Pope Benedict XVI is a kettle!

And Andrew Sullivan is, thus, the pot.

The Pope rejects the new Sarkozy-appointed French ambassador to the Vatican because he’s gay and married to a man. These facts in no way impede the man’s ability to do his job, just as being gay does not in any way impede a seminarian’s ability to be a great priest (as so many gay men have been through the centuries). But this Pope is a bigot, as we now know – and will discriminate against people just for who they are, rather than what they can professionally do.

I had intended to comment on the absurdity of this all, but someone, it seems, already has.

Excuse me, Andy, but Sarkozy appointed an individual to be ambassador to the Holly [sic] See whose lifestyle he knew would be repugnant to Catholic teaching and practice. The leadership of the Vatican made a decision to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church by rejecting this intentional affront to Catholicism. To have made this appointment is no different than if he had appointed an abortionist to the position.

Exactly. The Holy Father did not reject a gay man as ambassador; rather, he refused to accept a married gay man. The significance of this distinction is undeniable.

Look, the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I realize, isn’t “fair”; it is, of course, more understanding, compassionate, and scientifically sane than what many denominations proffer, but that hardly comforts, I suspect, most gay Catholics, particularly those sincere in their devotion to the Holy Mother Church. I sympathize with Sullivan, who seems to be sincere his his profession of the Faith — when, that is, he isn’t spitting in its face. So, to the extent that I, a heterosexual Catholic male, can, I do sympathize with his plight. I’m not entirely comfortable, at least at times, with the Church’s teaching on the subject, but I also recognize that one cannot simplify such matters just to biology; that would denigrate human sexuality into nothing more than pleasure and human love, ignoring the importance of procreation from the theological perspective and taking God qua Creator out of the picture. It’s a troubling idea, at least to me.

So, if Benedict is a bigot, then, so to, is Andrew, our pot, black in color:

I don’t think the Palin problem is fixable. She is who she is: an unqualified fundamentalist liar

Again, when Andrew is on, he’s on. When he’s off, whoa-boy, call in for back-up, because he’s probably about as far from reasonable and charitable as George W. Bush is from conservative. Seriously, someone who self-identifies as a faithful Catholic, accuses the pope of bigotry on such feeble grounds, and actually compares the Holy Father to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , particularly when the article refers to Iran’s hating Israel, has some serious issues that probably require decades’ worth of pricey counseling.


3 Responses

  1. Ah, Sully. Often wrong, never in doubt.

  2. How is Andy off? He seems to decry in both the pope and Palin any adherence to a fundamentalist teaching that does not have any basis in the words of Jesus Christ but of those in Leviticus and Romans. From your logic, Paul’s divine revelation and that of the Hebrew Old Testament supersedes that of Jesus, who says zilch on the subject. But yes, go ahead, bash a committed and married man. I am sure you will be able to look Jesus dead in the eye at the end and tell him exactly how you understood his words on the subject. I hope you will show the same treatment to Sarah Palin’s daughter who would clearly fall under Jesus’ repeated statements about fornicators.

  3. “From your logic, Paul’s divine revelation and that of the Hebrew Old Testament supersedes that of Jesus, who says zilch on the subject. But yes, go ahead, bash a committed and married man.”

    What? What? This post has nothing to do with Sullivan’s being a committed and married man, and nothing to do with bashing him, at least not qua committed and married man, gay or straight. If you read the whole post, you’ll see that I actually offer some sympathy for him as the Catholic who is gay, and the struggle that that entails. I have made absolutely no judgment of Sullivan’s homosexuality or of the rejected French ambassador’s. I’ll thank you, then, not to suggest otherwise. I do appreciate your expert thoughts on how I’ll face Christ, though. Because that’s clearly what’s at stake here.

    The entire point of this post is that he’s calling Benedict a bigot whilst all the while taking a bigoted stance against Palin (for whom I have no particular sympathy). Do you happen to read Sullivan? He kinda endured a total anti-Palin meltdown, judging her and her family, not as a blogger interested in the truth and in America’s political well-being, but with an inexplicable personal hatred. Whether the Church is right or not on homosexuality become irrelevant insofar as She does have teachings on the subject, and Benedict was enforcing them — He turned away a would-be ambassador who violated the sanctity of marriage by entering into a form of marriage forbidden. He did not, as far as we can deduce, turn away the ambassador for being gay.

    Moreover, it’s something of a stretch, don’t you think, to suggest that Paul had no authority to pronounce as he did, especially when he was echoing the OT, simply because Christ said nothing of it? This is not to say that he’s right; just that he might not have been wrong.

    Thanks for visiting and for posting; next time, though, please step down from the pulpit of moral righteousness. It’s rather unflattering when you avoid the subject of the post in order to make accusations wholly unrelated to the matter at hand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: