November 30, 2006
— Ace NTTAWWT.
I've often wondered how many straight Catholics fully appreciate how gay their church has always been. Especially in the old days. High Mass was, in its heyday, more elaborate and choreographed than a very melodramatic Broadway musical. Do people really believe that gay priests and religious had nothing to do with it? They had everything to do with it.The first time I walked into a gay disco, with all those lights, music, ritual and smoke, my immediate thought was: church! Madonna gets this, whatever Jonah says. Because she's a born-and-bred Catholic, which Jonah isn't. It's theater, sweetie, theater. And the Church once understood that - which was part of its beautiful Catholicity. Gone, now, alas. But Benedict is helping nudge it back. And although I tease him about it, it's a wonderful thing. More incense, please. And lace.
There's nothing sadder than an aging homosexualist.
Is there now any difference at all between the "conservative" Andrew Sullivan and the various queer-magazine provocateurs of the left? For precisely how long will the media insist on calling a pro-tax-raising, pro-abortion, pro-gun-law, anti-war, anti-american, pro-drug, gay-marriage-above-all-else gay leftie a "conservative"?
Yes, he does agitate for a smaller government. But generally one contrarian position is not enough to define someone as a "conservative." There are pro-death-penalty liberals, too; that single policy stance doesn't make them non-liberal. It just makes them liberals with one contrarian position.
And his agitation for "small government" is chiefly about gay marriage, too. His idea of "small government" is only secondarily animated by a desire to have the government spend less; what he really wants is a government that "stays out of the gay marriage issue," i.e., allows the courts (another branch of government, although an undemocratic one) to decide the issue.
I have a few positions that don't really fit the conservative orthodoxy. Does that make me a liberal, I wonder?
Thanks to Slublog.
Posted by: Ace at
12:59 PM
| Comments (65)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
That explains a lot. I think henceforth you can completely ignore any of Sully's pronouncements on the Catholic Church. But I'm mildly curious as to what "rituals" are involved at a gay disco.
Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2006 01:04 PM (2d9Ny)
The young boys kneel before the man in the extravagant robe and the man places flesh on their tounges.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 01:10 PM (H5l9d)
... which explains why he knelt upon entering.
~ ba dump bump , ching
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2006 01:11 PM (dTi2n)
Posted by: Sinistar at November 30, 2006 01:12 PM (5bI3V)
I mean, huh? Seriously, I think Sullivan has something wrong with his brain. Did he do too much Ecstasy once upon a time?
Posted by: meep at November 30, 2006 01:14 PM (5j3FI)
Everyone writes 'tounges', and it drives me nucking futs.
Posted by: Sinistar at November 30, 2006 01:14 PM (5bI3V)
Holy shit. He's starkers.
I'm not even Catholic anymore, and that offended me.
So, everything that involves "lights, music, ritual"...let's add, fancy window-treatments, etc.- is gay, now?
None of these things can be invented or handled competently by anyone other than homosexual men?
Because, you know...people have been chanting and painting caves and lighting fires for a long goddamn time. All the work of prehistoric fags. Wow.
Seriously. Get the net.
Posted by: lauraw at November 30, 2006 01:15 PM (XOOJ5)
Posted by: Bart at November 30, 2006 01:17 PM (MYyPa)
order in Rome..."
- Saint Andrew
link
"..."Thanks for your emails both sympathizing and
telling me to leave the Church entirely. But I am
still in shock. This was not an act of continuity.
There is simply no other figure more extreme than the
new Pope on the issues that divide the Church. No
one..."
- Saint Andrew
link
Sir,
When Joseph Ratzinger was elevated to Pope Benedict
II, Saint Andrew the Sodomite, serious, principled,
intellectual...deep thinker, and long suffering
Catholic in exile over HIS behaviour, was besides
himself. He was so despondent over the fact that the
Church was not going to sanction buggery that he
openly wondered whether he would be forced to leave
the church (I assure you that this caused many a
sleepless night at the Vatican).
I picture Andy, huddling with his "honey", Bear or
whatever pet name he has for his husband
(...wife?...partner?...), crying in his manly chest
fur, matted from drool and chocolate. Suddenly, an
epiphany (cause he's Catholic and we have those). From
the vast darkness of the new Inquisition, where
homosexuals are being tortured and slain by the new
order (wait, that was Saddam, and he's been
deposed...nevermind), a glimmer on the dark horizon.
What is it? Church enlightment on the subject of man
love? The US military agrees to no more naked
cheerleader pyramid torture? A windfull of Touberlone
chocolate? No!
"THE POPE AND PRADA: Have you seen those fabulous
Prada red shoes? He looks like Judy Garland in the
Wizard of Oz. And his ditching of the historical
tailors that have historically dressed popes? The
pontiff has even taken to wearing Gucci sunglasses,
and padded quilt jackets. And his personal assistant
looks like a GQ model. Absolutely fabulous."
Link
The man who Andy was sure was going to arrange to have
Andy and his brethren in Greek worship thrown into a
gulag has come around. Intellectually? Well, no. But
more importantly, sartorially. Even in the darkest
age, if a man can properly combine shoe and tie, there
is hope.
All this time, I thought that Andy was using torture
as a ruse to attack President Bush for not celebrating
sodomy. In fact, this principled opposition stems from
an even more fundemental difference. Bush's inability
to embrace his inner Gucci.
I know what you are thinking. Not another attack on
Saint Andy. It's like fish in a barrel. What with so
many important stories on bestiality and sex with
mannequins and other things involving bodily
functions, and only limited bandwith (because you have
not made a successful plea like Andy for big cash for
"overhead"- bandwith, chocolate, KY jelly, leather
accessories). Do you have the time for another mocking
of the now perennially comical Saint Andy?
Let me remind you.
You can never mock Saint F'n Andy enough.
Never. Enough.
Courage.
rcl
Edited by ace. Long Url tucked into a link.
Posted by: rcl at November 30, 2006 01:18 PM (a7n4N)
The gays simply co-opted Lecherous Heterosexual Christianist Ritual for their own purposes.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2006 01:19 PM (dTi2n)
Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2006 01:19 PM (cTZr/)
I can't decide if watching Andrew Sullivan lose it is deeply depressing, or the best thing ever. It's a tough call.
Posted by: sandy burger at November 30, 2006 01:20 PM (ePQxy)
A = Homosexuality
B = The Catholic Church
C = Pedophilia
If A = B (according to Andrew) and B = C (I mean who doesn't know that) then it must follow that A=C.
I'm shocked that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked but this is Andrew's world so it must be true.
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 01:20 PM (CTqCo)
Sully gets this ass backwards. Pageantry doesn't come from gays. Some gays happen to like pageantry.
He seems to think that it would never have occured to straight people that ritual plays an important part in maintaining a uniform system of belief in an age where communication over any distance was by letter. What an idiot.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2006 01:22 PM (5sI31)
Except he supports using the State (i.e. organzied violence") to overturn traditional relationships which existed prior to the State (i.e. marriage, which as always been man+women and not that "two loving people" bullshit).
He is also a sneering hyopcrite since he hates Mormons, since they expose his little "two loving people" sham for what it is. (Marriage is always been between man and a women or mulitiple women. It has nothing to do with "two-ness.")
Posted by: at November 30, 2006 01:26 PM (Gi7oA)
I have a few positions that don't really fit the conservative orthodoxy. Does that make me a liberal, I wonder?
No, it makes you gay.
There is no politics without homosexuality in Andrew's world, and there is no conservatism, even religious conservatism, without homosexuality driving it and pushing it. And he won't call himself a liberal, because it's onerous to do so. So he has defined his own little ideological island and has named it "Conservative America."
To take a fine point ... as if the only people who appreciate theater are gay people. Or more to the point, I suppose, the only people who can put on good theater are gay. Please ... go talk to Pericles, Patton, John Ford, or Gregory Peck. It's pathetic when one's jaded point of view becomes all-encompassing. Most people call it "ignorant" - the MSM calls it Sullivanesque.
Sullivan is like the old liberal canard of the "token black", except that in a fit of nuance and ironicalness, the MSM have now branded "pro-tax-raising, pro-abortion, pro-gun-law, anti-war, anti-american, pro-drug, gay-marriage-above-all-else gay leftie a "conservative" .... This is equivalent to making a play about the Abolitionist Movement in the 19th Century with David Duke as the lead.
So, Ace, since there is no conservatism without homosexuality, and there is no politics without teh gay, and since you are the contra-positive conservative, you are therefore on a political island. And since there is only room for one political island in this blogosphere, it being defined comprehensively in the negative, you can look forward to Milton the pool boy bringing you and Andrew pina coladas on the beach at sunset.
Posted by: AnalogKid at November 30, 2006 01:27 PM (Bt2Y1)
Posted by: PaleoMedic at November 30, 2006 01:27 PM (PQx1b)
But Catholics have let go of the seasonal dance by the light of the moon and have sex with random partners ritual. That must still be a gay disco thing.
Posted by: kevlarchick at November 30, 2006 01:28 PM (X98gI)
I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting I defined.
But, in a society where your choices were: Get married to a woman and have lots of kids, or become a priest, seems like many gay men would have had an easier time picking choice two than would their straight counterparts.
Not that there's anything gay about stained glass mind you. I got shitloads in my garage.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 01:33 PM (H5l9d)
10. The "Flaming Bush" is not a lesbian.
9. The "Hallelujah Chorus" is not part of "It's Raining Men"
8. Genuflection means kneeling, not bending your unit
7. The font contains holy water, not Crisco
6. It's "Jesus" not "jizz us"
5. "Hail Mary" is the beginning of a prayer, not a friendly greeting
4. When he polishes the pontiff, the man at the altar gets shiny
3. They sing "YWHW" instead of "YMCA"
2. Kneepads are provided
and
1. He doesn't burst into flame when he walks in the door
Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2006 01:37 PM (2d9Ny)
Your crusty old bong collection doesn't count!
Posted by: Sinistar at November 30, 2006 01:38 PM (5bI3V)
Good grief.
Posted by: Ed Snate at November 30, 2006 01:39 PM (vwuU8)
Posted by: Sinistar at November 30, 2006 01:40 PM (5bI3V)
Am I the only heterosexual male left on the planet?
Posted by: JackStraw at November 30, 2006 01:49 PM (t+mja)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2006 01:51 PM (dTi2n)
Posted by: Springfield Steel Workers Union at November 30, 2006 01:56 PM (J3dXR)
Those were the only two? What the hell time was this?
There also used to be the option of having a productive, happy life as a closeted gay man who didn't define his entire life by his hole preference.
Ahh...the good old days...
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 01:57 PM (QmI9R)
Posted by: Bart at November 30, 2006 01:58 PM (QYfAM)
He's really more a sad child with a large vocabulary at this point than anything else.
Posted by: Drew at November 30, 2006 02:20 PM (gNyUT)
Fuck all, this goddamned queer (literally) is so fucking tiresome. It's all part and parcel of the homosexualist (militant queer) agenda. And no, I'm not being fascecious (sp?). The so-called gay agenda is not to make everything gay, but to cast enough question on every fucking institution there is to make one wonder if everything really is gay. It's seriously insidious. Like the whole thing about a couple of guys eating dinner together. 10 years ago? Dudes' night out. Now? I wonder if they're gay? Same with the Frodo thing from a few weeks ago. Brothely love has been so polluted and corrupted by the popular culture of filth, perversion and depravity that we can no longer even envision such a thing.
Now in a screaming fit of queer theory and mental instability, Sulli leaps from the established fact that the Church was a viable means of salvation for queers (provided they kept chaste) into a manifesto of Church as Queer.
It's medacious bullshit, and he needs to get a fucking grip.
I KNOW what queers in the Church did, and it wasn't much to do with designing gowns. It was to, as Seattle put it, flop their meat around (I actually thought that was a gross but humorous line for once slough). The nasty Fuckers' permissiveness and abuse of boys nearly destroyed the Church. For bearboy Sulli to contend that the Church has always been this way is absurd, distasteful, and downright heretical. For him to claim that the queer church is the authentic, proper institution is quite simply anathema.
Though heresy seems to be his strong suit of late (anyone else notice the dig on a contraception billboard? A private billboard is not "christianism"---for fuck's sake.) "True catholic" my ass. He's a fucking Brethren of the Free Spirit.
That ass-ranger can go suck on a turd. Fithy beast.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 02:29 PM (p1s9n)
Next you'll be telling me that Peter Allen was gay.
...what?
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 02:52 PM (2+/7m)
Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2006 03:03 PM (ZCnB7)
As a man-lesbian I can say this with some authority, your comment was very homophobic.
You and wiserbud need to get together and work through your issues.
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 03:04 PM (JPo1q)
Posted by: John at November 30, 2006 03:06 PM (tROri)
Just because you're named after a woman doesn't mean you have to take the dick like one.
(How's that for homophobic?).
And to the extent that I strongly resist the queering of the culture, I'm as anti-homo as they come. However, I also think that there should be no enforced sodomy laws and that queers should be able to contract for things like hospital visitation and living wills, etc. However, that does not mean civilly recognized "unions" of any sort.
You want to be free to do abhorrent things to each other in your bedroom? Fine. But don't take it out in the light of day unless you want it ridiculed and despised. There is a societal reason that homosexuality is an unspoken-of taboo through history. It rots society if accepted openly.
Guess I'm comfortable with being that much of a bigot.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 03:16 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2006 03:40 PM (gOWR+)
I'm thrilled that in the future, you might not sound like an idiot.
Pfft, THAT'll be the day.
Besides, I like Lohanesque spelling. It's the syntax that gets me.
If this stupid moron blog had a spell check, I'd sound like my normal supergenius self.
But I do appreciate you taking the time to show you care about the continued high standards at AoSHQ. ( It really doesn't make any type of phonetic sense though.)
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 03:46 PM (p1s9n)
Anything remotely' normal sounding'will be treated as though it really didn't happen because he no longer can be seen as coherent on so many issues.
He is essentially David Brock staring at his member.
Posted by: jjshaka at November 30, 2006 03:55 PM (AWz58)
Cheers!
Erik
Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2006 03:58 PM (lmbgq)
Allah has to explain the Webb joke to them YESTERDAY.
I mean, shit, turning him over and putting his penis in the mouth? Like that's NEW or something?
What complete idioten.
No, I'm glad we're on the same page as far as tomfoolery. I'm just being (a bit more of) an ass to illustrate my complete contempt for Sulli.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 04:06 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Luther McLeod at November 30, 2006 04:28 PM (dgf4t)
My homophobic comment earlier was a snark so don't get your Wonder Woman Underoos in a bunch.
Read my earlier comments in this thread; I share similar is somewhat less militant views.
As to the clueless commenters at Hot Air regarding the Webb-upside down-penis joke, I totally agree with you.
I was reading through the comments yesterday and thought to myslef that if you don't think the Webb joke is funny, I hate you.
That's just how I feel.
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 04:30 PM (CTqCo)
I share similar if somewhat less militant views.
Stupid typo bastard keyboard from hell.
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 04:32 PM (CTqCo)
Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2006 04:46 PM (fDMNP)
no panty bunching here, but I'd probably just cream those panties anyway, if they had a pic of Linda Carter on them.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 04:50 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2006 05:13 PM (v8vVW)
Hobgoblin and Rosetta:
You want to hear something funny? The first time I commented at Hotair, ( a while back when he had that open registration) some dumb twit thought I was a troll! Yeah, me, Nice Deb.
What happened was, I had spotted a particularly loathsome troll, and made a derisive comment.
You see, in an earlier thread (about the CNN sniper video) some s.o.b. troll was making comments about how the blood of all the dead soldiers were on all of our hands. He even said this to the father of a slain soldier who had weighed in, beginning his comment with, "sniff sniff, what's that hideous stench, oh it's you ...."
So he shows up in another thread and links to a what he considers a devastatingly embarrassing column of Michelle Malkin's, and I pipe in with, "sniff sniff, what's that hideous stench, oh it's Big Bob!"
And she attacks me! If she had bothered to follow his link, she should have known, but maybe she was just too thick.
I mean, yeah, the people over there do seem a bit thick at times.
Posted by: Nice Deb at November 30, 2006 05:45 PM (j/w7v)
As far as Andrew Sullivan and the Catholic Church goes, well, he's a real Catholic just as much as he's a real Republican.
Posted by: Nice Deb at November 30, 2006 05:51 PM (j/w7v)
Again I must ask, why does this blog pay so much attention to that vile cocksucker Andrew Sullivan? This guy views every issue under the sun thru the prism of how it relates to fudgepackery.
You elevate him by discussing him so much.
Posted by: Barry at November 30, 2006 06:33 PM (kKjaJ)
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 07:11 PM (CTqCo)
I want to just touch on another subject. Paedophilia. It is rampant in th catholic church. I think it always has been. Sexuality is SOMEWHAT fungible. Ancient Rome and Greece teaches us that. So does modern life. As a gay man I know many people who were molested - raped. I was fortunate to never be. There are many preditors out there hunting for gay kids. Come on you all know one. One never found me. But the Church contains many of them. If you understand the results of male child rape you learn to spot victims. Straight boys who are raped by a man tend to have a more malliable sexuality, straight but not opposed to an attractive boy or man hole just for jollies. Gay boys who are raped tend to be the flamers or the squeekiest wheel, the envelope pushers, the self absorbed and arrogant. Believe me beneith it's just the opposite. Girls who are raped tend to become overtly sexuall or very strong willed. Now the controversial stuff - no that before was not - look at predominantely catholic countries. What do you see? 1. A mess. But 2 - overt female sexuality and fungible male sexuality. Coincidence? I think not. Part of the Protestant movement was: Stop raping children!
Posted by: No PC War at November 30, 2006 08:49 PM (74UM9)
Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2006 09:04 PM (2d9Ny)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
and by boyo, I meant No PC War above.
Posted by: Mr. Matamoros at November 30, 2006 09:06 PM (5UIAk)
Thank you guys, Geoff, and Mr. M. for responding to that disgusting rant. When I read it, I wanted to respond, but since I agree with 0% of it and there was so much bull to cover, I just passed.
The truth is, there's a small percentage of clergy of all Faiths that are corrupt in some way.
It seems to me that No PC War would be more at home at Andrew Sullivan's Blog because their thinking is similarly messed up.
For an example of a conservative gay who has his head on straight, see comment #35.
Posted by: Nice Deb at November 30, 2006 09:41 PM (j/w7v)
Posted by: Nice Deb at November 30, 2006 09:42 PM (j/w7v)
First, yes, I am not too keen on open homosexuality. As a straight guy, that's th eway I'm wired. I admit it, and the stuff I've seen from priest abuse only strengthens that opinion.
Second, the gayness of a large part of the priesthood is a fact. Especially since the 1950s when predatory gays started to realize how great a resource this was for "teens." Most priest abuse isn't pedophilia, it's ephebophilia---post-pubescent kids, but still kids, damnit. A lot of gays will jump up and down screaming they're not pedophiles, and that's true. But they do love the young ones. Try to pin a gay down on how he feels about a 14 year old's ability to consent. As a hetero, I can state unequivocally that even with DD tits, a 14 year old is off limits. Period. The same rarely holds true for the gays I've known. Also, the priest abuse cases show that 90+% of the abuse was queer abuse. It's a fact that gays were and are a problem in the priesthood, simply because they can't control that inclination to test the young ones.
Yet, I really respect No PC War for spotting the effects of rape on boys and having the guts to admit it can "queer" a kid.
Third, while the abusive priests were a low digit percentage, their victims on average numbered into the scores. I.e. a big problem. Fourth, and relatedly, this predatory group was sheilded by the hierarchy b/c much of the hierarchy dabbled a bit with adult men or women, and had a reason to cover it up. It was a thoroughgoing problem in the Chuch for at least 4 decades (1940-1980). It still goes on, but the 1990s is when it started to break.
Finally, hating the "gay lifestyle" is not the equivalent of hating gays. For many it is, but not for me and not necessarily. THere is so much that is deeply, deeply wrong with gay culture that it's mindboggling. Promiscuity doesn't even begin to describe the utter depravity of "queer" life in most cities. So yes, I am anti-gay, but not toward fellow humans unless they are predators.
I've seen this shit from the inside. And I'm a Catholic (devout and attending). The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Institution, but the men who run it have always been most fallible.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 10:13 PM (lL2Hb)
I've read a few posts about what crap I wrote but can you please address the points I made?
Thanks
Posted by: No PC war at November 30, 2006 10:30 PM (74UM9)
Well, if you point is that the Church trapping seem "gay" and you haven't any real foundation in the Church (or even much experience in the traditions, etc) then my answwer to your point is that your're simply wrong. Ornate robes and high ceremony are no more gay than filial love is in combat. These things are based on traditions that predate teh "Gay" consciousness by millenia. It's absurd to suggest that the mass is like a showtune.
Without the proper context, expecially when viewed throught he prism of an all-encompassing sexuality such as sulli's militant queer theory, lots of things might appear "gay."
And yeah, gays have always been a part of the church for the very reason mentioned above - marry or become a priest. If you weren't liking women much back in the day, it was a fairly easy call.
As for sexuality, I don't think it completely malleble. I know of guys who got abuse and never looked back, guys who fought back even as kids, and guys who resisted even the grooming. THe deal is, most predators went after the kids who were malleble. Indeed, in the right context, homosexuality can be all but unavoidable (prison) but still not make guys "gay."
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 10:41 PM (lL2Hb)
Disco = church. Absolutely.
Christmas or Easter? Gay. Definitely gay.
Oh but let's not stop there Andi, surely your brilliant hypothesis will stand any test, for example I dunno like with other religions, ones that you don't cop a daddy complex with like hmm Islam - yes, Ramadan surely is an expression of rampant unbridled man love, right?
No? How odd that this ingenious and thoroughly researched notion applies only to the usual, DNC approved target of lefties and homosexualists. A fluke, surely.
St Andrew - predictable as a stopped clock.
Posted by: Scott at December 01, 2006 05:31 AM (z2RMg)
And is he seriously suggesting Catholic worship styles encourage homosexuality? Wow.
Posted by: CorinthianJest at December 01, 2006 07:18 AM (CWAwi)
Is this guy for real? Seriously? He thinks that?
Wow. Just...wow. I'm impressed.
Posted by: Entropy at December 01, 2006 08:05 AM (m6c4H)
Paedophilia. It is rampant in th catholic church. I think it always has been
You are a misguided fool.
-------------------------------------
Otherwise, I never read Sullivan, never will, and can't really understand why Ace and Hugh Hewitt obsess over him.
He's nothing more than a demented gay man. He's proof that homo's are just sex obsessed people for whom sex is their "identity." And we're supposed to be shocked he sees sex in everything?
Posted by: Jay at December 01, 2006 08:33 AM (A5zyE)
Sullivan agitates for smaller government like Bill Maher's a libertarian. "Legalize everything I like, ban everything I don't like".
Posted by: Dave Munger at December 01, 2006 11:00 AM (FarRn)
Where's your black suit and broad brimmed hat?
Buckled shoes would help too.
And a blunderbuss.
Posted by: hobgoblin at December 01, 2006 02:52 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Marli at June 01, 2009 01:59 AM (NNxYx)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
