just a way of dealing with pain, but a tool for eliciting the truth.

The book is filled with vivid observations, as when describing a spirituality group member whose "legs trailed away from his upper body like a nasturtium spilling over an iron railing." Pomfret can be unexpectedly moving: "An old woman in the second row skipped a whole decade of her rosary, raised her face to the altar, and revealed that she had once been very beautiful."

The testimony by some Jesuit priests against the proposed Massachusetts marriage amendment prompts Pomfret to recall a story about Jesuit missionaries: "So much did the Mohawk warriors admire the priests' bravery that they cut out the Jesuits' hearts and ate them so as to inherit the Jesuits' courage." Much of the book deals with his search for dissenters of similar courage.

He learns to get past his anger and value earlier contributors to the struggle, like the founders of Dignity/Boston in the 1970s. Epiphanies emerge in simple events around him, including a moment during an infant niece's baptism that reminds him why he's Catholic. In another incident, his atheist boyfriend drafts marketing materials for the boyfriend's brother and his wife, a devout couple seeking spare eggs from other couples' in vitro fertilizations, and coins the tag line, "Give us your leftover miracles." This act of grace by a nonbeliever paradoxically buttresses Pomfret's own faith.

Reminding himself that his ministry "is not about me," he finds wisdom among his fellow worshippers. A lesbian named Angela says of her parish in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood, "It was the first place I could ever go into and worship with all my parts." A gay father of three explains why he is still Catholic: "It's a Rosa Parks thing. I'm just not moving. It's my Church, too, as much as theirs." Pomfret discovers a network of believers challenging the larger Church to replace its framework of static orthodoxy with one of living and discovering.

Pomfret realizes that Rome is too preoccupied with control issues to consider the value of dissent and doubt in the journey toward wisdom; yet many of its gay communicants abide. "Brokenness," Pomfret affirms, "is an opportunity for the Spirit to enter."

33 Comments for “A Most Unusual Catholic”

  1. posted by tristram on

    The RC hierarchy is an inexhaustible font of hilarity. (Sorry I don’t know how to make this clickable:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/a_likely_saint.html

  2. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    Ah, yes, violating Cardinal Newman’s wishes is a fine way to treat a likely saint. Thankfully, he and his friend are past caring. The rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan in that article you linked to is just the sort of sneering that so often substitutes for serious argument by those who consider themselves above having to defend their positions seriously. It doesn’t matter whether Newman was gay in the modern sense or what use gay people might make of his burial spot. His wishes should be respected. It is sad that people claiming to venerate him would so easily set that aside. As to the process for determining whether someone is a saint, oh sweet Jesus what an embarrassment.

  3. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    RJR, I doubt you are correct when you offer that Scott is an unusual (gay) Catholic. As a life-long gay Catholic, I’ve meet guys much like Scott and -frankly- far brighter and with more probing, penetrating minds… and a better understanding of their faith. Come on, how witty is “Father McSlutty” or “Brokeback Lent” afterall? Scott’s MickeyMoore schtick of pursuing the Cardinal reeks of disrespect –but lots of gays will cheer that because they don’t like organized religion, let alone the Church.

    I thought his book was a hackney for the conventional, left-of-center voice often found in the pews… and more often found outside the Church with a litany of grievances that would take a sea of therapists to sort on a Sunday afternoon.

    Having read Last Confessions and hearing Scott at a book signing this summer, he really isn’t that unique or unusual in my experience. And he isn’t the hysterically funny, fall-down laughing sort of author many portray him as… he seems to me to be a guy who has an axe to grind far sharper and a political agenda that’s constrained by Church leaders… and that’s the rub of it.

    Ten years ago, the issue of the day for liberal Catholics was letting priests marry. Ten years before that it was letting nuns become priests. Ten years before that it was allowing priests to live outside the rectory. Ten years before that it was “modernizing” the Liturgy and empowering the laity and instituting democratic mechanisms in parish governance.

    Guess what? Scott is right on one important trend: the older, pro-reform priests steeped in the traditions of VC2 are dying off and the younger priests are decidedly more conservative, less political and disinclined to carry the liberal Catholic water pail.

    That ain’t all bad, in my book.

    Scott should stick to gay romance novels and check his ego at the Holy Water font on Sunday.

  4. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM, I did not say that Scott was an unusual gay Catholic. The title was the IGF editor’s choice. I did say that Saint Anthony’s is not your typical Catholic experience. That, BTW, does not constitute a denial that there have been liberal Catholic groups and services in various places for more than four decades. But come on, Father Bear Daddy does not have to be unique in order to be clearly atypical seen from the Church as a whole.

    I found Scott unusually thoughtful and self-examining. If your main impression of someone with such strong and enduring faith is that he’s left-of-center, you must be pro-authoritarian. His so-called stalking of O’Malley is actually nothing of the sort, as the book shows. You can try to trivialize the whole book by disparaging his choice of pseudonyms for various people in the book, but I think he shows himself to be plenty intelligent and well-informed, and I maintain that the things I cited for praise deserve that praise.

    It is hard to fathom how any self-respecting gay person, even a conservative one, could see the Church’s drift toward even greater authoritarianism and rigidity as a good thing. And it is a pity that you seem determined to miss Pomfret’s overarching point. But I think the source of this is a decision by those in charge in Rome (with whom you are in sympathy) that they actually prefer to decrease their numbers to a smaller group of “true believers”–that is, people who will not question. What kind of vital faith is that, that cannot abide people’s honest questioning? And how does that insular attitude uphold and express the teachings of Christ? There is real wisdom to be found in Pomfret’s book; it is too bad you are too busy being right to see it.

  5. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    RJR, it’s illuminating maybe that we both think the other’s eyes can’t see? See, I think you parade yourself as if everyone else is wrong and only you have the patent on truth and, with your special (now Anglican?) decoder ring, only you have the gift of determining who is an appropriate voice for gay Catholics -usual, unusual or atypical or anywhere inbetween.

    I wrote that I’ve known lots of far brighter, more insightful gay Catholics than Scott and he ought to stick to gay romance writing with a tad of porn tossed in because humor, satirical wit and cleverness is a fiction in “My Last Confession”.

    I wasn’t trivializing the whole book, as you posit; I was demonstrating that “Brokeback Lent” and “Father McSlutty” weren’t exactly 10s on any Catholic’s scoreboard of intellectual wit or even passable writing for a supposedly Catholic, well educated gay man.

    Scott’s disrespectful treatment -you say stalking- of the Cardinal is exactly that (disrespectful) and not very original since MikeyMoore did the same schtick with GM’s Roger Smith over two decades ago… hmmm, what was that about your claim Pomfret is “plenty intelligent”? Hey, I’m sure that to a left-of-center guy like you who also sharpens his political activist axe on the same grindstone, you’d find him funny just like a drunk might enjoy old Dean Martin TV show reruns. I don’t; I didn’t.

    While you find it “hard to fathom how any self-respecting gay person” –yikes– “even a conservative one, could see the Church’s drift (blah blah blah)”, I find that “drift” to be a much welcomed corrective action for the excesses dumped on the laity and clergy during the period post VC2. See, unlike you, I didn’t leave the Church in anger and take to threatening priests with physical intimidation (paging Fr Morrow)… I’m still in the pew with my partner of 14 years, our two sons and surrounded by friends and fellow-Catholics who likely think your political agenda (and Scott’s) belong elsewhere… not in Church because our journey of Faith is far more important and timeless than your and Scott’s political agenda on SSM.

    One man’s (non-Catholic, no less) view of “drift” might be another man’s (Catholic and proud here) view of much needed correction.

    For instance, one of the enduring and far-reaching contributions of JPII will likely be his enforced return to priestly duties those politically active clergy who strayed far, far from their primary priestly mission (too bad JPII didn’t get the opportunity to convince Mike Pflager of the errors in his way). Authoritarian -to you; sure. To me: right ordered. Hey, he was the Pope and he does get to say what’s what for the clergy, no? It isn’t Congress, the UN or Parliment, Richard… it’s the Catholic Church.

    You see the Holy Mother Church becoming more authoritarian… I see it rightly asserting her moral responsibility on matters of faith, doctrine and dogma. And long, long overdue.

    You may not be able to fathom what you weakly attempt (I can’t fathom how any gay blah blah…) because your “read” of it is through a set of lenses distorted by your liberal passions and values… like when you suggest dissenters are merely trying to challenge the Church to become a discovering, living Church.

    No, RJR, the dissenters and foment they encourage is intended to make the Church into a form they feel more comfortable with, a Church which is less (not more) challenging to THEM to do what’s morally right and they seek to make THEIR experience within the Church the model for the Church writ large.

    I wonder if there’s a class of angry liberal Catholics who are by temperment perpetually disaffected? Hmmmm.

    You wrongly identify the forces that are pushing the proverbial pendulum back to the center in the Church… you wrongly attribute that the goal is fewer faithful… you cheaply reduce the process to one where “people’s honest questioning” is all that matters or is the only value worthy of Church attention or fear. “Honest questioning” is sometimes a tool disgruntled liberal Catholics use against Church authority when that authority gets exercised without (God forbid) their special little inputs or consults. I wonder if there’s a class of angry liberal Catholics who are by temperment perpetually disaffected? Hmmmm.

    I recall older brothers of mine leaving the Church when the 2nd round of changes began in the 1980s… and the Church moved toward something akin to Liberation Theology and HansKung was the new don Quixote tilting for modernity at the Pope -our very liberal local Bishop cheered it all on and 3 of my brothers left the Church in disgust… only to find embrace in the PiusX movement.

    If I shared your political agenda, your liberal passions and values, I too might find amusing, insightful and deeply touching anything written by a gay romance writer who shared a liberal passion for political activism on SSM… just like you did here.

    But as a relevant or insightful voice of a gay Catholic, Scott misses the mark and it’s why I wrote he should learn to check his ego at the Holy Water font.

    Unlike you, I’m speaking as a gay Catholic still in the pew, still on the journey of Faith, still looking for a return to the center in the Catholic Church… not seeking to make it over in my own, flawed image. It’s a lesson you haven’t learned and one that, maybe, Scott’s book can teach you?

    It’s the audacity of hope, no?

  6. posted by tom on

    I’m 54 years old. I wonder if Michigan Matt teaches his two sons that they will burn in hell for all eternity if they masturbate? That’s what I was taught when I was a teenager. I would go to confession every Saturday and I would wonder why so few of my classmates were ever there even though they were always going up to the communion rail on Sunday with their families. It made me feel like I must be the only pervert around. Anyway, I’m glad I left that guilt trip behind along with the church. Do they still teach that? I think it’s tantamount to emotional child abuse.

  7. posted by Patrick on

    My my MM (oops there I go using someone else’s syntax again)

    You certainly are a mosochist. You are always posting on a site that you disagree with(from what I have seen so far) every writer and you go to a church that considers you intrinsically disordered. Bravo. BTW the last rant had you sounding like a pre-op Mann Coulter.Should be good for Lulz though.

  8. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Patrick, I wonder if you can stay on the thread’s topic just this one, tiny little time and not resort to your usual and predictable personal smears? And help us understand how even a sockpuppet as biased and self-serving as you thinks IGF -with its diversity of authors- is always in disagreement with my opinions or those of others?

    Or is it your preference to eliminate from the debate any informed, progressive voices contrary to your own? Hey Patrick, that was just a rhetorical question; we all know the answer is “Yes, you’d rather eliminate and shutter any contrary opinions to your gayLeft orthodoxy”.

    Besides, Patrick, no one expects you or DUMP/CharlesWilson to stay on the topic and not spin into personal attacks.

  9. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    tom, the answer to your question is No.

    I am sorry that you failed to grasp the redemptive quality of confession and still harbor latent, corrosive anger toward to the Church. You called it “guilt” but I wonder if what you really did was just to embrace the transient and shallow attribute of our pop culture: “self-affirmation at any expense”?

    We’d probably agree on this point though: I think confession and any sacrament should wait until the student reaches majority… and I’m not sure priests or nuns should be teaching anyone about sexuality -that’s job for professionals and parents.

  10. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM now appears to suggest I am an Anglican. How he got that idea I cannot fathom.

    MM writes, “I think you parade yourself as if everyone else is wrong and only you have the patent on truth…”

    I offer arguments, MM. You offer mainly insults and mischaracterizations.

    “…only you have the gift of determining who is an appropriate voice for gay Catholics….”

    MM, you are the only one invoking an authority with a monopoly on truth, and you claim it is Rome. I am merely open to other voices, and continue paying attention to the world to learn more about it–in contrast to the Vatican which seeks to impose its absolute truth simply by declaring a static reality not supported by observing God’s creation (which includes me and Scott).

    Your insults against Scott Pomfret smack less of intelligence than of your need to show how clever you can be in making put-downs. Pomfret shows himself to be a bright fellow well-informed about Catholic practices and doctrine. Your insistence on trivializing and dismissing his book because he is a porn writer is an easy and obvious tactic that suggests you missed the entire point of his book, if you even read it faithfully in the first place. By “reading faithfully” I mean reading for understanding and in a receptive (if critical) spirit, not simply scanning it for stuff to mock and sneer about.

    “I wasn’t trivializing the whole book, as you posit….”

    Yes you were, precisely by picking out particular details that were easy to mock. The book is irreverent. So what?

    “Scott’s disrespectful treatment -you say stalking- of the Cardinal is exactly that (disrespectful) and not very original since MikeyMoore did the same schtick with GM’s Roger Smith over two decades ago…”

    No, I did NOT say Pomfret was stalking O’Malley. I said, “His so-called stalking of O’Malley is actually nothing of the sort.” He himself had referred to stalking, but that was hyperbole as becomes clear from actually reading the book. He mainly wrote letters and made phone calls asking questions, and attended a few events that O’Malley was at. The notion that his self-reported actions remotely rise to Michael Moore levels is absurd. BTW, since you insult Pomfret for making up silly names, why don’t you just use the commonly-used names of the people you are insulting instead of resorting to the obligatory nicknames? At least Pomfret has a reason to use pseudonyms–to protect people’s privacy.

    MM, by summarizing me as “left-of-center” you display your ignorance about my work. I have been criticizing the left all my adult life. That is a fact with a great deal of evidence behind it. I am a centrist. That I am still to your left only means that you are so far to the right. Your attempted zinger insulting me for finding Pomfret “plenty bright” is a wasted effort. I have been bright enough to see through your desperate efforts to show how clever you are by throwing around insults instead of engaging people’s ideas. You have not shown the slightest interest in grasping the point of Pomfret’s book, which is at least as self-critical as it is critical of others, and which despite all the irreverence is a sensitive exploration of one person’s crisis of faith. He comes through it with his faith reaffirmed. One point he makes, as I mentioned in my review, was that it was not all about him. It’s too bad that you insist on missing that point our of your need to make cheap put-downs.

    MM, if you find it necessary to say “yikes” in response to my noticing the ample evidence of your not being a self-respecting gay person, then go ahead. You are essentially disparaging the entire gay rights movement. Why, I don’t know. But the desire to be treated equally both under the civil law and within the communion of the Church is entirely legitimate and fundamentally humane. Pomfret shows it can also be an act of faith.

    “See, unlike you, I didn’t leave the Church in anger and take to threatening priests with physical intimidation (paging Fr Morrow)”

    Oh, give me a break. If that is all that you took away from my letter to Vicar, then your know-it-all conservative posturing has made you a truly dishonest man. That letter was filled with righteous indignation that was amply shown in the letter itself to be well justified, and you dishonor your own love for your partner and your sons by insulting me for objecting to Father Morrow’s embrace of anti-gay bigots.

    “I’m still in the pew with my partner of 14 years, our two sons and surrounded by friends and fellow-Catholics who likely think your political agenda (and Scott’s) belong elsewhere…”

    Unlike you, in approaching Pomfret’s book I did not make it all about me. His experience is quite different from my own. That should be obvious to you if you read his book, because he is still in the pew the same as you.

    “our journey of Faith is far more important and timeless than your and Scott’s political agenda on SSM.”

    If your postings here do not show your own political agenda, then there is no such thing as a political agenda. How in the world can you attack a fellow gay person, a person who loves his own partner the same as you presumably love yours, for seeking equality under the law? What is the matter with you? How does our seeking civil marriage equality harm you in any way?

    “Authoritarian -to you; sure. To me: right ordered.”

    The fact that you approved of JPII’s authoritarianism did not make it not authoritarian. The point is that you agree with and embrace his inherently authoritarian approach. Since you do so openly and enthusiastically, there is not much point in denying it.

    “Hey, he was the Pope and he does get to say what’s what for the clergy, no? It isn’t Congress, the UN or Parliment, Richard… it’s the Catholic Church.”

    And from your strictly top-down model of the Church, yes. That is not everyone’s model. I pretty much accepted your model, which is why I left. Pomfret and many others like him are not leaving. The Church is a community of faithful; if its legitimacy rested solely on the corrupt men who have been running it lately, it would be little more than an empty shell. I have a cousin in Boston who is a nun, and a cleric with a more glowing pastoral dedication you would be unlikely ever to meet. The Church truly lives because of the devotion and faithful service of people like her. It certainly does not live in your contempt for anyone who questions or challenges the Vatican.

    “the dissenters and foment they encourage is intended to make the Church into a form they feel more comfortable with”

    No. Asking that one’s legitimate existence be affirmed is not a matter of mere comfort.

    “…a Church which is less (not more) challenging to THEM to do what’s morally right….”

    Presumably this means that you agree with Ratzinger that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. How is that self-respecting? And how is my defending self-respect for gay people either a silly or a leftist idea?

    “I wonder if there’s a class of angry liberal Catholics who are by temperment perpetually disaffected? Hmmmm.”

    MM, Pomfret’s book shows him working through his anger and coming out of the struggle reaffirmed in his faith and his commitment to the Church. Did you even read it?

    “you wrongly attribute that the goal is fewer faithful…”

    I observe a Vatican that sees its way or no way. If you believe, as you appear to do, that they have a monopoly on absolute truth, then I suppose that is the correct stance to take–in which case you see Benedict’s medieval obscurantism as a good thing.

    “you cheaply reduce the process to one where ‘people’s honest questioning’ is all that matters or is the only value worthy of Church attention or fear.”

    No. But your view of the Church allows no room for questioning at all. Speaking of questioning, you mentioned that you and your partner have two sons. One of the things Pomfret criticized was O’Malley’s declaration (which I mentioned in my article) that the Church’s opposition to gay parental adoption would not admit of dissent. Do you share the Church’s opposition to such adoptions? To the extent that you love your partner and your sons, you are defying the Vatican whether you admit it or not.

    “…when the 2nd round of changes began in the 1980s… and the Church moved toward something akin to Liberation Theology and HansKung was the new don Quixote tilting for modernity at the Pope”

    You have your dates wrong. Hans K

  11. posted by Patrick on

    WOW MM, I’m surprised a Rightwing/Catholic/MannCoulter meat puppet like your was able to come up with such a clever retort and by clever I mean /b/tard(ed). How in your arrogance can you chide me for

    my “predictable personal smears” in the first key strokes and then write “help us understand how even a sockpuppet as biased and self-serving as you”? or was biased and self-serving meant in an impersonal way? YUP /b/tard.

  12. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    RJR, funny you should contend that YOUR posits are nothing but solid arguments based on great wisdom and insight… sort of sounds like that very monopoly on the truth I say you continue to claim is your right… and all others are wrong. Right, I get it now… all hail King Richard. Sorry, I left behind a willingness to accept your pronouncements as truth… how cheeky of me, eh? And what, as a practicing Catholic, how dare I, eh?

    Look, there are so many levels of your rebuttal/reply that scream out for correction –I’ll narrow it down to three main ones (and a few minor) and let your other condescending and inaccurate reductions of what I wrote slide by.

    But before that, we all know you have a long practiced tactic here of taking what someone writes in honest discussion of your claims, turn it on its head and reduce it to a ridciulous proposition that all can chuckle at… how witty of you. Scott Pomfret has some serious competition from you, it seems. The tactic, frankly, RJR, sucks intellectually. You’re no more interested in fair, open exchange than the clerics you repeatedly rail against AND for the very reason you cry out in pain. It’s like the Oslo Syndrome for gay ex-Catholic antagonists.

    First, you think that threatening physical intimidation of a cleric because he doesn’t agree with YOUR liberal political views is perfectly ok. I don’t. It really is as simple as that but then your liberal values of scoffing at religion, belittling authority on Church matters and undercutting any moral authority (save yours, of course), only further proves you are a classic angry liberal stomping your feet in protest. That’s why I used your line and asked if guys like you are just tempermentally predisposed to be perpetually disaffected; and on Church matters, I think you are.

    Second, you scream for respect and try to project an image here of being “independent” or a “centrist” when you are anything but –and I really don’t think having a couple of articles printed in a moderate journal constitutes the bona fides of a moderate or for the fact, as you claim, you “take on the left” regularly… which seems a rather silly claim because the times I’ve read of your so-called “taking on the left”, it’s been with a limp, wet, impotent noodle.

    A centrist, you’re not RJR. You’re a left-of-center liberal by anyone’s standard… for you to deny the obvious suggests you are apparently uncomfortable in your own skin or need to carry-on the dissimulation for a political or intellectual end. That’s ok, ’cause there are lots of commenters here who do the same thing –and it’s legendary in natl politics, of course… as BarryO drives that ObamaBus over yet another issue or another segment of the Left in order to get voters to trust he’s a centrist. Ain’t foolin’ no one, dude; not you, not BarryO.

    Third, you’ve got a massive political axe to grind with the Catholic Church because your position lost the battle for control over the Church and it remains opposed to SSM. I get it. To most Catholics, you’re like those bitter Clintonites within the Democrat Party who want to take their balls and go home… the GOP had that same angry, bitter, petulant immature experience (albeit fleeting) with the religious farRight when McCain became the presumptive nominee. It happens, I get it. I get your anger, RJR… it’s seethingly palpable in your letter to Fr Morrow and in your adulation of Scott Pomfret’s adverse portrayl of Catholics. Guess what? It doesn’t matter because you’re no longer part of the Church –and all you want now is to excite others to match your bitterness and anger and spite for the Church… that’s why you cheerlead Scott Pomfret’s take on the Church.

    As for HansKung and Liberation Theology, you should know that my assessment of the that point in time is spot on. Prof Kung began drawing attention to his 1980s era dressing down by traveling the US and speaking at nearly every venue to share his outrage over the excessive treatment by Society for the Propagation of the Faith & the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith –and it’s no surprise that Prof Kung “trail of tears” hit the leading left colleges in America… 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985; I heard him in 1987 at U of M. Additionally, RJR, Liberation Theology was STILL being embraced and promoted by priests and nuns throughout the Americas in the 1980s… even by those who stood in direct, unapologetic opposition to the Pope’s specific instructions. In fact, as late as Pope Benedict 16th’s 2007 trip to Brazil, LT was still a strong force within the clergy in SAmerica –at least that’s what the farLeft liberally biased New York Times had to say.

    Right, it was all over by 1979? No and please don’t try to instruct those who remained in the pews about what you THINK the Church was doing or not doing at the time. Thank you very much.

    Frankly, you’d have been much better off in your adulation of Scott Pomfret’s irreverent (and I’d add irrelevant) take on Catholic leadership if you had made one very important point at the outset –“I, RJR, am a former Catholic who is at odds with his Church and no longer practices the Faith. Here’s what I think about a gay Catholic’s take on x, y & z issues who remained in the Church….” Because, once readers know where you sit, they can better appreciate where (and why) you have a stand on certain issues, perspectives, etc.

    RJR, I didn’t mean to imply you were an Anglican… that’s why I used a question mark next to the word (nice job ignoring it while making your statement look like an indictment of me overstepping and getting it wrong). I thought that your liberalism is so predictable that you were probably like thousands of other fallen away gay Catholics… taking up space and agitating over at the more liberal and PC-ish Anglican Communion… and still taking the opportunities to bitch about the Roman Catholic Church.

    The balance of your rebuttal or reply could be equally dispatched very easily. But to what end? You aren’t interested in serious, fair discussion of this issue. For you, it’s all about pressing that King Richard ring deep into the wax, sealing those pontifical-sounding instructions to the readership and issuing forth your undisputable opinion.

    Like reminding us in that pontifical voice of yours that we ought to pull our toesy from the ocean waters this summer whilst on holiday and reflect on the plight of gays in foreign lands. Nawh, you never did that, did you King Richard?

    I’d be happy to discuss further with you how inaccuarte and wrong-headed Scott Pomfret’s “Last Confessions” take on the Catholic Church really is… but you’d need to find someway to be open and willing to struggle outside the gayLeft str8 jacket you wear.

  13. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Patrick, I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say in your last post because it seems the excess fabric near your mouth is inhibiting the vocalizations… ask your handler to take the sock off his hand let you speak on your own. ‘k?

  14. posted by Patrick on

    OUCH, MM you cut me to the quick, how very MAnn Coulter.LOL.I guess you missed the part about this bein’ the internet.

  15. posted by Patrick on

    Hey, MM I got one for you, I’m rubber you’re glue……hahaha right up there with sock puppet. I hope, though, what ever you do please don’t call me a *gasp* NUBIE!PLEEEEAASSEEEEEE! Oh my gosh I cant believe I just wrote that. Now MM knows my Achilles Heel!!

  16. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM, you are the one aggressively and nastily defending the rigid RCC which holds itself out as the sole path to salvation. Kindly offer a direct quote, including the title and date of the article, where I have ever claimed a monopoly on the truth. Your putting words in my mouth doesn’t count. You did not begin to make a serious critique of Pomfret’s book. You are still free to offer one, which ought to include specific and non-trivializing citations (i.e., not just more contemptuous quotes of the pseudonyms in the book), and (assuming you have any integrity) will insist on acknowledging Pomfret’s own self-criticism, his repeated statement that it is not all about him, and his affirmation of his own Catholic faith. So far, you have mischaracterized him and made more references to his other career as a gay romance novelist than to what he is exploring in the book.

    I will say one more time: My article on Pomfret’s book contains exactly NOTHING about myself. It is NOT about me. Kindly stop trying to make it about me. If you honestly believed that no one who is not a currently practicing Catholic has any business paying any notice to things Catholic, then you should have criticized the Pope’s very public American visit last spring–or the media for covering it. But if non-Catholics have no business writing about Church matters, why does Rome have a right to interfere with the civil laws of the United States, and in particular the constitution of Massachusetts, which Cardinal O’Malley and his organization worked to change to prohibit same-sex civil marriages? How, in light of this interference by the Church in matters of the State, can you object to my writing on Church matters, especially considering that I make not the slightest effort to interfere in the Church’s right to preach and worship as it pleases? I write about what interests me, and I am interested in Catholic matters because Catholicism was permanently imprinted on me in my formative years, and because I have many Catholic family members. Not that I need your permission. And if you are not interested in the views of a non-Catholic, then good-bye. Why, in that case, do you waste your time here? That question applies more generally.

    “we all know you” blah blah blah.

    MM, speak for yourself. It should be clear to you by now that everyone here does not agree with you.

    “You’re no more interested in fair, open exchange than the clerics you repeatedly rail against.”

    I think the evidence plainly contradicts you.

    “It’s like the Oslo Syndrome”

    Oslo Syndrome? Get your Baltic capitals right if you’re going to make dumb insults.

    “First, you think that threatening physical intimidation of a cleric because he doesn’t agree with YOUR liberal political views is perfectly ok.”

    There you go again charging me with making physical threats against Father Morrow. That is sleazy of you. Here are the two physical references I made: “I am quite prepared to participate in a bloody war before I will allow your narrow and intolerant vision of America to prevail, before I will give up my liberty as a gay citizen. But already gay people are gradually winning the cultural war that was declared against us by the sorts of people who attended the FRC conference with you. We are also beginning to win the political war….” A stated willingness to resort to civil war to prevent the radical right from imposing its theocratic views on this country–a willingness I reiterate should it come to that, which it won’t–does NOT constitute a personal threat against Father Morrow. Nor did his letter of reply suggest that he took it that way.

    I also wrote to Fr. Morrow: “I can assure you of this: if any of my nephews or nieces should turn out to be gay, and I should learn that they are in the ‘loving embrace” of a ‘support group’ that teaches them that they are intrinsically disordered, I will storm into the room and interpose myself bodily between you and them, and any sibling that supports such ministering to flesh and blood of mine will have to leave my body cold and bloody on the floor before I will allow such abuse in the name of love to continue. Not with my family, you don’t.”

    Incidentally, my family members loved that letter. Interposing myself bodily does not constitute a physical assault. I may rightly be charged with paying homage to the Tenth Muse, Hyperbole, but not with threatening violence against Fr. Morrow.

    “your liberal values of scoffing at religion, belittling authority on Church matters and undercutting any moral authority”

    If you actually read my writings on religion of recent years, you will find that I am not at all attacking religion generally, but criticizing specific religious institutions. I do not belittle Church authority, I take it seriously and oppose it. I actually think that the religious impulse, which I write about respectfully (and did so in my article on Pomfret), is HARMED by Rome’s authoritarianism. The fact that I write so sympathetically about another person’s faith, in this case Pomfret’s, is an indication that I am not controlled by unresolved anger.

    “Second, you scream for respect”

    This discussion board is quite silent, as I have been while typing my messages.

    “and try to project an image here of being ‘independent’ or a ‘centrist’ when you are anything but”

    If my writings were leftist, IGF would not republish them.

    “I really don’t think having a couple of articles printed in a moderate journal”

    I don’t know if you’re referring to IGF or what, but surely you won’t claim that FrontPageMag.com, which has published several articles by me, is moderate. Several gay leftists who ran out of arguments against me have treated the mere fact of my being published by David Horowitz (who I have found to be conservative but not ant-gay) as proof all by itself that I was a fascist stooge.

    “the times I’ve read of your so-called ‘taking on the left’, it’s been with a limp, wet, impotent noodle.”

    Oh, please. You know, your criticisms would have more credibility if you did not make obviously false statements like this. I have been criticized for many things, but never for the limpness and impotence of my prose. I suppose my criticisms of gay Marxists, of gay defenders of Palestine, of black radical Malik Shabazz, have all been erased without a trace, since only someone foaming at the mouth could say those critiques are too weak. But I suppose that if you desire to bring back the rack and the thumbscrew, in the spirit of Dick Cheney, you might find my nonviolent takedowns of radical leftists insufficiently strong. But I think what is really happening here is that you have simply decided for reasons of cheap posturing to be utterly unimpressed by every word I have ever written. All I can say is, unlike you I do not hide behind a pseudonym.

    “A centrist, you’re not RJR.”

    Actually, someone who has written half a dozen articles for David Horowitz could fairly be described as right of center. But when a person is conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and the only candidate for whom he’s written position papers is a Republican, centrist is a pretty fair description.

    “as BarryO drives that ObamaBus over yet another issue or another segment of the Left in order to get voters to trust he’s a centrist. Ain’t foolin’ no one, dude; not you, not BarryO.”

    Barack Obama, whom you refuse to call by the name he himself goes by, has never been all that far to the left, as many conservative former colleagues have noted. But Obama is another person about whom you’ve decided that you cannot say anything at all positive, so (like the Vatican) you apparently get to have your own facts. If he were the diehard leftist you portray and not the aisle-crosser that he in fact is, he would never have been elected president of the Harvard Law Review.

    “Third, you’ve got a massive political axe to grind with the Catholic Church because your position lost the battle for control over the Church and it remains opposed to SSM.”

    My position lost the battle for control over the Church? What battle? I haven’t thought modern reforms stood much of a chance in the Church since the encyclical Humanae Vitae forty years ago. As to bitterness, are you at all self-aware? If I had retreated into bitterness I would hardly be able to write sympathetically as I just did about someone else’s reaffirmation of his faith.

    “those bitter Clintonites within the Democrat Party”

    It’s called the Democratic Party. If your position depends on refusing even to acknowledge their chosen name, boy oh boy must you be desperate.

    “I get your anger, RJR… it’s seethingly palpable in your letter to Fr Morrow”

    Interesting that you had to go back ten years to find something sufficiently angry. Yes, indeed, that was an angry letter. Nearly 50 of my pieces were published by IGF since then. One angry letter (which I stand by) becomes all-defining? No, it doesn’t, and you wouldn’t even try to say it does if you were the least bit scrupulous.

    “Guess what? It doesn’t matter because you’re no longer part of the Church”

    Then why are you wasting time on me?

    “your bitterness and anger and spite”

    At present, you display those things more than I.

    “Prof Kung began drawing attention to his 1980s era dressing down by traveling the US”

    I am aware of that, but the point is that Rome had already barred him from being considered a Catholic theologian, and JPII had begun the conservative crackdown just as I said. Of course there was resistance from liberals in the Church in America, but those in any position of influence were picked off one by one, while JPII was patiently stacking the College of Cardinals to his liking.

    “Liberation Theology was STILL being embraced and promoted by priests and nuns throughout the Americas in the 1980s… even by those who stood in direct, unapologetic opposition to the Pope’s specific instructions.”

    Yes, indeed. But as you say, they did so in direct opposition to the Pope. Thus liberalism was NOT ascendant in the Church in the 80s as you suggested, but had become a protest movement going against the grain of the Vatican.

    “please don’t try to instruct those who remained in the pews about what you THINK the Church was doing or not doing at the time.”

    Oh, come now. Setting aside your attempt to put more words in my mouth, surely you don’t claim that those sitting in the pews are encouraged to pay much attention to curial matters. I for one learned much more about the Church after leaving it than I did from Monsignor Russell or the Baltimore Catechism at St. Catherine’s.

    “once readers know where you sit, they can better appreciate where (and why) you have a stand on certain issues, perspectives, etc.”

    That’s because you want to make this all about me. I wrote nothing about myself in my article on Pomfret. His story does not resemble mine at all.

    “taking up space and agitating over at the more liberal and PC-ish Anglican Communion…”

    Just in time for the big schism? What a silly thought. Nope, it’s Holy Mother Church or nothing for me. You see, you can leave the Church, but–once it gets you early, as it did me–it never leaves you. Exiles have their own bit of wisdom to offer. In any case, no one is forcing you to read anything.

    “The balance of your rebuttal or reply could be equally dispatched very easily.”

    Well, you’ve done such an impressive job already, why don’t we just crown you with laurels and be done with it?

    “Like reminding us in that pontifical voice of yours”

    Thank you, but I doubt you’ve heard my voice. I would certainly never try to compete with His Holiness in the wearing of sacred vestments, which he works quite impressively. He’s even gotten the gestures down. He still looks a bit like the Grinch, but when he gives his crinkly smile it just melts glaciers.

    “that we ought to pull our toesy from the ocean waters this summer whilst on holiday and reflect on the plight of gays in foreign lands.”

    Boy oh boy, you find the cloud in every silver lining, don’t you?

    “I’d be happy to discuss further with you how inaccuarte and wrong-headed Scott Pomfret’s ‘Last Confessions’ take on the Catholic Church really is…”

    We are still waiting. Remember, this is not a private discussion between the two of us. But inaccurate? I did find one inaccuracy in the book, but it was obviously an editing error since the rest of it showed that he clearly knew the truth. (At one point he gave the impression that JPI succeeded John XXIII, even though he had referred to Paul VI.) Please cite specifics.

  17. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    If we can all agree that we as individuals are unimportant in the great scheme of things, then we can get back to addressing the larger issues raised by Pomfret’s book.

    Here, then, are a few questions for MM:

    1. Do you agree with the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that homosexuality is an intrinsic moral disorder?

    2. Do you agree with Cardinal O’Malley and the Vatican that adoptions by same-sex couples should be prohibited by the state, and that no one has a right to dissent from the Church’s teaching on that?

    3. Do you think that same-sex civil marriage (NOT the sacrament of marriage, but civil marriage as recognized by the state) should be prohibited?

    4. Do you think that pretty much all of Western Civilization since the Enlightenment was a mistake? For instance, was it a mistake to translate the Bible into vernacular tongues, to invent the printing press, to allow freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the free exercise of religion, to increase the literacy rate?

    5. Should free scientific inquiry be prohibited, or at least subject to censorship by the moral authorities of the Church?

    6. Speaking of the Church, should the Reformation be undone, and a single universal Church imposed upon everyone? Should women still be treated as their husbands’ property, and denied the right to use any contraception? For that matter, should all things deemed sinful by the Chuch be prohibited and punished by the state?

    7. I consider my homosexuality a gift from God, and I regard my physical expression of my love for my partner to be entirely good. Moreover, I regard our mutual commitment to each other, which has endured despite several years in which we are separated most of the time by thousands of miles, to be an inspirational story of love triumphing over adversity and intolerance. Which of these things do you think is wrong?

    8. How are straight people’s marriages harmed by the prospect of Patrick and me sealing our mutual commitment in civil marriage?

    9. Conversely, what social good is served by insisting that the state treat gay people as if we do not legitimately exist, so that we are given no option but lifelong celibacy or sham marriages that would only make us and others miserable?

    10. Why should the Catholic Church or any other religious group seek to pass civil legislation imposing its doctrine upon a far greater population than its own communicants?

    11. If Catholics feel entitled to infringe others’ freedoms in this way, why should others not return the favor? And to what end? Aren’t we better off rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s?

    12. Aren’t the innumerable cases of the sexual abuse of minors by priests–and the coverups of those abuses, and the facilitation of them by bishops who transferred the offending priests to other parishes where they could resume their crimes amid a new flock that was unaware of their past–a massive crime that robs the Church of its moral authority? Aren’t the Pope’s expressions of remorse unconvincing given (to cite one example) the continued privileged status of Bernard Cardinal Law at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, instead of (say) in the dock back in Massachusetts facing prosecution? Or at least stripped of his position in disgrace? Why does he deserve so much more consideration than he and his henchmen gave to the victims of pedophile priests that were under his authority?

    Finally, why do you ignore all these reasonable questions in favor of calling me bitter etc. for asking them? Why not just answer them, or at least the first one? Is your homosexuality intrinsically disordered? If so, why do you associate with us?

  18. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    RJR writes: “My article on Pomfret’s book contains exactly NOTHING about myself. It is NOT about me. Kindly stop trying to make it about me”.

    Now Richard, you haven’t been listening or reading with an open mind… the point I made wasn’t that it’s all about you –that’s Pomfret not-too-unique little game.

    The point I made repeatedly but you fail to acknowledge because it’s dead-on is that you willingly and pointedly cheer on a 3rd rate gay romance writer’s stinging indictment of Catholicism, Catholic leadership and anyone who isn’t carrying the water pail for the gayLeft.

    Now, that is ALL about you and where you sit (literally, outside the pew) determines where you stand on the merits of Pomfret’s hackney book about the ills (as a gayLeftie) deep in the heart of what you think is an overly authoritarian Church… which you left in anger and disgust by you own admission.

    Frankly, given your aggressive ‘tude toward Catholic clerics –and, I might add, any Catholic who doesn’t willingly sip at the cup of bile you present– maybe it’s better for you to be an ex-Catholic. Obviously, your faith wasn’t strong enough or maybe your narcisstic “faith” in yourself was too strong. In any event, where you sit on political issues like SSM do color your endorsement of fellow SSM proponent Pomfret. Why do you persist in trying to deny the inherent truth in the observation that your bitterness about the Catholic experience has charred, burned, torched, or incinerated your capacity for dispassionate, unbiased perspective on Pomfret’s slamfest of Catholic leadership? I think it’s because of intellectual dishonesty and, like I pointed out, that isn’t all too unusual given that your political hero and savior, BarryO, does the same drill almost daily now as he drives the ObamaBus over one left-constituency and issue after another.

    Or did you require us to now write savior with a capital “S” when writing of BarryO the Savior of the World?

    Sure it’s about you, RJR. That’s why Pomfret’s book was worthy of your cheerleading whilst sticking said toesies in the lapping ocean froth.

    As for your sneeringly elitist and oh-so-liberal line here, “And if you are not interested in the views of a non-Catholic, then good-bye. Why, in that case, do you waste your time here? That question applies more generally.” Nice go at manners, there RJR… it seems clear you skipped any classwork on civility while in Catholic school and fail to understand the concept of site contributor as para-host, author, civil discourse and the like. No wonder the Faith didn’t take –you were an angry, disgruntled perpetually disaffected little tyke of a fellow even back then. Your un-civility is tempted wildly by your line I referenced in this paragraph and I wonder why an angry, embittered, spoiled ex-Catholic liberal needs to hate and loathe that which he claims to have “left”… by the way, when you exited the Church, I’m assuming you used the Left Exit? I doubt you’ve ever been the center aisle of anything except for Saks, maybe. Not a cute way to emphasis that I doubt you’re anything but a liberal, Richard… and when I see your ascendancy at a real conservative rag, I’ll buy you’ve moderated that liberal elitism that rages in your soul.

    RJR writes: “Thus liberalism was NOT ascendant in the Church in the 80s as you suggested”… see, Richard, this is why having someone as ex-Catholic as you try to tell others what was happening in the Church you left is so hazardous and misleading. The Bishops and clergy that were decidedly liberal –far more liberal than the laity in fact at the time– and they were instituting their liberalization program down the throats of many Catholics –as was the case in my home diocese with uber-liberal Ken (draft dodging) Povish… a true disciple of all those liberal-at-any-cost Church leaders who nearly ruined the Church before JPII could incrementally restrict their influence and bring them back to… the center, Richard. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Kung or Liberation Theology or the Church’s swing back to the center… your spiteful bitterness blocks a rational, informed perspective on this and many, many other issues Richard. I’m sure you “learned” much more about the Church after that walk thru the Left Exit because just about everything you would have allowed to be confirmed in your mind would have been neatly pointed toward convincing yourself it was the correct choice for you. It’s called self-validating rationalization and many liberal gays practice that little trick like it was a religion; you should be different? Nawh.

    As for this three snap effort, King Richard, “Oslo Syndrome? Get your Baltic capitals right if you’re going to make dumb insults”. I have my Baltic capitals correct King Richard… Oslo Syndrome refers to http://www.oslosyndrome.com/ and a delusional preoccupation with the tactics and methods of their accusers, tormenters, opponents, oppressors… as in gayLefty ex-Catholics angry at the Church for being too rigid and not validating their lifestyle on demand turn equally rigid and inflexible toward clerics… it was that kind of Olso Syndrome, Richard… not the (evidently) Stockholm Syndrome you thought it was. You really need to pause and think before typing –and not be your usual sneeringly liberal elitist self in “correcting” others… what was that about your denial that you don’t think you have a monopoly on the truth, King Richard?

    And when we’re all led to doubt that King Richard couldn’t possibly be an elitist left-of-center liberal, he confirms his contempt for the Church with this smearfest against the Pope: “He’s even gotten the gestures down. He still looks a bit like the Grinch, but when he gives his crinkly smile it just melts glaciers.”

    I don’t get it, Richard. First, you slam the Church. Then you contend a special dispensation because you’ve been through a lot, left the Church and learned a lot post-participation. Then, you’re back to your good old self slamming the Church and the Holy Father while clucking away about how terrible it is you aren’t being understood because you don’t hate or loathe the Church… you left ’cause you loved it but it didn’t love you.

    Wow, like I wrote earlier… there are enough layers in you to keep a bevy of therapists busy all Sunday afternoon sorting out your demons.

    RJR writes: “That’s because you want to make this all about me. I wrote nothing about myself in my article on Pomfret. His story does not resemble mine at all.”

    Let’s agree that Pomfret’s life story line doesn’t resemble your life story line… the inescapable truth is that both of you think your political agenda trumps the moral authority of the Church. In fact, whether it’s Pomfret creating a character named Fr McSlutty or BrokebackLent, it’s still about demeaning the Church, demeaning the Faith of those who are earnestly engaged in a journey of Faith… because, it seems Richard, both you and Scott think that journey isn’t as important as your need for self-affirmation, validation and making over societal institutions in your own image.

    You admit the book is irreverent… that is, lacking in the proper respect or seriousness warranted for the topic. I add to that point and say it’s also irrelevant. His voice as a gay Catholic is not reflective of the overwhelming voices I’ve found of gay Christians and Catholics living in God’s grace.

    You cheerlead a guy who makes hacked fun of Church leaders… of course, because you see in him yourself –you did it in your reply to me re: Pope Benedict. And it’s not about you? Can we say the King Richard has no clothes and be spared a stint on the rack?

    As for hearing your voice, I do hear it Richard; it’s not unique. Does it seem strange to you that I don’t drop in line and march to your directives and applaud your opinions but chose, instead, to defend my Church and her leadership from intellectually dishonest attacks by you and Scott Pomfret?

    I hear your voice, I just don’t buy it and think that you shouldn’t –nor other gays taking potshots at the Church from the cheap seats– be allowed to spread that bile and bitterness without someone checking it a bit… I’m sure the fact that I’m moderate gay, that I’m an unrepentant GOPer, that I am a father, that I am happily partnered with a great guy and enjoy society’s benefits and success irks the heck out of you. (Right, usual non-jealous denial in a moment from Richard).

    Elitist liberals hate it when they find others enjoying life, succeeding, prospering within society’s rules. I understand that part of you Richard because it’s pretty common among your type… it’s why you need to pontificate rather than discuss; it’s why you prefer to do those three-snap drama moves instead of honestly engaging your peers.

    It’s why you’d promote a book that derides Catholicism and Church leaders because it fits so nicely into your liberal world view and you want to be sure not to miss an opportunity to bash Catholic leaders. It is all about you, King Richard… and you miss that point each time even while declaring it’s NOT about you… how Oslo Syndrome of you.

    Finally, Richard, your litany of questions read closer to a drama play in a Man4AllSeasons and you playing the king’s inquisitor… and it reconfirms the notion I raised that you suffer from your own gayLeft, ex-Catholic elitist Oslo Syndrome… not Stockholm Syndrome, my-stuck-in-the-1970s-friend. (wink)

    The next time you put together a litany and demand answers, try making it a little less like “So, gay Catholic worshiping idiot, when did you stop beating your kids?” because the level of anger and hate in your questioning (which, as you admit in your liberal code is the very thing to do as a liberal) is a stunning admission and testament to what we’ve been discussing is wrong about your wholesale cheerleading and promotion of Scott Pomfret’s take on Catholic leaders. It’s all about you, in the first, middle and final analysis. And no, it isn’t a private conversation, King Richard… it never is when entering your Court.

    As for your stint as king’s inquistitor, I’ll take those questions and place them aside because I doubt you engage them in honest discussion… you’re here to once again belittle a Church-observing gay Catholic because for you liberal elitists that passes as sport. As for your closing “Finally, why do you ignore all these reasonable questions in favor of calling me bitter etc. for asking them?”

    Umm, Reality paging King Richard… you just posed that litany of questions. Or do you see world as you want to, not as Reality dictates we should see it?

    No King Richard, I don’t think homosexuality is intrinically disordered. The reason I remain in the pew and our sons attend Catholic school is because I prefer to make my journey of Faith within the Church and, just like belonging to the GOP, I don’t think my gayness REQUIRES me to be against religion, be self-centered, be bitter, be angry, be a Democrat Party loyalist without regard for results, etc. You do; I get that loud and clear.

    I know you love to raise the issue of the priest scandal –sometimes gratuitously no less (who’s not a Catholic bashing opportunist?) — I think the pedophile priest scandal had more to do with gay priests predating on young men than anything else… I was reminded of how the liberal bishops responded to those cases in thinking about my own diocese this past Sunday… of the 41 known cases of pedophilia, 39 were male-on-male cases. Did the priests and bishops covering up the cases know the damage and inherent risk they placed other young boys in by trying to “cure” the pedophile priests and place them back in the population? I hope not; that would be evil at its ugliest. Possible? Unfortunately, yes… especially if more than a few of those covering up the crimes thought, there go I but for the grace of God. You know those liberals… always meaning to do well but somehow failing far short.

    Has the Church made enough apologies and worked to redeem itself, help the victims, correct the system (including seminary entry and litigation strategy of the dioceses) and enrich the priesthood so the brotherhood behind the collar never again commits similar sins? Time will tell but my sense is that there’s alot left to be done. It’s why I continue to contribute to SNAP -accountability.

    You can go back to the gamesmenship, Richard. I don’t need to respond to your directives and I don’t think your earlier comments warrant point by point answers to your litany. It reeks of that elitist liberal attitude you claim is not in you… but there we have it in technicolor once again.

    Go figure, eh?

  19. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM writes, “you willingly and pointedly cheer on a 3rd rate gay romance writer’s stinging indictment of Catholicism, Catholic leadership and anyone who isn’t carrying the water pail for the gayLeft.”

    There you go again dismissing his nonfiction book in part based on his also being a gay romance writer. Have you read any of those other books in order to determine that he’s “3rd rate”? And what chance was there, given your 100 percent contempt for those you disagree with, that you might have given him credit for any writing skill in that genre? In any case, you portray Pomfret’s book as nothing but an attack and a tearing down, which utterly misses the point of the book. It ultimately is about a reaffirmation of faith. Even if the book is mostly awful, it would cost you nothing (except perhaps a little pride) to acknowledge that the reaffirmation of his faith is a good thing. How credible do you really think your harsh caricature is?

    “Now, that is ALL about you and where you sit”

    Nope, not if you repeat it another hundred times.

    “deep in the heart of what you think is an overly authoritarian Church… which you left in anger and disgust by you own admission.”

    There you go again. I acknowledged that my 1998 letter was angry. I left the Church in 1970, and it was not about anger (at that point the greater anger was that of my family reacting to my decision) and was certainly not about my being gay, since I did not come out for another eight years. It was about my disagreement with Vatican doctrine and with the authoritarian structure of the Church. It was intellectual (however wrongheaded I may have been in your view), not emotional.

    “the cup of bile you present”

    Your persistent retreat behind these characterizations amounts to an evasion of the criticisms themselves.

    “Why do you persist in trying to deny the inherent truth in the observation that your bitterness about the Catholic experience has charred, burned, torched, or incinerated your capacity for dispassionate, unbiased perspective on Pomfret’s slamfest of Catholic leadership?”

    Because your characterization is untrue and an evasion. Rather than answer a simple question about whether you agree with Benedict XVI that homosexuality is an intrinsic moral disorder, you just keep attacking.

    “your political hero and savior, BarryO”

    Not at all. Barack Obama, which is his name (and you only advertise your viciousness and pettiness by insisting on the use of a mocking name), is my presidential candidate. Not a hero and not a savior. Once again, you put words in my mouth. You just can’t stick to responding to what I actually write. It’s all about your own posturing and evasion.

    “your cheerleading whilst sticking said toesies in the lapping ocean froth.”

    Is this harping on a perfectly harmless line from an unrelated article supposed to be terribly clever? What exactly do you think it proves, other than your own determination to be an ass?

    “Nice go at manners, there RJR…”

    You have the nerve to lecture others about manners and civility?

    “I doubt you’ve ever been the center aisle of anything except for Saks, maybe.”

    Isn’t this a sad spectacle, folks?

    “when I see your ascendancy at a real conservative rag, I’ll buy you’ve moderated that liberal elitism that rages in your soul.”

    Ah, now the elitism charge emerges. So you, the anonymous MM, are the arbiter of “real conservatism”?

    “You simply don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Kung or Liberation Theology or the Church’s swing back to the center…”

    It is not the center, nor do you want anything remotely centrist. I am well aware of the things you persist in claiming that I am not. This is an informal discussion board, MM. (Incidentally, either stop this overly personalized ultra-aggressiveness or stop pretending that you are the defender of civility. You are the one who launched the attacks on this discussion board; I responded to them.) I know about the liberals in the American church. I stood atop the steps at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC in October 1979 and listened to Sister Theresa Kane talk to JPII about women’s religious, for example, in which she called for an equal role for women in the Church including the priesthood. I could hear from JPII’s response how appalled he was, and I was sure he would stomp all over the liberals in the Church. I never said that they all suddenly dropped dead. I have met Father Nugent and Sister Gramick and others like them, including my cousin. I am not dim-witted, MM. But they were under siege from Rome in the 1980s. You see the conservative ascendancy under JPII as a fine thing, while I see it as a retreat from an engagement with the world. Given that the arc of the past quarter century has been clear, it’s a pointless distraction for you to keep pounding on this notion that I am somehow unaware of all that well-known stuff. Move on, already.

    “your spiteful bitterness”

    Really, MM, this board is drowning in YOUR spitefulness and bitterness.

    Regarding your comments about Oslo Syndrome: I see there is a book by that title, by Kenneth Levin, with the subtitle, “Delusions of a People Under Siege.” That book is what your link refers to. But there is something better known called the Stockholm Syndrome (sometimes wrongly referred to as Helsinki Syndrome) whose name derives from a hostage incident in 1973. If you had provided a link explaining your more obscure reference in the first place, I would have known what you were talking about. But there is no pathological syndrome here, MM, at least on my end. I have in fact for years argued that gay rights advocates should not treat religion in general as the enemy but should criticize the radical right for harming religion by their intolerance and attacks against the constitutional separation of church and state. (And no, that word-for-word phrase is not in the text of the First Amendment, but it is the plain meaning of what IS there, as Thomas Jefferson states in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.)

    “what was that about your denial that you don’t think you have a monopoly on the truth, King Richard?”

    Since I just wrote an article praising a book by someone whose faith I do not share, I rather plainly do not think I have a monopoly on the truth. It is you who persist in claiming things about me that are not true, as if you can make them true by repeating them enough.

    “this smearfest against the Pope: ‘He’s even gotten the gestures down. He still looks a bit like the Grinch, but when he gives his crinkly smile it just melts glaciers.'”

    Oh, yes, how over-the-top vicious that is. Get over yourself.

    “clucking away about how terrible it is you aren’t being understood because you don’t hate or loathe the Church… you left ’cause you loved it but it didn’t love you.”

    More words you are putting in my mouth. I don’t feel particularly misunderstood, even by you. I think you are just being dishonest in your need to score points. As to this notion about feeling unloved, that is far from the mark. As I said, for me it was an intellectual issue, not an emotional one. I remember long theological discussions with my best friend the summer after our graduation from a Catholic elementary school, and I decided what I did and didn’t believe. I have learned a lot more since then, but have never regretted the decision to leave the Church. Your attribution of all this unresolved woundedness is cheap armchair psychologizing and irrelevant.

    “both of you think your political agenda trumps the moral authority of the Church.”

    No, not especially. I do think that the Church has destroyed its own moral authority, for reasons I already discussed and which you have not even tried to refute.

    “whether it’s Pomfret creating a character named Fr McSlutty”

    Nope. He created no character. He merely created a pseudonym to protect the man’s privacy.

    “it’s still about demeaning the Church, demeaning the Faith of those who are earnestly engaged in a journey of Faith…”

    Nope. That’s entirely wrong and misses the whole point of Pomfret’s book, which is about his own journey of faith. It’s sad that you won’t acknowledge that.

    “You admit the book is irreverent… that is, lacking in the proper respect or seriousness warranted for the topic.”

    That first phrase, yes, but not the rest of it. As I stated in the article, irreverence in Pomfret’s book is a tool for eliciting the truth.

    “not reflective of the overwhelming voices I’ve found of gay Christians and Catholics living in God’s grace.”

    It would be nice if you would display some grace, Godly or otherwise.

    “I’m sure the fact that I’m moderate gay, that I’m an unrepentant GOPer, that I am a father, that I am happily partnered with a great guy and enjoy society’s benefits and success irks the heck out of you.”

    Actually, I have worked quite amicably with gay Republicans (and non-gay Republicans) for years, so that doesn’t irk me at all. I love children and have worked here in D.C. to protect the rights of gay parents and their children, so you are wrong there too. You are completely and amazingly wrong.

    “Elitist liberals hate it when they find others enjoying life, succeeding, prospering within society’s rules.”

    Nice attempt to turn this around, but the fact is that you seem to hate it an awful lot that some of us are working, not to up-end society as you seem to want to portray the entire gay rights struggle, but simply to gain equality under the law for ourselves and our families. That is good for society (and the Church, for that matter), not a threat to it. As for the Catholic part, Scott is not attacking the Church as an institution, much less the faith; he is merely challenging the corrupt, insular and authoritarian men who run it. And I respect him for that.

    “you playing the king’s inquisitor…”

    I just asked a bunch of questions that came to mind after reading all your evasions and attacks.

    “I’ll take those questions and place them aside because I doubt you engage them in honest discussion…”

    Uh-huh. I’m sure we’re all shocked, shocked that you find another excuse for your evasion.

    “No King Richard, I don’t think homosexuality is intrinically disordered. The reason I remain in the pew and our sons attend Catholic school is because I prefer to make my journey of Faith within the Church”

    Very good. Then you are just like Scott Pomfret in this regard.

    “I think the pedophile priest scandal had more to do with gay priests predating on young men than anything else…”

    That’s the standard Church line. The trouble is, as I wrote in my article on the subject in 2002, “The persistent attempt to equate pedophilia with homosexuality deliberately ignores not only the clinical evidence, but the gay community’s repeated rejection of pedophilia. I myself wrote a commentary in 1994 condemning the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That same year, while Cardinal Law was covering up the crimes of outspoken pedophile Rev. Paul Shanley, the World Conference of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, at which I was a delegate, voted by 89 percent to expel pedophile groups.”

    “Time will tell but my sense is that there’s alot left to be done.”

    I agree. Continued demonization of, and suppression of, homosexuality, and barring gays from entering seminaries, is merely to perpetuate the denial. Such an atmosphere only attracts predators who thrive amid the secrecy. Gays should instead be used as allies in the fight against pedophilia.

  20. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    RJR, actually you’re still wrong and misinformed about what was happening in the Church in the 1980s and it’s why I took issue with your dumb-founded characterization that conservatives were in control of the Church then and liberals were NOT exercising increasing control over the Church’s agenda… I shared with you my simple perspective from a Midwestern diocese during that time… you contend it’s something different where you were deep in the confines of the liberal world of antagonistic clerics battling to maintain control over “their” church… ok, but I think your perspective for that time is both jaundiced and unbalanced -jaundiced because of your liberal values, unbalanced because you bring to that issue all the well-worn baggage of your animosity toward the Church you left.

    I would argue my perspective more closely parallels the experience the vast majority of Catholics living under the liberal excesses of the clergy in the 1980s… that’s why today, so many Catholics of my age lovingly embrace the memory of JPII and his tireless work to reclaim the Church from those who wanted to turn it into a political movement for the liberal Catholic agenda.

    I’m sorry if you took offense, RJR, at being reminded that your conduct here lacks even a modicum of manners –let alone any kind of informed sensitivity to the role of an IGF contributor. But it does; it continues to as well.

    I get that you don’t like (should I say tolerate?) people taking exception to your pontifications… that’s why I tried to underscore your shortcoming on this issue by rightly pointing out you are an elitist liberal… you don’t like that either… how fitting is that?

    Your king inquistor drama wasn’t an innocent little exercise that just came to you… it was a tool to further demean, further isolate another IGF reader whose contribution here you want to eliminate. It’s a thing you gay liberals do over and over and it’s why other threads consider the true nature of the gayLeft being an intolerant, inflexible, condescending group of gays… no surprise there, Richard. You never, ever disappoint to be the caricature of that very thing you so strongly protest against. And it’s not all about you, eh?

    On the Oslo Syndrome point… sorry, it’s not working with your lame excuse. You were a little too quick with your sneeringly elitist kind of correction –a correction meant to isolate and embarass those who disagree with King Richard’s opinion. It didn’t work and it’s the proverbial egg-on-the-face/oops-my-bad moment for you and what, pray tell, do you do King Richard? You try to spin a little tale out of the scrambled eggs. Lame, lame, lame. A real man would have written, “sorry, I got that wrong in my rush to point out you’re stupidly wrong on your Baltic capitals Matt”. But you didn’t; instead it’s more intellectual dishonesty spinning and hoping the brashness of your anger coupled with your desire to dismiss didn’t resonate with others.

    Richard, you got a thing with anger… and it isn’t a pleasant side of you. We learned in religion that unchecked Pride and Ego are usually the root of the problem… you might want to check your ego at the door along with Scott Pomfret. I said you didn’t want to engage in honest, open discussion and it’s clear from your taunting, you don’t.

    The part that’s most telling for me is that you were condemning me for not submitting to your Grand Inquistion of liberally-biased, charged questions before I had the opportunity to respond. You post the questions, slam home the condemnation, jump to conclusions and presto-change-o, you can actually WONDER WHY PEOPLE consider you an arrogant, liberal elitist? Wow, that’s stunning admission for even someone of your purported “enlightenment” Richard.

    Hence, my question if it was alright to point out that the King has no clothes.

    Of course NOT silly-matt; this is King Richard’s court. Submit or be condemned is King Richard’s rule of the day for pesky doubters! Now, what was that you were saying about authoritarian inclinations on the part of Rome? Seems you got a healthy, healthy dose of that in yourself, Richard… like many gay liberal types. Hmm, Oslo Syndrome on overdrive? yeah, that’s the ticket.

    On the issue of the priest pedophilia scandal, I pointed out to you what our experience has been in our diocese here in the Midwest… which, by the way, was ruled and administered by decidedly LIBERAL bishops all the time back to the early 50’s.

    You think that view is just fish mongering for the Pope; “standard Church line”. No, Richard, it’s the fact. You can argue whatever nonsense your alienated perspective would like you to argue… I’m sharing reality of our diocese in my Church. What I think is that you, Richard, are part of that liberal gay tradition who reeled when the pedophile scandal broke –cheering on the press to uncover more and more “bad” news for the Church… humilate the bastards, isn’t Richard? And then, when the face of the priests and their actions came into better, richer focus, it was hide behind the wagons for the cheerleaders. They’re attacking gays; get ’em boys!

    Hey, it’s tough when reality bites you on your gayLeft cheeks… kind of like karma in some perverse way, no?

    I appreciate now that you’re a leading proponent of the war on pedophilia in our gay culture… but the simple, brutal truth is that in my experience in this Midwestern diocese, the disproportionate number of child sexual abuse cases involved man on boy predation. We probably share in some equal measure a fundamental disgust for the conduct that lead to those predations continuing -as well as the 30+ yr cover up by mostly liberal bishops. But to ignore the role of gay priests in the affair is to limit the focus for effective solutions… for instance, seminarians need to be better groomed for the challenges in their celibate life… laity need to be informed and kept abreast of new cases and the protective “silence of the roman collar” needs to be penetrated… as well as some clergy’s disposition toward seeing the laity as sheep in the pews.

    But then, you brought up the priest scandal in your Grand Inquisitor Goes Brokeback Litany with the intent to smear, demean and tarnish me with having to defend a horribly tragic episode in the Church’s life. And you contend that I need to get over myself??? Good God, Richard… your arrogance has no boundary. “Question #13: When did you stop beating your kids, Matt?”.

    Like I wrote above, your choice to cheerlead for Pomfret underscores two things: 1) who you are and 2) where your liberal, Church-bashing values take you. Like the recent petty and mean-spirited digs at Pope Benedict you’ve engaged in here.

    There’s no evasion on my part to your Grand Inquisitor Goes Brokeback Litany even though you’d like to claim that is the case. I took the top two questions (as I read the litany) and addressed them in part and directly. You claim otherwise… but then, oh-arrogant-one, you were claiming that point before you finished the litany and gave me a chance to respond.

    You can bristle at the label elitist, Richard. But part of your conduct at IGF (especially responding to comments, I might add) and some of your writings elsewhere can be found circling around that liberal ‘tude (or is it a right?) of a monopoly on the truth I had the temerity to question.

    You think your “review” of Scott Pomfret’s Last Confessions wasn’t cheerleading the bashing of Church leaders? You don’t think threatening physical intimidation of a priest isn’t morally wrong. You don’t think you’re an elitist and you carry those liberally arrogant values into each discussion (or debate) you enter?

    Right, we get it. Nothing here.

  21. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    RJR, I missed a very big point you raised earlier: that I was sort of engaging in long-distance, armchair therapy and inputing motives for you without knowing what animates you.

    I’ve re-read my posts and I agree with your assessment on that point.

    I offer you my honest, contrite apology. I’ll try not to do that –I dislike it when others do it to me, as well. I should know better.

    Sorry to have missed your point.

  22. posted by Hey Dummy on

    Oslo Syndrome is specific to Jews and the specific abuse they were/are subjected to…it isn’t an all-encompassing term that you can misappropriate. You are an idiot, Matt. Stop acting like you know everything, you obviously are not as smart as you wish you were. You are embarrassing yourself.

  23. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM, I appreciate your apology on that one point.

    As for your longer post, in which you continue putting words in my mouth and attributing motives to me, I have responded to that enough. You responded to my entirely civil article by launching an incredibly contemptuous series of insults and personal attacks. I fought back. Some would counsel me not to bother; they are probably right.

    “you can actually WONDER WHY PEOPLE consider you an arrogant, liberal elitist?”

    There you go again assuming, without evidence, that everyone else agrees with you. Actually, I haven’t wondered any such thing. I suppose that’s another sign of my arrogance. You’re an awfully big know-it-all for someone accusing another of arrogance.

  24. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Hey Dummy, is that you Colorado “Patriot”? Still grinding away at the meaningless taunts, eh?

    Richard, you’re right. Time to stop debating with over your cheerleading exercises for Scott Pomfret’s entry into pathos humor of the personal sort.

    You think he did some things well in the book that is cheaply critical and irreverant of the Church; I think he’s a lackluster writer of THIS genre and a Catholic-leadership bashing sport, to boot.

    Again, my apologies for the earlier treatment of you and engaging in long, long long distance psycho-analysis from a comfy armchair deep in the Midwest. I’ll try to better in the future.

  25. posted by Hey Dummy on

    Um, no. Meaningless? You are the one making a fool of yourself. I was just trying to help.

  26. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM, one of the differences between us is that you appear to regard irreverence as necessarily a bad thing. I could not disagree more. Sure, it is as bad as you say if you assume that it’s always done out of purely vicious motives and solely for purposes of tearing down something wonderful. But insisting on viewing it that way is stacking the deck. Irreverence can be very effective at exposing fraud, hypocrisy, and foolishness of all sorts. And it is quite often done by people not because they hate or despise but because they care so much. If Scott were motivated by hate he would not remain in the Church. And if all his book did were to attack, I would not have praised it.

  27. posted by jake on

    michigan matt, i’ve read the back and forth tit for tat here with rosendall and it seems you wonder about many things

    i wonder why you’d even want to talk with someone who is an intellectual snob and a snippy presumptive bore like rosendall

    he makes frasier crane’s character look approachable and open

    you might have better luck convincing a brick wall it is made of wood

  28. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Jake, I don’t think it makes much sense to continue chatting with Richard on this subject but thanks for your sentiments.

    Despite advice from others about the futility of engaging him in discussion, he’s proven to me his mind is as closed as any liberal elitist’s mind… and about as impenetrable as a brick wall ten bricks thick.

  29. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    It truly amazes me how someone who is so relentless contemptuous and snarky toward others is willing even privately to find fault with others. I wrote an entirely civil and unself-regarding review of a book by someone whose experience and faith differ from my own; and I described how the author, in the midst of an irreverent take on his subject, managed to write a sensitive and well-observed account of a reaffirmation of faith. You, MM, insisted from beginning to end on giving not a shred of credit to Scott Pomfret for anything but spreading bile and tearing down, and that is just not a fair rendering of the theme of his book.

    In any case, it is just absurd to react to this discussion thread the way Jake has, treating you as entirely reasonable (despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary) except for wasting your time on a boor like me. He is not really interested in civility if he can excuse your relentless hostility. And if defending oneself against viciousness like yours is blameworthy, then reason has been stood on its head.

    I praise a quirky but authentic expression of faith not my own, then defend against attacks on it and me (NOT just criticism, but personalized and gratuitously nasty attacks), and somehow I am the offender. Not hardly.

  30. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    King Richard, you shall have the last relentless, bile-wringing word on this matter. If you wish continue to restate your spurious claims, villify all those who dare question the Great Gay Liberal Inqusitor King Richard and then, frankly, you can move along or move back to MoveOn.Org –where your fellow Catholic bashing bigots can succor in the realm of all white liberal elitists.

    I think your meek posture of “oh, King Richard is victim again” in the best pseudo-Brit John Lithgow-ish voice you can affectatiously project to the cheap seats in the last row.

    Right, nothing nasty in the sort of attack litany you offered above… paraphasing, “So, Matt, the Pope says you are morally deficient and disordered. Do you agree?”

    or “Why are you STILL here commenting at IGF?” Yes, why would one dare question a white, liberal elitist snob (as others declare) who is an ex-Catholic gay with a political axe to grind against everyone who stands in his way of remaking the world? Yes, why would one do so; he is King Richard.

    All hail King Richard… who, as Samuel Clemens predicted, buys his ink in the barrelful.

    You shall have the last word, my elitist friend. How fitting that the new elitist superstar BarryO is your Savior… as others have remarked in other threads.

  31. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    MM writes, “paraphasing, ‘So, Matt, the Pope says you are morally deficient and disordered. Do you agree?'”

    Huh? MM, I asked you that in response to your applause for Rome’s crackdown on dissent, and your utterly contemptuous dismissal of Scott Pomfret’s book (which you mischaracterize by leaving out the key reaffirmation of his Catholic faith). How is it nasty to ask you whether you agreed with Ratzinger on that point? You subsequently said that you did not agree, which I was glad to hear. But that just shows that your total hostility to Pomfret’s book (not mere criticism or civil disagreement, but wall-to-wall contempt coupled with a trivializing mischaracterization) is not based on the book’s merits.

    I have never claimed a disinclination to fighting back when I am attacked, and I certainly haven’t claimed Christ-like virtue. But the notion that there is one person on this thread being uncivil and it is I? Why do you bother insisting on something so clearly false by evidence available simply by scrolling upward?

    For my part, in contrast to His Holiness, I regard your stated commitment to your partner and your sons to be admirable. I can find no reason, your discomfort with Pomfret’s irreverence notwithstanding, for you to deny Pomfret similar respect for his devotion to his own family.

    Your charges of elitism, based on nothing, serve mainly as a reminder of your hatred for Sen. Obama. I find this partisan-campaign-mode, scorched-earth politics tiresome. Elsewhere in the past day or so I posted on an IGF discussion board a positive reference to something decent McCain had done; if I have missed your own similar demonstration of civility toward Obama, I apologize. But so far the only references to Obama I’ve seen from you include silly name-calling.

    I very much doubt that I will get the last word, but shouldn’t you worry more about the quality of what you post than whether it’s at the very bottom of the page?

    I would enjoy spirited and, yes, civil disagreements on these boards that did not include the perpetual tone of scorn and contempt that you and ND30 tend to wield indiscriminately. Hey, I set off this thread with an article praising someone’s account of his struggle of faith, a faith which as you point out I do not share. If I were a mere Church-hater, as you pretend, I would have taken the position that some of Scott’s friends took, which is suggest that he must be nutso to stay in such an organization. But actually it didn’t occur to me to react that way. That kind of attitude only serves to stop conversations. I admire Scott because of how good he was at listening to and observing other people portrayed in his book. He even has something nice to say about Cardinal O’Malley. Ultimately, in his book he is exploring (and with a great deal of self-honesty), not merely pamphleteering. That’s just it, MM, you really have pegged Scott wrong. And in my own writings on religion over the years, I have become more respectful toward the religious impulse and stressed how unwise it is for gay-rights advocates to throw out the religious baby with the right-wing bathwater.

    If I were the Christian-hating caricature you paint, MM, I would deserve the contempt you heap on me. And there’s one difference between us: I concede that I am still learning, while you pose as if you have a hotline to the perfectly revealed truth. As mortals, we can only see “through a glass darkly,” as Paul says in First Corinthians. The prospect of the Eschaton does not strike me as a sound basis for embracing an absolute authority led by other mortals. So Scott’s brand of Catholicism, in which there is room for questioning using the brains God gave us, however imperfect and prone to error, is more inspiring to this apostate–because it tacitly acknowledges that we are still on a journey of pursuing understanding, rather than standing with one’s arms folded over one’s chest taking a dim view of everyone else. If one of us is truly saddled with imperial self-regard, I don’t think the evidence above shows it is I.

    BTW, I attended Scott’s book reading here in D.C. last evening, and I was impressed by the number of well-informed people in attendance. Many were Dignity members, and most appeared to have been born back when the Pope’s name was Pius. Which is to say, my age and older. I didn’t ask each of them why they cared about this stuff, but they showed by their presence and their various comments that they very much do. And I think that is a good thing, regardless of what conclusions they reach.

  32. posted by jake on

    “buys his ink by the barrel full”, yes he does and it is still like trying to convince a brick wall he is made of wood

    or in rj’s case, he thinks he is a wall made of gold and silk

  33. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Trying to remain civil in the face of a very uncivil attack by you RichardJ, loaded with distortions and flat out prevarications, I’ll resist the impulse to discuss further since I did offer my word to you that you’d have the last word.

    Needless to say, there’s been enough ink on this issue and we strongly disagree -as we probably will when Catholic issues arise here again.

Comments are closed.