Daily Archives: July 2, 2008

A mainstream news story that actually admits the problem in the priesthood is homosexuality?

1. So, some undercover film person tricked a gay priest at the Vatican into make advances on tape , and the Vatican has suspended the priest.
2. The Vatican has said in numerous documents since at least the 1960s that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood (and the document a couple years ago included anyone who supports the gay rights movement, period).
3. Somehow, Newsweek construes this story as bad news for the Vatican.
4. Meanwhile, the priest tries to claim it’s a ploy by Satanists who are trying to seduce priests into homosexual acts to discredit them. I’m sorry, Father, but I think *you’re* the one in the Satanic conspiracy to discredit the priesthood. After all, how could anyone be homosexually seduced without being homosexually inclined?

Hey! It’s OK to refuse to help people learn NFP, but not to refuse them contraception!

I don’t understand why liberals have such a problem with people setting up businesses in accordance with their consciences? What’s the problem? Let the pro-life pharmacists go work at this new pharmacy chain. You wanna use contraceptives? Shop someplace else. Big deal.

This woman is ranting about “holier than thous.” I wonder if she shops at organic food stores?

Would somebody please have Fr. Tom Reese, SJ, committed?

“The Bishops’ conference was another voice that was practically always in
conformity with the Vatican—but it was another voice,” says Father Tom Reese, of
the Woodstock Theological Seminary. “If the bishops can’t speak out, then who
are you going to talk to, someone in a red hat?”

I mean, that doesn’t even make sense!
First, “practically always”? That’s interesting! Progressive Catholics (TM) always speak of the USCCB as the definitive source of “Catholic teaching.”
But that second part is nonsensical? “If the bishops can’t speak out”? Huh? Speak out for or against what? First, the article is about the USCCB trimming its lay staff, so I don’t understand the relevance. Secondly, “someone in a red hat?” Huh? Like cardinals aren’t bishops?
I don’t even know what he means here.