I take it you disagree. Care to share more of your thoughts with us? :-)
Well for starters, this single post sums up nearly everything I find despicable about the neo-conservative movement. The post is focused on homosexuality not sodomy, which is the sinfulness within the gay lifestyle. This post is concerned with external quirks which taken individually and collectively tell nothing about the sinfulness, holiness, orthodoxy, or competency of anyone; in addition to this, having effeminate tendencies doesn't even tell definitively the sexual orientation of anyone (even if this should be a concern). Next on the list of disturbing points, is the recommendation that priests with effeminate tendencies should put up a facade of heteronormativity. This is terrible advice because it assumes that it would be best for priests not to like certain things (perhaps: cooking, fine art, birdwatching, gardening, and clothworks of the Church—eh Fr. Z?), because these things are merely associated with a stereotype of gay culture. The heart of the issue is that a facade is the solution. No longer admit that these acts, which are morally neutral or even salutatory, bring you pleasure. Now you must be one of the guys. Make sure you watch football, drink cheap beer, have a cigar or two, and finish it off by shooting a deer for good measure. The recommendation of a facade is also bothersome, because it ignores the fact that any man who wants to be a priest (under the current setup) is inherently a strange man. This is a man who wants to be sexless, live his entire life to essentially read formulas out of books and wave his hands, and spend most of his time with the elderly (at least in the US). It shouldn't be a surprise that a man who wants to do these things would also have some quirks. Third on the list of bothersome points, is the fear of the outside (non-Catholic) world. Fr. Z writes, “This is also complicated by the fact that the entertainment industry has relentlessly tried to run down priests and the priesthood, to distort the very concept of priest in the minds of… well… everyone who watches movies and television.” It is the liberal media that has distorted the world's view of the Catholic priesthood. The revelations of child abuse and the hierarchy's systematic cover up had nothing to do with this. There is almost a sense in Fr. Z's writings that the outside world should be feared because it is our enemy, when in truth I think the outside doesn't so much hate the Church but is rather indifferent to it. Creating a false enemy and beating the drums of war is something you only do when you need to control people, because fear of the enemy makes the current position tolerable. The final point is control and filtering. “I’ll leave the combox closed. People can email comments to me and I will consider them as it may be opportune.” There is no open forum here. This is not where you post divergent opinions. If you have concerns bring them to me privately and I will decide if it is appropriate for the others to read. I can guarantee if the comment box were open, a post like mine would be there, but since I will have to get it through the grand-inquisitor first I don't think my views will be made public. This is not just moderating a comment box for spam and excessive vulgarity. This is limiting the scope of opinions which may exist within the neo-conservative movement. When your constituents think everyone else holds the party's opinions, their own particular qualms about a point or two seem less significant. The fact is there are probably many readers who find Fr. Z's homophobia, and Islamophobia appalling, but when no one is allowed to express dissent, there is no encouragement for others to speak out too. Every closeted dissenter becomes secretly an island, but in the open he is part of the mainland.
Robert, Have you ever heard of the "world, the flesh, and the Devil" being our greatest emenies to our spiritual salvation? You are clearly downplaying the effect it has. It's destroyed the 80's to millenial generation so much we are barely a blip in every church parish worldwide. and this: "When your constituents think everyone else holds the party's opinions, their own particular qualms about a point or two seem less significant. The fact is there are probably many readers who find Fr. Z's homophobia, and Islamophobia appalling ..." Well let's see, non-islamaphobia has done wonders with ecumenism to keep Catholic kids Catholic and many of our Christian brethen in theocratic Middle Eastern States are ALIVE and happy with them as neigbours right??? No they're getting their Churches blown up by extreme militants and the Islamic governments. Well gee you mention the sex scandals right? You can't deny that men without homosexual tendencies would nit rape teenage boys? Considering the damage wrought on the Church by them and how the gay movement want to infringe on the rights of Catholic to practice their faith (look up Premier McGuinty in Ontario, Canada and the separate and public school equity policies and Xtra, the blatanlty homoseuxal, anti-hetero/conservative/Catholic doo-rag for proof), we have a lot to fear of the movement. And hey I am not stupid I know the Catechism's position on homosexuality and read the passage on Islam in Nostra Aetate or whatever that title on other faiths is from Vatican II. I'm not stupid but throwing out the "phobia" is a Liberal tactic used by liberals to smear us with hatred and make us conservatives/traditionals/Catholics the enemy. Robert, like how you hate neo-conservatism, its your kind of post, villed with utter negativity and vitrol for Fr. Z that makes me hate the liberal establishments in the world and the institutional Church, and elements in the Post-Vatican II Church. Furhter by spewing out the phobias, you`ve bought into the Liberal/secular game yourself. Perhaps you should take a page out of Renegade Trad's book and respond to the post less angrily and more philosophically and theologically with charity. Then I would happily accept valid reasoning as to why you disagree with "neo-Conservatism" or even the Church if that's your true modus operandi behind your post. R.T, I'd rather hear more from you on the incorrectness of Fr. Z's post like your others rather than a rant from this person for the same reasoning above.
@Young RC Male:“Have you ever heard of the "world, the flesh, and the Devil" being our greatest emenies to our spiritual salvation?”Yes, yes I have. There is a large difference between making the non-catholic world an enemy whom we should fear and treat as an outcast and accepting that interaction with is part of the game now. Unless you're writing from a monastery, chances are that you interact with non-catholics or even lapsed Catholics. We live in a fallen world, you have to deal with it. I don't think making the entire outside world my enemy is an effective strategy.“Well let's see, non-islamaphobia has done wonders with ecumenism to keep Catholic kids Catholic and many of our Christian brethen in theocratic Middle Eastern States are ALIVE and happy with them as neigbours right??? No they're getting their Churches blown up by extreme militants and the Islamic governments. “Fear of extremists and militants is reasonable; fear of every member of the world's second largest religion having 1.6 billion members is not. But what alternative do you propose to tolerance of Islam in this case? Do you really think if the Catholics/Christians in the Middle Eastern States would be better off if all “Christian Nations” were to take a stance of actual hatred of Islam? Would that really improve their lives or rather would it only add more fuel to the raging bonfire of tit for tat which goes on? I'm not trying to convince you I'm some yuppie-feel-good-liberal, but Gandhi really had a point with, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”“Well gee you mention the sex scandals right? You can't deny that men without homosexual tendencies would nit rape teenage boys?”Pedophilia and homosexuality are two VERY different things. I, a heterosexual male, have no attraction to prepubescent girls. I imagine and my non-scientific questioning of male homosexual friends seems to indicate that they feel attraction in a similar way (ie. They are attracted to men not boys.)“throwing out the "phobia" is a Liberal tactic used by liberals to smear us with hatred and make us conservatives/traditionals/Catholics the enemy. “I'm not sure it is smear tactic, but I'm fairly sure given sampling of Fr. Z's writings there is an overabundant trepidation towards homosexuals, Muslims, and seculars. I'm not trying to smear the neo-conservative movement, I'm calling out Fr. Z's phobias.“its your kind of post, villed with utter negativity and vitrol for Fr. Z that makes me hate the liberal establishments in the world and the institutional Church, and elements in the Post-Vatican II Church.”I'm sorry that my post made you feel that. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm not really a member of the “Post-Vatican II Church.” I'm really a traditionalist at heart. The world would be amazed at the changes if I were Pope for the day.
Wow. A friend of mine said this:"I would recommend that Fr. Z undertake the arduous work of correcting people's impression that he is an asshole."
Robert,Thanks for the clarifications. It's just that I'm sick of smear campaigns from the liberal mainstream/secular soceity AND the liberal factions of the Church (both laity and clergy) dumping insults onto traditional Catholic. Clearly you, as a traditional Catholic at heart, understand both sides of the war and how us "middle ground" traditional Catholics are caught in the crossfire. Worse, I hate it when these "trolls" go on blogs like Fr. Z, Mark Shea, etc. and just go on there to Church/Catholic-bash. So I just didn't want more bashing, particularly here on RT, where the author shares a similar viewpoint as yourself, hence the name "Renegade Trad" because he loathes the extremist viewpoints and practices that have poisoned this re-emerging movement. And sure, apology accepted no problem. Just out of curiosity, what are the changes you'd make as Pope? I am curious if you'd do disciplinary changes (which by all means is acceptable, just one Papal pen stroke and done!) or doctrinal/dogmatic changes (that is more dangerous territory, but I'm still curious).
Post a Comment