The New Pope May Be Latino….
Posted on March 14th, 2013 in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »
…but he’s still a bigot!
This from a letter he wrote against an Argentinian proposal to legalize gay marriage:
Let us look towards Saint Joseph, to Mary, the Child, and let us ask with fervor that they will defend the Argentine family in this moment. Let us recall what God himself told his people in a time of great anguish: “this war is not yours, but God’s”. That they may succour, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.
A war of God, eh?
One wishes the media would stop buying the spin—the new guy is humble! He’s from the South!—and get to the main point. While there are stylistic differences between him and Ratzinger, and some of these will surely have some consequences, nonetheless, Bergoglio is a 76-year-old man with no doctrinal differences between himself and the rest of the Catholic hardliners. He is the Marco Rubio of Catholic dogmatists.
Then there are those lingering questions about his role and the Church’s complicity during the Argentinean dictatorship and disappearances of the 1970s…
I haven’t seen anyone write about this yet, but I would love to hear an informed take on what it means that, to follow a pope who just retired from old age, the Catholic church just picked a 76-year-old….
10 Responses
3/14/2013 2:53 pm
Anyone else think the One Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church is ripe for a RICO prosecution?
3/14/2013 6:02 pm
Something completely unrelated that you might enjoy: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151514060660479&set=vb.192156350478&type=2&theater
3/16/2013 12:30 pm
Mr. Blow/Bradley:
When you say
but he’s still a bigot!
just what did you have in mind amongst what he has done or said which would indicate he is incapable of discourse or argument or explanation beyond merely making a declaration, or that he is unaware or unable to inspect and analyze some opinion other than his own?
While we are at it, can you point to a member of the portside not named “Harold Pollack” or “KC Johnson” who ever gives evidence of regarding the opposition as capable of something other than ‘irritable mental gestures’ (as Richard Hofstaeder put it in dismissing Wm. Buckley et al.)? When you guys look in the mirror, just who do you see?
1. Moral teachings on the 6th commandment are part of the Church’s ordinary magisterium. Why would you expect the Supreme Pontiff or any bishop to expound any other teaching?
2. ‘Gay rights’ is a shorthand for removing from employers and landlords the discretion to run their business as they see fit as regards contractual and quasi-contractual relations with those who make a public point of their homosexuality. Why is it something gross or dishonorable for a Catholic bishop to say that people should not be subject to coercion in these matters?
3. The Guardian has already retracted a venomous column composed by Hugh O’Shuaghnessy two years ago that had all kinds of red flags in it for the skeptical reader. Don’t you think it is rather imprudent to be trafficking in these innuendos?
3/16/2013 12:32 pm
Anyone else think the One Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church is ripe for a RICO prosecution?
Why?
3/16/2013 12:45 pm
wow, a real throwback.
“‘Gay rights’ is a shorthand for removing from employers and landlords the discretion to run their business as they see fit.”
I think we had this same conversation about lunch counters a few decades ago….
3/16/2013 1:30 pm
No, we did not, because racial segregation was incorporated into the distribution of public services and generally required by law in public accommodations in the South. Also, federal law in the matter of interstate transportation was ignored in deference to Southern custom. None of these issues are abroad here. In any case, neither employment nor rental housing count as a ‘public accommodation’ where entry by strangers is expected and their presence transient.
While we are at it, employment in this country is, by default, at will. A selection of mascot groups have been given a franchise to launch civil suits if they are denied employment and promotion. The courts and administrative agencies have systematically failed to enforce these laws impartially, because that is the nature of the legal profession in our time. The thing is, there are all sorts of cultural minorities in this country and all sorts of stupid and asinine reasons people are not hired or let go. A supervisor who calls in a homosexual employee and tells him to keep it confidential and quiet in the workplace risks a lawsuit. A supervisor who admonishes a Jehovah’s Witness about that sort of chatter does not. The portside is populated stem to stern with people who fancy the sensibilites of their mascot groups require the utmost respect from everyone (see public policy in Canada as we speak) and no one else gets any quarter at al. You might just leave these matters to the uncoerced social relations of the market, stop harassing everyone else, and take your self-congratulation somewhere else. But that expects more from the lot of you than you can deliver.
3/16/2013 1:53 pm
Hilarious.
3/16/2013 3:21 pm
Please tell me that the Art Deco posts are performance art!
I had assumed all the bigots were busy attending CPAC…
http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/16/cpac_diary_meet_the_white_nationalists_who_ruined_everything.html
3/16/2013 3:25 pm
“A selection of mascot groups…” Where does one start?
3/16/2013 3:49 pm
Go ahead and start, Mr. Blow/Bradley.
You say it is outside the bounds of respectability to say that the state should not take cognizance of homosexual affiliations, when the idea of doing so hardly occurred to anyone prior to around about 1987. Well, Mort Sahl once said if you went through your whole life and never changed your mind about anything, eventually you would be tried for treason. Look at Canada, and you can see what the earlier stages of that look like. Listen to the lot of you, and you can see the mentality behind it. And you think I’m the bigot. What’s a PhD worth?