Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[Eric_Prine]

I often object to Biblical references (such as how this duck man used them) because they are not qualified by other teachings that soften the blow or contradict the apparent message in some ways. Do all those people who engage in those sins he noted end up in hell? No. Is the sin or punishment of one sexual perpetrator the same for another who commits the same act? Again, no. So that is one reason we have to refrain from calling out a sin and its definitive consequences. Jesus gave us His Church to be the authority on these matters and also in the interpretation of Scripture. And I believe the Catholic Church, far and away, is non-judgmental on the sins of others. They do not shy away from calling something a sin, such as abortion, but they do not condemn souls. None. Even if some here may think Scripture is doing it (i.e. condemning souls), I do not. This why when asked about gays Pope Francis said “who am I to judge?".

Well said. This Phil Robertson thing has annoyed me. I think the biggest reason is he is unqualified to say anything. People talk about free speech, but it doesn’t mean he is qualified to give his opinion. It would be the same as a celebrity giving so called qualified advice on medical issues over someone in the medical community. Maybe the whole bearded rogue interpreting the bible himself is what appeals to my Protestant friends, but our just makes me think about how much we need the Church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

he is unqualified to say anything. People talk about free speech, but it doesn’t mean he is qualified to give his opinion.

If he is baptized, he has a certain call to evangelize in some way. If you didn’t like his approach or style or wording, that argument can be made, but to presume he should be completely silent and forbidden to “give his opinion” on moral issues that pervade Christian thought? CCC#1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

 

[Eric_Prine]

If he is baptized, he has a certain call to evangelize in some way. If you didn’t like his approach or style or wording, that argument can be made, but to presume he should be completely silent and forbidden to “give his opinion” on moral issues that pervade Christian thought?

​

Okay, you got me there . As a former fundamentalist, fundamentalists tend to get under my skin more than other groups but you have a point. If only he had the sacraments and the guidance of the Church, I would like to believe he would have put things much more eloquently.
​

​

 

[Sheeniac]

Free the Duck man, little crude but hasn’t he been right along? He crossed the proverbial line?

Interestingly enough, his crudeness is based firmly in Natural Law. Certain organs were meant for each other.

 

[Sheeniac]

Well said. This Phil Robertson thing has annoyed me. I think the biggest reason is he is unqualified to say anything. People talk about free speech, but it doesn’t mean he is qualified to give his opinion. It would be the same as a celebrity giving so called qualified advice on medical issues over someone in the medical community. Maybe the whole bearded rogue interpreting the bible himself is what appeals to my Protestant friends, but our just makes me think about how much we need the Church.

This reply is for both you and vanityofvanitys. His full discussion touched on treating people with love and respect, and that whether someone gets to heaven is between that person and God.

I know that this is just a manufactured controversy, but if you are going to state opinions, it’s best to click through and try to read the actual statements, rather than rely on what any given article says as a summary.

His whole statement sounds very Francis-like.

(edited to fix ‘live’ to ‘love’)

 

[Dawnia]

Well said. This Phil Robertson thing has annoyed me. I think the biggest reason is he is unqualified to say anything. People talk about free speech, but it doesn’t mean he is qualified to give his opinion. It would be the same as a celebrity giving so called qualified advice on medical issues over someone in the medical community. Maybe the whole bearded rogue interpreting the bible himself is what appeals to my Protestant friends, but our just makes me think about how much we need the Church.

He was asked what his own personal view was. He is certainly qualified to do that.

 

[zab]

A&E is done. The only thing they left for them is the new Mark Walhberg show “Wahlburgers” a show about the Wahlbergs and their family own burger restaurant in Mark Wahlberg’s hometown of Boston. Wonder how A&E will react if they someday find out Mark is a devout Catholic who goes to mass twice on Sundays and is not really the wild party guy he plays on screen.

Seriously though A&E are stupid. They know the Robertsons are Christians and they should know what Christians believe in. Why bother picking up the show if they knew that their beliefs do not match theirs?

I read this article from the National Catholic Registerthat may have the answer:
“…This is what happened. The whole idea of the show was to parade these nouveau riche Christian hillbillies around so that we could laugh at them. “Look at them,” we were supposed to say. “Look how backward they are! Look what they believe! Can you believe they really live this way and believe this stuff? See how they don’t fit in? HAHAHA”
When the producers saw the way the show was shaping up, different than they envisioned it, they tried to change course. They tried to get the Robertson’s to tone down their Christianity, but to their eternal credit they refused. They tried to add fake cussin’ to the show by inserting bleeps where no cussword was uttered. At best, they wanted to make the Robertson’s look like crass buffoons. At worst they wanted them to look like hypocrites.
They desperately wanted us to laugh at the Robertsons. Instead, we loved them…”

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/duck-dynasty-the-show-that-got-away-from-them#ixzz2o22M6SdC

 

[zab]

Robertson Family Official Statement
duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement

 

[vanityofvanitys]

This reply is for both you and vanityofvanitys. His full discussion touched on treating people with love and respect, and that whether someone gets to heaven is between that person and God.

I know that this is just a manufactured controversy, but if you are going to state opinions, it’s best to click through and try to read the actual statements, rather than rely on what any given article says as a summary.

His whole statement sounds very Francis-like.

(edited to fix ‘live’ to ‘love’)

Thank you Sheeniac for your comments. First of all, in defense of Eric Prine, I do not see this poster objecting to the duck Christian or any other Christian giving their opinion on the Bible or what Jesus may think. I see him (like me) a little bothered by the fact that some opinions are incorrect and too many outside the Church take that as Church teachings or Bible teachings. It is a lament more than an objection to some Christian doing what he feels is his duty.

Here is the text in question from the GQ article:

**GQ: What, in your mind, is sinful?

Phil: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” **

For me I can live with that. For the secular public and the media that wants to besmirch Christianity any way it can think of, this statement comes off very judgmental. It says to them (paraphrase) “If I am a homosexual I will not be allowed into heaven, period.” It says more than that, too, obviously, but that is the message that is putting America in a frenzy. And I am saying that message needs to be addressed and cleared up. And the pope or Catholic teaching would be capable of that.

Maybe duckman should have done so himself knowing it would be somewhat mistaken in how it read. Or maybe he believes it like that, I don’t know? I personally think it implies a wrong message.

 

[Sheeniac]

Vanity - Did you blame B16 when his comments about violence and islam were misrepresented? Of Francis when ‘they’ quote him but leave off important words?

"
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

SNIP

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost."

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Read More gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o2EL5plT

Except that he DOES explain himself. I think it’s borderline sinful to disparage him for not clearly communicating when he DOES communicate his beliefs.

(edited because way too much copied in when I pasted parts of the article)

 

[Costner]

I read this article from the National Catholic Register that may have the answer:
“…This is what happened. The whole idea of the show was to parade these nouveau riche Christian hillbillies around so that we could laugh at them. “Look at them,” we were supposed to say. “Look how backward they are! Look what they believe! Can you believe they really live this way and believe this stuff? See how they don’t fit in? HAHAHA”
When the producers saw the way the show was shaping up, different than they envisioned it, they tried to change course. They tried to get the Robertson’s to tone down their Christianity, but to their eternal credit they refused. They tried to add fake cussin’ to the show by inserting bleeps where no cussword was uttered. At best, they wanted to make the Robertson’s look like crass buffoons. At worst they wanted them to look like hypocrites.
They desperately wanted us to laugh at the Robertsons. Instead, we loved them…”

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/duck-dynasty-the-show-that-got-away-from-them#ixzz2o22M6SdC

Makes sense now. Look at A&E’s other shows like intervention, beyond scared straight, and hoarders. All these shows listed were made just so people can laugh at them. They tired to do the same thing with the Robertsons but that plan backfired. People actually love them and rightfully so

 

[vanityofvanitys]

Vanity - Did you blame B16 when his comments about violence and islam were misrepresented? Of Francis when ‘they’ quote him but leave off important words?

"
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

SNIP

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost."

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Read More gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o2EL5plT

Except that he DOES explain himself. I think it’s borderline sinful to disparage him for not clearly communicating when he DOES communicate his beliefs.

(edited because way too much copied in when I pasted parts of the article)

Ok, Sheeniac. You win. I’m wrong. Duckman did make explain himself well enough for any of us to understand what he was saying and what he meant. Good on him. I’m on his side and I retract my lament. I was a stooge thinking the media was telling it truthfully.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Thank you Sheeniac for your comments. First of all, in defense of Eric Prine, I do not see this poster objecting to the duck Christian or any other Christian giving their opinion on the Bible or what Jesus may think. I see him (like me) a little bothered by the fact that some opinions are incorrect and too many outside the Church take that as Church teachings or Bible teachings. It is a lament more than an objection to some Christian doing what he feels is his duty.

Here is the text in question from the GQ article:

**GQ: What, in your mind, is sinful?

Phil: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” **

For me I can live with that. For the secular public and the media that wants to besmirch Christianity any way it can think of, this statement comes off very judgmental. It says to them (paraphrase) “If I am a homosexual I will not be allowed into heaven, period.” It says more than that, too, obviously, but that is the message that is putting America in a frenzy. And I am saying that message needs to be addressed and cleared up. And the pope or Catholic teaching would be capable of that.

Maybe duckman should have done so himself knowing it would be somewhat mistaken in how it read. Or maybe he believes it like that, I don’t know? I personally think it implies a wrong message.

What I find interesting is that Robertson lays over-emphasis on homosexuality as if it were the root of all other sins. Excuse me? If anything, one could more plausibly assert that America’s downfall began in the sixties with rampant heterosexual freedom, with the gay rights movement springing to life in its wake. His causality and his view of history seem distorted, and he’s got a huge audience lapping up every word of this as if it were Gospel truth.

Now, as far as his Christian convictions or the wrongness of the way A&E is trying to use this family, I don’t question that. I also agree Catholic teaching and authority is definitely needed here.

 

[Dawnia]

What I find interesting is that Robertson lays over-emphasis on homosexuality as if it were the root of all other sins. Excuse me? If anything, one could more plausibly assert that America’s downfall began in the sixties with rampant heterosexual freedom, with the gay rights movement springing to life in its wake. His causality and his view of history seem distorted, and he’s got a huge audience lapping up every word of this as if it were Gospel truth.

Now, as far as his Christian convictions or the wrongness of the way A&E is trying to use this family, I don’t question that. I also agree Catholic teaching and authority is definitely needed here.

There was a lot more to the interview than just the few sentences quoted in the article. We don’t get to see those quotes in context of the overall discussion. We only get to see what the author cherry picked for the article. The GQ article wasn’t unbiased reporting.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Moonshine summit:

nationalreview.com/corner/366854/log-cabin-republicans-invite-duck-dynastys-robertson-moonshine-summit-andrew-johnson

 

[MarcoPolo]

As a former fundamentalist, fundamentalists tend to get under my skin more than other groups but you have a point. If only he had the sacraments and the guidance of the Church, I would like to believe he would have put things much more eloquently.

:tiphat:

 

[Pulvis]

Sometimes, I think we forget this:

The Spiritual Works of Mercy
Admonish the sinner
**Instruct the ignorant **(This and the next work are extremely pertinent categories today, when so many people are confused by what the Church teaches on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc.)
Counsel the doubtful
Comfort the sorrowful
Bear wrongs patiently
Forgive all injuries
Pray for the living and the dead

from catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1017

I know these are not proper under the current PC code, but I couldn’t care less about being PC.
Gospel of St. Luke, ch. 12
" [8] And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God.
[9] But he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. "

Scripture from drbo.org/index.htm

 

[colmywaykurtz]

There was a lot more to the interview than just the few sentences quoted in the article. We don’t get to see those quotes in context of the overall discussion. We only get to see what the author cherry picked for the article. The GQ article wasn’t unbiased reporting.

I’m a bit confused. When you say “the interview,” are you referring to the GQ piece by Drew Magary, or is there some other interview you are referring to?

 

[fontgoddess]

I’ve never seen the show, don’t care to read the interview, but would like to ask why as Christians we are so thin-skinned? Didn’t Jesus say we’d be insulted and persecuted for following Him? And considering that Christians around the world are actually being killed in significant numbers, I think we should be grateful that we are free to worship in peace, and speak out about our faith without being killed or imprisoned. This guy is not suffering at all, unless it makes him sad that he can’t be on the show. He was a millionaire before the show happened and he’ll be a millionaire if he never gets in front of the camera again. If anything, he’s better known now than he was before, and mostly in a positive way. The people who were offended by what he said weren’t fans and probably never would be, regardless.

 

[Jimmy_B]

It seemed like a lot of the supporters of homosexuality jumped-on the statement where he was quoting 1 Corinthians 6: 9,10. Because of this, on TV he was called a “bigot” and a “homophobe” and some believed that he might have even committed a “hate crime”. Does this mean that if some have their way… that simply reciting the bible, could one day amount to a “hate crime”? What’s happening to the world today?

Merry Christmas everyone!