Catholic archbishop says Satan is pushing for gay marriage

It’s difficult to find an organization as corrupt and hateful as the Catholic church.

I never had issues with the Catholic church, grew up with Catholics on the south Side of Chicago, and never fully understood why some of my gay politics friends (who are, or were, themselves Catholics) are so down on the Catholic church.

I get it now.


If you follow the Catholic church’s various meanderings, from gay-bashing, to women-oppressing, to child-raping, after a while you get a decidedly bad taste about the entire thing.

Let me put it this way: How many organizations do you support that have a chronic problem with raping young children, and then refusing to address the problem? For most people, the answer is “none.”

You don’t even need to get into the Catholic church’s ongoing, hateful, almost aggressively mean anti-gay advocacy. And you don’t even need to get into the Catholic church’s treatment of women, which up until the mid 1990s included forced slave labor.

Show of hands: Who has recently supported an organization that up until recently had slaves?  Come on, don’t be shy.

So, considering all of that, considering the fact that the Catholic church let its cardinal down in Costa Rica recently call gays “faggots,” and apparently did absolutely nothing about it, we shouldn’t be surprised that yet again this borderline criminal enterprise is bashing gays.

At this point, I’d be worried that something was physically wrong with the Catholic leadership if it actually did something in accordance with Christ and His teachings.

So I’m not surprised that the Catholic archbishop of Minneapolis, John Nienstedt, thinks that Satan is behind the push for gay marriage (you can even watch Nienstedt’s speech, if you’re so inclined).

These are people who think that raping children isn’t necessarily a job-disqualifier for working with kids in the future.

People who think you don’t punish priests who rape kids, you punish priests who blow the whistle on priests who rape kids.

People who didn’t shy from appearing to threaten violence to counter the gay marriage wave in France recently.

People who think the rape of children is nothing to apologize for.

I could go on.

But I won’t.

I will say this.  If Satan really wanted a foothold on earth, he wouldn’t choose a minority still fighting for simple equality. He’d pretend to be God’s own messenger.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

196 Responses to “Catholic archbishop says Satan is pushing for gay marriage”

  1. BeccaM says:

    And your assertions are irrational.

  2. The_Fixer says:

    I have given a reasoned argument, and you have given me religious platitudes.

    Faith is defined as I have shown in my comment above. It is the opposite of reason.

    Science is a process of discovery, documentation and investigation. As a result, it is not always correct on the first try. But science is also self-correcting.

    Scientific knowledge cannot be given by anyone or anything; it is acquired through process.

    This “Creator of all things” cannot be proven by any standard, so your argument fails.

    Unless you can come up with some reasoned argument based on proof, there is not anything else I can say to you, nor do I care to spend my time trying. Don’t bother replying if you can’t come up with more than the aforementioned religious platitudes.

  3. xira says:

    Marriage was given to the human race by God. The humans were the ones who tried to pervert true marriage through out the centuries due to their selfishness and ignorance about God. Trying to smear the Catholic church will not make you better or kinder. Your accusations are hateful.

  4. Xira says:

    Faith is given through Reason, we believe with our minds. All sciences are not exact, save for the science of Mathematics. Being honest when it comes to science is not a warranty that science is right all the time. Scientific knowledge is given to us by God because He is the Creator of all things.

  5. A corrupt organization crying “wolf”! How much longer will we let them survive? I’ll repeat, corrupt!

  6. The_Fixer says:

    You clearly don’t know what faith is. Here’s the definition:

    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
    4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    6. A set of principles or beliefs.

    Understanding science and believing peer-reviewed research and experimentation is not faith. Period. Simply put, you’re magnificently wrong.

    You seem also to confuse the homosexuality with promiscuity. Promiscuity is not limited to those people who are gay, you know. The two, in spite of what you’ve been told, are not inextricably linked. I know they certainly aren’t linked in my case, and in the case of all of my friends. You’re relying on an old smear propagated by those bigots who have come before you for such information. It’s wrong. Gay people are just as promiscuous as straight people, no more and no less.

    Yes, no Christian can prove that God exists. What’s more disturbing is that they can’t even come close, and base their world view on denial of science.

    Your blurbs about disease and are nearly all incorrect. You seem to have found a list of social maladies and set them exclusively on the doorstep of the gay community. Alcoholism is indeed more prevalent among gay people. Why do you think that is? We’ve been outcasts for so long, confined to socializing in taverns. Why? Lack of social acceptance. I might add that this is going away in areas of the country where there is increased social acceptance among the generation coming up.

    Paranoid, spiteful person? It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you. Your comment proves that.

    I really pity you. I am not a paranoid, spiteful and insecure person, but it is clear that you apparently are. As far as people joining me in the gutter goes, I’ll have you know that I find my existence vastly more life-affirming and happier than that of the intellectual gutter you find yourself in.

  7. Ray Bannister says:

    Saw your website.

    What a creep.

  8. Ray Bannister says:

    Follow their hypocrisy – the lesbian says “I just hate intolerance” then says you ought to be banned.

    Hypocrites, the point of tolerance is you tolerate things you don’t like to hear.

    Groupthink, herd, conformists. And very INtolerant.

  9. Ray Bannister says:

    And you’re such a shining example of sweetness and tolerance.
    Women with crewcuts — too funny. Not just physically hideous, but ugly inside also.

  10. Ray Bannister says:

    You’re getting mud flung at you by the scum of the earth.
    Take it as a compliment.

  11. Ray Bannister says:

    Yes, he has a “faith.” He assumes that the goal in life is to pursue sex with as many partners as possible, that anyone who raises questions about that lifestyle is a bad person. No Christian can “prove” that God exists, just as no gay activists can “prove” that theirs is a healthy, life-affirming way to live. Given the spread of AIDS, hepatitis B, herpes, plus the frequent alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic abuse, all the evidence points to their lives being very UNhealthy and UNhappy. However, it’s always the case that people who live in the gutter feel better about themselves if more people join them in the gutter.

    Have never met a happy gay guy, so “gay” is truly ironic. Read the post on here if you want a look at the malice and spite in the gay “community,” foaming-at-the-mouth rage against the people they hate. They think that if Christianity suddenly vanished, all would be well. It wouldn’t. A paranoid, insecure, spiteful person is going to be unhappy no matter what, and having two living under the same roof in a mock “marriage” just means pooling the spite and malice. They claim Christians hate them. Not so. Hate would not be the proper response to this type. Pity would be appropriate, so would laughter. they are sad little creatures.

  12. karmanot says:

    Doesn’t the Faure Requiem also use boy sopranos? (Counter Tenors?)

  13. karmanot says:

    The Glass Bead Game? a Hesse reader. I knew I liked you!

  14. karmanot says:

    You are always brilliant in these matter N. I learned something!

  15. karmanot says:

    Yea, Mod4!

  16. karmanot says:

    Read Genesis dipstick and tell me how the human race evolved with only momma Eve, one bad son, and Adam.

  17. karmanot says:

    He should change his name to ‘Doormat Doormat.’

  18. The_Fixer says:

    Ok, let’s talk about this comment of yours. You’ve stepped into it big-time and now I have the luxury of pointing out your inaccuracies without you trying to straw-man, misdirect and change the subject.

    You said:
    So you believe nothing on faith right? All that you believe was through your own direct efforts of research, investigation and personal intellectual reasoning?

    Believing what well-trained scientists who can back up what they say is not faith. It is developing a well-informed opinion based on research and discoveries that other well-trained and competent people have made.

    You go on to say:
    Let’s try this ‘reasoning’ on for try: All of scientific knowledge is founded on the principle of cause and effect. We know things by their effects, which are often measurable. We can reasonably trace every physical phenomenon to it’s associated cause. If we keep doing this back through time, we get to the singularity which is the big bang. Please explain to me how something with no apparent, measurable or understandable cause happened?

    No, scientific knowledge is formed on empirical observation and (honest) experimentation. Cause and effect are but two parts of science. As I explained in a comment below, just because we don’t know the answer as to the cause of the big bang does not mean that we’ll never know. But I can tell you this: Physicists are on the right track. You demand proof of something that you well know hasn’t been proven… yet. Once upon a time, we didn’t know why we didn’t float up into space. Now we know that it is gravity that keeps us anchored to the earth. Just because we don’t know it now doesn’t mean we’ll never know it.

    And you continue:
    Similarly, please explain to me how some people (scientists) believe that life spontaneously generated on this planet, even though we have no understanding of how this happened, and have never observed the spontaneous generation of life anywhere. Would you call this Faith?

    As I said in a comment further down, life was not created spontaneously, and no one who is credible has ever said that. That’s plain sophistry on your part. Life came after many years of just the right conditions and scientists believe that critical elements necessary for the beginning of life came from asteroids that hit the earth millions of years ago. They came to understand this through research, discovery and careful experimentation. No, I would not call this “Faith”, I call it well-founded belief based on science.

    Your disdain for scientists seeps through noticeably. I might mention that the computer you have typed these screed on was created through the efforts of scientists. One of those scientists, Alan Turing, is considered the “Father of Modern Computing” and was responsible for the breaking of the encryption that Germans were using during World War II, allowing the Allies to eavesdrop on them and impede their war efforts. By the way, he was also gay. How about that, you owe a great deal of your freedom to a gay scientist who wrote the book on computer science. Huh!

    You close with:
    I’m awaiting your reasoned response.

    There’s your reasoned response. I find it peculiar that you demand reasoning and yet clearly reject reasoning in favor of faith in some entity whose existence has never been proven. I am here to tell you that the two are not compatible.

    The only thing that I have faith in is your apparent desire for an argument that you just plain can’t win honestly.

  19. Badgerite says:

    Yeah, it is mystifying to me. He won’t apologize because he doesn’t think he said anything wrong. But I’ll apologize for him. That was just awful.

  20. heimaey says:

    I still don’t understand how Biblical literalists don’t go out preaching slavery and polygamy. Somehow they justify just the things they pick and choose are OK.

  21. Ray says:

    The Catholic Church has some ba..s. What caused their priest to molest all those children? The Tooth Fairy?

  22. Jordan Petersen says:

    That last sentence was powerful.

  23. Bomer says:

    Pretty much, yup. When the fundie convert deacon was counseling the poor mentally unstable woman, although according to him she was possessed, he had her over at the cathedral at a time when they were doing some repairs. Scaffolds everywhere. Anyway, I guess she had an episode and ended up on one of the scaffolds threatening to jump. Eventually they had to call 911 to get her down. Was anything done to the deacon? No. Did anyone, other than myself, tell them that she needed to see a mental health professional and that she was mentally ill and not possessed? Nope. They just told him to keep her away from the church.

  24. BeccaM says:

    Paul/Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus, never knew him, never was a student or direct disciple of him.

    Unfortunately, nearly all of the New Testament-derived intolerance and judgmentalism comes directly from Paul’s letters, wherein he bitched constantly about how people didn’t like him and, contrary to Jesus’ teachings, spent endless pages judging these folks who kept throwing him out of their cities and towns because he was such an annoying douche-nozzle.

    Those letters were turned by the Church into the New Testament version of Commandments, overriding even the recorded teachings of that Jesus fellow. Remember? Do not judge, lest thee be judged, and all that? Treat others as you would be treated? Unfortunately, those lessons of compassion, humility, and non-judgmentalism get in the way of an enthusiastic Crusade or Inquisition, so they needed to be minimized.

    By the way, Scripture isn’t ‘evidence.’ They are words that, if you do not accept scriptural inerrancy, merely reflect the beliefs and stories of a bronze age culture.

  25. BeccaM says:

    Isn’t that always the pattern with the RCC? Hush it up, pretend it never happened.

  26. BeccaM says:

    Thanks Badgerite.

  27. BeccaM says:

    The top level disconnect for him was his apparent inability to understand that the very people he’s talking to here in the comments — including AmericaBlog’s proprietor — are the same ones he’s referring to as dangerous, mentally ill perverts who are a menace to human civilization.

    And through it all, he expected us not to be offended by that blithe accusation.

    It’s simply not possible to have a civil, rational discourse when the other person denies your right to exist as an accepted member of society, and constantly cites ‘Facts’ (as he labeled them) which are actually unsubstantiated or easily dis-proven assertions.

    Eventually I concluded he doesn’t think he ‘hates’ us because he doesn’t believe we’re actual people, and because he doesn’t want us to be killed outright. He just wants us all thrown into prison and subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment. For some reason, he doesn’t view this — or any of the other ways he’d gladly make our lives a living hell — as hurting us, therefore that makes it okay.

  28. Ninong says:

    And since Mitt Romney is no longer a viable political candidate for anything, I restrained myself from mentioning the fact that his great-grandfather had four wives and his great-great-grandfather had 12 wives. Or explaining why his father, George, was born in Mexico.

    Or pointing out that Mitt wouldn’t even be here were it not for that fourth wife of his great-grandfather. I didn’t even mention that his great-great-grandfather, the one with the 12 wives, was shot and killed by the estranged husband of that 12th wife. Talk about karma!

    Oh, well… I guess I did mention that after all. Some habits are hard to break.

  29. Badgerite says:

    Made me laugh.

  30. Badgerite says:

    Sex and perversion of all types. Sounds like the Popes of the Middle Ages to me. Pope Leo , a Medici who bought his way into office, ( a common practice then) used the papal treasury to throw fabulous parties ( orgies really), bankrupted the treasury so much that he took to selling indulgences. And thus came the Reformation. Or the Great Schism as I was taught to call it. Did I leave out the Spanish Inquisition or the arrest, torture and burning of troublesome women, sometimes for political reasons. No ‘sentimental self indulgence’ there. And what did Christ say again. Oh yeah!
    “Let ye who are without sin cast the first stone.”
    “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
    Stuff like that.

  31. Badgerite says:

    You are not using reasoned thought. And you are talking at people, not with them. Which is why you are getting the responses you are getting. There is a difference. And to say that no one has the full explanation as to what caused the big bang is not to say that you do either. Logically, it means no one knows. And that would include you and the Pope, etc.
    Here’s a question for you? What is the basis of morality. Is it not that you do not harm people who do not deserve to be harmed. So if someone does no harm to you or anyone else, then your moral obligation is to let them live freely and happily. Is it not? So what harm does gay people getting married do to you? None really. If marriage and forming families is good for people, why is it not contributing to the overall good in the world, for gay people to get married and form loving families. Or don’t you think gays can love? Do you think they are some other class of humans who do not love?

  32. BeccaM says:

    I believe the answer to your question is ‘Yes.’

  33. The_Fixer says:

    Doorman Doorman, you are woefully uninformed.

    You seem to completely slip over the fact that originally, marriage had nothing to do with love, rather, it was a property transaction. You slide over the fact that slavery was biblically endorsed, and you seem to talk about reason, but have not had one reasonable thing to say.

    Additionally, you started to talk about the “big bang”, questioning this serious scientific theory (and before you go any further, a theory is not what you think it is – it is a scientific hypothesis supported by facts).

    We do not know the exact mechanism behind the big bang. But we’re getting closer as the years go by. Just because we don’t have a ready explanation does not mean “God did it”.

    And the bit about “spontaneous generation of life” is ridiculous. No one ever said there was spontaneous generation of life, it took many, many years. Just like evolution took millions of years to get humans from previous life forms. You clearly do not read anything from evolutionary biologists, as they know well that nothing in this world is spontaneous.

    Furthermore, we do have a pretty good idea how life, and subsequently human life, started on this planet. Critical elements necessary for life came from the asteroids that collided with earth, joining the famous primordial stew that gave rise to life. We also know that life began in the oceans, fed by warm pools of water and the other elements necessary for organisms to come to life. This did not happen overnight.

    Again, this is reasoning supported by fact. This is not an emotional response.

    But if you’re begging for one, I’ll give you one. How dare you say on the one hand that you don’t hate homosexual people, and in the same breath compare us to people who have “disorders”? You have no grasp of recent science that shows people who are gay, bisexual or transgendered are a natural part of the human condition. I am greatly offended by your complete lack of sensibility and class, and your pretension of intellectual discourse.

    But that does not surprise me. Your screed reeks of copy-and-paste from some site put up by so-called Christian “Scholars.” I recommend you widen your reading list, your current reading is intellectually insufficient for serious debate.

    I can’t find it in me to forgive what at first glance appears to be stupidity – because you’re not stupid, rather, you’re willfully ignorant. And that is the saddest of all human conditions.

  34. BeccaM says:

    I’m pretty sure we were dealing with a Biblical literalist. Possibly even a ‘young Earth creationist.’

  35. UncleBucky says:

    But I like figs. Man, when they are fresh and fragrant! The best fruit after mangos!

  36. UncleBucky says:

    But shouldn’t we distinguish between “marriage” and “matrimony”, the sacrament OF? People who want marriage (civil, equal) may not at all care about “matrimony”, even though the origin of the words are interesting!

  37. UncleBucky says:

    Thanks, buddy. But I kept my scapula and keep it in a little box with the other stuff. Never wear it. Don’t accept the dogma anymore.

    As stated, the music, art, architecture and pretty stuff are fine.

  38. UncleBucky says:

    Bingo! (English)
    Euax! or Evax! (Latina)

  39. BeccaM says:

    And dude? Don’t even bother trying to comment again on my personal blog. You’re banned there, too.

    I don’t abide homophobes.

  40. UncleBucky says:


  41. heimaey says:

    What you said makes no sense. Marriage is the only one that predated modern society? Have you READ the bible? There are a lot of accounts of slavery and allowing slavery (not just enslaving the Israelites, which was a bad thing when it was them but OK when it wasn’t them).

    Also sexual perversion is not what brought down the Greek and Roman empires; that was just time that did that. All empires and governments end as will the USA one day.

  42. ldfrmc says:

    “They aren’t in any of those locations, they never have been.”
    We could laugh that off, but the rest of your post is just brainwashed cliches.

    No Catholic person I know, or church official, has ever said “the words we use for [marriage of Catholics and marriage for homosexuals] should thus be different.” They claim they have a monopoly on language and the meaning of words for all people, for all time.

    No homosexual has said their relationship – their marriage- is fundamentally the same as a marriage of a Catholic couple. Both start at city hall or a county clerk’s office. They require an application from two people. They result in a certificate of marriage – a license – issued by the State. That’s all they have in common.

    For Catholics and the church to turn into the language police, to put biblical or church meanings into statute or a state constitution is just plain pathetic. That represents a total lack of faith or belief in anything, let alone language.

    I speak English, not Catholic. You should try it.

  43. Ninong says:

    Doorman Doorman, you are seriously out of touch with reality. You’re sure Benedict XVI isn’t gay? Well, there are a lot of gay members of the Curia and they all think Benedict is gay. In fact, they were scandalized that he would be so bold as to take Bel Giorgio to live with him in his quarters in Mater Ecclesiae.

    Have you kept up to date on Vatileaks? It was practically serialized in La Repubblica as it happened. Any concidence that Benedict XVI made his decision to resign at the same time that he received the report of the three cardinals? You know, of course, that Francis has removed Tarcisio Bertone as Secretary of State? Know why? Know why Benedict transferred that Monsignor from the Vatican Bank to South America (with a promotion to bishop) on such short notice? I forgot the guy’s name but they sure got him out of Dodge in a hurry.

    Do you doubt that there are gay cardinals in the Vatican? Well, there are, and they thought it was scandalous that Benedict took Msgr. Georg Gänswein to live with him in his quarters in Mater Ecclesiae in the Vatican Gardens. At the same time that Benedict made the decision to abdicate, he quickly named Bel Giorgio (Gorgeous George) a bishop, consecrating him personally on Jan. 6, 2013. Then made him an archbishop, Titular Archbishop of Urbs Salvia. Earlier, in December 2012, Benedict promoted him to Prefect of the Papal Household, the office he still holds. Prior to that he was just Benedict’s personal secretary. All of that was in preparation for Benedict’s abdication.

    When I was a kid they were worried that Franny (Francis Cardinal Spellman) would get them in trouble. Now they’re worried that the problems inside the Vatican will get them in trouble.

  44. BeccaM says:

    Thanks Mod4!

  45. UncleBucky says:

    OK, and while I am going Glass Bead Game (Hesse) all over the place. There is this performance of the Adonai of Bernstein’s Chichester Psalms:

    It’s really beautiful. Again, boy soprano. But again, the RCC went too far and probably goes too far. Let’s have no cut-ups about Bernstein. Any who do, YOU produce something like his output. R’amen.

  46. mike31c says:

    So this archbishop is speaking for Satan?

  47. Moderator4 says:

    Never fear, BeccaM. He has just been banned. Our patience is not unlimited.

    And his posts remain up. As you said, useful examples.

  48. Moderator4 says:

    Doorman Doorman, we have been reasonably patient while you spouted your anti-gay religious bigotry, and have depended upon our commenters to respond to you. But we have had enough. You are banned. You may take your bigotry and your religious justifications elsewhere henceforth.

  49. UncleBucky says:

    OH, and listen to this bit. On this person’s channel is the whole piece. The ending is riotous!

    Agnus Dei

  50. UncleBucky says:

    And this is a stellar piece for a boy soprano!

    Kyrie from Missa Brevis KV 275

    I have the recording by Wiener Philharmoniker, Wiener Sängerknaben, with Moralt, Rudolf; Berry, Walter; Tiller, Franz; Krenn, Werner; Majkut, Erich on an EPIC album. Amazing.

    And yes, for what it’s worth, boy choirs, when well trained are beautiful to listen to. It’s just that the RCC forced the issue a bit, eh? ;o)

  51. BeccaM says:


    I’m sorry, were you saying something?

  52. BeccaM says:

    I feel certain he’ll be determined to have overstayed his welcome from the very first post. Just a matter of time before they ban him.

    I’m hoping they leave his posts up though, as useful examples of the irrational bigotry we still face.

  53. UncleBucky says:

    See, you never gave the details of what you think it means “to follow Christ”.

    For this thread, you get an “F”. You may file a do-over. Otherwise, you don’t know what you are talking about. Holy words mean nothing. Actions is the only way. Works, not Faith! Action, not Mouth!

  54. BeccaM says:

    You want reason? Okay, here you go. Referring to the rape of children by Catholic clergy–

    Don’t you realize this problem exists also in state run institutions

    So that that makes it okay if the Church does it? And if instead of following the law and reporting the rape of children by Church clergy, they’re sent to another parish to continue the predation?

    Funny thing about public institutions: They don’t have it as official policies to cover up heinous crimes and enable them to continue unchecked. The RCC has. For centuries.

    The Church in FACT has done much to address this issue,

    Yes, with their usual course of action being to hush up the crimes, pay off or discredit the victims to ensure silence, and commit felony criminal conspiracies to hide these crimes from civil law enforcement. They only stopped when the courts began the prosecutions and, through fines, began bankrupting the parishes.

    Regarding the Magdelene laundries and their many copies worldwide–

    Would you call prison work ‘forced slave labor

    Why yes, I would. Especially when most of the women and girls consigned to these prisons had committed no crime other than being poor and unwanted, when their labor was compelled for the profits of others, and they spent their entire lives — even after being freed — in constant fear of being re-sentenced to the Laundries.

    By the way, once again you delve into false moral equivalencies, describing something heinously wrong and evil, and talk about it being committed in similar contexts — as if that excuses the RCC doing it. It doesn’t. It just paints the Church with an even blacker mark.

    Almost all else in your post is just meandering blather from an angry person who won’t venture to use reason to form their ideas, but prefers
    to delve deep into their emotional sewer to form their thinking.

    This from the guy who has the gall to complain later about being called names…

    Re: Marriage–

    Marriage predated all civilization as a human institution, formed for the procreation, and raising of children by their two parents.

    Except when it was polygamous, polyandrous, political, same sex, or simply a business arrangement. You remind me of the NM State Senator, Bill Sharer, who attempted to de-gay Alexander the Great by mentioning in a truly awful and incoherent blog-post the time when Alexander married the daughter of a conquered leader — and ordered the forced marriages of his officers to other women of the conquered city, while at the same time marrying the cousin of the daughter, and still being married to his first wife.

    You can’t even get your examples straight, or avoid outright historical inaccuracies in your baseless,false assertions.

    Humans invented marriage, and did so in as many different ways and flavors as there are cultures on the planet.

    And as for ‘traditional’ Christian marriage, even that wasn’t for love until rather recently. I also recall the Roman Catholic Church weighing in regularly on women’s suffrage and the right to own property — and it was never on the side of progress.

    So called homosexual ‘marriage’ has none of the distinguishing characteristics of real marriage.

    Oooh, scare-quotes. I see you soon delve into the “marriage is for breeders” canard as well. Don’t you think that if this is to be consistent, marriage should be barred from the infertile, and absolutely banned if one partner is infertile and the other isn’t?

    Let’s start there, because there are actually far more infertile and childless-by-choice heterosexuals in existing marriages than there are gay people either in a same sex marriage (like myself) or who wish to be. I’m assuming that to be consistent with your ‘reason’, those marriages simply must be annulled. Since they serve no social purpose and damage all the breeders’ marriages simply by existing.

    Homosexual ‘marriage’ on the other hand is the perverted attempt to force society to recognize something which is clearly contrary to human nature, and attempt to validate this perversion to be something akin to marriage. It’s a lie, pushed by liars, and believed by the emotionally driven masses who have lost the ability to reason on their own.

    Again: You have the sheer fucking gall to complain when we LGBTs refer to that kind of attitude as bigoted? That we hurt your fee-fees by calling you names?

    The Entire homosexual agenda has been one lie after another, mostly because their entire lifestyle is one big lie.

    More name-calling. And invocation of a vast ‘homosexual agenda’ conspiracy. Tin-foil hat getting a little tight there?

    It’s where we stand now, you don’t think it’s a Lie from Liars? Of
    course it is. When their sexual life they live out is a lie to the core of human sexuality, what else do you expect….

    And still you claim not to hate gay people. Fascinating.

    Do I hate Homosexual’s? Absolutely NOT! No more than I hate
    Alcoholics, or Kleptomaniacs, or people who suffer from Schizophrenia.

    Which, by the application of reason, is proof that you do hate gay people. By the way, ‘hate’ doesn’t have to include you wish us physical harm.

    You wish to inflict emotional harm. To exclude us from society. To deny us the right to form the families with our soul-mates and to raise our own kids. I feel rather confident in assuming you are of the sort who’d also take our kids away from us, since you feel we’re such terrible people.

    You would define who and what we are as a mental disorder of a degree that most would consider in need of involuntary confinement to a mental institution — even though modern science has determined that being gay is a natural human condition common to a small percentage of the population.

    That is hate. Everything you’ve said here about gay people is motivated by irrational hate and willful, bigoted ignorance. Not reason. Certainly nothing even vaguely resembling compassion or simple human decency.

  55. UncleBucky says:

    Easy. Just like Joseph Smith, Paul had a hallucination. The Christ he created and then set to worship was not Jesus. Everything afterwards, including the Gospels and the infamous Revelation, takes its clues from Paul, the inventor of Paulism, having nothing to do with the Mission of Jesus. “Christ” gave no teachings, but Jesus is reported to have said some pretty remarkable things. “Christ” brings salvation because Paul said it, and the Gospels AFTERWARDS repeated it. There is no “tradition” except the legacy of Paul all the way down through the centuries.

    Who is the “Christ”? Was it Jesus or some miniseries character?

  56. karmanot says:

    Hey, Mod how about flushing this gay hate troll?

  57. karmanot says:

    Ditto that F*ck you!

  58. karmanot says:

    You have nothing to say except obscene anti gay hate rant.

  59. karmanot says:

    Dummkopf sums it up perfectly.

  60. karmanot says:

    There can be no reasoned response to your blathering nonsense. Pity, maybe, reasoned no. Go away hate troll.

  61. karmanot says:

    “The Entire homosexual agenda has been one lie after another, mostly because their entire lifestyle is one big lie.” Sure sounds like hate to me. How about this example of hate: Eat s*it and die troll?

  62. Bomer says:

    You’re a recovering Catholic too? I used to be an alter server (the go to one for all the bishop’s fancy services) and teach CCD. The old saying “familiarity breeds contempt” is pretty much spot on since the more involved I became the more I saw just how nasty the people actually were. We even had a priest that got defrocked because he was “counseling” this nice young lady and in the process got her pregnant. That was hushed up rather quickly and no one ever mentioned his name again.

  63. Stev84 says:

    They have been heavily lobbied by fundamentalists Protestants on that who think the treaty would forbid them from beating their children or even homeschool them. The ultra-evil and powerful homeschool lobby group in the US is very opposed to it.

  64. Doorman Doorman says:

    Before there was polygamy, there was monogamy. That’s a fact! Did certain sectors (the wealthy) practice polygamy in cultures of antiquity? It’s obvious, but that doesn’t negate the fact that first, there was monogamy. Personal freedom predates slavery as well, but that doesn’t mean that slavery didn’t develop. Yes, many disordered acts, habits and social activities developed along the way to being a civilized society, luckily we have used our reason to eliminate many of these from our culture. Regrettably, it seams we may be now moving backwards, at least with regards to the family and marriage. I’m sure Polygamy is just around the corner…

  65. arcadesproject says:

    ‘s funny. I haven’t seen him around. Anybody know his screen name?

  66. Doorman Doorman says:

    Very enlightening.

  67. Doorman Doorman says:

    I never said that all human relationships and actions which predated human civilization were rightly ordered, or even good. We could obviously discuss slavery, abuse, rape and pillage etc. as all things which predated all forms of organized government. However, Marriage is the only one which not only predated all modern societies, but the societies existence was dependent upon it. As civilized persons, we should be able to make reasonable judgements on those human acts from antiquity which are abhorrent, those which were counter productive, and those which were instrumental in the development of civilized culture. Of all those which you listed, only Man/Woman marriage can be classified as necessary for the development of a just and civilized culture. Polygamy would be in this as well, but to a lesser extent. Ultimately Polygamy creates division, and social disparity. It’s funny how the cultures which you seem to honor because of their possible recognition of homosexual relationships/acts, were so rife with other abhorrent behavior, that it almost creates a counter example of how our cultures should develop. Particularly the Polynesians and Many Native American Tribes. They often treated women as little more than animals to be owned, they often raped and pillaged competitive tribes. They would regularly engage in child rape and child marriage. These are your model societies??? Well, at least they supposedly had a permissive view on homosexuality, all other wrongs can be forgiven. The Roman’s and the Greeks certainly had much to be admired, but these were again precursor’s to modern civilized societies. If you study their culture’s, you will see many of the vestiges of savagery which still existed and was common. Women were not treated well, children were often kept as sex slaves, rape of a mans daughter was considered mostly an affront to the fathers property, and the wrong could be easily corrected by a small financial contribution. Sexual perversion of all types was common place amongst many classes of both Greek and Roman society. They were beginning the process of becoming more civilized, but it seams many people want to move back to that less civilized time.

    Again, let’s focus on that which is beneficial to society and consonant with human nature. Homosexuality doesn’t fit either one of these measures. It only fulfills one, Sentimental self indulgence.

  68. Ninong says:

    King David had eight wives, plus a few concubines, and his 10th son, Solomon, one of David’s 17 children, had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Jesus compared himself favorably to Solomon.

    The Book of Chronicles lists David’s sons by various wives and concubines. Daughters were not usually mentioned but David had at least one daughter, Tamar, because she was raped by Amnon, her half-brother, which led to Amnon’s death two years later on orders of Amnon’s half-brother and Tamar’s full brother.

    I can’t believe that anyone could seriously claim that marriage between one man and one woman predates civilization. No one can be that ignorant of human history.

  69. Ron Robertson says:

    I don’t believe faith is a basis for knowledge. But, that’s beside the point. It’s YOU who is telling others to use reason. And I knew you were being a hypocrite because you don’t use reason yourself, as you just demonstrated.

    Incidentally, I don’t have to have all answers to everything ever, just to use reason as the basis for my own knowledge. I use reason to determine what I can, determine what is most probable, and am prepared to change what I believe in the event some proven/provable fact disproves something I believed.

    So, there you are.

  70. Zorba says:

    LOL! Well, we Greeks like to think so.
    Although the Greek Orthodox Church has certainly had its disruptions, disagreements, and scandals over the many centuries.
    But after the fall of Byzantium, the Orthodox Church, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, never had the power to meddle in civil governments, or ignore the civil governments when crimes occur, that the Roman Catholic Church still has.
    And, for that matter, the Greeks in Greece don’t pay as much attention to the Archbishop of Athens (head of the Church of Greece in most parts of Greece) or the Ecumenical Patriarch (who has jurisdiction over the rest of Greece) as many Catholics do to the Pope. And the Greeks in America certainly don’t pay that much attention to the Ecumenical Patriarch (under whose jurisdiction they are) except in a sort of ceremonial way. Of course, it helps that he’s pretty much walled off in Istanbul, and doesn’t venture out much, or offer sweeping pronouncements.

  71. Doorman Doorman says:

    So you believe nothing on faith right? All that you believe was through your own direct efforts of research, investigation and personal intellectual reasoning?

    Let’s try this ‘reasoning’ on for try: All of scientific knowledge is founded on the principle of cause and effect. We know things by their effects, which are often measurable. We can reasonably trace every physical phenomenon to it’s associated cause. If we keep doing this back through time, we get to the singularity which is the big bang. Please explain to me how something with no apparent, measurable or understandable cause happened?

    Similarly, please explain to me how some people (scientists) believe that life spontaneously generated on this planet, even though we have no understanding of how this happened, and have never observed the spontaneous generation of life anywhere. Would you call this Faith?

    I’m awaiting your reasoned response.

  72. jomicur says:

    I was raised Catholic, and I even spent a year in a Catholic seminary. So yes, there were plenty of people in my religion who supported Hitler. From the top down.

  73. jomicur says:

    There is. They don’t make it easy (in fact, it’s even harder than closing a Facebook account), but there is an official form and procedure for demanding they remove your name from their rolls. I did it about a dozen years ago, and I know other people who have. I’m told you can find the form online nowadays, but I’ve never bothered to look. I imagine you can find it if you want it.

  74. Stev84 says:

    Then there is stuff like the systematic slavery, sexual, mental and physical abuse of young women in the Irish Magdalene Laundries. Also in Ireland, the torture of women through the barbaric practice of symphysiotomies (breaking their pelvis, so a C-section wouldn’t scar the uterus or so they wouldn’t ask for sterilizations being done at the same time) without consent. In Spain they stole tens of thousands of children from parents they and the Franco regime deemed bad by faking the babies’ death and then selling them to “good” Catholic families.

  75. Doorman Doorman says:

    So, I’m sure there were no people of your particular religious or philosophical persuasion in the group which gave homage to Hitler. There weren’t any Athiests, or Agnostics or ??? Or are you saying it only matters when Catholics are hypocrites and cowards, but if anyone else does it, those are isolated cases and don’t reflect on the whole of their group. Isn’t this a little biased in your thinking???

  76. BeccaM says:

    I noticed that. He’s also weighed in against any kind of immigration reform, claiming it’ll result only in massive increases in welfare costs.

  77. Ninong says:

    “Sovereign entity.” They’re a nonphysical juridical entity recognized by, I believe, 198 countries. That’s distinct from Vatican City, which is a physical entity. The sovereign entity is the Holy See, not Vatican City. It’s the Holy See that signs international agreements. They even signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in April 1990, then refused to comply with its requirements.

    Currently 193 countries have ratified that Convention on the Rights of the Child, including every member of the United Nations except Somalia, South Sudan and the United States of America.

  78. BeccaM says:

    Sorry, bub, but you don’t get to say something like, “Marriage predated all civilization as a human institution, formed for
    the procreation, and raising of children by their two parents” — and then refer to the polygamy as practiced by the Abrahamaic cultures and ordained by their deity — and by many other cultures in the world, as ‘disordered.’

    Polygamous marriages were the norm in any number of societies. Polyandry has been practiced by a number of Polynesian and Native American cultures. And same sex marriages existed for quite a few nations as well, including Greece, Rome, and the Native American tribes that recognized “Two Spirit” nature.

    Dude, you’re not even a very good troll. <– that, by the way, is the first time I've called you a name. I referred to your words and attitudes as ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted. And if you're going to walk into a blog with an entire LGBT-supportive sub-category, you're a fool if you think people here won't object when you take a big steaming dump in the middle of the room.

  79. Doorman Doorman says:

    What a sexist and bigoted thing to say. So merely because this priest is considered attractive, there must be a sexual angle? So you are saying one of two things, if Pope Benedict Emeritus were gay (which I’m sure he’s not), he cannot control himself and can only choose attractive men as his assistants. Wouldn’t homosexual’s find this stereotypical and bigoted? Or, you are attempting character assassination with absolutely no facts other than this priest is considered attractive by some, but merely because you must hate Benedict. Doesn’t that make YOU the hater? Neither motive is surprising to me.

  80. Ron Robertson says:

    YOU talking about reasoned thought? Reason doesn’t mean what you think it means. Incidentally, if you’re going to use reason to make an argument, you have to use it for everything.

  81. Stev84 says:

    Christians tend to be woefully ignorant about early church history, the multitude of different sects and schisms, the radically different beliefs early Christians had and how the whole thing was just made up in a series of councils 3 to 4 centuries after Jesus allegedly lived.

  82. Doorman Doorman says:

    So, instead of attempting to make reasonable counter claims, you just call me names. Very emotionally driven. Maybe developing a line of reasoned thought would be beneficial to your personal life.

  83. Ron Robertson says:

    Sorry, religious person, you don’t get to talk about reason, remember. You have your beliefs because of faith, the exact opposite of reason.

    There is no homosexual agenda, other than equality before the law.

    And, Maria-Jehosaphat, you do hate homosexuals, you just aren’t honest about it, to us or anyone else. It’s THAT obvious.

  84. Ninong says:

    Robert Rector is also famous as the “architect of the abstinence-only movement.” He wanted even public schools to teach abstinence-only in sex education classes. That was supposed to cut down on teenage pregnancies. LOL What a complete idiot.

  85. Doorman Doorman says:

    Thank you for calling me a fool instead of attempting to have a reasonable dialog. It’s basically what I expected.

    Why do I capitalize common nouns? Sometimes to make a point, sometimes it’s a mistake. I apologize if my grammar mistakes distracted you from the essence of what I had to say.

  86. BeccaM says:

    I just hate ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. You’ve brought all three to the table.

  87. Doorman Doorman says:

    Yes, Polygamy is a disorder of a different type, it’s a disorder of possession and power, not of sexuality. This is why the natural complementarity of One man and One Woman became the Christian Norm.

    Hate as I understand it is to wish for harm and destruction upon a person. I do not wish that upon Homosexual’s. In fact, what I wish and hope for them is the same thing I hope for myself. To hate them would be to wish and hope for something worse and contrary to what I would wish for myself.

    In your words, you seem to be far more hate filled than I am.

  88. Stev84 says:

    There is really no way to officially leave. Even if you defect, they still count you as some kind of member. So once they sprinkle the magic water on you (as a child, without your consent), they have you forever.

  89. Anonymous says:

    I have a question. Why do you capitalize common nouns? Are we speaking German, where it’s correct to do this? Du bist ein Dummkopf.

  90. BeccaM says:

    True, I know. It’s funny to see someone try to claim that anything an archbishop says as inherently ‘factual.’

  91. BeccaM says:

    So, all that polygamy in your Bible never happened, huh?

    And I’m sorry to have to inform you, but you do hate gay people. Equating homosexuality with debilitating mental illnesses is merely trying to disguise your hate as pity.

    Fuck your pity and your hate.

  92. Ninong says:

    The last known reports of surgical castration of boys by the Catholic Church were more than 50 years ago. However, that same Dutch investigative commission that was formed by the Vatican, identified 800 abusers by name and gave an estimate of 10,000 to 20,000 victims. And that was just since 1945 and only in The Netherlands.

  93. BeccaM says:

    It happened to my father, too. The nuns tried to ruler-smack him out of writing left-handed, but not only did it never take, he spent his entire life writing in this weird, cramped and unnatural hand posture.

    A small portion of the time, he’d favor his right hand, but it was never consistent.

  94. Doorman Doorman says:

    The whole gay ‘Marriage’ debate and it’s proponents are completely bereft of the ability to reason. Let’s look at a couple of your accusations.

    -“a chronic problem with raping young children, and then refusing to address the problem” Let’s see, have you followed the new AT ALL? Don’t you realize this problem exists also in state run institutions (look at orphanage in Florida and many others), don’t you know the Fact that more children are sexually abused in public schools than all other institutions? Certainly it was a travesty what happened in the church, all the more so by Men who should be holding and living a higher moral standard. And it’s disgusting that a FEW bishops were involved in covering these crimes. The Church in FACT has done much to address this issue, why don’t you look into the facts and make a statement based on Reason, not your emotional irrationality.

    -” up until the mid 1990s included forced slave labor.” Would you call prison work ‘forced slave labor’? If so, then you can count almost every prison in this country as involved in this, since most of the prisoners are forced to do some types of chores, and often jobs which help to fund the prison. The Magdalene asylums were found all through Europe, and were run by Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and many other religious groups. So they were not unique to the Catholic Church. Also, they were often done in cooperation and joint purposes of the State governments. Certainly there were abuses, some of which were atrocious. But can any less be said of the many Purely Secular homes of correction or orphanage? The silly thing is, no one is out with torch and pitch fork wanting to tear down their governments for their abuses. But go ahead, don’t ruin your biased ill-reasoned rant with balanced facts. It would ruin your little self absorbed diatribe.

    Almost all else in your post is just meandering blather from an angry person who won’t venture to use reason to form their ideas, but prefers to delve deep into their emotional sewer to form their thinking. Typical of most in our poorly reasoned social context today.

    Now, let’s talk about Marriage. Marriage predated all civilization as a human institution, formed for the procreation, and raising of children by their two parents. Two persons who by nature were naturally complementary. So called homosexual ‘marriage’ has none of the distinguishing characteristics of real marriage. When Societies have given special recognition to and protection of marriage, they did so because they recognized the natural reality, that a man and a woman coming together in a secure and stable relationship is the kernal of all society. It was bringing together the two halves of humanity into an institution for the good of current and future society. Homosexual ‘marriage’ on the other hand is the perverted attempt to force society to recognize something which is clearly contrary to human nature, and attempt to validate this perversion to be something akin to marriage. It’s a lie, pushed by liars, and believed by the emotionally driven masses who have lost the ability to reason on their own. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is putting sentiment over reason. It is basing law not on what is clearly natural and reasonable, but on what is emotionally charged and sentimental.

    The Entire homosexual agenda has been one lie after another, mostly because their entire lifestyle is one big lie. They said, We don’t want marriage or unions, we just don’t want to be persecuted, so please abolish the sodomy laws. As soon as that was done, they pushed for Civil Unions and said “we don’t want marriage, we just want to visit our loved ones in the hospitals and want financial protections” as soon as they got civil unions they started pushing for marriage and said “We don’t want to force anyone to recognize our marriage….” It’s where we stand now, you don’t think it’s a Lie from Liars? Of course it is. When their sexual life they live out is a lie to the core of human sexuality, what else do you expect….

    Do I hate Homosexual’s? Absolutely NOT! No more than I hate Alcoholics, or Kleptomaniacs, or people who suffer from Schizophrenia. But it’s foolish not to recognize our certain human disorders merely to satiate someones sentimental longings. A Schizophrenic many have a life long dream of being a navy Ship captain, but it would be foolish to allow someone with that disorder to be in charge of such a serious responsibility. But Sentiment, not reason is the guiding principle of most people today, this author just exemplifies this.

  95. Ninong says:

    I think that was mostly the Italians? They needed more altos for the choir.

  96. MK ULTRA says:

    The Church doesn’t literally castrate gay men and boys anymore. But they do try to do it figuratively with the whole “being gay isn’t a sin, but acting on it is” thing. They’re saying you can be gay, as long as you never do anything gay ever.

  97. Ninong says:

    Well Bel Giorgio used to be a helicopter pilot, as well as a tennis instructor and I believe a ski instructor back in his youth before he received his vocation from above. From what I have heard, even the other closet cases in the Vatican were horrified that Benny took Bel Giorgio with him to share his newly refurbished quarters in Mater Ecclesiae, along with five Memores Domini to do all the chores and prepare all the meals.

    From Mater Ecclesiae it’s literally just a walk in the park (okay, the Vatican Gardens) for Bel Giorgio to get to his office. And Francis has not changed Bel Giorgio’s last appointment. Personally I don’t think he will. If anything, Bel Giorgio might even get a red hat.

  98. karmanot says:

    “It amazes me how some people still believe in such things as satan” If it’s cut on the bias, they’ll wear it.

  99. Pabladro says:

    Where is this garbage about a Pauline Christ coming from? There is only one Christ and He is the same in the Gospels as He is in Paul’s letters. The people who try to make Him out to be something different are just trying to come up with an excuse to not following His teachings. People don’t die for fiction. You could argue about martyrs throughout the centuries but you would have a tough time telling me that Paul made it up and then was willing to be beheaded for a lie… seems like it wouldn’t be providing much benefit at that point. It is fairly simple to prove that the Gospels have a different author than the Pauline letters and it has been done so by historians multiple times. It is also true that you can argue about anything you want if you don’t want to believe in Christ… but it is just an argument, not fact. The Church has protected the words and teachings of Christ that are beneficial to the salvation of souls through Tradition and Scripture. If one doesn’t believe, no amount of evidence will change that. People just want to argue and all you can do is show them the evidence, it is up to them what to do with it.

  100. Richard says:

    It amazes me how some people still believe in such things as satan. How ridiculous.

  101. Ninong says:

    As I’m sure you know, Becca, the Vatican has invoked that officially ex cathedra only once since it was dogmatically defined at the First Vatican Council and that was in 1950 when Pius XII declared the Assumption to be official dogma of the Catholic Church.
    They don’t like to talk about papal infallibility all that much anymore, just like they don’t like to talk about exorcism, even though there is still an official Vatican exorcist on call.

  102. karmanot says:

    I look forward to the day when the Vatican loses its ‘nation’ status in individual countries, where for years it has assumed command above the law for its various crimes. The church should be taxed at corporate levels or more.

  103. karmanot says:

    Good news! I spent some time in retreat at that creepy place when exploring a service vocation. I think that little zen monastery down the road called to me in more intuitive ways.

  104. The_Fixer says:

    Loved the bit about left-handedness (well, I actually enjoyed the whole of your comment).

    One of my younger brothers was “cured” of left-handedness by the nuns we had as teachers in the 1960s. So even in relatively modern times, they still believed that drivel of left-handedness being evil.

    Of course, they’re nothing if not consistent. The Catholic Church is still a backward, superstitious institution.

  105. karmanot says:

    And very well done at that! Excellent!

  106. Ninong says:

    That’s Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller in the top picture and the middle of the bottom picture, but you do have two Catholic prelates giving the Nazi salute in the middle picture.

    The Vatican managed to keep their clergy independent from Hitler’s new German Evangelical Church, thanks to their secret concordat with Hitler, but they did have to submit all appointments to the office of bishop, or higher, to Hitler for his approval. I don’t believe any were rejected but, then again, I’m sure they didn’t appoint any firebrands that they knew would upset der Führer.

  107. UncleBucky says:

    What does it mean to “Follow Christ”? Now, don’t give me holy words (as thumpers or super-catlicks do). What are the words and actions of doing so? And who is the “Christ”? Is the Christ the guy Jesus who was killed by the Romans and the 1%er Jewish collaborators? Or is the Christ a confection made by Paul, which definition found its way into the gospels, not so much Mark, but especially Matthew, Luke and John because of all the palaver generated by Paulists? Are the gospels really Paulist gospels? Where did Jesus go? Where did Jesus’s words go? Which words did he really speak?

  108. Ninong says:

    To translate Cardinal Ratzinger’s words when he was Prefect of the CDF from Latin into English, the Church reserved exclusive jurisdiction under Canon Law to investigate and adjudicate all claims of sexual abuse by member of the clergy.

    I don’t think Ratzinger was ever a Canon Lawyer. I believe all of his academic background is in theology. Nevertheless, while he was at CDF, he used to insist that all reports involving sexual misconduct by clergy should be investigated by the local bishop under rules of absolute secrecy. If it was found necessary, cases should be referred to his office for review. Where they would languish for years!

    He made of point of reminding bishops worldwide that such sexual misconduct by the clergy should not be reported to the local civil authorities. And under no circumstances should the media find out.

  109. Ninong says:

    That’s funny! When I was growing up the eldest daughter of the local Mafia don was in my class. Her family contributed generously to the school and the parish. She was a very nice girl but her father was notorious!

  110. BeccaM says:

    LOL. True enough.

  111. BeccaM says:

    I remember that one, and realizing at that point that the RCC truly saw itself as existing above and entirely exempt from the laws of men.

  112. BeccaM says:

    No, the Paraclete monastery in Jemez Springs has been shut down for quite a few years now. Too many lawsuits — including many from people who lived in the area who said the priests and brothers receiving ‘treatment’ at the monastery were molesting their kids.

  113. BeccaM says:

    Also, last I checked with the official Catechism, Archbishops were not granted the privilege of Papal Infallibility.

  114. BeccaM says:

    I love the way Archbishop Nienstedt has to personify everything he objects to (gay marriage, contraception, etc.), and conflate it with the penultimate evil being Christianity has in its mythos — thereby dismissing the disagreement of all the people — Catholics and non-Catholics alike — as being caused by Satan. (I laughed out loud when I read the bit about contraceptives ‘objectifying and disrespecting’ women. Talk about paternalistic patronizing.)

    Lest we not forget, torture and being burned to death was the traditional Church-sanctioned punishment for gay people for many centuries. Not to mention all those women (and some men) accused of being witches. And the Crusades and Inquisitions.

    I feel fairly confident that the Jesus fellow — if he actually existed — whose teachings they claim to follow would have objected vehemently to what was done in his name.

    Looking through his speech, I can’t help but notice a few…heresies. As well as a ton of ridiculous misogynistic and homophobic drivel. Let’s dive in, shall we?

    In the Book of Genesis, we read the story of creation through God’s direct intervention. God breathed life into Adam and then removed one of his ribs to create a woman, Eve. God did not take a piece of the man’s head so that woman would dominate him, nor did God take a bone from the man’s foot so that he should dominate her. Rather He took a rib from man’s side, signifying that man would be an equal to woman and she to him.

    Actually throughout most of Christian history, Eve’s status as a rib-clone was taken to mean women are supposed to be subservient to men, not equal.

    From the point of view of many prevailing co-existing religions and cultures of ‘Genesis’ mythos era, the whole rib thing was a way to steal from women the one thing men could never do: Produce offspring. So all of a sudden we have a deity with decidedly male characteristics, creating life and then using his created human male to produce the first female. Yeah, that’s equal.

    A patriarchist culture wanted to demolish the goddess-worshiping cultures. Step one to doing that was to declare women inherently — and spiritually — inferior to men. No more goddesses, no more priestesses, and soon women were reduced to the status of chattel.

    Jesus Christ elevated marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

    The entire concept of sacraments came from the Roman Catholic Church, centuries later. I’ve read the Gospels any number of times and I can’t come up with anywhere in there where Jesus lists the Seven Sacraments.

    The family, comprised of one man and one woman, is bound by their love in a lifelong commitment that is mutual, exclusive and open to new life. Marital love between spouses transcends even each other as they enter into a triune relationship with God.

    Actually, the Bible is pretty clear on this: Love between a husband and wife is irrelevant. Women are property.

    And if a man can’t have a baby with his wife, apparently it’s okie-dokey to do it with a servant or slave.

    Sodomy, abortion, contraception, pornography, the redefinition of marriage, and the denial of objective truth are just some of the forces threatening the stability of our civilization. The source of these machinations is none other than the Father of Lies.

    Or it could be that once again, a growing majority of people disagree with what the Church has declared to be immoral. As has happened endless times throughout history.

    Remember when the Church’s “objective truth” was that the sun orbited the Earth, and it was an immoral heresy to state otherwise?

    Now we’ve learned through science that sexual orientation and gender identity are simply another natural human condition, and that being gay is no more evil than being left-handed. (Which, by the way, used to be taken by the Church as a sign of evil intent also.)

    Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, issued in 1968, reaffirmed the Church’s teaching regarding marital love and the rejection of most forms of birth control.

    Yet interestingly, the current Pope has indicated he believes that using condoms isn’t always evil. So what’s it to be?

    (I)n the hands of governments, contraception would become a powerful tool in forcing the use of contraceptives on individuals, as well as institutions.

    Now this is just frickin’ silly. Nobody is forcing anyone — female or male — to use contraceptives. And last I checked, institutions lacked reproductive organs.

    (O)nly 3% of Catholic married women rely on natural family planning. At the same time, 70% of unmarried Catholic women are sexually active by their early 20s.

    Gee, ya think there might be a message in there somewhere? If you can’t even get your own followers to adhere to your archaic, anachronistic rules…

    Secondly, few are aware of the World Health Organization’s listing of contraceptives as “group one carcinogens” for breast, liver, and cervical cancers.

    Nice try, but that’s a deliberate misrepresentation of the findings. Also discovered was that hormonal contraceptives reduced the frequency of other types of cancer, and that the offset in reduced unplanned pregnancies correlated with lower rates of maternal and natal mortality.

    In addition, the study recommended changes to the formulations of both hormonal contraceptives and post-menopausal medications, to reduce the risks.

    The availability of contraceptives saves lives.

    Mounting evidence also shows the link between birth control pills and women’s susceptibility to immune disorders such as HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

    Now that’s pure BS. There is no such evidence. By asserting this, you become complicit in unnecessary deaths.

    As you know, HHS will require employers to provide insurance coverage of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including sterilization procedures and abortion-causing drugs.

    Ah, here we go.

    The mandate imposes contraception as a matter of public policy without any recourse to public debate, denying employers the right to follow the dictates of their own consciences and refusing public access to dispute the moral implications of contraceptive use.

    So if I’m an employer and my religion forbids the use of any medical treatments whatsoever, that means I should be entirely off the hook for providing health insurance for my employees, right? Those are the dictates of my conscience: That I get to decide whether my employees live or die.

    Then again, for some women, denying them a needed medicine and legal medical treatment is pretty much the same thing: Someone else deciding whether they live or die.

    Although the purpose of health care is to diagnose, prevent and cure illnesses, and health insurance is meant to lower the cost of treatment, contraception’s raison d’être is to prevent pregnancy, to separate reproduction from the sexual act solely for the private interest of sexual recreation.

    Contraception also exists to help save women’s lives, not just situationally, but often quite literally.

    Plus it allows families to plan how and when to have children. Isn’t a planned, wanted child nearly always better off than one that happens by accident?

    Five of every ten marriages end in divorce.

    So why isn’t the Church lobbying to outlaw divorce? Funny how often you guys mention this statistic, but never propose or push for the obvious solution.

    You object to contraceptives and abortion — so you argue they should be made illegal. You object to gay people — and have argued that homosexuality itself should be made illegal. Why not divorce?

    Nearly one of every three Americans over the age of 15 has never been married, the highest level in a decade.

    Over the age of 15? Don’t you think that’s way more than a little creepy to say that?

    Besides which, I thought you said you didn’t want gay people marrying. Or did you mean they should straight-marry? If the latter is the case, you’re going to have a problem with the whole “marriage is for love” angle.

    The rate of cohabitation has accelerated from 450,000 couples in 1965 to well over 5 million couples today.

    Society and culture have moved on, slick.

    Between 1950 and 2011, according to calculations by the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen, the marriage rate fell from 90 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried women to just 31, a stunning 66 percent decline.

    Women’s liberation is a bitch, huh? We’re no longer forced by economics, law, and society to marry men, even if we’d rather not.

    Equally disturbing, 43% of American children grow up in fatherless homes and
    the percentage of children born out of wedlock is now at a staggering 40.8%

    Ah yes, as footnoted from the anti-feminist rantings of Helen Alvare. Quite frankly, she’s a wingnut loon.

    A recent study conducted by New York University, however, claims fathers do play a decisive role in teenage sexual behavior. Teens whose fathers approved of adolescent sexual activity tended to start having sex earlier than teens whose fathers did not approve, affirming
    that “fathers may distinctly influence the sexual behavior of their adolescent children,” and fathers may indeed “parent in ways that differ from mothers.”

    Translation: Mommies are shitty parents. Only Daddies are good at laying down the law.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has the intention of altering the historical, traditional and natural concept of marriage between one man and one woman.

    Pay no attention to the Bible and its description of marriage as between one man and as many wives, concubines, and slaves as he can afford to own. And pay no attention to all the cultures worldwide which have had (or still have) polygamy, polyandry, and even same-sex marriage.

    I’m sure the men of Saudi Arabia, for instance, will be glad to be told historically, they’ve never practiced polygamy.

    Unlike friendships or other close relationships, the public purpose of marriage is to unite men and women and the children they create.

    Marriage is for breeders only! Ding-ding-ding!

    Marriage is clearly a social justice issue as families are dependent upon it for their flourishing. The differences between children who grow up in intact homes as opposed to
    those who grow up in broken homes are not inconsequential.

    So the Catholic Church’s solution for children born to gay parents? Ensure that home stays ‘broken.’ And let’s add some slut-shaming for mothers who won’t stay in abusive hetero marriages, too.

    Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public
    Policy, argues that, all things being equal, good marriages…

    Sorry, but I’m gonna have to stop you there. Maggie Gallagher? Co-founder and president of NOM, the SPLC-identified hate group? You’re going to quote HER, and try to make it sound like she’s not at all connected to NOM? Bwahahaha!

    In the United States, marriage lowers the probability of child poverty by 82%…

    Then let gays and lesbians get married. But really, you’re going to cite in your footnotes that this comes from Robert Rector, the guy who lobbied in the mid 90s for “ending welfare as we know it” — dramatically increasing poverty for kids?

    As Americans we are abundantly blessed with constitutional freedoms that protect and allow us to participate in public life.

    Freedoms you Catholic leaders would prefer be curtailed so you can impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

    It creates the impression that choice is, in and of itself, a moral act of human freedom and an ultimate expression of life and it rejects any objective criteria or moral participation in the shaping of social situations. This view, incompatible with rational thought, is surely the work of Satan,
    in the words of Blessed John Paul, who lusted after this so-called “liberty” above all else.

    Seriously, you need to move that embedded dependent clause. The comma alone isn’t enough.

    Anyway, I’m done.

  115. Ninong says:

    Do you remember a few years back when Benedict was all bent out of shape because the police showed up with a search warrant and searched the offices of the local Cardinal Archbishop in Belgium?

    How dare they! They have no authority!

    Benny used to claim that all cases of sex abuse by the clergy worldwide fell under the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Vatican under Canon Law and that it was only his office as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith that had jurisdiction.

  116. Ninong says:

    Several years back, I remember reading about a European archbishop who was all bent out of shape because a priest that he had already “sentenced” to a year of prayer and penance in a monastery was being charged by the local civil authorities who wanted to try him in court for his sex abuse of minors.

    “But, but… I have already sentenced him,” said the outraged archbishop.

  117. Ninong says:


  118. karmanot says:

    Is the Paraclete summer camp still operating in NM?

  119. karmanot says:

    Same Here!

  120. karmanot says:


  121. karmanot says:

    Exactly. The Coptic tradition puts Rome in the new kid catagory.

  122. karmanot says:

    “Culturally” catholic and not listening to the men in dresses… that makes you what?” That makes UB aware of the truth and free of the prison of Catholic brainwashing. Now take that scapula and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

  123. Ninong says:

    And while Cardinal Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich, he approved the transfer of a pedophile priest to a “treatment program,” knowing full well that he would be returned to a new assignment after he completed his “treatment.” The priest abused again after completion of the “treatment.”

  124. karmanot says:

    That’s an important distinction. Many of us embrace the cultural memories of a happy childhood and the conditioning of that Catholicism, but have utterly rejected the mumbo jumbo of its theology.