Andrew Sullivan Smears Pope Benedict

  • Thread starter Thread starter djeter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

djeter

Guest
http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sullivan-11239_460x345.jpg?w=450&h=337

Perhaps the best response to this is "So what else is new?’ but I offer up the transcript from the Charlie Rose show the other night on PBS.

charlierose.com/view/interview/11239#frame_top

If you don’t want to hunt through it for the offending exchange, I have posted on it here (the exchange and the truth of the matter per George Weigel).

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/10/13/homosexualist-ideologue-andrew-sullivan-slanders-pope-benedict-xvi/

“The crisis of sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance has been seized upon by the Church’s enemies to cripple it, morally and financially, and to cripple its leaders.”

If you haven’t seen these guys in action, you should check it out. And see the response just in case you are ever in a room where somebody dares to repeat this calumny.

dj
 
Were not those who did the abuse homosexuals? is this guy blind?
 
Wow. This is just so sickening. I hope and pray that this man becomes enlightened with the Truth.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I haven’t seen any fMRI scan results which show the sexuality of the abusing priests. Have you?
Click to expand...
When the majority of victims are teenage boys, and every single priest by definition is male, one does not need scientific evidence or a signed note from God to determine that the majority of abusers were homosexual.
 
Borealis said:
When the majority of victims are teenage boys, and every single priest by definition is male, one does not need scientific evidence or a signed note from God to determine that the majority of abusers were homosexual.
Click to expand...
So every male rape within a male prison where every prisoner is by definition male also doesn’t need scientific evidence or a signed note from God to determine that the majority of rapists in prisons are homosexual???
 
Borealis said:
When the majority of victims are teenage boys, and every single priest by definition is male, one does not need scientific evidence or a signed note from God to determine that the majority of abusers were homosexual.
Click to expand...
Actually, you do need scientific evidence because sexuality is not as black and white as you and others have tried to portray it. There are numerous categories of sexual orientation and the act alone does not define the sexual nature of the offender. An fMRI scan is needed to determine which category of sexual orienation the offender falls into.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I haven’t seen any fMRI scan results which show the sexuality of the abusing priests. Have you?
Click to expand...
the overwhelming majority of cases were between adult male priests and teenage boys. Sounds like homosexual activity to me.
 
djeter said:
http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sullivan-11239_460x345.jpg?w=450&h=337

Perhaps the best response to this is "So what else is new?’ but I offer up the transcript from the Charlie Rose show the other night on PBS.

charlierose.com/view/interview/11239#frame_top

If you don’t want to hunt through it for the offending exchange, I have posted on it here (the exchange and the truth of the matter per George Weigel).

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/10/13/homosexualist-ideologue-andrew-sullivan-slanders-pope-benedict-xvi/

“The crisis of sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance has been seized upon by the Church’s enemies to cripple it, morally and financially, and to cripple its leaders.”

If you haven’t seen these guys in action, you should check it out. And see the response just in case you are ever in a room where somebody dares to repeat this calumny.

dj
Click to expand...
I agree this falls under the “So what else is new?” File.

And Sullivan, believe it or not, is generally Conservative/Libertarian on most things. :rolleyes:

You think this is bad? Try reading and listening to some of his opinions on Sarah Palin. The man has a near-psychopathic irrational hatred of the woman. 😊
 
Brickmaker said:
So every male rape within a male prison where every prisoner is by definition male also doesn’t need scientific evidence or a signed note from God to determine that the majority of rapists in prisons are homosexual???
Click to expand...
Are you seriously going to postulate that priests and prisoners are no different?

Denial is not only a river in Egypt, it’s also a pre-requisite to be a liberal.
 
Borealis said:
Are you seriously going to postulate that priests and prisoners are no different?

Denial is not only a river in Egypt, it’s also a pre-requisite to be a liberal.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t what I was postulating …but then you know that.

Answer my question: are all male rapes in male prisons evidence that the rapists are homosexual?
 
Brickmaker said:
That wasn’t what I was postulating …but then you know that.

Answer my question: are all male rapes in male prisons evidence that the rapists are homosexual?
Click to expand...
Hey, I’ll bite. No, it’s doubtful that men in prison are all homosexuals.

Now will you answer my question? What the hey does any of that have to do with homosexual priests abusing teenage boys and young men?

As George Weigel has noted:

“The overwhelming majority of abuse cases was homosexual molestation. According to press reports, confirmed by the studies of reputable scholars, the most prominent form of clergy sexual abuse in recent decades has involved homosexual priests abusing teenage boys and young men.

It took editors, television personalities, and radio talk-show hosts approximately two and a half months to recognize what print reporters had, in fact, been uncovering for months: namely, that the overwhelming majority of cases of abuse did not involve prepubescent children, but rather teenage boys and young men, often in school or seminary settings. While clinical distinctions (“Fixated ephebophilia,” “regressed” or “stunted” homosexuality) may be helpful for purposes of professional study and therapy, normal English describes such abuse as homosexual molestation.”

Purveyors of gay culture prefer to call what happened as “pedophilia” but the dirty truth cited below shows otherwise. Weigel has written elsewhere:

Pedophile priests – in the classic sense of men who habitually abuse prepubescent children – are not the majority of cleric sexual abusers; they are, in fact, a small minority of malfeasant clergy, although they are arguably the most loathsome form of the clerical sexual predator.

That the shorthand of “pedophilia crisis” was being used …months after even gay activists were conceding that the overwhelming majority of the abuses reported involved homosexual men molesting teenage boys or young males suggested that the moniker “pedophilia crisis” served agendas other than factual accuracy. Were the crisis of clerical sexual abuse to be described accurately – as a crisis whose principle manifestation was homosexual molestation – other questions about gay culture might well be raised.

Reading selections from the John Jay Report here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/10/26/reading-selections-the-nature-and-scope-of-the-problem-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-and-deacons-in-the-united-states/

So what are you “postulating” here?

Thanks.

dj
 
Brickmaker said:
So every male rape within a male prison where every prisoner is by definition male also doesn’t need scientific evidence or a signed note from God to determine that the majority of rapists in prisons are homosexual???
Click to expand...
Is he talking about people in prisons?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Actually, you do need scientific evidence because sexuality is not as black and white as you and others have tried to portray it. There are numerous categories of sexual orientation and the act alone does not define the sexual nature of the offender. An fMRI scan is needed to determine which category of sexual orienation the offender falls into.
Click to expand...
Well. If you are male. And you have sex with other males. You’re a homosexual. No mri needed.
 
latin_rite said:
Well. If you are male. And you have sex with other males. You’re a homosexual. No mri needed.
Click to expand...
Well, at least they are homosexual acts. Whether or not they are gay is a different question. I do believe repeat acts between two males makes for a strong argument of the existence of homosexuality and that does NOT require an MRI of any kind.

It all comes down to sin.
 
irishpatrick said:
Well, at least they are homosexual acts. Whether or not they are gay is a different question. I do believe repeat acts between two males makes for a strong argument of the existence of homosexuality and that does NOT require an MRI of any kind.

It all comes down to sin.
Click to expand...
One does not necessarily need to be homosexual to engage in homsexual SEX, but the point remaiins that whatever one’s sexual “orientation” truly is, the acts themselves are “gravely disordered” (according to the Magisterium) and just plain sinful. Period.Good point, Irishpatrick. 👍
 
latin_rite said:
Well. If you are male. And you have sex with other males. You’re a homosexual. No mri needed.
Click to expand...
That is an incorrect assumption. There are several classifications of sexual orientation which could involve MSM with neither party being homosexual.
 
Andrew Sullivan is an op-ed columnist and a blog opinion writer. Him expressing an opinion on an interview show is not a hard news story.

Please review the forum rules posted at the top of the forum about linking to a news story when starting a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top