Bishop Schneider: "obvious Manipulation" At Synod

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, so I'll concede that many parts of it are fine.  And it probably does read that way to someone like yourself who sympathizes with him.  He's not being asked to sacrifice to pagan gods on pain of martyrdom, though, which is the metaphor he used. I don't like it when people throw around martyr metaphors willy-nilly. :P

Yeah, but in the wider context of sacrifice to pagan idols, it makes better sense. I.e. denying the easy way out that pleases the world, in favour of remaining faithful to the Church at personal cost. I think it is clearly true that the traditional Catholic line does require great personal sacrifice, contrary to a rather easier way out that does please the world.

[An Historian]

I have a friend who was visiting Wigratzbad a few years ago when he had the pleasure of first seeing the good bishop.  He didn't know who he was at the time, nor even that he was a bishop.  He was walking along the street when a car pulled up ahead of him, and fifty seminarians—you know what those seminarians are like!—poured out of the little Fiat and knelt right there in the street to receive a blessing from the bishop who was out on his own walk.  He is held in extremely high esteem by students, priests and lay folk alike.

[Benedictus]

We are not so enslaved to our passions that we cannot change, repent and sin no more. The idea of once gay always gay is closed minded nonsense.

So you'd argue the idea of once heterosexual always heterosexual is closed minded nonsense.  I don't agree with that sort of logic but if you're a bit more fluid in your attractions then I'm sure nobody here will blush. :cool:

 

 Remember those scandals about the politicians or other leaders who were secretly gay? It's unhealthy to repress or in other ways never come to terms with your inclinations.  Third, it allows heterosexuals to remain in the comfortable position that they really don't need to acknowledge that gay practicing Catholics are people that really do exist, and doesn't challenge them to get over their own inappropriate prejudices against people who identify as non-heterosexual.
 

Sometimes those with the most to prove to themselves shout the loudest on morality issues, it's a self hatred of sorts. (even using a megaphone from way back in Narnia). It reminds me of Cardinal Keith O'Brien - he was known to comment on the issues more than some other Cardinals, then he'd flip flop and come backwith harsh remarks. He was seen as fairly harsh in his province once he was elevated. He was living a life of celibate virtue right? No, he got exposed for propositioning junior priests and having sex behind closed doors. :hmmm:
If you hang around Catholic forums and groups long enough you see the same thing. Patterns of certain individuals having rants about 'sex issues' (usually homosexuality), making cutting comments and they attempt to mould a conservative persona. Often you'll eventually see some them running off into the sunset with a same sex partner (or something like that). We have to put up with the difficult ones who don't mellow out or find a sunset. :sad:

[An Historian]

[quote]Sometimes those with the most to prove to themselves shout the loudest on morality issues, it's a self hatred of sorts. (even using a megaphone from way back in Narnia). It reminds me of Cardinal Keith O'Brien - he was known to comment on the issues more than some other Cardinals, then he'd flip flop and come backwith harsh remarks. He was seen as fairly harsh in his province once he was elevated. He was living a life of celibate virtue right? No, he got exposed for propositioning junior priests and having sex behind closed doors. :hmmm:

If you hang around Catholic forums and groups long enough you see the same thing. Patterns of certain individuals having rants about 'sex issues' (usually homosexuality), making cutting comments and they attempt to mould a conservative persona. Often you'll eventually see some them running off into the sunset with a same sex partner (or something like that). We have to put up with the difficult ones who don't mellow out or find a sunset. :sad:[quote]

 

Seriously...?  Did you really just trumpet the old cannard that those that vocally call a spade a spade are just repressed homosexuals?  Come on, man.

 

Incidentally, the sins of Cardinal O'Brien were committed decades before he was elevated to the Cardinalate.  There was never any evidence that he committed any act of sex with another male, not even by his accusers.  And everything he said on the issue of homosexuality was entirely orthodox and sound Catholic doctrine.  You don't have to live up to the truth to preach it.

 

Edited November 5, 2014 by An Historian

[KnightofChrist]

So you'd argue the idea of once heterosexual always heterosexual is closed minded nonsense. I don't agree with that sort of logic but if you're a bit more fluid in your attractions then I'm sure nobody here will blush. :cool:

No I would not. It is possible for any man to do good or to do evil. God did not create us to be good or evil in the way the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Man is not an collective of automatons.

[Lilllabettt]

So you'd argue the idea of once heterosexual always heterosexual is closed minded nonsense. 

 

 

Yes. It is closed minded nonsense.

 

The idea of indelibly fixed sexuality is an invention of homophobia. 

[Benedictus]

Seriously...?  Did you really just trumpet the old cannard that those that vocally call a spade a spade are just repressed homosexuals?  Come on, man.
 

I didn't say all, come on. I know other people say the same things, but then, they tend to say the same things on equal measure to all things. That's a different potato. I said there was a cohort who match that bill and fit this specific pattern. It is clear to see they have fixations, stuggle and then over compensate. I'm surprised you've never seen it, but whatever.
 

 

 

Incidentally, the sins of Cardinal O'Brien were committed decades before he was elevated to the Cardinalate.  There was never any evidence that he committed any act of sex with another male, not even by his accusers.

OK -  Some people would like to keep the 'it was years ago' myth going. I thought the time for downplaying the sexual woes of clergy was over, but obviously not. I'm not interested in certain 'managed' stories that play damage limitation. There were reasons, and pressing ones, why the information come out when it did. Many of the clergy, and others, knew about this for years. He moved many who opposed him or spoke up. It has trickled out beyond that diocese now to people 'in the know'. It's been ignored by others who'd rather not know. Let me know when the Vatican decides if he can keep his titles, voting rights and or whether he can remain in Scotland. Clergy have said openly he is manipulative and a liar.
It's like the relationship Bishop Conry was having with his 'female friend' for all those years. It was going on for years and people reported it again and again. It was ignored. Everyone knew. He finally resigned, making it look like it weighed heavily upon him. But who made him go? It wasn't the Bishops, it was the woman who changed gear! When the notice was read out most people said 'no surprises there then'.
 

 

 

 And everything he said on the issue of homosexuality was entirely orthodox and sound Catholic doctrine.  You don't have to live up to the truth to preach it.

 

Struggling to follow what he thought was right, being celibate (he was a priest afterall) is one thing. Being a repulsive liar and hypocrite is another.

[Benedictus]

Yes. It is closed minded nonsense.

 

The idea of indelibly fixed sexuality is an invention of homophobia. 

 

There's a spectrum where people find themselves. But people don't really bounce all over the place from where they are. There's no support for that. It isn't that fluid. But maybe you, KnightofChrist and Socrates need to meet for a coffee. You seem to disagree

[Norseman82]

 

 

Which is not a super charitable thing for me to say, I know, but I'm tired of all of the inflammatory language.

 

I will repost what I posted in another thread an excerpt of an interview Cardinal George gave to the Chicago Tribune: 

 

"'I regret if I've spoken in a way that people weren't able to hear,' he said. 'If I'm to be silenced for fear of hurting someone now, what happens to the conversation?' he added. 'I'm sorry, I don't want to hurt anybody. But if you say, 'Unless you agree with me I'll be hurt', well, that's not a just demand. I'm hurt by that'".

 

http://www.chicagotr...1020-story.html

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/135997-heres-a-bomb/page-4

 

 

 

But this guy's throwing a public tantrum. At least when Burke spoke, most of the time he was extremely measured and reasonable, especially regarding the synod.

 

I recall an episode where Christ turned over tables in the Temple that would make this "tantrum" look like a baby burping.

[Credo in Deum]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider rules!

[Slappo]

So you'd argue the idea of once heterosexual always heterosexual is closed minded nonsense. 

I would.

 

My mother, married to my father for ~20 years left him for a woman. She went to a touchy feeling super high emotion retreat and left the retreat cheating on him.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Slappo

[Nihil Obstat]

It is a sad day when a faithful bishop gets reamed simply for teaching as the Church has always taught.

[Credo in Deum]

I would.

My mother, married to my father for ~20 years left him for a woman. She went to a touchy feeling super high emotion retreat and left the retreat cheating on him.

I agree. All of us are fallen human beings capable of all sorts of attractions.

[KnightofChrist]

But maybe you, KnightofChrist and Socrates need to meet for a coffee.

Coffee would be great, or better yet having a modest amount of the finest Jack Daniel's whiskey and smoking cigars while riding horseback on clydesdales into the sunset as Nihil (you forgot him) fly's in on a giant eagle. We are after all totally bad assets of Phatmass.

Allons-y!

You seem to disagree

Perhaps, perhaps not. Edited November 6, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

Coffee would be great, or better yet having a modest amount of the finest Jack Daniel's whiskey and smoking cigars while riding horseback on clydesdales into the sunset as Nihil (you forgot him) fly's in on a giant eagle. We are after all totally bad assets of Phatmass.

Allons-y!

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Proposed amendment: scotch and pipe tobacco as opposed to Jack Daniel's and cigars.