Damian Thompson has launched an astonishing attack on Fr Zuhlsdorf for a blogpost on the murder of a Catholic lady by a homosexual in 2002 which has been highlighted by a Catholic Bishop in Springfield, Illinois.
I would agree that the original blogpost seemed to fit the 'sweeping generalisation' label, but there is much to get the head nodding in Fr Z's post, most of which was said, surprisingly perhaps, by a Bishop. If a Priest wants to say something about the homosexual political movement must he always, in every instance, distinguish between the 'nice' homosexuals who just want to 'get along' and the homosexuals who want to kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle? Are we saying that within the 'gay community' there is nobody who wants to see its opponents silenced, if necessary, by force? I think that would be most naive.
When Fr Z says, 'this is where we are heading', it seems obvious to me that open persecution by the homosexual movement - even violent persecution - could well be where we are headed. The gay political movement need not force those who disagree with the overpowering of Western civilisation by the homosexual movement, of course, because they are doing quite well at getting the Government (and the media) to do the persecuting for them. 'Same-sex marriage' will see to that.
Perhaps there is something wrong with me but I don't see anything that has me leaping out of my chair in horror in Fr Z's post. Perhaps I need to be sent to some kind of Government re-education camp or something, but I don't really get why Damian has exploded. With the best will in the world, I do sometimes get irritated by Catholics in the mainstream media who really have said very little in defence of marriage and feel unable to launch any kind of attack on its abolition by a 'gay rights' agenda-led Government, but who will happily expend energy in attacking a Priest for highlighting something the media tend to ignore. Fr Z has corrected much of what could be interpreted as offensive in his original post.
17 comments:
I'm glad you've blogged about this because I can't see Damian's problem either. Where exactly is the 'anti-gay bigotry'? He doesn't explain himself. Several people on his blog have asked him the same thing but he hasn't got back to them
It seems to me he's either written this in haste or anger. Underlying it all I think is that he wavers on the orthodox teaching on homosexuality/homosexual acts. I'm not 100% convinced he accepts it given some of the things I've seen him write in the past. To be fair to him though he seems to be orthodox on everything else and also his Holy Smoke blog gave other people the courage/impetus to start their own blogs and challenge the liberal status quo.
"Homosexuals are winning their battles one by one. The next battle they will wage, with the help of the MSM, is to lower the age of consent. Mark my words."
I've been saying this for years and years and years. It never was, is, or ever will be about 'gay rights'; it has always been about the eventual normalization of pedophilic relationships.
This is why destroying the one thing that protects the child - the family - has been so rabidly pursued by the marxist 'Change Agents' all these years.
The whole agenda is demonic. And not just one aspect of it either: the project of death and corruption that is abortion or euthanasia or perverted sexuality is all and always satanic.
I agree Laurence, that is a most odd stance for Damian to take.
Me neither Lawrence. I am getting totally p*****d of with Master Thompson.
He exploded because the evil spirits do not like light shone upon them.
I think that is a little OTT.
I'm exhausted from commenting on Fr Z's post which is truly hateful and now compounded by a disingenuous moderation of his remarks. Thank goodness Damian took up the cudgels.
Do you have a propensity towards violent crime Bones? Fr Z thinks you do.
No, I don't think that is what Fr Z said at all, at least not what he meant.
You could say it need not have been said, but obviously he has heard of some appalling violent crimes committed by homosexuals.
It doesn't necessarily follow that he is saying all homosexuals are violent monsters because, as he says, that would be ridiculous.
''It doesn't necessarily follow that he is saying all homosexuals are violent monsters because, as he says, that would be ridiculous.''
...but that is exactly what his original comment said (now moderated and doing some quick back-peddling) that homosexuals as a group have a higher propensity to violence. Such a sweeping generalisation and not backed up by any statistical evidence (because there isn't any). His comments were ridiculous which is why it is receiving such a backlash.
Looking at the court transcript, actually it very much looks like this woman was persecuting this guy who had mental health issues. He had been physically and emotionally abused by his mother and claims that he found her constant confrontations to be persecutory until he snapped - not to make excuses for what he did but it does put the unfortunate affair into context. She appears to have insinuated that he was a paedophile. Her language does not appear to be that of a saint.
Guttierez was a 19-year old bisexual living openly with a 38-year old self-identified homosexual man. There is no indication that he was “sleeping with boys”. The court record says:
Scacchitti testified that he is homosexual and defendant is bisexual. In November 2002, he and defendant were living openly as a couple in an apartment above the funeral home….
Soon after Sikorksi terminated Scacchitti’s and defendant’s employment, she hired Mary Stachowicz, whom Scacchitti knew from St. Hyacinth, the church across the street. Scacchitti testified that Mary knew he was homosexual and never confronted him or questioned his beliefs. However, defendant and the State stipulated that Angela Ruffolo, Mary’s daughter, would testify that her mother did not like defendant and Ray and did not approve of their lifestyle.
There were no witnesses to the encounter between Guttierez and Mary Stachowicz, so all we know is what he said in his confession, which may not be reliable. Here is how that is reported in the court record, excpt that I’ve substituted periods for some letters.
On November 13, 2002, he went to the flower shop with Scacchitti and got into a disagreement with him about the path his life was taking. Defendant stated that he left the flower shop and returned to the apartment. He entered the apartment through the door on George Street that leads directly up the staircase to his apartment. When he opened the door, Mary opened the door to the staircase from the lobby of the funeral home and said, “Oh, it’s you.” Defendant gave her a disrespectful wave of his hand, as if to say, “Don’t bother me,” and continued up the stairs. He stated that Mary started to close the door, stopped, opened it back up, and asked, “Why do you f..k boys?” Defendant told her to “f..k off” and continued up the stairs.
Defendant stated that Mary followed him up the stairs and asked, “Why don’t you like girls? Why do you f..k boys?” He entered his apartment and shut the door. He heard banging on the door and started to lose control. He opened the door, grabbed Mary by the hair, and dragged her into the apartment. She slapped and kicked him, and he let her go. He backed up into the dining room, and Mary followed him, asking, “Why don’t you like girls?” He slapped Mary, and she slapped him back. As he continued backing up through the kitchen to the den, he “lost total control of himself.” He punched Mary in her jaw, knocking her to the ground. He grabbed a knife that was on top of some boxes and stabbed her and hit her until he became exhausted.
Bones, that is what he said before he moderated his comments in such a disingenuous way (in response to, I quote, 'spittle-flecked nutjobs').
Sorry, no, he talked of people having a 'spittle-flecked nutty'. The one thing you can be sure of with FR Z is that you're never going to witness any humility!
Damian hasn't actually had the courage to point out exactly what he objects to.
Fr. Z said nothing of the sort that homosexuals have a propensity towards violent crime. I understood his statement to say that often the most brutal crimes committed have been done so by homosexuals. A big difference, now if you want to insist he is a bigot prove his statement wrong rather than attacking your interpretation of his words.
Let all the poison that is in the mud hatch out!
"She appears to have insinuated that he was a paedophile."
Andrew rex: no, I have to say that I don't think she did really insinuate that at all. Her use of the word "boys" can be taken in the loosest sense as applying to men generally. After all, she used "girls" in a similar sense later on.
Post a Comment