Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Crème puff Catholicism

“I knew when I started this string that I would get some backlash from some Protestants. I expected at least to get some rational arguments from these guys. But this guy Steve Hays over at Trialblogue has really been melting down since I pointed out his flawed analogy that he made on the Church.”

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-protestants-attack-iii-steve-hays.html

Notice that MB has a habit of using adjectives as a substitute for arguments.

“I really have to shake my head at this guy. After pointing out Steve's bad analogy in his attack on the Papacy…”

Once again, the adjective does all the heavy-lifting.

“Now Hays has resorted to attacking priests and trying to use another Red Herring to make himself feel better.”

i) Why does MB take umbrage when I “attack” Catholic priests who hit on altar boys? Does he think priestly pederasts should be immune to criticism?

ii) And it’s hardly a red herring. MB wants us to believe that the pope is the shepherd of the flock. Very well, then. A shepherd is supposed to protect his flock from the wolves. So why didn’t the pope protect his lambs from lupine priests?

MB ascribes tremendous authority to the pope. But with authority comes responsibility–responsibility commensurate with the level of authority.

“This guy is really sick.”

I see. In the moral universe of MB, it’s not the guys like Cardinal Law, Paul Shanley, or John Geoghan who are sick. No, it's those of us who shine a spotlight on their antics that are sick.

Thanks for reminding us, once again, of what it takes to be a pious Catholic.

“He makes some generalizations on my career choices and so forth which he has no clue about. It amazes me that when these guys don't have an argument all they can do is make sick character attacks. He went and hunted out another blog of mine on a completely different topic! Then he attacked that!”

MB has been posting comments on my blog. When you click on his name, it pulls up his user profile. There he says the following things about himself:

I am now beginning my studies in criminology and will be working a on a BS in criminology in the coming years.

My Blogs

Catholic Champion Blog

CriminologyJourn...


http://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672

This is personal info which he volunteered about himself. Something he put in the public domain.

I then pointed out that for somebody who takes so much interest in crime and punishment, it’s odd that he takes so little interest in the criminal activities of the Catholic priesthood.

“As far as your sick comments on the priesthood, I wouldn't throw stones in glass houses.”

Notice that MB exhibits the bunker mentality which made the priestly abuse scandal possible in the first place. This doglike loyalty to the institution directly contributes to institutional corruption. At this rate you have to wonder if MB would hold the altar boy down while the “shepherd” sodomizes the sheep.

As long as his church has pretty murals, pretty windows, and flickering candles, what more could you ask for?

“This is what happens when you challenge an argument made by Steve Hays. He gets his feelings hurt and he responds with this infantile rant. I'll let the readers decide who has the arguments and who is acting like a 12 year old who just got in trouble with his dad.”

For someone with his in-your-face demeanor, MB is remarkably soft under the tough-guy façade. Rambo on the outside, crème puff on the inside.

18 comments:

  1. Such a Brilliant Personal Attack, Steve!!! Matthew will never show his face on the blogosphere again, because of you. he may even have scrubbed his dreams about a career in criminology, so inadequate is his logic! He certainly is no Sherlock Holmes!

    I am pleased to see that you are going about your ministry with edifying dialogue about how shepherds can achieve sexual satisfaction with their sheep. Was this discussion drawn from your own personal experience?

    Great will be your reward in Heaven, O Holy One! I would even venture that you were consulted about the writing of the Ten Commandments before they were given to Moses, O Great One!

    Can yoou do an Intercessory Prayer for me?

    ReplyDelete
  2. MODERATE DEMOCRAT SAID:

    "I am pleased to see that you are going about your ministry with edifying dialogue about how shepherds can achieve sexual satisfaction with their sheep. Was this discussion drawn from your own personal experience?"

    So you're not bothered by what priestly pederasts actually do. You're only bothered by exposing what they do. No wonder you rush to the defense of MB. You share his sterling values.

    And the discussion was drawn from the extensively documented subculture of pederasty in the Catholic priesthood.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It amazes me that when someone writes "It amazes me that when these guys don't have an argument all they can do is make sick character attacks" he *IS* the guy without an argument making sick character attacks...and he doesn't even realize it.

    Seriously, if you have a problem with personal attacks then shouldn't you, I dunno, avoid personal attacks when saying you have a problem with them? I'm just thinkin' out loud over here...

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Seriously, if you have a problem with personal attacks then shouldn't you, I dunno, avoid personal attacks when saying you have a problem with them? I'm just thinkin' out loud over here..."


    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  5. I thought I was rushing to praise you, O Great Stephen! I am sorry that you misunderstood me! Forgive me if I seemed to have questioned your considerable knowledge about sheep.

    Peter (St. Peter I presume), you failed to notice that I was praising The Holy Steve's Personal Attacks, not complaining about them!

    PS: Can you use your pull to get a Commandment written for me that will allow me to sell some Louisiana Swamp Land at a Considerable Profit?

    Can you also show me how to do that trick of yours to Ascend to Heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I enjoy and employ sarcasm myself, but this Moderate Democrat is not moderate in his or her use of sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Moderate,

    You fail to realize I quoted Matthew and said absolutely nothing to you. Apparently, you are either Matthew in drag or are too interested in pretending to have wit that you're not even reading what you're responding to. Either way, I wait in eager anticipation of what hyperbolic sarcasm shall be uttered in my direction next. Will it be the line I heard in third grade, or the line I heard in second grade? Place yer bets now, sports fans!!! The next one COULD...BE...A...GAME CHANGER!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve, did you think that you were breaking new territory or making a poignant criticism? The priestly abuse scandals within the Catholic church have been the subject of media coverage, lawsuits, and late night Bill Maher jokes for well nigh over a decade. Your decision to seize on a single point about Bellisario's blog as an opportunity to call attention to the scandals took about as much originality as is necessary to make a jab at Michael Jackson's multiple plastic surgeries. Bellisario wasn't objecting to you because he supports the rape of little boys, but because your little jab was gratuitous and pathetic. Do you think that MB is a pedophile-enabler just because he isn't found of your, erm, "commentary"?

    This is amusing because when atheists like myself make these sorts of jabs at religion (although usually much cleverer and funnier), Christians will scream bloody murder because we aren't making theologically sophisticated arguments, are picking the "low-hanging fruit", etc.

    Finally, as someone who has read your blog for a while, I must second Mr. Bellisario's recommendation that you get professional help. These puerile diatribes are not indicative of a well-balanced mind. Perhaps I could assist you in finding a psychiatrist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I find it amazing that there have been zero protestant friends of Steve who have taken issue with his irrational and completely unsubstantiated attack on Matt by suggesting that Matt would, “hold the altar boy down while the “shepherd” sodomizes the sheep.” Are there any Protestants at Triablogue who have the slightest bit of decency and class, or is the whole lot of them a bunch of impetuous temperaments?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alex,

    But that's not what Steve said. He prefaced it with "At this rate you have to wonder if MB would...".

    Unlike you, most Protestants know how to read, and we got the context of Steve's sentence. You rip it out of context and run with it, but that's because your intellectual dishonesty won't allow you to think critically.

    ReplyDelete
  11. WEEBLYSMACKERS SAID:

    “Steve, did you think that you were breaking new territory or making a poignant criticism?”

    When we dig up a mass grave, reopen a cold case, and prosecute the killers, are we breaking new ground? Who cares. In the law of God, evil has no statute of limitations.

    “The priestly abuse scandals within the Catholic church have been the subject of media coverage, lawsuits, and late night Bill Maher jokes for well nigh over a decade. Your decision to seize on a single point about Bellisario's blog as an opportunity to call attention to the scandals took about as much originality as is necessary to make a jab at Michael Jackson's multiple plastic surgeries.”

    Evil lacks originality. So what? Should we prosecute Nazis who fled to Latin American? But that’s so yesterday.

    What about a serial killer who hasn’t murdered a coed for 10 years. Has the passage of time made it all better?

    This is an indelible stain on the Catholic church. It’s not something the Catholic church ever can or ever ought to live down.

    And keep in mind that many of the enablers are still bishops in good standing, are still stonewalling the authorities.

    “Do you think that MB is a pedophile-enabler…”

    Indeed, he is. He supports, defends, and excuses an institution with a subculture of pederasty.

    “This is amusing because when atheists like myself make these sorts of jabs at religion (although usually much cleverer and funnier).”

    Sorry that I couldn’t find a funnier way to describe pederasty in the Catholic priesthood. But no doubt you’ll be able to mine the rich vein of comic potential.

    “This is amusing because when atheists like myself…”

    Thanks for reminding us of where your moral priorities lie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Meanwhile Cardinal Law (yes, he's still a cardinal) is a member of:

    * Congregations: for the Oriental Churches; for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; for Bishops; for the Evangelization of Peoples; for the Clergy; for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life; and for Catholic Education, and

    * Pontifical Council for the Family.

    (according to the Vatican)

    But the folks with the real problem, according to our Romanist friends, are those who criticize Cardinal Law and the church that continues to stand behind him and his moral heresy.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please Peter, the mere speculation was of an accusatory tone. The fact that you are dismissing this proves to me and others that you, Turretinfan, Steve, et al. are not to be taken seriously. When Art Sippo suggested that James Swan was somehow Nazi friendly, I came to James’ defense on Beggars All and said that Art's comments were reprehensible. To suggest that one has to wonder if Matt would be a complicit or active agent in the molestation of a child is crude, unsubstantiated, and outright reprehensible. This is wild speculation which should be recanted and all of you should publically apologize to Matt for defamation of his character. The fact that none of you have come to Matt’s defense and acknowledged that Steve’s comments were out of line suggests to me that you guys are nothing but a bunch of cowardly intellectually dishonest thugs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ALEX SAID:

    "To suggest that one has to wonder if Matt would be a complicit or active agent in the molestation of a child is crude, unsubstantiated, and outright reprehensible. This is wild speculation."

    Of course he's complicit. So are you. So is every other Catholic who continues to support this corrupt institution. Nothing the least bit speculative. You support this institution financially, and you defend it at every turn. This is all voluntary on your part. It's not like taxation.

    You're no better than someone who contributes to NARAL, defends NARAL, but then tries to disassociate yourself from NARAL's policies.

    When MB says critics of Catholic pederasty are "sick," that tells you, at the end of the day, which side he comes down on.

    So you can spare me the feigned indignation. Redirect your outrage at the Magisterium. Take appropriate action. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in mock outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve: Of course he's complicit. So are you. So is every other Catholic who continues to support this corrupt institution. Nothing the least bit speculative. You support this institution financially, and you defend it at every turn. This is all voluntary on your part. It's not like taxation.

    Me: Do you even know what cooperation entails? The institution isn’t corrupt; certain members are, just as your Protestant groups have corrupt members. What have I defended at every turn? I have stated that those who engage in such acts are sinning against those who they are violating and against the common good. I have never defended pedophilia. I have defended the very moral doctrines of the Church that they have violated. You have demonstrated here that you haven’t the slightest clue as to what constitutes cooperation in moral theory. It is also very interesting how your friend Peter just said that I was misreading you, and that Protestants are superior at reading etc., etc., and yet I understood you as you admit here, and he didn’t. You guys are a bunch of clowns.


    Steve: You're no better than someone who contributes to NARAL, defends NARAL, but then tries to disassociate yourself from NARAL's policies.

    Me: The above is another example of your ignorance. I defend the Catholic faith, not those who violate that faith.


    Steve: When MB says critics of Catholic pederasty are "sick," that tells you, at the end of the day, which side he comes down on.

    Me: Yes it does. He comes down on the side that vile individuals like yourself who attempt to associate him with the sin of pedophilia without the slightest bit of proof are sick. I agree.


    Steve: So you can spare me the feigned indignation. Redirect your outrage at the Magisterium. Take appropriate action. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in mock outrage.

    Me: By all means, please continue with your unwarranted attacks against me and Matt. All fair-minded people will see you for what you are…a disgusting and intellectually-dishonest individual.

    I am done with you and your piggish behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Crème puff Catholicism

    Prophetic title for this blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Alex said:
    ---
    The fact that you are dismissing this proves to me and others that you, Turretinfan, Steve, et al. are not to be taken seriously.
    ---

    The fact that you continue to support a church that actively hides pedophiles and seeks to circumvent the law shows me that your claim to hold pedophiles accountable cannot be taken seriously.

    Alex said:
    ---
    When Art Sippo suggested that James Swan was somehow Nazi friendly, I came to James’ defense on Beggars All and said that Art's comments were reprehensible.
    ---

    Sippo is reprehensible regardless of who he calls a Nazi. And you have a seriously thin skin if words hurt you. I'm sure the victims of your precious priests would have much preferred being called names than going through what they went through.

    Alex said:
    ---
    To suggest that one has to wonder if Matt would be a complicit or active agent in the molestation of a child is crude, unsubstantiated, and outright reprehensible.
    ---

    The cause of wonder is due to his continual defense of that institution, and his continual lack of holding them accountable, all the while condemning those who do point it out. If he knows this is going on and does nothing, then it is legit to wonder if he would continue to do nothing if it happened right in front of him; and if he further claims that he derrives infallible doctrine from the source who is committing the abominal sin, then it is quite right to wonder if he would help the priest if the priest told him too. If he doesn't draw the line at the beginning, it is quite appropriate to wonder where exactly he WOULD draw the line.

    None of which is to say that he *DOES* do any of this behavior--which is where you've got your briefs in a wad. What's his ad hoc explanation for why he is complacent when the church hide pedophiles but would suddenly NOT be complacent if the priest asked him to help in an actual molestation? If he can't give an answer, then what does that say about HIM?

    Alex said:
    ---
    This is wild speculation which should be recanted and all of you should publically apologize to Matt for defamation of his character.
    ---

    How do you defame the character of a man who supports an institution that hides pedophiles? What could we possibly say about his character that is WORSE than that?

    Alex said:
    ---
    The institution isn’t corrupt
    ---

    Then why is Cardinal Law still a Cardinal? Why do priests who've credible accusations of molestations leveled against them get farmed out, with no notice, to other parishes where they can continue their behavior with new innocent victims?

    If the institution is not corrupt, it's inept and too stupid to weed its own garden.

    Alex said:
    ---
    I have stated that those who engage in such acts are sinning against those who they are violating and against the common good.
    ---

    And those who shelter sinners from the consequences of their sin, and enable them to get at MORE victims, are ALSO sinning.

    ReplyDelete