Saturday, November 25, 2006

Another post from retirement...

As I sit here in the virtual retirement community, my thoughts go back the heady days of blogging, and I hop online to page through the website of that repulsive little rag I love to hate, the Kansas City Star. Whenever I didn't have anything to say, I could go to and get fuel for an instant rant.

What's been in it lately?

On Thursday, a report on the chancery rats' plan* to put the church out of business in Wyandotte County: lull the parishioners to sleep with administrative consolidations, quietly transfer money from the solvent parishes to the ones that are broke, and keep the buildings open for a year or two, so that no one's looking when they start selling off property. Folks at Holy Family, and St. Cyril's, and Our Lady & St. Rose, don't think for a moment you've dodged the bullet! Look at what Meitler did in St. Louis. It's still coming....

And today, the Saturday Faith spread....always a good laugh (or it would be if you didn't cry out for the lost souls who put it together). Bill Tammeus thinks it would be a good idea if that evangelical preacher Ted Haggard would embrace his sin, rather than repent of it. Gotta love this line:

If people assume their sexual orientation is sinful, there’s no way they can love their truest selves. That means a balanced, loving, authentic, responsible life of service to others is impossible.
See it's sexual "orientation," what we used to quaintly call "temptation," that evil, orthodox Christians condemn, it's not the act of will--i.e., actually engaging in buggery. Because, of course, we don't have free will. We aren't creatures of reason (except for the folks running the Stowers Institute. They are.). We're all beasts, subject to our passions, etc, etc., etc.

Now I remember why the Curmudgeons don't take the Star.


*I'm not including the Archbishop among the rats, but I do wonder why he won't get a cat, or at least set some traps. His brother priest from St. Louis, now his episcopal neighbor, has made good use of his, but could probably spare a few.


cranky said...

You really nailed this one. Great work.

Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm. said...

Excellent post, my friend, but I tagged you with a meme!

Anonymous said...

How would it read if the words were switched?

If he’s talking about what appears now to be his beastial orientation, what if he finally were to reject the destructive idea that it’s sinful? What if, instead of fighting for much of his adult life against who he truly is sexually, he were to learn to embrace his beastiality as a divine gift that must, like all gifts, be used responsibly and lovingly?

Haggard seems to me to be just one more self-hating, closeted animal lover who thinks the Bible and God condemn animal husbandry. There no doubt will always be debate about this subject, but on the basis of careful study, I — and many other Christians — have concluded that the Bible does not at all condemn what today we are coming to understand as beastial orientation. In fact, it even has precious little to say about beastial acts.

Let's not even think about switching out words with paedophilia.